Lewis or Calzaghe - boxrec news

[gobbles]

Lennox Lewis fought far more dangerous opponents than Joe, away from home most of the time.

Calzaghe's best 10 wins

Klitschko - 10 - Bika
Tyson - 9 - Jones Jnr.
Mercer - 8 - Reid
Bruno - 7 - Woodhall
Ruddock - 6 - Brewer
Briggs - 5 - Lacy
Golota - 4 - Mitchell
Tua 3 - Eubank
Rahman II 2 - Kessler
Holyfield - 1 - Hopkins
If those were pound for pound contest made at the respective points in their careers those fighters were at, whose resume would win - I'd back Tyson, Mercer, Briggs, Golota, Holyfield with confidence, and make a strong argument for Ruddock, Bruno and Klitschko (though he's dog-turd him versus Bika woudl be the ugliest fight EVER)too. I'll give Kessler the benefit of the doubt and Eubank would prove too awkward for Tua. And I've not included several who would match well against Calzaghe's numerous left-over victories.

How on earth does Rahman deserve to be rated that high? Or Tua, or crazy Golota? You've just done those match-ups to suit your argument. And Briggs, dear oh dear.
What you are doing is that typical, do down all of Calzaghe's opponents on what they did after, while bigging up Lewis's.

You cannot say that Briggs was as highly though of as Lacy going into their respective fights.

And as regards pound-for-pound Tyson rating. Tyson could barely ahve stood up for 12 rounds when Lewis fought him, let alone beaten anyone on a piund-for-pound basis.

And regards the earlier points about Bowe and Tyson.

Why do the same people say "Bowe wanted no part of Lewis" yet claim that Calzaghe could have fought Ottke, when clearly Ottke wanted no part of Calzaghe. Totally hypocritical. One rule for your fave, another rule for the guy you want to do down.
As they say, Bowe-Lewis would have been made if it made financial sense to Bowe.

[youngrell]

Not necessarily when you were expected to win the 2 fights you got KO'd in, easily

That doesn't matter, upsets happen in every form of sport (ie. Manchester United lose to teams they are expected to beat) and it's not about who you lose to, it's about how you deal with it and Lewis dealt with it easily, a lesser man would have fallen apart and never recovered his nerve.

No disrespect to Calzaghe who is a fine fighter in his own right but I just rate Lewis higher because he's had more questions asked about him and answered them easily.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think both guys were great and I wasn't having a go at Lewis at all, we was an amazing fighter. It just urks me sometimes when people give more respect to someone if they've lost, that doesn't really make much sense to me.

In comparison, if Joe had lost to say Sheika and Brewer then I can't imagine the abuse he would get compared to Lewis' losses.

It's really difficult to judge these two fighters career's as they were in completely different weight classes. Looking at HW's it's easy to be more in awe of their victories because their opponents appear more intimidating due to size, and you can also argue that the skill levels are higher in the lower division. My take is both were great boxers whom I really admire, Lewis has the more rounded skills and a better resume, while Calzaghe was a better athelete/fighter and was infinitely more pleasing on the eye.

[Captain Hook]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2009/who-wa ... e-calzaghe

by Martin Williams on the Boxrec News Page

Your vote and why

Who the hell is Lovemachine!! I promise I'm not posting as myself!

[gobbles]

Not necessarily when you were expected to win the 2 fights you got KO'd in, easily

That doesn't matter, upsets happen in every form of sport (ie. Manchester United lose to teams they are expected to beat) and it's not about who you lose to, it's about how you deal with it and Lewis dealt with it easily, a lesser man would have fallen apart and never recovered his nerve.

No disrespect to Calzaghe who is a fine fighter in his own right but I just rate Lewis higher because he's had more questions asked about him and answered them easily.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think both guys were great and I wasn't having a go at Lewis at all, we was an amazing fighter. It just urks me sometimes when people give more respect to someone if they've lost, that doesn't really make much sense to me.

In comparison, if Joe had lost to say Sheika and Brewer then I can't imagine the abuse he would get compared to Lewis' losses.

It's really difficult to judge these two fighters career's as they were in completely different weight classes. Looking at HW's it's easy to be more in awe of their victories because their opponents appear more intimidating due to size, and you can also argue that the skill levels are higher in the lower division. My take is both were great boxers whom I really admire, Lewis has the more rounded skills and a better resume, while Calzaghe was a better athelete/fighter and was infinitely more pleasing on the eye.

I think the debate probably just comes down to which of the two was your favorite.

I would say Lewis has the better record, but his often negative style that he developed under Steward bored the pants off a lot of people. However, I think we got to know how good Lewis was when we never really got to the bottom of Calzaghe's potential, which will always be frustrating. So Lewis, for me, had the better record, Calzaghe was more talented.

[youngrell]

I think the debate probably just comes down to which of the two was your favorite.

I would say Lewis has the better record, but his often negative style that he developed under Steward bored the pants off a lot of people. However, I think we got to know how good Lewis was when we never really got to the bottom of Calzaghe's potential, which will always be frustrating. So Lewis, for me, had the better record, Calzaghe was more talented.

[oliverfennell]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2009/who-wa ... e-calzaghe

by Martin Williams on the Boxrec News Page

Your vote and why

Who the hell is Lovemachine!! I promise I'm not posting as myself!

Hywel Trewyn?

[LoveMachine]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2009/who-wa ... e-calzaghe

by Martin Williams on the Boxrec News Page

Your vote and why

Who the hell is Lovemachine!! I promise I'm not posting as myself!

Hywel Trewyn?

You promised not to tell

[oliverfennell]

Hywel Trewyn should post under something less immediately-revealing than "Love Machine" if he wished to remain anonymous.

[stujones]

Lennox most definately.

[jBacca]

Easily Lennox.

[DavidPayne]

Lennox Lewis fought far more dangerous opponents than Joe, away from home most of the time.

Calzaghe's best 10 wins

Klitschko - 10 - Bika
Tyson - 9 - Jones Jnr.
Mercer - 8 - Reid
Bruno - 7 - Woodhall
Ruddock - 6 - Brewer
Briggs - 5 - Lacy
Golota - 4 - Mitchell
Tua 3 - Eubank
Rahman II 2 - Kessler
Holyfield - 1 - Hopkins
If those were pound for pound contest made at the respective points in their careers those fighters were at, whose resume would win - I'd back Tyson, Mercer, Briggs, Golota, Holyfield with confidence, and make a strong argument for Ruddock, Bruno and Klitschko (though he's dog-turd him versus Bika woudl be the ugliest fight EVER)too. I'll give Kessler the benefit of the doubt and Eubank would prove too awkward for Tua. And I've not included several who would match well against Calzaghe's numerous left-over victories.

How on earth does Rahman deserve to be rated that high? Or Tua, or crazy Golota? You've just done those match-ups to suit your argument. And Briggs, dear oh dear.
What you are doing is that typical, do down all of Calzaghe's opponents on what they did after, while bigging up Lewis's.

You cannot say that Briggs was as highly though of as Lacy going into their respective fights.

And as regards pound-for-pound Tyson rating. Tyson could barely ahve stood up for 12 rounds when Lewis fought him, let alone beaten anyone on a piund-for-pound basis.

And regards the earlier points about Bowe and Tyson.

Why do the same people say "Bowe wanted no part of Lewis" yet claim that Calzaghe could have fought Ottke, when clearly Ottke wanted no part of Calzaghe. Totally hypocritical. One rule for your fave, another rule for the guy you want to do down.
As they say, Bowe-Lewis would have been made if it made financial sense to Bowe.

I did try to make the fighters listed at each position of similar distinction. I think youy have to recognise the fighters in the round, but on the whole at the point they were when they were beaten. Please illuminate me as to why I should rank Lacy higher than Briggs........in an era of one champion, Lacy is merely a leading contender who was green bhind the ears. And I thought I was being gracious to Calzaghe by ranking Lewis' victories over VK and Tyson as his 9th and 10th best wins. And I think comparing Tysona nd Jones at the times LL and JC fought them is entirely reasonable and even-handed. Tua and Eubank are comparable at the time they were faced too as both had peaked and were either injured or at short-notice. Moved down the list I still maintain they are equivalent performances.

[gobbles]

Lennox Lewis fought far more dangerous opponents than Joe, away from home most of the time.

Calzaghe's best 10 wins

Klitschko - 10 - Bika
Tyson - 9 - Jones Jnr.
Mercer - 8 - Reid
Bruno - 7 - Woodhall
Ruddock - 6 - Brewer
Briggs - 5 - Lacy
Golota - 4 - Mitchell
Tua 3 - Eubank
Rahman II 2 - Kessler
Holyfield - 1 - Hopkins
If those were pound for pound contest made at the respective points in their careers those fighters were at, whose resume would win - I'd back Tyson, Mercer, Briggs, Golota, Holyfield with confidence, and make a strong argument for Ruddock, Bruno and Klitschko (though he's dog-turd him versus Bika woudl be the ugliest fight EVER)too. I'll give Kessler the benefit of the doubt and Eubank would prove too awkward for Tua. And I've not included several who would match well against Calzaghe's numerous left-over victories.

How on earth does Rahman deserve to be rated that high? Or Tua, or crazy Golota? You've just done those match-ups to suit your argument. And Briggs, dear oh dear.
What you are doing is that typical, do down all of Calzaghe's opponents on what they did after, while bigging up Lewis's.

You cannot say that Briggs was as highly though of as Lacy going into their respective fights.

And as regards pound-for-pound Tyson rating. Tyson could barely ahve stood up for 12 rounds when Lewis fought him, let alone beaten anyone on a piund-for-pound basis.

And regards the earlier points about Bowe and Tyson.

Why do the same people say "Bowe wanted no part of Lewis" yet claim that Calzaghe could have fought Ottke, when clearly Ottke wanted no part of Calzaghe. Totally hypocritical. One rule for your fave, another rule for the guy you want to do down.
As they say, Bowe-Lewis would have been made if it made financial sense to Bowe.

I did try to make the fighters listed at each position of similar distinction. I think youy have to recognise the fighters in the round, but on the whole at the point they were when they were beaten. Please illuminate me as to why I should rank Lacy higher than Briggs........in an era of one champion, Lacy is merely a leading contender who was green bhind the ears. And I thought I was being gracious to Calzaghe by ranking Lewis' victories over VK and Tyson as his 9th and 10th best wins. And I think comparing Tysona nd Jones at the times LL and JC fought them is entirely reasonable and even-handed. Tua and Eubank are comparable at the time they were faced too as both had peaked and were either injured or at short-notice. Moved down the list I still maintain they are equivalent performances.

Well, for starters, Tua's achievements before and after Lewis do not come close to Eubank's achievements, as he only beat a few fringe contenders and indeed lost to the likes of Byrd. If he was compared to anyone, I would suggest a Byron Mitchell. Rahman's name only got bigger because he flattened Lewis and I don't see how Lewis's reputation gets greater because he was beaten by two very average fighters. Indeed, should Bruno's reputation get so much better because he beat McCall, or was that merely putting McCall in his rightful place in the middle of division 2. Was Ali's reputation boosted by losing to two world champions in Berbick and Holmes? Of course not, neither was it by losing to someone as average as Spinks.
Perhaps you can forgive Lewis the McCall defeat, like you can pass over Louis's loss to Schmeling (although Schmeling was a lot better than McCall), but to lose twice to guys of that standard?
Brigg's big claim to fame was a debatable win over an elderly George Foreman, but he had already been exposed by someone called Darroll Wilson and had no other names on his record. Lacy, on the other hand, had won a title, was unbeaten, had built up an impressive record and reputation, and had a lot of momentum behind him.

[NazNaci1]

Lewis. Undisputed heavyweight champion. Reigned earlier and for longer. Sure, lost a couple but came back strong and consistently fought the best available men. Lewis is a certified all of famer in a fame-worthy division.

x2 Calzaghe has achieved nowhere near what Lewis did and the thing about Lewis he wanted the big fights right from the off unlike Calzaghe. Lewis by far.

x5

[tonyevs]

I`d use both Lewis`s fights against Oliver McCall to prove my point why calzaghe deserves the nod.

Lewis got sparked in the 1st fight .. and showed a set of ball that wouldn`t have looked out of place hanging between a sparrows legs in the 2nd fight

The money in heavyweight boxing makes it a silly comparison to compare it to any other weight division. Calzaghe wouldn`t have made more money fighting in the USA the same way as what Lewis did .. its silly to say Lewis fought in the USA for anything other than the larger purses on offer.

Lewis had some great wins, as did calzaghe.
As much critism as Joe gets for fighting RJJ and BHop .. why doesn`t anybody level the same critism towards Lewis for fighting an old Holyfield and the shell of Tyson? does anybody seriously think these two names were anything close to their best??

[NazNaci1]

Lewis had some great wins, as did calzaghe.
As much critism as Joe gets for fighting RJJ and BHop .. why doesn`t anybody level the same critism towards Lewis for fighting an old Holyfield and the shell of Tyson? does anybody seriously think these two names were anything close to their best??

I think the reason for this is that Lewis was actively seeking matches with Holyfield and Tyson aswell as Bowe (yes I know he didnt get to fight him), before they were actually made.

Calzaghe suffered 10yrs of weight issues etc at SMW and one of the reasons for that was RJJ was untouchable during this period at LH and regardless of all the smoke screen rubbish, 'Allegedly' and Calzaghe did not want to go near him at this time.

Ditto for B-Hop - Too much risk. Add the abortive Johnson fights (and he would have really tested Calzaghe back then tbh).

Hence why I believe Calzaghe will always be considered inferior. The '0' means nothing to boxing fans, they look at who they fought, who they didn't, when and why they did and why they did not.

[tonyevs]

I agree the 0 means little on a fighters record .. but to lose twice against guys who were little better than average on the world scene at that time - and by devastating KO`s - really does mean something.

[gobbles]

Lewis had some great wins, as did calzaghe.
As much critism as Joe gets for fighting RJJ and BHop .. why doesn`t anybody level the same critism towards Lewis for fighting an old Holyfield and the shell of Tyson? does anybody seriously think these two names were anything close to their best??

I think the reason for this is that Lewis was actively seeking matches with Holyfield and Tyson aswell as Bowe (yes I know he didnt get to fight him), before they were actually made.

Calzaghe suffered 10yrs of weight issues etc at SMW and one of the reasons for that was RJJ was untouchable during this period at LH and regardless of all the smoke screen rubbish, 'Allegedly' and Calzaghe did not want to go near him at this time.

Ditto for B-Hop - Too much risk. Add the abortive Johnson fights (and he would have really tested Calzaghe back then tbh).

Hence why I believe Calzaghe will always be considered inferior. The '0' means nothing to boxing fans, they look at who they fought, who they didn't, when and why they did and why they did not.

Lewis said he was actively seeking those matches. You believe too much what you read on here. Calzaghe would have loved all those matches, but he never got the offers. Lewis was a heavyweight with an HBO deal, Calzaghe was a super-middleweight with no US TV deal. There is a big difference.

As for the "0 means little to boxing fans". I know it's Christmas but what a daft statement. I suppose winning means nothing, then? The sport's all about winning. Lewis didn't lose to Frazier and Foreman, he lost to a couple of second-raters. The equivalent in Calzaghe's record would have been if he'd have lost to someone like Omar Sheika - McCall and Rahman were hand-picked easy fights and he blew them both.

[yiddo14]

Lewis boring?

Only if you dont really like boxing.

Tell me when Lewis was boring for a sustained period.

People say the Tua fight was boring...hmm, I thought it was great. An example of how to take a guys assets away from him, with ease. Tua got a lesson. Ibeaubuchi, the next so called great heavy went life and death and shipped a million shots against the Tuaman, Lewis toyed with him, yet Lewis is boring.
He blew Rahman away in the 2nd fight, outboxed Holyfield in both their fights, demolished Tyson, didn't lose a round, blew Grant, and Golota away completely, totally ruined both fighters in the process too.

Lennox Lewis, boring? Yeah alright, stop listening to Larry poxy Merchant and go watch Tennis or something.

You want boring, watch Calzaghe against Bika etc.

Calzaghe was a very, very good fighter, Lewis was a genuine all time great.

[NazNaci1]

Lewis had some great wins, as did calzaghe.
As much critism as Joe gets for fighting RJJ and BHop .. why doesn`t anybody level the same critism towards Lewis for fighting an old Holyfield and the shell of Tyson? does anybody seriously think these two names were anything close to their best??

I think the reason for this is that Lewis was actively seeking matches with Holyfield and Tyson aswell as Bowe (yes I know he didnt get to fight him), before they were actually made.

Calzaghe suffered 10yrs of weight issues etc at SMW and one of the reasons for that was RJJ was untouchable during this period at LH and regardless of all the smoke screen rubbish, 'Allegedly' and Calzaghe did not want to go near him at this time.

Ditto for B-Hop - Too much risk. Add the abortive Johnson fights (and he would have really tested Calzaghe back then tbh).

Hence why I believe Calzaghe will always be considered inferior. The '0' means nothing to boxing fans, they look at who they fought, who they didn't, when and why they did and why they did not.

Lewis said he was actively seeking those matches. You believe too much what you read on here. Calzaghe would have loved all those matches, but he never got the offers. Lewis was a heavyweight with an HBO deal, Calzaghe was a super-middleweight with no US TV deal. There is a big difference.

As for the "0 means little to boxing fans". I know it's Christmas but what a daft statement. I suppose winning means nothing, then? The sport's all about winning. Lewis didn't lose to Frazier and Foreman, he lost to a couple of second-raters. The equivalent in Calzaghe's record would have been if he'd have lost to someone like Omar Sheika - McCall and Rahman were hand-picked easy fights and he blew them both.

The fact you think that being undefeated is a gimme is absolutely daft in itself And to be perfectly honest, what a load of cobblers to say I believe too much of what is written on these forums - I was following Lewis's career way way before I even started posting here

And as for Calzaghe loving those matches etc....you believe too much of what is written on these forums or worse yet, you actually take , at face value, what FW and Calzaghe Jnr and Snr had been spouting.

McCall and Rahman 2nd raters? You compare them to Sheika? Easy fights? McCall was his mandatory, which brings me onto another point, Lewis fought his mandatories, whereas Calzaghe fought just two, TWO in 10 yrs. That says it all to be honest, too much blowing smoke up backsides when it comes to Calzaghe. To compare him to Lewis is just stupid, to say he was superior is plain ridiculus

You have your opinion which is cool, I am not interested in changing it and probably wont, all I'll say is facts speak for themselves. Calzaghe was undefeated, fighting plenty of non-descript opponents in his backyard, that dont compare to anything Lewis did, and thats the bottom line.