Whos a greater fighter? Lennox or PBF?

I have heard you out, and granted its not a stupid a theory as it initially sounds. But it remains blatantly wrong to suggest that DLH was "close to prime" against Floyd.

De La Hoya's absolute prime wasn't even in this century. The best version of De La Hoya was the one that fought Quartey and Trinidad (despite his best win overall being in '02).

De La Hoya didn't look bad for an old, part-time and shop worn fighter, but he was so far past prime that its not even funny. The DLH that fought Floyd was managing one flurry of body shots per round, he abandoned his jab early in the fight, he was sluggish, his reactions and legs were totally gone and he certainly couldn't "pull the trigger".

He actually looked better in the Forbes fight, which isn't saying much. Don't get me wrong, I thought Oscar fought a brave fight against FMJ, and did well considering eveything he had going against him.

 

I think he still would have caught some slack from some haters...they would have called Cotto weight drained and who know's with Hatton.

 

Oscar wasn't near his prime, I agree...just like Tyson when he fought Lewis.

 

Apparently only wins over prime versions of all-time greats like Diego Corrales matter? I'll tell you something, in the grand scheme of things, McCall and Rahman are just as valid opponents as someone like Corrales or Baldomir. In fact, I think they are better.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to this nonsense. Lewis has Rahman (1-1), McCall (1-1), Mercer, Mavrovic, Akinwande, Golota, Tua, Briggs, Bruno, Ruddock, Morrison, Botha, Klitschko, Tyson and Holyfield on his resume - you really think Floyd's resume can even compare, like I said, I'm a fan of Floyd, but this is laughable

 

Tyson was shot when he fought Lewis. I don't think Oscar was shot when he fought Floyd, just badly faded.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

 

That's definitely not a valid comparison. Tyson was so far past his prime in that fight he shouldn't even be called Tyson. Like I said, the Tyson that lost to Lewis was sickeningly overweight and went on to lose to Kevin McBride (who?) and Danny Williams. At least Oscar was fighting competitively against good fighters, beating Forbes, and had some resemblance of his former self.

 

Well, firstly, DLH's career is so dismally inconsistent that I don't think any real period can be definitively labelled his prime. Technically, as you say, he was probably better pre-Trinidad than at any other time. Still, you can't really pin any Oscar down and say "that Oscar beats this Oscar" or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that he could compete at the top level against Mayweather, off the back of a dominating win over Mayorga (off the back, in turn, of a big, long layoff) suggests to me that he wasn't far off the mark. Like I say, he was obviously sportingly worse, but in terms of being a competitive and effective fighter at the top level I don't think that performance was far off his best.

And I disagree that he looked better against Forbes. He was slower; he was less aggressive; his shots were sluggish and lacked vim.

 

I feel you I'm just saying that if people don't validate Oscar then they can't use Tyson.

 

If I were you I'd just give it up, no amount of words are going to convince anyone that Oscar was "close to prime" when he fought FMJ. He clearly wasn't. What I think you mean to suggest is that Oscar looked pretty good against Floyd, or that he looked "not that bad". Which is fair enough.

It's actually really easy to establish when Oscar's prime was, and you do that in the same way you do with every other fighter. Oscar was in his prime when he was at his physical peak, when he won most of his world titles, when he was undefeated and when he had his best cluster of wins. There is no question in my mind that the Oscar that fought Quartey is vastly superior version than the Oscar than fought FMJ.

 

Lewis by a mile.

 

:yep:deal

 

Lennox fought the best opposition available to him. He was the best heavyweight in the second best era for heavyweights. He is a top ten all time heavy. Floyd was very good at 130 and 135, but went out of his way to avoid the best at 140 and 147. It's the overall quality of competition that puts Lennox over Floyd.

 

THERE YOU GO!!:good

 

Spray around insults all you want - Lewis does have a better win resume than Mayweather. I rate Mayweather higher than Lewis myself, but the fact is that Lewis has a better win resume and therefore it is a legitimate viewpoint that Lewis is the greater fighter in an all-time p4p sense, because many people value win resume above all else.

To be honest Bill, for all your top notch posts, you swear blind that Calzaghe is a greater fighter p4p than Lewis, therefore your opinion on Lewis is not worth very much. I know you are not guilty of stupidity, therefore you must be guilty of bias, because the rotten-resumed one is never on the same level as Lewis.