Lennox Lewis how good was he

[Yiddle]

With Vitali putting on yet another strong dominate performance to show how far above the brothers Klit are above the contenders of today's heavyweight division.

 

The question must surely be how good must Lewis of been he beat Vitali when past his best and all but already decided in his own mind to retire and so not properly motivated

[RAZZ-MCFC]

Re: Lennox Lewis how good was he

 

With Vitali putting on yet another strong dominate performance to show how far above the brothers Klit are above the contenders of today's heavyweight division.

 

The question must surely be how good must Lewis of been he beat Vitali when past his best and all but already decided in his own mind to retire and so not properly motivated

 

And only 2 weeks to prepare for Vitali as well!

 

Lennox was class, anybody who knows their boxing knows he's one of the top 5 heavyweights of all time, or thereabouts. Beat everyone there was to beat with the exception of Bowe, who didn't have the stones to get in with Lennox in the pros.

 

Avenged his only 2 defeats, what more can you ask of a man?

 

Legend.

[WelshDevilRob]

Lennox Lewis is the 2nd best Heavyweight of all-time IMO. I am a huge fan.

 

His level of competition, length of reign, physical skills and overall record mean he is definitely a Top 10 of all-time in the division and I'm mystified when some don't include him.

[Wheelchair]

Lewis was a cracking fighter, but he didn't really get the recognition he deserved. Had he been a yank, he would have been the greatest fighter in universe, but the American's had their noses put out of joint when Lennox wouldn't fall over like the typical British heavy, http://budweiserboxing.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?t=3476, so they pooh-poohed him.

 

One thing Lennox could have done to improve his standing, would have been to go for it a little more a la Golota. He could sometimes be too cautious.

[iamasadlittleboy]

Head to head I think he beats every heavyweight on his best night.

[littleman370]

Lewis was a cracking fighter, but he didn't really get the recognition he deserved. Had he been a yank, he would have been the greatest fighter in universe, but the American's had their noses put out of joint when Lennox wouldn't fall over like the typical British heavy, http://budweiserboxing.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?t=3476, so they pooh-poohed him.

 

One thing Lennox could have done to improve his standing, would have been to go for it a little more a la Golota. He could sometimes be too cautious.

 

yeah yeah always blame it on us yanks cry//

[Wheelchair]

I'm from American parents, so can see both sides.

[Skav]

One of the ATG's. He was a very intelligent man who didn't care for being macho in the ring. He was a thinking guy who out-thought his opponents, a bit like what Floyd does. People moaned about how boring he was when he was around but pined for him when he retired. People will do the same when the Klits retire, also.

[McBride]

Lennox Lewis' only " fault " was he despised Don King and wouldn't get into bed with him. The rest of the anti Lewis bias from across the pond springs from that.

 

Inside the ring he beats them all with ease, with the possible exception of the 64 - 67 version of Ali, who IMO is too fast afoot for LL.

[gavpowell]

Depends doesn't it? This is a guy who managed to lose to Rahman and McCall and could very easily have lost to Klitschko had the fight gone on longer - he was definitely feeling the pace even if he wasn;t necessarily going to collapse. It's not like he was unbeatable.

[McBride]

Losing is not too important when you can avenge those losses the way Lewis could, with patent ease. Had he been beaten by Klitchko and gained a rematch, there is no way the Ukraine would have had the skill or tools to stop Lennox totally embarrasing him. Not in the same league at all.

 

One is a 6' 5 loose limbed athlete, the other a 6' 8 plodding robot.

[gavpowell]

That explains why he never took the rematch and spent his retirement slagging off the Klitschkos then. Possibly in his prime Lewis would have beaten Vitali more convincingly, possibly even had he taken the rematch, but he didn't, preferring instead to break his promise and have a very bitter retirement.

 

You can't guarantee that, just because he could have beaten him, that he would - nobody would have expected Turpin to beat Robinson or Norton to beat Ali.

[davemurphy]

What I think somewhat amusing is that in retirement, the very people who 'slagged off" on Lennox have seemed to come around and give him his due, and that's just 7 years into retirement and not the usual 20 or more that it often takes many retirees to "age like a fine wine". He's gotten a pretty good post-career "bump" and most of that has come from his staunchest critics, in particular many overzealous Amercians that had few positive things to say a decade ago. I don't think he'll ever be seen as rivaling the established Icons Ali, Louis, etc. but he's not missing on many Top Tens anymore, and I never thought I'd see his critics yield on that, so you never know.

[Skav]

Depends doesn't it? This is a guy who managed to lose to Rahman and McCall and could very easily have lost to Klitschko had the fight gone on longer - he was definitely feeling the pace even if he wasn;t necessarily going to collapse. It's not like he was unbeatable.

 

I'm not sure what your stance is on Tyson, Gav, but that guy lost to fighters who were not supposed to beat him. Lewis also had a much longer reign as champion than Tyson and beat better fighters than he ever did. I only pick the Tyson name out here because of how popular and legendary people consider him to be.

[RAZZ-MCFC]

Depends doesn't it? This is a guy who managed to lose to Rahman and McCall and could very easily have lost to Klitschko had the fight gone on longer - he was definitely feeling the pace even if he wasn;t necessarily going to collapse. It's not like he was unbeatable.

 

I'm not sure what your stance is on Tyson, Gav, but that guy lost to fighters who were not supposed to beat him. Lewis also had a much longer reign as champion than Tyson and beat better fighters than he ever did. I only pick the Tyson name out here because of how popular and legendary people consider him to be.

 

You make a great point, also if you asked Joe public to name a boxer, how many would say Tyson compared to Lennox? Even over here more would say Tyson. I don't get it either because Lennox was better. Lennox beat the guy who beat Tyson twice. His achievements completely dwarf Tyson's IMO, and that includes Tyson being the youngest ever heavyweight champion and unified champion.

[gavpowell]

Depends doesn't it? This is a guy who managed to lose to Rahman and McCall and could very easily have lost to Klitschko had the fight gone on longer - he was definitely feeling the pace even if he wasn;t necessarily going to collapse. It's not like he was unbeatable.

 

I'm not sure what your stance is on Tyson, Gav, but that guy lost to fighters who were not supposed to beat him. Lewis also had a much longer reign as champion than Tyson and beat better fighters than he ever did. I only pick the Tyson name out here because of how popular and legendary people consider him to be.

 

I give credit to Tyson for being the youngest heavyweight champion and for the way he did it(which get him into the Hall of Fame for me), but don't know enough about the quality of his oppositon to make a judgement on how he'd fare against Lewis in his prime etc.

 

Lewis should never have lost to those guys in the first place but he did and it shows both complacency and a vulnerable chin. Vitali's chin we know is solid, he hits pretty hard and he'd also have had more time to prepare as well as Lewis, so the rematch could have gone any number of ways - Lewis batters him for 12 rounds, Lewis sparks him, Klitschko sparks Lewis etc.

 

My bias against Lewis is well documented but I respect his achievements, all I'm saying is that "He beats everyone except Ali" or "He'd have won the rematch" as uif it's blindingly obvious is way too presumptuous because he lost to Rahman and McCall, and looked to have had the scare of his life against Klitschko before the cuts put an end to the bout.

[davemurphy]

You make a great point, also if you asked Joe public to name a boxer, how many would say Tyson compared to Lennox? Even over here more would say Tyson. I don't get it either because Lennox was better. Lennox beat the guy who beat Tyson twice. His achievements completely dwarf Tyson's IMO, and that includes Tyson being the youngest ever heavyweight champion and unified champion.

 

The New York Media shoved Tyson down our throats, had he been from Detroit or St.Louis or anywhere else in the United States he'd have never been on the cover of every magazine or likely got a title shot so young. Perhaps the most overrated athlete of the 20th Century in terms of what they actually accomplished vis-a-vis the coverage they got, the list of great fighters that he beat in their prime numbers exactly Zero, and in retrospect the number of simply decent fighters numbers but a handful. A record built-up on a collection of hasbeens and never-would-be-goods.

[Wheelchair]

You make a great point, also if you asked Joe public to name a boxer, how many would say Tyson compared to Lennox? Even over here more would say Tyson. I don't get it either because Lennox was better. Lennox beat the guy who beat Tyson twice. His achievements completely dwarf Tyson's IMO, and that includes Tyson being the youngest ever heavyweight champion and unified champion.

 

Tyson's electric KO's are what makes him stick in the casual fans memory. When he was a young up and comer, fight-fans and casual fans alike were captivated by whether or not his foes could get past the first round. Having witnessed it as it happened, it was a sensation, especially as the Heavyweight scene was dire, and the titleholders over the last few years hadn't scored many KO's in their title defences.

 

One round KO's

 

Tyson 22

Lewis 5

 

Fair or not, that's what alot of people remember, that and Tyson's apparent desire to seriously hurt his opponents.

[davemurphy]

Tyson's electric KO's are what makes him stick in the casual fans memory. When he was a young up and comer, fight-fans and casual fans alike were captivated by whether or not his foes could get past the first round. Having witnessed it as it happened, it was a sensation, especially as the Heavyweight scene was dire, and the titleholders over the last few years hadn't scored many KO's in their title defences.

 

One round KO's

 

Tyson 22

Lewis 5

 

Fair or not, that's what alot of people remember, that and Tyson's apparent desire to seriously hurt his opponents.

 

Wheels, I think that sums it up pretty well. The Division was pretty barren with Holmes reign drawing to a close at the hands of Spinks and no heir apparent on the scene. The collection of WBA Champs (opposite Holmes with the WBC) were numerous and for the most part ordinary. It was Tyson's persona that sold along with the KO's, they bought into the "baddest man on the planet" routine.

[Greb]

My bias against Lewis is well documented but I respect his achievements, all I'm saying is that "He beats everyone except Ali" or "He'd have won the rematch" as uif it's blindingly obvious is way too presumptuous because he lost to Rahman and McCall, and looked to have had the scare of his life against Klitschko before the cuts put an end to the bout.

 

I agree with this sentiment. I like Lewis and I've defended him on this board before, but let's not go overboard here. He had his flaws just like any other fighter and it's a major stretch to say he beats any heavyweight besides Ali. He got KO'd by Rahman and had various other less than stellar performances so he was hardly unstoppable. He's one of the great heavies and IMO well deserves a top 10 rating, but I stop short of going any further.

 

I also think some are underselling Tyson here. The traveling freak show he's become in the last 15 years makes it easy to forget just how good he was in his prime. I disagree that Tucker, Spinks, Holmes, Thomas, Berbick, Ruddock etc were just a bunch of has beens and never weres. Those guys were good fighters and in long careers precious few beat them the way Tyson did. It's a measure of his dominance that he was considered to have had trouble with Smith, Tucker or Tillis when they won maybe 9 rounds combined in their 36 against Tyson.

[londoner]

I'm not going to write a lot as i've discussed this before so many times. I think Lewis is an all time great HW and probably makes the top 10 quite comfortably. He beat everyone he fought, avenged his two losses, beat a prime Vitali Klitschko at short notice (and almost took his eye out in the process) and Tyson and Bowe didn't want anything to do with him in their primes.

[iamasadlittleboy]

My bias against Lewis is well documented but I respect his achievements, all I'm saying is that "He beats everyone except Ali" or "He'd have won the rematch" as uif it's blindingly obvious is way too presumptuous because he lost to Rahman and McCall, and looked to have had the scare of his life against Klitschko before the cuts put an end to the bout.

 

I agree with this sentiment. I like Lewis and I've defended him on this board before, but let's not go overboard here. He had his flaws just like any other fighter and it's a major stretch to say he beats any heavyweight besides Ali. He got KO'd by Rahman and had various other less than stellar performances so he was hardly unstoppable. He's one of the great heavies and IMO well deserves a top 10 rating, but I stop short of going any further.

 

I also think some are underselling Tyson here. The traveling freak show he's become in the last 15 years makes it easy to forget just how good he was in his prime. I disagree that Tucker, Spinks, Holmes, Thomas, Berbick, Ruddock etc were just a bunch of has beens and never weres. Those guys were good fighters and in long careers precious few beat them the way Tyson did. It's a measure of his dominance that he was considered to have had trouble with Smith, Tucker or Tillis when they won maybe 9 rounds combined in their 36 against Tyson.

 

"At his best" I think Lewis could have beaten everyone, though at his worst he was a complacent bastard who could be lazy...much like Ali who lets not forget deserved to be 1-2 at best against Norton.

 

When it comes to Tucker, Spinks, Holmes, Thomas Berbick et all...do you really think a prime Lewis (or even a prime Vitali) wouldn't have bested each of them? Maybe not in the way Tyson did but that's not their style, much like Floyd Mayweather's style isn't beating opponents quickly.

 

Tillis won 4 rounds out of 10 against Tyson on the scorecards of 2 of the judges, I know some folks have him winning the fight...

 

Every fighter has flaws, weaknesses and strengths it's how they use them, who they use them against and for how long they can use them at the top that counts IMO...even though it's not a view shared by all.

[gavpowell]

I don't think he's saying Tyson was better than Lewis, merely that Tyson was not so overrated as was made out - that he was still an elite fighter at the time, just not necessarily an all-time great.

[Greb]

"At his best" I think Lewis could have beaten everyone, though at his worst he was a complacent bastard who could be lazy...much like Ali who lets not forget deserved to be 1-2 at best against Norton.

 

When it comes to Tucker, Spinks, Holmes, Thomas Berbick et all...do you really think a prime Lewis (or even a prime Vitali) wouldn't have bested each of them? Maybe not in the way Tyson did but that's not their style, much like Floyd Mayweather's style isn't beating opponents quickly.

 

Tillis won 4 rounds out of 10 against Tyson on the scorecards of 2 of the judges, I know some folks have him winning the fight...

 

Every fighter has flaws, weaknesses and strengths it's how they use them, who they use them against and for how long they can use them at the top that counts IMO...even though it's not a view shared by all.

 

But at their best there's also a few heavies who could have beaten Lewis. That's really the point I was making. I doubt there's a great heavyweight in history who would go unbeaten against all the others.

 

A 34 year old Tony Tucker gave Lewis a bruising fight. I'd expect Lewis to beat Berbick, Thomas, Spinks etc but then I expected him to beat Rahman and McCall too so there are no certainties.

 

I didn't think Tillis won more than 3 rounds against Tyson, and I can't see any case for him actually winning. Tyson's opposition in the 80s was pretty solid overall but it tends to be underrated because a lot of his fights were one sided. For me he was much more than just some hypejob who beat a bunch of bums.

[McBride]

Fact is Lewis turned up twice completely out of condition and under prepared twice. Once against Rahman, and paid the price, the second time against the younger and bigger Klitchko, and won, by cutting the guys face to shreds with his hands.

 

What people think about Lewis means shit. Klitchko had it to prove, and failed. Lewis makes him look what he is in any rematch in which he prepares properly, second rate.

 

If he wanted to rematch Klitchko, then he would have, if not then screw the Ukraine. Who or what was he anyway? Another loser to Lewis, is all.

 

Another load of mythical crap about Lewis is he had a shit chin, based on the fact that Rahman had a free shot at him. He was up and protesting at the stoppage by McCall, and look at the shots he took from Mercer, and Tucker without being in trouble. Holyfield caught, and troubled him with some good combo's in their 2nd fight, but LL just used his ring smarts and tied the guy up.

 

I'll say again he beats all those types, because he did. His only possible problem would be speed and lateral movement, and the only Heavy in history to have that was Ali.