Why doesn't Lennox have universal approval ?

I think there is an overlap issue here.

Lewis might have been born around the same time as Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, but his prime was significantly later.

 

It's funny to see the last word freaks on this board who like to regurgitate worthless **** to keep their masturbation sessions going .. .. you re certainly in that class dude ..

Other than being consistently boring what exactly is your point ?

Are you denying Bowe docked Lewis ? It is undeniable.

Are you denying that Michael Moorer's management steered him away from Lewis ? It is undeniable.

Are you denying Foreman never even considered to fight him ? IT is undeniable.

Are you denying Holyfield had no interest in fighting him till it made absolute complete sense knowing hw difficult a fight it would be ? It is undeniable.

Are you saying that Don King , in rebuilding Tyson as a marketing entity post prison avoided Lewis at all costs ? Again, undeniable.

Other than being a bore spinning round and round, what is your point . Who are you saying was better than Lewis in the 90's .. straight up ? We all know his stand offish accent and gentleman attitude and being a Brit and not signing w King are part of it .. put that aside and tell me who you think was better or more dominant in the 90's which is where this thread has gone ..

 

I do think that Lewis was more sinned against than sinned in the ducking stakes.

The people who he is criticized for not fighting, are the people who held the titles at the time, which rather puts it on them.

 

Superb post Sir....spot on /100%....
I've said many times Lewis lacked a career defining fight (Bowe ? ) but you can't be **** of the playground if the bully won't show up to fight someone he knows he can't beat.

 

So Foreman's loss to ALI was more embarassing than Lewis' losses to Rahman and McCall atsch

And no, McCall and Rahman were not gigantic HW's, they were average at 6'2''. Lewis was MUCH bigger than both, 3 inches taller, 10 or more lbs heavier.

 

I have never agreed with the defense, that McCall and Rahman were these super heavyweight monsters.

They were bigish guys, who were never exceptional punchers/finishers anyway.

Lewis loosing to them is a problem, but it does not overturn the rest of his record.

 

Excactly. Every great fighter has losses, some more embarassing, some less, but Lewis had really long list of top-10 fighters he defeated. That's what made his legacy

 

Beyond the points already made, there is one that is consistently missed here in comparing athletes. This "consistency" is the strongest evidence that this is a board of sport "watchers", posters that never had any special or meaningful talent themselves, and possessing little real awareness of the most obvious precepts that all athletes who competed should and would know early.

It is considerably worse on the GF but it is still pervasive here. Regularly too many are blind to the relevance of age and/or size. Just as one could say life is short, the athletic career is shorter yet, and the peak period of physical performances is even briefer still.

Great talent is evident early. Not all talent results in great careers. Yet, those with talent that are exceptional are able to demonstrate it early and against those that are older, more mature, and more experienced. Their exceptional (comparative) talent, stamina, and youth are a better package than that possessed by a lesser athlete at their physical peak with far more experience.

While the comparison of physical attributes and innate talent are always limited by the difficulty in agreeing to a set of terms of "measurement", its application is what occurs in the hearts and minds especially when the athletic endeavor is one where absolute records like in a swim or track event or other similar sport is not available to the athlete.

The rare exception does not negate the data. The odd obscure athletic event does not alter the facts. The best performances, the best times, the greatest combinations of speed, quickness, and power which are the hallmarks and basis for admirable eye-catching athletic achievement(s) are nearly always produced by those starting from their early twenties and on through the end of that decade (and sometimes slightly beyond). Using the Olympics as an example, very few records are broken by those over thirty. Often when they occur they could be categorized as examples of probable performance-enhancing drug usage (Jarmila Kratochvílová or Marita Koch), or some other "anomaly".

In the US, it is regularly evidenced by exceptional talents jumping straight from high school into the pro ranks. The very highest level of athletic talent do not need long to compete, demonstrate their prowess, and succeed against the best, the physically prime, the mature, and most experienced individuals the sport has to offer. Within a couple years at most, the greatest talents are already making all-star teams, contributing to championships, breaking single season records, or attracting the attention of tens of millions whenever they are performing.

Whether it be in the NFL, NBA, or MLB, the greatest talents do not need long to make an impression. They do not need long to demonstrate their greatness by their nearly immediate ability to challenge other high level athletes in the most competitive landscape possible. While boxing has long suffered its decline in the US (as noted in other posts), this does not alter the athletic arc or change the equation. There is nothing unique about boxing or distinct about its requirements that this same athletic talent, quality, and capability can't accomplish as equivalently and expeditiously. Even as the sport of boxing continued its decline in participation rates from this country's youth over generations as new and better avenues of opportunity were availed, a small few did capture the hearts and minds.

While records of longevity or records that are the product of longevity are important in determining so many great careers, demonstrating physical consistency (i.e., "professionalism" or prep), and the sustainment or maintenance of high levels of performance they do not always assure that these individuals - with inarguably laudable achievements - will have a place reserved for them at the very top or pantheon.

While non-Americans would wrongly attribute too much to nationalism for their perceived slight in lack of any representation (as they misunderstand that 2 out every 3 Americans can trace their ancestry to Europe - and as racism never seems to die there is both a material contingent of these types of "fans" and a material contingent of others that just love their own historical identity - as all should - and want to see a "like-kind" athlete whether from their ancestral homeland or as American-born (second or third generation for example) have success). Angry non-Americans could "hang their hat" on the point of exposure or familiarity (i.e, the lack thereof) if any such contention of nationalistic bias could have any or some merit. They would still be substantively wrong in any case.

The "pantheon" in the minds of Americans does not include Lennox Lewis. It is not because of his nationality (or skin color). The "apex" in the minds of Americans does not include Wlad Klitshchko. It is not because of his nationality (or skin color). [Undeniably, in this era of immediate media communication it should be shocking to his adherents that he is a virtual unknown here as his career winds down. His obscurity is almost at Andre Ward levels - the only difference being that no one over here ever knew who Ward was. Klitschko was seen however. He just didn't impress. He was quickly forgotten and never returned. Ward's obscurity is a reflection of the state of boxing with American's youth. Outside of FMJ at the moment the sport does not resonate or attract interest.]

The highest achievement in the US is a reflection of demonstrated early talent. If you are great you are great - almost immediately. This is why the heavyweight top in the eyes of the American public is reserved for Louis, Ali, and Tyson.

[The non-hwts are accorded a different relevance but similarly, the last few that have made their mark in the minds of casual American boxing fans (as small as that population is relative to our other sports) have been SRL, Dela Hoya, and RJJ. I'll leave it to the old-timers to work SRR into the cultural equation if they choose.]

These fighters made an imprint when they should have been at a disadvantage - too young, too inexperienced, and not yet or quite physically peak (or as one would expect them to be at such a young age). They quickly competed with the best and succeeded. They attracted the attention and interest of all that saw them.

The often promulgated thesis (and seemingly well accepted here) that heavyweights mature later is merely a nonsensical attempt to excuse the paltry athletic talent and the direness of the era. Older hwts are not better than younger hwts. There are simply low participation rates and lousy athletes pursuing boxing so that one committed athlete (of modest talent) with generally the best combination of size and conditioning is having a long career feasting on no-talent competition. With high participation rates where young fit athletes with talent want to compete and succeed older athletes would be run OUT THE DOOR. You don't see old athletes (with few limited and temporary exceptions - the occasional quarterback, a kicker, a pitcher, etc.) thriving in professional sports. Definitely not in combat or high impact sports. Bernard would never be fighting at 50 (or winning at 40) - don't care about his fitness or impressive commitment to his craft - if enough young men were shooting at him. It is a testament to how lousy the sport's talent is in the US and apparently outside of it that he has persisted so long (it should be noted that one supporting reason is the benefit of being the best "positioned" in terms of influence, power, promotion, and having some or the ability to control various aspects of one's career vis-a-vis the less empowered).

There have been great fighters that began their career late. Even more recently, there are fighters that are quickly competing at the highest level because after only a couple professional years they are already in their late 20s or early 30s. They simply had overly long amateur careers. They are already at their physical best. However, that "circumstance" is not met with great sympathy or allows them much additional consideration.

Lewis, for reasons you can delineate, started his career much later than Tyson. But, as he is actually a year older than Mike, there is nothing any advocate can say to alter the perception that one guy was so good he could turn pro at 18, win the heavyweight crown by 20, and you were 24-25 and weren't in the ring with him. No one cares that you were still in your first year as a professional. And, no one cares that you beat him after he had partied around the world twice and back again.

Lennox was a tremendous heavyweight. Over a career one of the best ever. And, if we could put him in Wladimir's shoes today (by altering his age) he would be the champ in the same fashion and even more dominate than Wladimir (because he is more talented with less weaknesses than Wlad). However, being the most fit and largest in a lousy era in which old guys can hang around forever is not the same as being a young wrecking ball that came out of the gates fighting more experienced men garnering the attention of the country (or the world). The greatest are great early. The greatest burn the brightest. There is no mystery. Even the casual public knows who the greats were. If Lewis or Klitschko were anywhere close it would be understood. They are not. It has nothing to do with anyone in the Classic who believes that a 35 year old Lewis would defeat a 22 year old Mike Tyson. Or, that Wlad or Vitali could do the same. The career arcs are so vastly different to make such an argument is a non-starter. All it tells people is that your fighter needed a lot longer to get anywhere close to where a greater talent got so much earlier.

The lack of so-called "universal approval" or equivalent status is what happens when you fail to accomplish what others could in much less time.

 

All fight fans have their unfair opinions and biases. You can come up with a reason to not like anyone. Most people love Ali; I openly admit that I don't...and I'm not always fair about it. That's just the way it is.

Some people dislike Lewis because he's not an American, he was sort of unpredictable, and he came off as aloof and sort of pseudo-cerebral (with his chess-playing).

Personally, I think he's Top 3, highly versatile, and didn't duck anyone. I think he got screwed a few times too, such as the Holyfield decision and the quick McCall stoppage.

I like just about everything he did, except not giving Vitali a rematch. That would have been epic, and a great way to go out, rather than leaving the ring to boos like what happened after he got the TKO (which he earned, btw).

 

I'll return the compliment by recognizing that you are too. :good

I've never denied it. It's fair to say so.
(Although it's a matter of public record that Frank Maloney says he turned down a "good offer" from the Bowe camp.)

I've never mentioned Moorer.

... nor Foreman.

I am denying that Holyfield avoided him. I have every reason to believe Holyfield would have fought Lewis in 1993 if he (Holyfield) hadn't lost to Bowe.
I have every reason to believe that Holyfield would have fought Lewis in 1994 if the IBF had not forced him to fight Moorer OR if he had got past Moorer.

Your phrase "not fighting him til it made absolute complete sense" is a WEASEL WORD expression.
You could say that about just about every fight Lewis took, or Holyfield took, or any fighter with any sort of decent manager ever took.
Lewis had no interest in fighting Holyfield until it made absolute complete sense.

So, what's your point ?
Other than being a complete bore ?

Shall we throw Lewis into a category of fighters who "all avoided Holyfield" ?
Nah, I thought not.

Well, he didn't secure Lewis as an opponent for Tyson's first five fights. That's undeniable.
He matched Tyson with some easier fighters and ones who signed options to Don King.

I've stated my point.
Basically your wrong on a few things and you wont admit them. You know where you're wrong because several posters on this thread have pointed it out to you.
You're bashing other fighters to build up Lewis, and repeating simplistic myths. I suppose in a way that's admirable to defend the fighter you think is the best.

I think the 1990s were fairly evenly split between Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis.
My choice would be Holyfield, followed by Lewis, but unlike you I'm not claiming someone was "dominant" over the others.
And there was almost a 2-year period in the middle of the decade where none of the above held a title.

 

Probably because there are threads asking for "universal approval" and stupid stuff like that.

Every fighter gets trashed and criticized on these boards. Get over it.

 

What planet are you from?

Were you perhaps born in the 80's.

I only ask because only someone answering yes to the second or from another planet could say something as nonsensical as you did above.

When was Lewis EVER described as this indestructable killing machine the way Foreman was in the 70's?

When was there EVER genuine ( though misguided ) fears both in the boxing press, and the general public's minds for one of Lewis's opponents long term health or even their life?

Because that was the fvcking case for sure in 74 when Ali faced Foreman.

 

Which of course the mere fact we're talking about him now almost 20 years later, proves you wrong.

 

In that sence, you are right. I meant to say Ali from 74 clearly better than either McCall and Rahman and it's undeniable.

However, given the circumstances (Ali's and Foreman fights vs Frazier and Norton, Foreman 30-0 (37 KO), I believe people were shocked when he was stopped by Ali.

Lewis - Rahman was a shocker to me, too. I thought it would be Lewis-Botha 2 all over again, TBH

But I'm only 30 and I can't compare the shock in boxing world in 74 and in 01,

And if you were following boxing in 70's, I'd like to read your feelings when Foreman lost to Ali compared to Lewis-Rahman shocker.

 

My thoughts exactly. Personally, I think the Ruddock fights were Tyson at his best.