Why is Lennox Lewis considered a dominant champion?

I not only watched his entire career live, I bought a ticket and attended one of his title fights (the Lewis-Tua fight).

I'm guessing you didn't do either.

Lewis was great. Lewis was no Myth. He scored all those wins and beat all those guys and accomplished all those things in the ring, whether you like it or not.

 

He was probably great. Not like Bowe or Holy but great.

However his biggest victory which is Holy 1999 is clearly weaker than Bowe's biggest victory which is Holy 1992 and 1995 and his worst defeat which is McCall or Rahman are weaker not Bowe's worst defeat. It's that simple.. Lewis managed his career and life better than Bowe but he was never as good as Bowe when he beat Holyfield and Bowe was never as weak as Lewis when he was knocked out by McCall.. very simple, right?

 

Lennox Lewis beat Riddick Bowe when they fought.
Lennox Lewis wiped out Andrew Golota (Golota RUINED Bowe)
Lennox Lewis wiped out Razor Ruddock (Bowe never fought him)
Lennox Lewis knocked out Tommy Morrison (Bowe never fought him)
Lennox Lewis knocked out Frank Bruno (Bowe never fought him)
Lennox Lewis knocked out Shannon Briggs (Bowe never fought him)
Lennox Lewis knocked out Mike Tyson (Bowe never fought him)
Lennox Lewis decisioned Ray Mercer (Bowe never fought him)
Lennox Lewis chopped up and stopped Vitali Klitscho (Bowe was a non-entity before Vitali even turned pro)
Lennox Lewis also beat Holyfield, and never lost to him. (Bowe lost to Holyfield in their rematch, and got floored in their rubber match).

If you're arguing Bowe is better than Lewis, you're about three (maybe three and a half) decades too late.

Lewis won that argument in the ring when they fought. And he solidified it in the 1990s, about the time a brain-damaged Bowe got run out of the sport by Golota, and Lewis knocked out Andrew in about two minutes.

One good night by Bowe in 1992 doesn't trump Lennox Lewis's entire career.

Lots of guys had one good night.

If Bowe beat/stopped Klitschko, Tyson, Ruddock, Morrison, Bruno, Briggs, Akinwande, Tua, Golota, Rahman, Holyfield AND LEWIS ... on top of winning three times as many title fights as Lewis ... Bowe would be better.

But, he didn't.

Very simple, right?

 

Lewis beat Bowe just as Tilmann beat Tyson. He did it twice. Statistically, Tillman is 2-1 with Tyson and Lewis is 1-0 with Bowe.

Bowe fought an undefeated 30-year-old Holyfield and Lewis fought a 37-year-old battered veteran. If you don't see the difference between Holyfield in 1992 and 1999 or you don't see the difference between the style in which Bowe won and the style in which Lewis won, then I can't help you. It's like someone saying that Leon Spinks had just as good a victory over Ali as Joe Frazier. Those fights are also separated by 7 years.
Read the first post again - Lewis's victories are better on paper than in the real world. And you keep feeding me stupid paper, but I know the statistics and I followed Lewis' career live and I know very well how it looked in reality, not on paper.

 

He only fought 2 of the top 5 other HWs of his era. But the same is true of all those other guys except Holyfield who went .500 and whom Lennox beat. The 90s is considered the 2nd best era of HW by most people even if not by me. Therefore all the problems with Lennoxs resume don't matter because all his peers in that era had worse versions of those problems and people still consider it one of the best eras. You can't criticize Lennoxs resume by looking at Bowe, Holyfield or Moorers resume only by looking at top fighters in other eras who got to all the other top fighters.

Also while he only fought 2 of the top 5 best HWs thats really all thats missing and hes probably got 7 of the 10 or 15 of the top 20, 18 of 25. Golota, Vitali, Ruddock, Akinwande, Grant, Tucker, Briggs, Bruno, Botha, Mavrovic, Phil Jackson, Tua, Mercer and of course McCall and Rahman. This is probably a better list of also rans than Bowe, Moorer, Holyfield, Foreman and Tyson have combined in the 90s and the early 00s. Nevermind Bowe as an individual the whole group. There is almost no question Bowe is the single toughest opponent Lennox could have fought. But there is also no question when you look at their resumes who holds the burden for that fight not happening.

 

Lennox's victories aren't better "on paper." They aren't mythical matchups ... like they'd have to be with Bowe, since he didn't fight any of them.

Lennox beat them in the ring. In the real world.

Lewis beat Ruddock in the ring. Lewis beat Tyson in the ring. Lewis beat Vitali, Morrison, Bruno, Tua, Golota, Mercer, Akinwande, Mason, Rahman, Holyfield ... Lewis beat Bowe ... in the ring.

You act like Bowe could've gotten in the ring with all those guys in place of Lewis and had no problem. Bowe was run out of the sport in 1996 by a guy who couldn't last a full round with Lewis.

If you don't think Tyson was a great win when Lewis knocked him out 2002 ... do you think slurring, fat Riddick Bowe could've stepped in the ring with Tyson in 2002 and done better? Tyson would've brutalized Bowe, like he did to Golota.

Bowe was younger than Lewis.

They had the same landscape of heavyweights to face.

And Lewis dominated until he called it quits at the age 38 as reigning champ ... while Bowe WAS RUN OUT OF THE SPORT AT THE AGE OF 29 ... by freaking Andrew Golota.

Bowe wasn't better. It was proven in the ring.

 

His skills were absolutely enthralling to watch as they progressed. He started out seeming mostly like an extra tall super puncher but ended up having so many more abilties. I didn't care for him at the beginning of his career because I thought the Olympics "stoppage" of Bowe was horse****. I came to admire him very much with Steward. #5 greatest ATG after Ali, Louis, Holmes, and Holyfield.

The losses he suffered were because he shared Holmes' very bad predilection to dismiss second tier and under opponents. That's why Holmes nearly got knocked out by Renaldo Snipes (of all people), and why Lewis suffered his two ko losses imo.

 

of course Bowe wouldn't have beaten Tyson after 2000 because he was no longer fit for boxing. But Danny Williams did it - much faster than Lewis!!!

Tyson fought 5 fights after 2000 and won...2!! In the same period 1995-1989, he fought 37 fights and won.. 37!!! Do you understand the difference??

Lewis was older than Bowe - of course. But 38 year old Ali fighting Holmes wasn't as good as 48 year old Foreman fighting Briggs. Does that mean I should give Foreman a higher rating than Ali? What does it matter that Riddick was out of boxing after the age of 30 if:

- he had bigger victories than Lewis (Holyfield 1992,95)
- Lewis suffered worse defeats than Bowe (McCall 94)

It doesn't matter how long you've been in boxing, just what you've accomplished. The better you know Lennox's career the less impressive it is, the more of his fights you watch the less you will be delighted with him. I know he is your idol and I respect that. I just remember that period and I know he was never as good as Bowe in 1992 and many of his fights were weaker than it looks from the perspective of time: Klitschko, Holy, Mercer, Bruno... and the defeats were terrible. That is why Lewis is more appreciated after years when the circumstances and quality of those fights are not remembered. Best regards

 

And Lennox Lewis accomplished more than Bowe on top of everything else.

Your whole rant seems to Bowe should be rated higher because he beat Holyfield first. And that's basically it.

Ignoring the fact that Lewis beat more of their peers (Bowe fought very few), beat more younger fighters coming up (Bowe fouled out against Mathis and got run out of the sport by Golota) ... and ignoring the fact Lewis beat Bowe for Olympic Gold, beat Holyfield, and reigned for nearly a decade longer.

It's similar to saying George Foreman in his first career should be rated higher than Ali simply because George beat Joe Frazier first. And even at his worst, George never looked as bad as Ali did losing to Norton, Berbick and Holmes.

But George isn't rated higher, even after his successful comeback, because Ali has the better wins against more top names and was on top longer.

If Bowe beat all the guys Lewis did, and was on top for as long, he'd be rated higher than Lewis.

I started off as a Bowe fan. I followed his career from the amateurs through to the end. I rooted for him most of the time.

Lewis was better. He proved it in the ring.

 

98-04 is a weak era... but he was dominant.

 

Bowe beat a 205lb Holyfield who almost got stopped by Bert Cooper. We know later on Holyfield was on a new program, fighting like a heavyweight, bigger,,stronger than his "prime" he mastered his head as a weapon, he embraced the rough inside game.
Suddenly the man who couldn't keep Cooper of him was hitting much harder he knocked down Bowe and Mercer with single hooks. Stopped Tyson.
In fact Bowe was very fortunate Holyfield was gassed from Hepatitis to finish him in fight 3. Riddick was fading fast.

Holyfield fights Lewis after he couldn't ignore him any longer. Even a great warrior wasn't gonna fight him until he had no choice. He tried to get that 3rd round knockout God had predicted. God never considered the Puglist Specialist had more than Holyfield. Lewis was no spring chicken himself.
That's the only time I ever saw Holyfield reluctant to let his hands go. He had to get through LLs reach and power but he just couldn't close and didn't take too many chances.
9-3 Lewis. Every single person in the world scored it for Lewis by a wide margin except 2 of Don King's employees.

2nd fight Lewis shows his mettle as a true champion fight him again and beats him again. This time the fight was a bit closer, Evander did some good adjustments, didn't get peppered as much.

Holyfield didn't get dominated as badly as fight 1 his fans take it and run with it that he won. Lewis proved he was the best.

 

I'm not saying he should be rated higher, I don't know that. In my opinion, Bowe was more dominant and was generally a better boxer, but he didn't use his potential and managed his career much worse. I don't think it's a mistake to rate Lewis higher, I just rate Riddick higher for the reasons I mentioned. His best fights were better than Lewis's best fights and his worst losses were not as bad as Lewis's worst losses.. and of course besides Holyfield he has Ferguson, Tubbs, Hide, Gonzales, Donald, Seldon and a few other good rivals but you are right that without Holyfield his resume is weak.. However he has that Holyfield and if the best win defines a career then Lennox is not even close.. Regardless if Bowe is higher or lower than Lewis, Lennox is hopelessly overrated today.. The less someone knows his career the higher he is valued. but I know it very well, sorry.

 

So is John Ruiz who should have gotten the exact same decision as Lennox Lewis 10 months earlier also a great champion? What is Lewis greater than Holyfield?

 

Do you think fighters should only be judged based on their best victories or their overall careers?

 

It's a tough question but in my opinion the greatest victories. If you're a sprinter and you set a world record only once, it will always count even if you never come close to it. If you win an Olympic gold medal, you'll always have it even if you don't make it to the next games. If you climb Mount Everest, you'll always be its conqueror for the rest of your life even if you fall down a small mountain.

For me, Roy Jones was a greater boxer than Bernard Hopkins, even though objectively, Bernard has more big victories and a generally better CV. That said, I don't think Bowe should be higher than Lewis, although for me he's a better competitor, but I agree that Lewis has a better CV, just like Hopkins does than Jones. But I've never seen anyone put Riddick in the Top 5 and few put him in the Top 10 HW ever. Yes, Lewis is definitely overrated historically as the author of the post very well put it. Which doesn't mean he wasn't great or that he doesn't have a great CV.