Nah he won't, i'll just move Ali out of the top10 in favor of Frazier and Lewis. After all, Frazier beat Ali at his peak and you know it!
The manner in which Lennox Lewis dispatched of so many very capable fighters at the top their game game laced with him getting pole-axed by 'alphabet champs', down to complacency or not, really skews his legacy something nasty and always will. However, the initial piece does its role very nicely of underlining the the understated triumphs of Lewis' journey and his earned right to have his spot in the top 10 Heavyweights in history.
A sound and comprehensive analysis. At the end of the day it comes down to the historical perspective when grading a modern fighter. How would we regard a fighter from another era who had equivalent acomplishments? On that basis Lewis would have to rank inside the top 10 and his overall body of work would rank inside the top 5. It is only his two losses that potentialy kick him outside the top 5.
Lewis is a top ten fighter imo. He was the king of his era, and that ALONE should put him in the top ten. His define fight imo, is perhaps the first or 2nd Holyfiled fights, forget the "Draw", Lewis earn his greatness there. Defeated Tua and Grant is a amazing feat at the time of couse.
I can't see how anyone would come to the conclusion that Frazier should be rated above Lewis. When taking everything into consideration I can't for the life of me see it.
This response does not follow with what you said, what I said, or what either of us implied. You said that it was thought to be impossible to take Tyson apart in '96. I said, "Who thought it was impossible to take Tyson apart in '96?" You then responded here with how many people thought Holyfield was going to lose to Tyson- a completely different thing. There is an enormous difference between being a favorite over an old and thought-to-be-washed-up Holyfield and being thought invincible! I do think Holyfield is a master boxer. The way he took Tyson apart and neutralised his aggression time and time again was very impressive. I will concede that he was far from always using his master boxing skills, most notably against Riddick Bowe. He was out-everythiniging him. Outjabbing, outpunching, even inside. I can recommend you both fights; Golota shows beautiful skills and there's plenty of action as well. The second is just brutal. Two of my favorite 90's fights. 1. When did the definition of longevity become "total number of years in which you beat name opponents" as opposed to "span of time in which you beat name opponents"? I've never seen it defined the way you just did before. 2. How were Holmes' fights with contenders in the '90s generally "barely competitive"? Examining his record: he comes back in '91 and beats five mediocre journeymen in a row. He kicks off '92 beating undefeated Olympian and elite contender Mercer (a lot more convincingly than a prime Lewis did it, by the way), then loses to a peak Holyfield by UD (definitely competitive). He comes back in '93-94 with seven more wins over journeyman-level opposition before losing a very close decision to McCall in '95 (definitely competitive, and a lot more competitive than Lewis was with McCall in McCall's last fight beforehand, too). After that, his top 10-level career is over, with the only semi-significant fights afterwards being a SD loss to Brian Nielsen, a couple of wins over ancient versions of old foes Smith and Williams, and a sideshow UD over Butterbean. Hence, against contenders in his major '90s run, I see one dominant win, one narrow loss and one clear-cut-but-competitive loss. In total, the only guy to arguably make Holmes look "barely competitive" was Tyson, and even then, Holmes did hold his own during the first three rounds before Tyson obliterated him in the fourth. The question here isn't whether he knew what was going on, but whether he could do anything about it. If you honestly look at that film and watch the way he was moving, particularly his feet, it's hard to imagine how you can think that he was still in that fight- he didn't have the legs under him to take a full-sized step without stumbling, let alone competently evade a professional heavyweight bomber who would be tearing into him in the next two seconds. Not comparable to Ali-Cooper! Even in Holmes-Shavers, although Holmes goes down hard and staggers after he gets up, he is taking semi-coordinated steps before the eight-count is done and is able to bounce/move slightly after the action resumes. Lewis is literally staggering just trying to walk slowly even as the eight count is done.
Why is sonny liston top 10? Cuz he beat floyd patterson and like 6 other contenders at best, if you want to talk overrated, its sonny liston.
A. Frazier beat Muhammad Ali convingsinly, first fighter to do so in the biggest fight in television history B. Frazier cleaned out most of the late 1960s top heavyweight contenders C. He never suffered two one punch Knockout losses to B level fighters D. Frazier rates high h2h with his bob and weave style/famous philly left hook/punishing body attack/inhumane stamina.
Well, hes #3 for me.. Unless you are one of the oldtimer nuthuggers a better question is "Why shoudnt Lennox Lewis be in the top 10?" I can't think of a reason..
That was an excellent analysis CP, and one would think it would pretty much close the subject on whether or not Lewis belongs in the top 10 and focus. Sadly this is unlikely. Personally, I'm in the camp that is debating whether or not he belongs in the top 5, not the top 10. Strangely enough, I think most who have him outside the top 10, do so cause of this two losses, while others, me included, think that on a h2h basis very few fighters in history could beat him, so he certainly runs the spectrum on this criteria.
True, but in the part you initially responded to, i was addressing Holyfield's win over Tyson. Ok, maybe not invincible, but invincible enough that no one would've picked any fighter of that moment - be it Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Golota, whomever - over Tyson. Rightfully or not. I'm just saying this was the way people saw it back then. 1. Since when isn't it? Boxing isn't as clear-cut as mathemetics. I think longetivity means how long you are were able to beat top opponents. Every match takes something out of a fighter. Therefore, i think it's relevant to include every year. For instance, i don't think Sugar Ray Leonard had good longetivity at all: the years in which he beat top fighters are rather limited. But by your definition, he would have very good longetivity. I don't think he did. 2. My apologies, i forgot about the McCall fight. Still, that was a loss though. And the Holyfield fight was a pretty one-sided loss; Holmes had his moments but it was mostly Holyfield. Holmes profited a tremendous amount of being much more popular (as ex-champs always are, especially against unproven cruiserweights) and older. Same story with Foreman. I disagree that Holmes was holding his own in the first 3 rounds against Tyson. He lost them from what i remember and pretty badly too. Well, he was holding his own asin surviving, i suppose. Holmes took a few "semi-coordinated steps". Right. And what Lewis did weren't "semi-coordinated" steps? Ali had the advantage of the round being over against Cooper. He got up off his stool before Dundee cheated the extra time, he was that out of it. Watch Lewis vs Golota. How many semi-coordinated steps did Golota take? How many semi-coordinated steps did Grant take after Lewis knocked him silly? How many semi-coordinated steps did Foster take after Frazier knocked him down? What about Holyfield lying still on the canvas like a corpse for 4 or 5 seconds against Bowe, getting up slow as hell yet still allowed to continue? What about Buster Mathis Jr. immediatly being stopped after getting up relatively quick after controlling Tyson for the entire fight, when ...... surprise surprise, Don King had big investments in his opponent, Mike Tyson?
Well he beat a very good Ali I'll give you that ! I never saw Ali at his peak and imo ,neither did anyone else.
I see no one in the Heavyweight division that I envisage replacing the likes of Ali,Dempsey,Louis,Holmes etc.Maybe there is an amateur out there who can say?
Lovely thread guys. Lennox never captured my fancy as a fighter, but you can't deny him his place in the top 10 somewhere. He beat credible opponents, had great physical gifts, had the necessary intangibles and had the required longevity to make it all stick. Can't really ask for more than that.
