someone who (1) has a good chin so that lewis is has to rely on his boxing ability and less on power. (2) sound boxing skills like a good jab and basic defense (3) doesn't have to be as big as lewis but is big enough or at least has the reach to box with lewis rather than get completely outsized. lewis was a great puncher with great speed, great size, and *ok* boxing skills. his ok boxing skills were not a problem thanks to this other great traits. but a fighter who makes lewis have to box hard is going to give lewis the toughest time. this is why mercer, vitali, and bruno (until his chin gave out) gave lewis his toughest fights. evander holyfield was washed up by 1999. lewis cans can fairly object to my mentioning of vitali when it was lewis' last fight. but that monster uppercut lewis hit vitali with would have felled most of the contenders out there in spectacular fashion.
That is not what I said. I said that he would not win 10 times out of 10. I'm not even sure Ali would beat VK 10 times out of 10.
At first I thought someone like Byrd but it could have just been a jabbing contest that I could see Lewis winning easily enough. It's a interesting fact about Lewis taking all the smaller guys the distance, although like stated...he never really had trouble with them. I think a style similar to Holmes's is the best pick so far, someone who was excellent movement and decent hand speed but even then....who knows.
I also think Lewis always beats Vitali just about everytime for two major reasons. One, Vitali doesnt punch hard enough to keep Lewis off of him and Vitali falls apart when the gap closes. Those two factors would have Lewis fighting the same type of fight every time. Vitali cant hold Lewis off and with Lewis' big righthand he always gets close enough to do damage to Vitali and break him down. These guys that are 6'7 are just not built for fighting, thats what made guys like Lewis and Bowe so special. They were big tall guys, but they could mix it up pretty good on the inside and in a rough fight. You dont see that too often in big men.
Yeah because he knew Holyfield could fight better than him inside, just like he took the fight to Vitali because he knew he couldnt.
I find it quite interesting that both McCall and Rahman were about the same height, about the same weight, and with the same long reach for their size. Holmes would definitely be a tough one for Lewis. Lewis has the right punch to hurt Holmes, but Holmes's jab and control is superlative. With Mercer, I'm convinced if there was a rematch and in a normal-sized ring this time, Lewis would've won a clear UD. I think he was trying to prove a point that he could trade in the first fight and get a knockout, and Ray proved more resiliant (and a better jabber) than he expected. He should've looked closer at the big troubles Holyfield had with him the year before.
Outside of his weird knockout losses, Mercer, Bruno, and Vitali were his most troubling opponents form a stylstic point of view. All three forcing him out of his comfort zone while managing to win a fair share of rounds against him. He looked bad against Holyfield and Markovic but still did enough to win..well outside of the controversial draw decision.
There is no controversy. Only Eugenia Williams and Zakman maintain that Holyfield won that fight or that a draw is a reasonable position. I don't see how one can argue that Vitali gave Lewis stylistic problems. If he really presented a problem for Lewis and given that he faced Lewis at the end of his career, then you'd expect him to have won the fight by knockout. McCall and Rahman were able to KO better versions of Lewis; assuming that McCall and Rahman weren't considerably superior boxers in comparison to Vitali, we can conclude that McCall and Rahman presented stylistic problems to Lewis that Vitali didn't present. If Vitali's success against Lewis was due to a stylistic edge, rather than Lewis being old, fat and unmotivated, you'd expect Vitali to have knocked Lewis out or at least put him on the floor. The boxers to look at for working out Lewis's weaknesses are Mercer, Rahman, McCall and Bruno. Vitali didn't present any particular problems to Lewis, which is why he was unable to beat such a poor version of Lewis.
Your an idiot! Holyfield won that fight. This is boxing, not dancing with the stars, son! Holfyield was the more accurate and effective puncher, "I counted the points that landed." Damn straight. Lewis was just busier...like that other overrated Brit Caljokie. You are also absolutely right about that white Ivan Drago robot, Vitali. I might as well have suggested that Axel Shultz would poise PRIME Foreman problems. And I can't believe I forgot Rahman and McCall..they were not lucky one punch artists at all, for straters they are large black men that know no fear or quit, they even gave great accounts of themselves in the decisive rematches when McCall was far past his best and had severe eye problems while Rahman was crippled with HIV.
The bottom line is Lewis was pretty close to being a complete fighter. He could fight in different styles. He just wasnt best suited for brawling and infighting, but he could still do it effectively.
Lets say I treated The Kurgan's post with the amount of seriousness it warranted. When I said Lewis/Holyfield was a controsversial draw....uh, its because most thought Lewis won. For some reason, he was looking for an argument that wasn't there so I gave him what he wanted to hear.