Where do you rate Lennox Lewis on your ATG HW-list

lewis makes top 10 (thanks admin / mod)

 

I'm actually not really convinced Moorer is that much better than McCall or Rahman. Who did Moorer beat outside of a sloppy Holyfield while still being knocked down? If you could clone his chin, you could start a glass company. The Foreman loss was certainly as embarrassing as any of McCall's losses, not to mention the 30 seconds he lasted against Tua. I remember he got knocked down twice by a pretty mediocre fighter before Holyfield.

Bowe is a step above McCall and Rahman, but still his resume is pretty thin. Outside of Holyfield he barely has notable wins. Not to mention he got his ass kicked thoroughly by Golota. Not one fluke loss, but twice; he never showed he could beat a big guy as athletically talented as Andrew.

What's more, Holyfield never showed his superiority over Bowe. He lost the series and the one win was a razor thin one. Lewis got his act together and didn't lose a single round in the rematches when he had corrected his style (McCall) or was focused (Rahman).

 

lily, don't be silly

here's another way to look at it. would 1999 holyfield or a 2002 tyson make anyone's top 10? i don't think either would even make the top 20! those two were not greats at the respective points they fought lewis! past best but not shot greats are not greats! if a journeyman beats a past his best great - it is a great achievment, in the context of the journeyman. for an atg like lewis - the bar is much higher. there is a colossal difference between beating a 1993 holyfield and a 1999 holyfield. personally, i pick 1993 holyfield to win by sd pts against any version of lewis. A LOT of people disagree with me here - we've had this debate at least 20times in the history of eastside - and we won't waste our time on it anymore. i have my opinion and others have theirs. but just remember that i'm not sure if 2002 tyson would even make a top 50! that version would have been knocked out by 1992 razor ruddock. can you still describe 2002 as any kind of great?

as for beating longest list of punchers, contenders, and what not: contenders - i agree. this is why i myself rate lewis so highly (top 10). nevertheless, for me, beating a 1996 mike tyson counts a lot more than beating a string of contenders. this is clearly on personal subjective preference, is debateable, and many people don't agree with me. that's cool - that's still my criteria. i mean, mike tyson could beat 10 B level fighters (he'd appeaer invincible) - but ask him to beat an ali or a holyfield, fighters that require tact to defeat, and he'll fail. beating that ali or holyfield is a great achievment than beating 10 contenders for me. notice i omitted riddick bowe because for all practical purposes, i put a w for lewis in that one. bowe avoided it and if they had fought - lewis would have won in brutal fashion. additionally, the list of punchers is highly debateable because one can easily say ruddock wasn't the same after tyson, tyson was shot in 2002, tua was custom made (but still counts). these guys are not your liston, shavers, foreman, frazier - to make that kind of misleading comparison.

because i think holyfield would win in a prime for prime match up and because he beat quality in the form of a past his best a 1996 mike tyson - i rate him one number higher than lewis.

 

This was a very good post anon, and I agree with many of your points, but to be fair, you can't just rate Holyfield higher than Lewis on the basis that he MIGHT have beaten him in his prime. I would also pick a peak Holyfield to prevail over Lewis, but I can't use this as rating criteria. Its far too speculative and doesn't account for what these men actually did when sized up to the rest of the division during the 90's. Lewis's record against rated opposition in the 90's was better than Holyfield's by a substantial margin. Lewis avenged his losses, while Holyfield lost whole trilogies, and while Lewis beat past prime versions of Tyson and Holyfield, the same coul be said for Holyfield beating past prime renditions of Holmes and Foreman.

 

seeing holyfield struggling in his wars with ruiz , reminds us that holy should have hung up the gloves right then and there. he did tarnish his legacy by not retiring on time and therefore losing to fighters who'd have had no chance against him at his best. and i won't just sweep it neatly under the rug with no account -but objectively speaking - fights after 2000 must be looked at with heavy reserve. a lot of fans fail to do that and can't erase the image of holy's ali-frazier II like wars with ruiz or his loss to chris byrd, larry donald, james toney, etc. that's too bad for holy - he brought it out on himself. but for this reason - they underrate holy's career imo. many kudos to lewis for making intelligent decisons about his career and not being prone to the same thing as holy.

i agree - lewis had the better career from a fighter's perspective. but holy's was pretty good too. his quality win over 1996 tyson makes it close. so if you're not willing to consider the hypothetical head to head match up - i can see why lewis rates above holy. i am willing to do that and that is why i'm willing to rate holy higher. it is for this very same reason i rate liston so high. liston cleaned out the division and leaving the ducking champ no choice but to face him (this is a TREMENDOUS achievment - just as good as title defenses imo because quality of contenders is not what counts - not the paper belt). what puts him over the top is my personal opinion that he'd beat #4-10 on a head to head basis. but let's not talk about liston as that is irrelevant to this thread. just an example.

if you guy PURELY by what was ACTUALLY done in the ring - lewis ranks higher (albeit holy's was more exciting - lewis was "boringly" dominant - much to chagrin of fans of other fighters but delight of his fans). a lot of guys are probably looking at me funny thinking, "isn't that what you're SUPPOSED to do!". if you include subjective head to head (as i weigh so heavily - we all judge different) - then holy is on top. i guess this post clarifies the heart of the discussion & clears misunderstandings.

 

Holyfield never fought 15 rounds at heavyweight either.

His cruisereight record has no bearing on an ATG heavyweight list.

Or should we add Roy Jones to the list because of his success's at other weights.

I would put LL in the top 5
Holyfield & Tyson don't merit the top 10 and Riddick Bowe should not be in anyones top 100, and whereever that is it should be below Golota!

 

Agree.

Disagree. Tyson accomplished more in just a 4 year period between 1985-1989 then a lot of great fighters do in the course of a 15-20 year career. Holyfield was a multiple time champion, and engaged in some of the division's most memorable wars. Bowe was not top 10 for me, but he certainly deserves to be somewhere in the top 30. He was never knocked out, and retired with only 1 genuine loss, and that was against an all time great Holyfield who he beat twice. Throughout his career, he defeated a number of young heavyweight contenders in their prime such as Coetzer, Seldon, Gonzalez, Donald, Hide and Mathis. I agree that the Golata fights hurt his legacy, but those fights can't be listed as true losses given that Golata basically screwed himself by chosing to fight dirty on both fights. Also, looking bad against a single fighter who just so happened to have his number, does not automatically exclude Bowe from being an all time great.

 

It strange that a peak Holyfield, when beaten has health problems.

I think the fact that a peak Holyfield was OUTBOXED by Michael Moorer is worse for his legacy than getting LL getting KO'd Rahman.
It's a given that all fighters have a punchers chance, but a top 10 ATG should never in their peak be outboxed by Michael Moorer!

 

Hoyfield had a bum shoulder and a diagnosed heart problem in that fight. Not to mention, Moorer was 5 years younger, undefeated in some 33 fights, and a south paw. Despite all of these issues, Evander still fought Moorer over 12 rounds to a close majority decision and even had him down once. You can't just over simplify his defeat to Moorer as being a major legacy breaker.

 

Holyfield just used excuses to smokescreen his inconsistancy, Bert Cooper nearly had him down also.

Should someone be called an all time great if they are beaten in a trilogy [whilst in their prime] by someone who barely warrants inclusion into the top 30?

Maybe the excuses harm Holyfields legacy more than anything else. LL beats him - Holyfield is shot or past his prime - Moorer beats him - A heart problem that is miraculously healed by faith in God - Bowe beats him -Illness & Past his prime [III]
I would actually say Bowe was going to win in the 2nd fight as Holyfield was tiring, but the Fan Man [sent by God Perhaps?] entered the ring giving Evander a much needed breather!

This is not to say Bowe is great, but that Holyfield is overrated and by fighting him, Bowe is too.

 

and Margaret Goodman the Nevada doctor said since that Holyfields symptoms were that of steroids and hgh use.

 

Personally, I WOULD count Holyfield's cruiserweight fights towards his ALL TIME heavyweight legacy.

When assessing fighters for the all-time heavyweight list do we dismiss wins over fighters who weigh 185 or 190 pounds ? No, of course we dont.

Most apprentice heavyweights these days fight crappy 225 pounders in 8 or 10 rounders, for their first 15 or 20 fights.

I'd count the best 190 pound fighters in the world as better prep for building a heavyweight legacy.

Joe Louis fought a lot of 180 and 190 pound guys who weren't any better than Qawi, DeLeon or Ocasio.

We dont recognize the cruiserweight division when we talk about ALL TIME heavyweights, because most of the time there was no cruiser division, and it's been just another unnecessary weight class since its inception. We acknowledge wins over 190 pounders on many of the heavyweight greats' records AND we acknowledge that some of the greatest heavyweights were 190 pounders themselves.

 

True, and when a lot of old school advocates engage in debates where Archie Moore and Ezzard Charless are concerned, they will often try to beef up their credentials at heavyweight by mentioning some of their lightheavyweight accomplishments.

 

What are we to make of Holy's heart problems? Did Benny Hinn heal him? Was he simply misdiagnosed and inconsistent in performance?

Is this ranking of Lewis head-to-head, legacy-wise, or a combination?

I agree with Anon1 in setting up my top-ten based strongly on head-to-head. Accolades such as "legacy" mean little when you are up against a better fighter. In this sense, I am always reminded of Michael Spinks before Tyson being introduced with a sterling resume and the endorsement as champion by very respected boxing authorities such as Ring Magazine, yet wearing a queasy, gallows look and, of course, being crushed in 91 seconds. As Tyson said, "There are no miracles here." And words mean little in the ring, too.

I tend to believe, peak-vs-peak, Holyfield beats Lewis, based on their actual fights. It seems to me Holy gets the best of Lewis in spurts he could no longer keep up because of wear and age.

Lewis' resume looks compelling on paper, but points must be stressed that deserve closer inspection:

1) he looks amazing against second-tier fighters, but less so against banged- up, washed-up versions of the best fighters he faced; this, as some balance concerning the opinion that he would romp over most all-time greats.

b) that chin was smashed, twice, by single, CLEAN shots from less than all-time great punchers. What would a Foreman, Tyson, Louis, Dempsey, Frazier blow do at any given moment of a fantasy fight?

With respect to facts and figures, Lewis rises high. But a computer could stack a list up this way. We, who here love debating fantasy and intangibles on a pinhead, should go beyond that before happily placing this man in the all-time top five.

I see the guys I mention beating Lewis. Foreman, for instance, for all his sloppiness, has the jab, ring generalship and powerful punch variety to get the upper hand against a shaky-chinned, tentative Lewis, before running out of gas.

Lewis, on the other hand, would not blow out Foreman early. He could do this to Golota and Grant, who had neither the heart nor chin of Foreman. But he didn't even come close against subpar Holy and Tyson.

I believe Ali and Holmes beat Lewis, too.

Personally, I don't see him surviving against lion-hearted greats. It's just my perception of the intangibles, which rule the world, by the way.

WHERE WAS LEWIS when his younger peer Tyson was on top of the world? Beating up amateurs! I can't picture Ali ducking such a challenge. And so, nationality having no bearing whatsoever, it is these things I look at when hesitating to place him anywhere near the top.

 

:good