Only if I carry on the discussion beyond this post. I went into this chat - eyes wide open, saying I'd entertain your strawman retort. Since then, you've had ample opportunity to show that your initial take was not an "unintelligible mess of agenda". Sadly, you have just more or less ended up back at square-one, demonstrating that your treatment of the topic is absolutely dripping with bias. The one slight exception is that it has become less of a mess and is now quite clear how partisan you are. You seem simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge any positives about Lewis and, as such, are rather obviously taking a far from even-handed approach to the matter. Instead, you choose to wring out every negative angle you can on Lewis and do not apply the same rules to those with whom you are making comparisons. You go to the extent of imagining alternative histories that somehow benefited Lewis: " This content is protected " You even have to turn a success into failure for Lewis: " This content is protected " trying extra hard with that use of language. Bowe and Holyfield had their struggles too (Golota and Moorer) - Tyson, as well (Douglas, Ruddock) - but, no mention from you of these events. Nor the fact Lewis utterly leveled Golota and Ruddock. Rather than answer the question: "How many Heavyweights have a better record of 15-2-1 against Ring-Rated opposition, without loss to anyone outside of the Ring Top-10, having defeated everyone they'd ever faced?", you instead craft a narrative that suits your agenda. You have a point of view and that's fine, but it is so steeped in inclination and prejudice as to be quite difficult to consider credible. I'd say that, if anyone is being fooled here, it is you - by yourself.
He's been bashing Lewis since the day he got here. Lewis lives rent free in his head every...single...day. That's what you are up against my friend. He couldn't take 2 minutes to read the Lewis/Ruiz reasoning and wanted it in "one or two sentences" LOL! We know why. Pearls to swine.
I think he's just straightening out a certain narrative. It's very simple and I have no idea why you need an analysis of my approach to Lewis, whom I like as a person because I believe that no one was better suited to be a boxing ambassador than him - personal class, appearance, eloquence, empathy, etc. Unfortunately, it's all about sports much worse but I wanted to focus on his successes, is it so difficult to understand? Following your rhetoric, I could write - are you so in love with Lennox that it doesn't matter to you that his best victory is the 37-year-old Holy, who was already on the other side of the river, who has been on a downward slope since 1997, as evidenced by the fights he fought and not my opinion - watch them. That the second best victory was 35-year-old Ray Mercer who didn't have many successes but if he had, I'm waiting for your vote... that the next one was Klitschko who dominated the fight with Lewis but was stopped by the doctor when he won 4 out of 6 rounds and did not he got his revenge. That his losses include embarrassing losses against non-elite players? You might be impressed by beating Golota and Ruddock. These are very good victories. Almost like Tyson over Spinks, not like Liston over Patterson, better than Holmes over Frazier... is he hating on Lewis? hmmm, I think he hates the bias with which he is judged. I hate his lovers, maybe I exaggerate sometimes, he himself is excellent, I think that including him in the top 10 may be ok if certain criteria are taken into account. That's all I can say, if I wasted your time, too bad. I'd love to hear better arguments, but I haven't seen any, apart from even more controversy so far, which puts you in a certain limited pattern. Regards
This is the first thread I can recall an encounter, but - yeah - starkly anti-Lewis - Beyond reason. LOL - A dead giveaway, right there. Pearls to swine indeed.
Holyfield had his two best performances at Heavyweight prior to the Lewis fight vs Tyson, Moorer 2, only Bowe 2 rivals those performances so how was in on downward slope ? Yeah he also had a bit of lackluster decision vs Bean also but Bean was an ultra defensive fighter with a sturdy chin so not too surprising that Holyfield could struggle in that fight. The only fighter to stop Bean in 59 fights was Vitali in 11th round when Bean was way past his best. So Bean could go the distance with good fighters and make it an awkward night.
I talk about this all the time. 10 months after the Lewis-Holy fight and the biggest victory of Lew's career, the Ruiz-Holy fight took place. In my opinion, the verdict in both fights should be 115-113 for Holyfield's opponents. Ruiz was definitely more in line with Holyfield's style (he was overall uncomfortable). Only one of them is considered great and a great victory. If Lewis had any bigger ones, I don't know... Gołota? He wasn't elitist. I just don't see why Lewis is placed so high. When he fought, he was still considered colorless and people missed Tyson. Remember those times. The longer time has passed since the end of Lewis's career, the more he begins to be appreciated each year, but I have never seen any arguments for this. Everyone tells me to go back to his fights, to his career, and I do it and I see the same thing as I saw 25 years ago - was very good but not outstanding.
But what has that got to do with what I just said ? You're focusing on something completely different. You said "Holyfield was on the down slide since 1997" and I replied to it just now challenging that comment. And now you're bringing up the Ruiz fights after the Lewis/Holyfield fights ? That's irrelevant to the post I was making and the point you brought up previously saying "Holyfield was on the down slide since 1997" Were the Tyson fights and rematch with Moorer top 5 wins Holyfield had at Heavyweight ? And top 5 best performances at that weight ? Yes or no ?
Yes this is very good, everything is fine. I referred to Ruiz because it seems that since Holy has not been in relegation since 1997, we can actually assume that compared to Holy he fared much better than Moorer and Tyson, right? is there any mistake here? Mr. Bean also did better than them. It is quite a simple relationship - you judge a fighter by his appearance in the ring, and Holy fought after 1997 with Bean, 2 x LL, 3 x Ruiz, Rahman and others. The trend is clear to me, what don't you understand?
Are you familiar with Holyfield's performances at Heavyweight ? He always run hot and cold. Holyfield prior to the 1st Bowe fight looked ordinary vs an old Larry Holmes and was almost knocked out by Bert Cooper. When Holyfield fought Bowe a 2nd time prior to that fight Holyfield had looked ordinary and lackluster winning a decision against Alex Stewart in their rematch. Prior to the Tyson fight Holyfield had been knocked out and looked shot vs Bowe in their 3rd fight and then didn't impress vs Czyz. What does this all prove ? Holyfield's performances were always hot and cold but he seemed to step it up vs the most dangerous opposition. What you're doing is looking for a way to find fault with Lennox Lewis so you can't give him credit. And I'm sorry that's not how it works that's called being biased and having an agenda driven opinion. The fact is Holyfield had been ranked the number 1 Heavyweight for 3 years, during that time had two of his most notable performances dominating Tyson, Moorer. The Bean fight as I said is no different to any other pattern in Holyfield's career. Plus as I pointed out Bean was a defensive spoiler who was durable and who had only been stopped once in 59 fights. So it's not that surprising that Holyfield could go the distance with him and doesn't suggest Holyfield was "past it".
And the possibility of the two beatings Holyfield took from Lewis having an impact on how he looked later in his career never crossed your mind, huh?
