Grant's team tried to make a fight with Ibeabuchi and Ibeabuchi priced himself out. That's not what guys who want to cash out try to do.
Guys who were ranked in the top five excepting himself when Lewis was regarded as at he best heavyweight in the world as seen by ring and who Lennox did not fight: Roy Jones James Toney Corrie Sanders Chris Byrd John Ruiz Wladimir Klitschko Kirk Johnson Ike Ibeabuchi That is absolutely normal in every conceivable way. Not even Vicente Saldivar or Joe Louis got everyone.
But any sane person surely has to acknowledge that he was not in fact the third best heavyweight in the world which obviously matters in assessing wins. He was not as good as people believed and its not an impressive win objectively speaking. I can't fathom how people's opinions on Grant at the time are relevant if they are in fact objectively wrong. Objectively Ruiz had a better career than Grant as did Byrd as did Rahman.
Pointing out Grant wasn't top 10 H2H is hardly trolling because that's what the facts suggest Explain his losses to McCline and Guinn Can you articulate why you have him beating Ruiz, McCall, Tyson, Holyfield, Tua, etc Nobody has offered any argument as to why they think he beats all the guys I pick to beat him. Lewis beating a guy who lost to McCline and Guinn by kayo and whose only semi-decent win is Golota is in no way shape or form a big achievement. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
You're off on a tangent that has literally nothing to do with the thread. Go and make your own thread on Grant.
I'm simply pointing out that ability wise Grant was not a top 10 heavyweight and thus I don't count it as a big win for Lewis. Ruiz ultimately turned out to be the better fighter.
He probably would’ve beaten Ruiz and might’ve beaten Rahman, Tua, or Byrd. All of those guys had strengths and vulnerabilities, just like Grant.
I don't see why you're so confident that Grant would lose to those fighters ? Ruiz was an unremarkable champion who lost to two former Middleweights Toney, Jones. Rahman may have some solid wins but he himself was stopped twice by Maskaev, and lost to Ruiz clearly who as I said was an unremarkable champion. Byrd got a gift draw vs Golota who Grant stopped and had various other controversial decisions vs fighters like McCline, Oquendo, during his short title reign. Grant lost to an ATG Lewis at his best and then had a serious injury vs McCline that pretty much derailed his career. Your opinion on H2H match ups which is by no means a fact considering the fighters you mentioned are very beatable is again irrelevant though in regards to Grant's ranking. All you're doing is assuming and it has nothing to do with the topic of Grant's ranking in which he was definitely deserving of his top 10 spot at that time.
He was rated #3 by The Ring at the point of time in question. So, yes, he was a Top-10 Heavyweight at the point of time in question. I doubt what you think personally about the win in retrospect, carries much sway. But, in any event, the strength of the Grant win is not what's in question here. Are you unable to comprehend the nature of the thread's actual question? But Grant was ahead of Ruiz at the time. It really is that simple.
Beating Vitaly was the perfect end to his career in hindsight. Agree about that. But Vitaly was a replacement for Kirk Johnson. My question is why Lewis dropped a belt and sidestepped his nr. 1 contender. And that was Byrd at the time.
Belts likely meant nothing to Lewis by this stage. He wanted a big money, mega fight and there was no interest in a Byrd fight. Granted there wasn't in a Johnson either. The Johnson fight would have just been a marking time fight and there could have been multiple reasons Lewis vacated a belt to fight Johnson, I'm very confident fear of losing to Byrd wasn't amongst them. Given Lewis, in relatively poor shape, didn't duck Vitali on short notice, I have a very hard time even entertaining the possibility he vacated a belt he valued due to fear of losing to Byrd in a fight he'd have had the usual notice for.
Maybe not. But that's in the realm of speculation that I don't really like. "It's not a duck because I think he would beat x and he knew as much". A popular excuse for Dempsey against Wills for example. I make it simpler and avoid hypotheticals. Only "Did he turn down his nr 1/most deserving contender" and in this case I haven't seen any good reason to say other than "yes" to this. When it concerns Byrd. Ruiz, at the time, was clearly at a WBA/KIng manufacture. But Byrd was legit and stepped over. You can't paper that over by saying that he was boring. It's like saying that the Wimbledon champion doesn't have facae any "boring" opponents when he's defending his title. That's just silly.
Ah c'mon, you're far too good a poster not to recognise the difference between Dempsey/Wills and Lewis/Byrd. Wills was Dempsey's clear outstanding challenger for years and posed a real threat to beat him. Byrd was mandatory with one of the pointless ABC's, he wasn't Lewis's outstanding number 1 contender even briefly and posed no threat to Lewis. Whilst I accept Lewis originally signed to fight Johnson, ultimately he vacated a belt for which Byrd was the number one challenger and ended up fighting a much more dangerous opponent in Vitali. Belts and mandatory challengers were immaterial to Lewis by this stage and no boxer beats every contender from their era. Imo, it's only a duck if a challenger ducks the clear outstanding number 1 challenger and/or the contender with the most public interest, where they'd earn the biggest purse. If Lewis ducked Byrd, every long reigning champion of the past 3 decades has multile ducks.