Why doesn't Lennox have universal approval ?

Fair enough, but then could the 38 year old version of Holmes beat Vitali? I very much doubt he could.


Little snippets of assertions here and there, don't always tell the whole picture.

 

Except you have it wrong .. Larry beat an inexperienced, overconfident Mercer while Lewis fought a highly motivated Mercer who fought the best fight of his career .. that being said, I take nothing away from Larry and do rate him over Lennox ..

 

I go back and forth between these two, both are highly rated in my books.

 

Yes they are. Lennox is a very tough match up for anyone. U need serious speed and reach like an Ali or Holmes of some size, speed and power like a Louis.

 

What evidence is there of this?

Mercer just had his career best win and had his unbeaten record on the line. Plus he suffered another two losses before he fought Lewis

Larry beat the better Mercer. There's no questioning that.

If Mercer had beaten Holyfield , you'd be right , but he didn't.

 

Because I am right. Mercer had 18 fights at the time with a very limited amateur back ground before that. He was sky high post Morrison and thought the old , pear shaped Holmes would be a push over. He went in over confident, looking for a quick kill and when it did not happen he was lost. Again Lewis Ray was far more experienced and in terrific shape. He fought without question the best fight of his career and came up short. Lennox won a war and Mercer took some frightening punches.. what a chin ..

 

Again, the ONLY reason Mercer is said to have "fought the best fight of his career" against Lewis, is to explain why Lewis did not beat him convincingly, and was in fact eating Mercer's jabs half the time. I'd say Mercer fought one of his best fights.
Of course people are going to make excuses for Mercer too, when he lost to an old man in Larry. Actually Mercer was in good form against Holmes, and was coming off some of his best career wins to this day.
Mercer looked fatter against Lewis. In fact he looked more flat-footed and plodding, and out of breath, which is to be expected as he was 10 pounds heavier.

An old Holmes did better against Mercer than a prime Lewis did. You can argue all you want and try to find pro-Lewis explanations for it, but it's very straightforward.
If you insist on the "inexperienced" and "unmotivated" excuses, you might still be left with the fact that a past-prime Tim Witherspoon arguably did as well against Mercer as Lewis did in Mercer's very next fight.
And that Holyfield had done better in Mercer's previous fight.

Of course, styles make fights, and the compared results against Mercer don't necessarily prove anything.
But Holmes is greater than Lewis in almost every other measurable criteria too.
It just is.

 

Everyone has an excuse for losing, especially when they lose to an underdog or an old man.
"I was partying" "I was on drugs" "I did not train." are common excuses.

Mercer sure as hell didn't look like he'd been training like a Spartan or living like a monk in the Lewis fight either. Looked very pudgy if we're honest, and he was huffing and puffing half way through a 10-rounder.

 

..or a Rahman.

 

I thought he was just as good against Holyfield AND in visibly better trim.
He was probably just as good against Witherspoon too.

I remember him knocking Larry Holmes half way across the ring with a LEFT JAB in the first round, so arguments that his skills and jab were far cruder in 1991 don't convince me.
Holmes adjusted himself, and boxed smart. Lewis might well have eaten jabs all night from THAT Mercer too !

 

Look, you're clearly a last word freak .. one of those posters than like to go round and round for the sake of it without any definitive statements, essentially a bore .. I am calling you out. What is your point ? Who that fought between 1992 and 2002 do you say beats a prime, focused Lewis ?

 

Wasn't Mercer pretty inactive going into the Lewis fight? i seem to remember he was fighting about once a year from 94-96.

 

Watch out Unforgiven, Hegrant is calling you out.