Would you agree with this statement on lennox lewis??

Do you think he is as bad as John Ruiz?

 

You know you're a terrific poster but you can't get away with this bull**** on the classic section.

Ali won a close decision against Jones. At best it was a draw. Gift decision is beyond untrue. Struggled with a HOF in Norton, while receiving 1 Gift Decision. Didn't need to rematch Foreman who was never the mandatory nor #1 challenger since he lost to Young and was NEVER drugged in Zaire. WTF! Had his foot stepped on when he fought Wepner which was why he was dropped. Lost to Frazier who is arguably better than Lewis in ATG rankings. Lost to Holmes when he had Parkinson's.

I get what you're doing but you're failing massively by trying to exaggerate every angle to make your point.

 

All time heavies

1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Lewis

 

tough to argue with those two mcgrain, and you've whipped me in the classic forum before, but i'll bite. langford lost too many times to be number 1 or 2. I know he fought the best, and fought them repeatedly. I also realize he likely threw fights and took it easy on people so he could get bigger names or more money down the road against white opponents. Doesn't change the fact that he lost many times against opponents ranked far below him all time. Size accounts for much of that yes but a lose is a lose. That aside, the footage i've seen shows someone who fought the same style as the era. He did not invent, he did not innovate; he did what everyone else did but he hard hit, was tough enough and threw enough punches to excel. A top 10 all time but i disagree with top 2.

Greb there really is no argument. I don't have greb in my top 3 but there is no clear reason not to. Just a matter of opinion and preference

 

Lewis ducked John Ruiz.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

No, just overrated. Lewis was talented, and a great fighter, but shouldn't be rated over Holyfield. Lewis is the only top level HW champ taken out early not once, but twice, by ordinary contenders when he held the title. The only one. He also never faced the other great fighters of his era - Holyfield and Tyson - when they were even near their best, and never faced Riddick Bowe at all. Like I said, he's a great fighter, just not as great as some on this site like to make out.

 

Are we to tear strips off Salvador Sanchez because he had trouble with Pat Cowdell, Ruban Castillo, are we to do the same with Arguello who lost to Vilomar Fernandez and arguably should of lost to JLR.

 

The guy who won an Olympic gold,spanked Holyfield,Tyson and had Ridiculous Bowe running scared was from Great Britain!!! Don`t it just stick in your throats. Three cheers for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Rule Britannia!:happy:happy:happy

 

Lewis is above Holyfield. First of all, the Holyfield of the 2nd Lewis fight was better than when he faced Moorer, Bowe in the 3rd fight or Bert Cooper. Holyfield didn't have one long prime, he was going up and down over the years. Lewis never faced Bowe? Bowe's reputation was build on the fights with Holyfield and not much else, Bowe happened to match up well with Holyfield who was all too willing to fight Bowe's fight.

Lewis dominated at HW far more than Holyfield. He just walked through Golota, who easily beat up Bowe. Holyfield would always go 12 hard rounds with a Golota - level opponent. Lewis is one of the few boxers in history who never lost a decision. He destroyed Ruddock far more esily than Tyson, KO'd Briggs and Bruno when they were dangerous fighters. He wasn't perfect, but a very complete boxer - puncher with a longer, better career than either Tyson and Holyfield. He also knew when to quit, unlike Tyson or Holyfield.

 

A fine critique sir. :thumbsup

 

As usual, Socrates is off the track atsch

When you look at ATG they all managed to look bad at some points of their career. He was heavy champ for almost ten years, have beat every man he have faced and was introduced in the Hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. Its enough for me to put him on top where he belongs.

So answer to your question is no, thanks for asking.

 

as i was writing, i was thinking the same thing. if langford had been given the title shots he deserved, he'd have been lightweight, welterweight (joe walcott), middleweight (ketchel, which he actually won if records are to be believed) and heavyweight (if anyone, even dempsey, would have faced him). sam was amazing but his wins can't compare to robinson's skills, longevity, and number of HOF opponents beaten (number of opponents only, not number of wins against each individually)

 

i think a point that escapes most young srr critics is that in srr youre talking about literally the most active boxer. harping on losses that happened in the last tenth of his career. or for a loss to a guy who outweighed him by 15 lbs.
its quite like scratching the surface of a large planet. a planet comprised mostly of an unequaled winning streak. activity. srr, a man who in the very last year of his career 65 faught 9 times. could you imagine bernard hopkins fighting 9 times next year?
you could practically choose any day of the year in 65, ask srr what he was doing. he'd answer... i'm fighting.
from 40 to 51 he had 1 loss and how many wins? you count em i get tired trying.

 

You sound as if your talking from experience:think