Better career - Lewis or Calzaghe?

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

[yiddo14]

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Spot on.

[jamesmcdonnell]

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.


To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Funny I was thinking about that the other day too. Calzaghe v Spinks would have been terrible. Spinks had unbelievable punch power, was quick, tough and absolutely ruthless.

Also, just because there are more eastern Europeans today - so what? There were still probably far more professional fighters overall than there are today - I'd bet money on it. It's not that boxing has got more competitive - they are just coming from different places.

There are WAY fewer fighters in the US and UK than there were 25 years ago without a doubt. And let's not forget, droves of Eastern European immigrants flooded into the US in the 1920's to 1940's.

[banjo]

The Calzaghe-Spinks comparison is a no brainer, Spinks is without doubt the best Light Heavy of the last 30 years if not the best since the second world war and not only that he was also good enough to hold the undisputed world heavyweight title.

[gobbles]

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

That's a nonsense argument and completely away from the point. The divisions are what they are when they box in them. It's like saying that Ricky Hatton wasn't a real world champion, because light-welterweight wasn't one of the original eight divisions.

It is not easier per say to be a light-heavyweight champion now than a super-middleweight champion, the titles carry similar weight. Who knows how good Calzaghe might have been had he been forced to turn pro and box all his career at light-heavyweight?

But a division that could support Donnie LaLonde, Dennis Andries, JB WIlliamson, Marvin Johnson, Leslie Stewart, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Jeff Harding, Bobby Czyz and Slobodan Kacar during the 80s was clearly not all that.

[Autobarn]

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

Disagree here. Most of Calzaghe's top opponents at 168 would have been 175-pounders without day before weigh ins. Some of them would have been middles, but most would have been light heavies. Spinks sometimes weighed in at 170-72, so he could have done 168 in this era, to see it from the other side.

Michael Spinks was a totally disjointed fighter, a do it wrong, right champ - which is something Calzaghe has been. A well schooled fighter like Eddie Mustapha nearly beat Spinks. If Spinks hadn't punches Eddie in the eye, I think Eddie would have schooled him. Obviously great champs are able to get that bit of good fortune, that little thing happens that allows them to get the big W. Spinks had some great wins but should have come unstuck vs Eddie Davis and often looked ordinary till he landed the big KO shot.

I think things are starting to really get silly on here. While we can doubt Joe's legendary status, I don't think there's any doubt that he's a top world class fighter who never woulda won a world title if...

[gobbles]

That's a nonsense argument and completely away from the point. The divisions are what they are when they box in them. It's like saying that Ricky Hatton wasn't a real world champion, because light-welterweight wasn't one of the original eight divisions.

It is not easier per say to be a light-heavyweight champion now than a super-middleweight champion, the titles carry similar weight. Who knows how good Calzaghe might have been had he been forced to turn pro and box all his career at light-heavyweight?

But a division that could support Donnie LaLonde, Dennis Andries, JB WIlliamson, Marvin Johnson, Leslie Stewart, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Jeff Harding, Bobby Czyz and Slobodan Kacar during the 80s was clearly not all that.

Marvin, Eddie and Dennis would all have been fine names on Joe's LHW record, his SMW one also, if you will stretch to that. Marvin provided us with some wonderful moments, fights that can be watched again and again.

I respect that as an athlete there is a lot to be said for Joe churning out wins, but F-me (and this is no agenda) his fights were generally terrible to watch.

List the names the SMW division supported during Joe's time, you can find some of the poorer ones on his record, and then ask if it was 'all that'. It was not, clearly.

You are napalming your own argument with the post above.

My argument was comparing Calzaghe with Honeyghan and Sylvester Mittee. It had nothing do do with the rights and wrongs of the super-middleweight division, other than to say you can't say the division isn't legitmate

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

One thing you also have to bear in mind when deriding the current day, is boxers in Mittee's age just had the old world to compete against. The professional boxing world these days includes the former Eastern Bloc. Sven Ottke, Markus Beyer and Mario Veit all came through the East German amateur system. If Calzaghe had been champion in the 80s, those sort of guys would not even have been considered.

After all, what was the state of German boxing (now among the strongest in the world) before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Calzaghe became undisputed champion. Only two boxers have won WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO (he also won IBO) titles at same weight - Calzaghe and Hopkins. Saying someone probably could have won a title in this day and age, does not mean they would have. Winning the IBF title in Mittee's day was no great achievement, as Terry Marsh proved by beating a champion as poor as Jersey Joe Manley.

To be an undisputed champion these days is more difficult than it was in the Eighties. Although I realise there is still an obsession with America and the good old days on here. How good would Kelly Pavlik seem without Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm out there?

LMAO you want to put Calzaghe in the 80s where there was no SMW division?? Fine he can kill himself to make 160 and get ripped to shreds by Hagler. Or face arguably the best LHW champ ever in Mike Spinks or the beast that was Qawi.

Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s

That's a nonsense argument and completely away from the point. The divisions are what they are when they box in them. It's like saying that Ricky Hatton wasn't a real world champion, because light-welterweight wasn't one of the original eight divisions.

It is not easier per say to be a light-heavyweight champion now than a super-middleweight champion, the titles carry similar weight. Who knows how good Calzaghe might have been had he been forced to turn pro and box all his career at light-heavyweight?

But a division that could support Donnie LaLonde, Dennis Andries, JB WIlliamson, Marvin Johnson, Leslie Stewart, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Jeff Harding, Bobby Czyz and Slobodan Kacar during the 80s was clearly not all that.

Stop trying to spin the argument, you were claiming Joe would do better in the 80s without havign to worry about Sovite Block fighters, when he would have been around the likes of Hagler, Spinks, Qawi, Muhammed, Hearns, Virgil Hill, Muhammed. Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt

And yes its allot easier to be a WBO belt holder fighting none top10 types than taking 1 of 2 belts (or both) from ATGs like Spinks/Qawi

[gobbles]

Stop trying to spin the argument, you were claiming Joe would do better in the 80s without havign to worry about Sovite Block fighters, when he would have been around the likes of Hagler, Spinks, Qawi, Muhammed, Hearns, Virgil Hill, Muhammed. Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt

And yes its allot easier to be a WBO belt holder fighting none top10 types than taking 1 of 2 belts (or both) from ATGs like Spinks/Qawi

Try learning the difference between facts and opinion

Just because you have a ridiulously low opinion of Calzaghe that does not mean he couldn't have held his own against any of those boxers. The thing is, we never knew how good Calzaghe was, because he never lost. But trying to make out all those guys would have definitely beaten him is ridiculous. Saad Muhammed had life and death with an over-the hill Conteh, Mustafa was very beatable and was such an up and down performer that he blew a title shot when he failed to make the weight and didn't even try, Hearns got beaten by Barkley and so on.
Why people enjoy boxing is the uncertainty. It's no good just saying "it's a fact that" when clearly it is not a fact. Calling Qawi an all-time great is also clearly ludicrous. Good fighter of his time, but great? I believe Bob Foster would have cleaned out the lot of them at his peak.
Merely because you grew up watching one generation does not mean the next generation is not as good. I think most of those guys would have had nightmares with Calzaghe's speed.
And it shows how daft you are that you write Calzaghe's career off as a WBO champion. He unified all the titles. But I suppose that counts for nothing in your mind.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Stop trying to spin the argument, you were claiming Joe would do better in the 80s without havign to worry about Sovite Block fighters, when he would have been around the likes of Hagler, Spinks, Qawi, Muhammed, Hearns, Virgil Hill, Muhammed. Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt

And yes its allot easier to be a WBO belt holder fighting none top10 types than taking 1 of 2 belts (or both) from ATGs like Spinks/Qawi

Try learning the difference between facts and opinion

So the fact is Joe was in a harder division with the likes of Beyer and Otke (who'm he never faced) than he would be if he was in with Spinks and Qawi?

What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

[gobbles]

What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

"Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt"

That supposed fact which is clearly an opinion.

As I said, if Dennis Andries was WBC champion, Calzaghe easily could have been

[stujones]

To be fair Goobles, Andries wasn't a champion in the early 80's.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

"Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt"

That supposed fact which is clearly an opinion.

As I said, if Dennis Andries was WBC champion, Calzaghe easily could have been

I initally said 'Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s', from 80-85 I can't see him toppling Spinks/Qawi, that is THE EARLY 80s, the division at the time was dynamite. A prime Hill or Hearns are 50-50 affairs, and thats giving props to Joe, both great fighters (as I don't dispute Joe also is). Barkley he beats, Andrias he beats, Lalonde he beats. It all depends on when he comes along and which titlist he faces.

[gobbles]

What is the actual fact your pointing too here, please elaborate

"Simple fact is in the early 80s Joe wouldn't have won a belt"

That supposed fact which is clearly an opinion.

As I said, if Dennis Andries was WBC champion, Calzaghe easily could have been

I initally said 'Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s', from 80-85 I can't see him toppling Spinks/Qawi, that is THE EARLY 80s, the division at the time was dynamite. A prime Hill or Hearns are 50-50 affairs, and thats giving props to Joe, both great fighters (as I don't dispute Joe also is). Barkley he beats, Andrias he beats, Lalonde he beats. It all depends on when he comes along and which titlist he faces.

I have no problem with that. Your opinion, well put.

[stujones]

I initally said 'Its highly likely Calzaghe wouldnt be a champ in the 80s', from 80-85 I can't see him toppling Spinks/Qawi, that is THE EARLY 80s, the division at the time was dynamite. A prime Hill or Hearns are 50-50 affairs, and thats giving props to Joe, both great fighters (as I don't dispute Joe also is). Barkley he beats, Andrias he beats, Lalonde he beats. It all depends on when he comes along and which titlist he faces.

That is giving big props to Joe in my opinion. I don't think Joe has the power to trouble Hearns and for me Hearns was way to skil full with that bullet esque Jab.

Hill I think would have been too slippery

Barkley, and Andries.... Dennis was a big Light Heavyweight. I'd expect Joe to be to quick for him, but Andries reminds me in alot of ways of Glencoffe Johnson - and I don't think Joe vs Glen would have been a forgone clusion.

Barkley - again I would favour Joe, but Joe doesn't have Nigel Benn power and if Barkley is quick enough to catch Hearns. Then he can catch Joe and Joe's chin at Light Heavyweight... well its not looked as granite as at Super Middleweight.

I would say 60:40 fights these in favour of Joe. I would say Hearns is 70:30 to Tommy, and Hill 60:40 in favour of quick silver.

[Autobarn]

Come on lads, these arguments do get out of control. Hearns could not withstand pressure at 175. His stamina was suspect also and he was well gettig on. On one hand he dominated Hill who gave him space, respect, etc. Who froze on the big scene. Soon after he got totally outworked by Barkley. Just laid on the ropes, countered meekly - by hearns standards - and slumped to defeat...If you ask me, Hearns is another one for Joe's Legend Killer resume of old greats, would have been a perfect candidate for someone who cashes in on the reputations of others.

In this era at super middle, Joe did piss us all off, but he won the unifications and that with the longevity, makes him a proper champ.

In the good ol' days, the champs had to go straight for the big fights (Spinks-Qawi) to make the money. A good example, compare what Saad, Spinks, Qawi did, to what Joe, RJJ and Hopkins did. So the main problem for me would be, could Joe "do it" in a direct, rather than indirect way? eg, he showed he could win in America (Hopkins, RJJ), he showed he can beat world class fighters in their prime (Lacy, Kessler), he showed he can beat a handful or 2 of good fighters on the slide (Woodhall, Reid, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell): all on his own terms. Right, what I'm dirivng at, could he have done it all at once, i.e. beat a world class champ, in his prime, poss away from home?

Boxing is different now. It's gone global. Promoters all over have power, from USA, to Canada to the UK and Germany. Fighters from different countries are turning pro that once wouldn't have. There are more titles, but there are also more ways to develop strong talent (and there are more ways to abuse the system with dull drag out title reigns). To distinguish yourself in this era is no small feat.

It is Joe's own fault that these arguments are escalating against him. I really don't think he showed us what he can do, not at light heavy anyway. While I have said that Joe and many other super middles would have been light heavies without early weigh ins (and while many classic light heavies would have been super middles in this era), Joe did benefit super middle because of his low punch power and pecking style. It was a division almost made for him.

In an earlier era, Joe would either have never quite caught on, OR been even better by having to face better comp.

[oliverfennell]

Who was more shot, Tyson or Jones? Tyson obviously.

No chance. Tyson was on a good winning knockout run and was ranked top 2 or 3 at the time. pre-fight, it was viewed as a 50-50 contest. What happened on the night should not be revised with hindsight. It was eagerly anticipated with Lewis only a slight betting favourite. Jones had three points wins over unremarkable opposition and almost everybody predicted it would be as one-sided as it was.

[oliverfennell]

The step aside money was paid to Lewis for pragmatic reasons. It was paid out to allow the fight between Tyson and Holyfield to take place, and so Don King could stall Lewis, in the event Tyson lost, Holyfield got the title, and, after a few fights, Evander explicitly said he had decided to take on Lewis because Tyson had swerved Lewis to have a supposedly soft defence. Holyfield explains all this in the doc prior to Holyfield-Lewis.

The reason Lewis took the money is because Don King allegedly had the WBC sewn-up at the time. Lennox Lewis fought a fight against Lionel Butler to secure himself a ranking, only for the release of Tyson, who had not gone to prison in possession of a title, to throw everything into disarray. Tyson was installed as the WBC top contender, Lewis, despite promises to the contrary, was shunted down a notch, basically frozen out. On the BBC broadcast of that Lewis-Butler fight King talks aobut the release of Tyson and says his mystique justifies that WBC ranking re-installation, and that Lewis does not deserve the ranking because he does not excite.

Lewis could have easily then gone the WBO route, but he maintained that he wanted the WBC back, then he would move onto the other top three belts. Instead he waited and waited for his WBC chance, the step aside money was simply that, Lewis was in a no-win situation, he took the money and waited on the Tyson fight, which never came, because Tyson lost to Holyfield.

I skimmed the thread, the answer is Lewis by the way, so am not quite sure why the step aside issue came up, if it was brought up to suggest that Lewis was trying to dodge a tough Tyson fight consider who he fought in the interim period: Tommy Morrison (who was coming off a win in a minor classic over Razor Ruddock), Ray Mercer (who was one bad bastard at the time) and then the vacant tilt against McCall (iron jawed nutcase who had previously knocked Lewis out).

How does that equate to Lewis taking the money and running? He was frozen out of top fights, so took on the best available to him.

One of Joe's biggest wins was over a hyped up contender who then faded into oblivion, Lewis had a similar win, Grant, yet that is not a major Lewis win.

Joe's last fight, and win, was a long awaited fight with a finished Roy Jones. Lewis's last win came against a dangerous young fighter, at short notice.

As for Lewis losing to Vitali, nope, the points are not totted up until after the final belt, Lewis won where it counted, by landing the damaging shots in the body of the fight. VK blew his wad early and Lewis dogged him out.

Lewis had the better resume.

Agree with all of the above.

[EddieShredder]

The step aside money was paid to Lewis for pragmatic reasons. It was paid out to allow the fight between Tyson and Holyfield to take place, and so Don King could stall Lewis, in the event Tyson lost, Holyfield got the title, and, after a few fights, Evander explicitly said he had decided to take on Lewis because Tyson had swerved Lewis to have a supposedly soft defence. Holyfield explains all this in the doc prior to Holyfield-Lewis.

The reason Lewis took the money is because Don King allegedly had the WBC sewn-up at the time. Lennox Lewis fought a fight against Lionel Butler to secure himself a ranking, only for the release of Tyson, who had not gone to prison in possession of a title, to throw everything into disarray. Tyson was installed as the WBC top contender, Lewis, despite promises to the contrary, was shunted down a notch, basically frozen out. On the BBC broadcast of that Lewis-Butler fight King talks aobut the release of Tyson and says his mystique justifies that WBC ranking re-installation, and that Lewis does not deserve the ranking because he does not excite.

Lewis could have easily then gone the WBO route, but he maintained that he wanted the WBC back, then he would move onto the other top three belts. Instead he waited and waited for his WBC chance, the step aside money was simply that, Lewis was in a no-win situation, he took the money and waited on the Tyson fight, which never came, because Tyson lost to Holyfield.

I skimmed the thread, the answer is Lewis by the way, so am not quite sure why the step aside issue came up, if it was brought up to suggest that Lewis was trying to dodge a tough Tyson fight consider who he fought in the interim period: Tommy Morrison (who was coming off a win in a minor classic over Razor Ruddock), Ray Mercer (who was one bad bastard at the time) and then the vacant tilt against McCall (iron jawed nutcase who had previously knocked Lewis out).

How does that equate to Lewis taking the money and running? He was frozen out of top fights, so took on the best available to him.

One of Joe's biggest wins was over a hyped up contender who then faded into oblivion, Lewis had a similar win, Grant, yet that is not a major Lewis win.

Joe's last fight, and win, was a long awaited fight with a finished Roy Jones. Lewis's last win came against a dangerous young fighter, at short notice.

As for Lewis losing to Vitali, nope, the points are not totted up until after the final belt, Lewis won where it counted, by landing the damaging shots in the body of the fight. VK blew his wad early and Lewis dogged him out.

Lewis had the better resume.

Agree with all of the above.

And me.

[DG.]

In my opinion, it would have to e Joe Calzaghe...

Lewis losses to McCalll and Rahman greatly invaldiate his status as a "legend" in my book.

He beat them in a rematch so that cances it out - in fact it makes him an even bigger champion in my book.

Calzaghe 'could' have fught better..

Lewis did and beat them all!

Tyson
Holyfield
Mavrovic
Mccall
Rahman
Ruddock
Tua
Botha
Morrison
Mason
Weaver

etc etc.


Lennox is the victor by a mile.

[oliverfennell]

Calzaghe. He was more entertaining and generally more talented IMO - unified SMW and proved he was the best over many years. As for Lewis...never enjoyed any of his fights...jab, jab, jab. Sparked out twice and just not my cup of tea.

Entertainment value should not be a factor in discussing achievements, otherwise Gatti would be considered better than Mayweather...

[oliverfennell]

One thing that always strikes me is that when Lewis did box in the UK, the one "home" title defence of his main championship reign and one UK appearance in the last nine years of his career, about 4,000 people turned up. Why was he so unpopular? Why did no one care? It would be interesting to have this debate in five years time, with a bit more distance.

I was there and there were a lot more than that in attendance by the time the main event started. I think the London Arena had about a 20,000 capacity and the place was about 70% full by the start of the main event.

[oliverfennell]

Let me tell you this, the very very casual fan rarely talks about Calzaghe,they can only remember the Eubank fight, and the Jones/Hopkins, but they know the latter were past it.

The very very casual fans I know remember most of Lewis's fights, and Naseems as well. Benns & Eubanks go without saying. For me, the fact the fans still recall fights and opponents from this group (maybe less Eubank) means to me they acheived far more and fought better opponenets.

And as for myself, I can't recall most of Joes defences, whereas Lennox, I recall far more. Lennox, hands down for me, fought far better opponents the Calzaghe did.

Fame with the general public is not necessarily a barometer of quality. I'm sure more people know Crazy Frog than It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back.

[oliverfennell]

Let me tell you, at the time Lewis fought Golota, he was considered anything but the nervous wreck he would later become in certain fights. He had just dished out two beatdowns on Riddick Bowe and practically ended his career and was on the verge of becmoing the next heavyweight badboy.
He was a very talented fighter too.
You can explain his mental disposition in later fights...it was because of the pounding Lewis laid on him.

I have an American friend who is of the theory that Lewis RUINED boxers. The critics might say the opponents were not that good, because they didn't go on to achieve much, but my friend says it's because of Lewis that they didn't. It's probably much the same with Lacy - he was a genuine "next big thing" but it's going to be nigh-on impossible to come all the way back from a beating/humbling like that. Not only is it physically draining, it's emotionally crushing too.

[gobbles]

One thing that always strikes me is that when Lewis did box in the UK, the one "home" title defence of his main championship reign and one UK appearance in the last nine years of his career, about 4,000 people turned up. Why was he so unpopular? Why did no one care? It would be interesting to have this debate in five years time, with a bit more distance.

I was there and there were a lot more than that in attendance by the time the main event started. I think the London Arena had about a 20,000 capacity and the place was about 70% full by the start of the main event.

London Arena had a capacity of about 9,000.