Larry Holmes vs Lennox Lewis (My View)

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 26 Mar 2006, 22:22

The other mixed bag of contenders he faced, arguably bad or good, were the following:

1.) Tommy Morrison (KO)
2.) Micheal Grant (KO)
3.) Francois Botha (KO)
4.) Phil Jackson (KO)
5.) Henry Awkinwande (DQ)

Among a few others. Looking at this, clearly to me, Lewis fought the greater opposition than what Holmes did---the difference was Holmes fought more often than Lewis, albiet over 2nd rate fighters.

Holmes greatest opponents were the following:

1.) Earnie Shavers 2-0-0 (once by KO)
2.) Muhammad Ali (TKO) Ali had early symptoms of Parkinson's
3.) Ken Norton (W15)---
4.) Gerry Cooney (TKO 13th)---"Great White Hope"
5.) Leon Spinks (KO) drug addict and multiple loser

The rest of them are a mixed bag of 2nd rate fighters and push-overs, such as the following:

1.) Tex Cobb
2.) Alfredo Evangelista
3.) Scott LeDoux
4.) Osvaldo Ocasio
5.) Lorenzo Zanon
6.) Marvis Frazier
7.) Scott Frank
8.) Leroy Jones

Then of course you have guys like Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith, Witherspoon, Snipes, Berbick, Carl Williams. In short
guys who never captured the imagination of nobody, and never
really were that great.

Holmes never unified the titles, but even if he did it wouldn't have really made a difference---Coetzee, Page and the other WBA rejects were just as bad if not worse than half the chumps Holmes faced.

Then Holmes lost to blown up Micheal Spinks. And again in the rematch, though it was controversial. Then two years later, without a tune up fight or anything, the ego-driven Holmes believed he could beat Tyson...he got knocked out easy.

Then he returned in 1991 and started a comeback and managed to ace Holyfield, after 5 fights with nobodies and one solid upset victory over Ray Mercer, lost a decision to Holyfield.
Took a year off, and fought guys like Everett "Big Foot" Martin and Ken Lakusta, before he faced McCall and lost a decision for the WBC title.

Never again he tried for a major title, but kept fighting off and on til 2002, when he beat Eric "Butterbean" Esch via 10 round decision. Then called out Juan Carlos Gomez, a former Cruiserweight champion, the fight never happened.

*****************************************************

So you have Lewis, who fought greater opposition in his reign, and Holmes who fought better opposition AFTER he was champion. Holmes longetivity and skills carried over into the 90's---but there is no doubt in my mind, that if Lewis did manage to make a come-back, that he would beat any of the top ten fighters out there.

The 90's was almost like the 70's there were a helluva lot of great Heavyweights---and even nearing their forties or more, these guys are still high in the division. Now you have a weak division, where there is nobody considered a true champion. Holmes entirely missed the majority of the 70's when everyone was all in their primes---so his 70's was the 90's.

Holmes couldn't do nothing in the division in the 90's, like Foreman did. Lewis ruled the 90's up til 2004.

I'd say Lewis' power, size, jab, and pretty fast speed for a man 6'5" and 245 pounds, would make Holmes desperate. Holmes was big for his era and used his jab to dominate smaller, less skilled men. Both men are alike in alot of ways.

But Lewis has the edge, as he beat better opposition, maybe not as often as Holmes did---but Lewis beat almost every man he faced CONVINCINGLY, unlike Holmes who had controversial wins over Witherspoon and faced men who really had no reason to be in there with Holmes (Frank/Marvis as example).

I'd say Lewis would beat Holmes inside of 8-10 rounds. Primes or not.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Mar 2006, 22:33

Holmes would DOMINATE Lewis. Outjab the whole fight. Quicker, much more skilled, much better stamina, much better inside fighter. Look at how Holmes schooled a 228 lb Ray Mercer, and then Lewis get beat around and in many people's eyes get a gift vs a 4 years older, 238 lb Mercer.

I love how you group Witherspoon, Snipes, Weaver, Smith, and Williams as guys who "didn't capture the public's imagination"

Who the hell were Michael Grant, Frans Botha, Henry Akinwande, Phil Jackson, and Hasim Rahman?? I would say the first group is a CLASS above those jokesters. And Rahman managed to knock out Lewis!!!

Then you say Cooney is a great white hope . . .what was the less durable Tommy Morrison then??

Next are the top opponents, Shavers and Norton, who were much more dangerous than the iron chinned but very limited and poorly conditioned Ray Mercer and an old Holyfield. Hell, I see the Norton who lost to Holmes knocking Lennox out.

If the 90s were comparable to the 70s in talent how come you had old 70s greats Foreman and Holmes (plus Witherspoon) in the top 10 but in the 1970s the top 10 had ZERO heavyweights over the age of 35!! (save Ali in the late 70s when he was doing the Spinks fights)

Much more depth is the answer.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 26 Mar 2006, 22:43

sorry for some reason more of what I wrote didnt appear on the original thread, so add this above the "Other Contenders" Lewis fought:

Lewis lost two times in his career, each time he avenged those losses in startling fashion. Outside of Riddick Bowe he faced almost every challenger there was.

Lewis faced a wide range of fighters, the best of those are listed below:

1.) Holyfield (2x's) 1-0-1
2.) Razor Ruddock (KO)
3.) Frank Bruno (KO)
4.) Gary Mason (KO)
5.) Davis Tua (W12)
6.) Hasim Rahman (KO4) 1-1-0
7.) Shannon Briggs (KO)
8.) Andrew Golota (KO)
9.) Oliver McCall (KO) 1-1-0
10.) Ray mercer (W12)
11.) Tony Tucker (W12)
12.) Tyrell Biggs (KO)
13.) Mike Weaver (KO)
14.) Mike Tyson (KO)
15.) Zeljko Mavrovic (W12)

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 27 Mar 2006, 00:45

Again Lewis beat a passed prime Holyfield, Holmes NEVER lost in his prime, he didn't lose to someone like a Rahman, or a McCall. I don't think Holmes is the greatest heavyweight of all time, but 48-0, means he showed up every night.

I give Lewis his due, he swept the division, and I think his fight with Tyson he was showing that he was THE heavyweight of his era, when people were grumbling about Lewis. As for him fighting Bowe, it was very apparent Bowe was ducking him.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 27 Mar 2006, 01:43

Lewis did beat very good competition and often did it convincingly. Interestingly, his career overlaps substantially with Holmes and they fought many of the same opponents although Holmes was past his prime when he faced some of them.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 27 Mar 2006, 02:03

hence which is why i said Holmes never lost in his prime. Eh, technically your right

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 27 Mar 2006, 02:18

I don't see how losses far past a fighters prime are of much relevance.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 27 Mar 2006, 03:42

What years do you consider Lewis's prime ?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 27 Mar 2006, 11:32

I've never seen Holmes-McCall but heard it was a pretty close fight

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 27 Mar 2006, 11:43

i'd slightly favour holmes over lewis but lennox's right hand could be a major factor in this fight.i don't see how larry DOMINATES it though.he had enough trouble with tim,williams,weaver,norton etc to suggest lewis could at least be competetive.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 27 Mar 2006, 11:50

Lewis use to say: "I'm a pugilist specialist".

Well, ultimately, Lewis would meet a better "pugilist specialist" than himself when facing Holmes. Larry would take him to school, maybe even TKO in the late rounds. If not, Hokmes wins by clear decision!

witherspoon · Post by **witherspoon** » 27 Mar 2006, 16:08

IrishRufusMurphy wrote: Then of course you have guys like Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith, Witherspoon, Snipes, Berbick, Carl Williams. In short
guys who never captured the imagination of nobody, and never
really were that great.

Tim in his prime would beat Lewis.

He captured my imagination.

Larry might not have had any tune ups before he stepped in with Tyson, but he did not get any younger after that. He handled Ray Mercer easier than Lewis did and he gave Holyfield a good argument.
In his prime Holmes is too good for Lennox Lewis.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 27 Mar 2006, 16:10

Larry by KO - No sweat. Larry better in every department

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 27 Mar 2006, 16:11

Decagon wrote:
generic screen name wrote:Again Lewis beat a passed prime Holyfield, Holmes NEVER lost in his prime, he didn't lose to someone like a Rahman, or a McCall.
Um, actually Holmes did lose to McCall. He was 47 and all, but he still did lose to him.

So Lewis, by this logic, at any stage of his career is better than a 47 year old Holmes, right?
And?????????????????

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 27 Mar 2006, 17:33

This is absolutley no contest. Holmes puts arrogant Lewis into a coma, Lewis even refused to fight a 48 year old Holmes - What does that tell you?

Holmes is better in every single department, he has beaten the far better opponents, Holmes has gotten up to WIN unlike arrogant Lewis and Lewis's chin is not what you call reliable. Great fighters just do NOT get knocked out by the likes of McCall and Rahman.

The only win which I count that Lewis has is Ruddock, but even Ruddock had to not only fight Lewis but fight the disgraceful paritsan crowd who treated him literally like scum. The Tyson fights also took something out of Ruddock.

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 27 Mar 2006, 22:55

i posted a similar thread a while back, i think it would be a very close fight and there is a good case for both fighters to win.

it just seems to me that a lot of Americans refuse to give Lennox the credit he deserves because he lost to Rahman and Mccall, even though he destroyed them both in rematches. upsets do happen for fornicate sake, remember douglas-tyson.
and Rahman could knock just about anyone out if he landed clean IMO, Lewis got cocky and paid for it.
so to say that Lennox is not a great HW ecause he lost in his prime is like saying Ali is no good because he lost to Norton.

another thing is that you all say he "struggled" against a past prime Holyfield, but as far as i know Lewis still deserves credit for that because Holy was still a top contender at the time, Holy beat a past prime tyson and everyone kissed his ass for it. clear bias.

I rate lewis very highly for several reasons,
he was a technically sound fighter with a good jab and one of the hardest right hands i have ever seen, he reigned well into his thirties, ( think he was 37 when he retired?) and he beat some good opponents.
and i think i just have a soft spot for him because he was the great heavyweight of our time, and the first one that i was old enought to acctually give a dam about.

anyway back to the topic of the fight, i would say Larry wins 2/3 fights in an epic trilogy

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Mar 2006, 02:48

wasnt evander holyfield the greatest heavyweight of our time?

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 28 Mar 2006, 04:48

bigzab wrote:
Decagon wrote:
generic screen name wrote:Again Lewis beat a passed prime Holyfield, Holmes NEVER lost in his prime, he didn't lose to someone like a Rahman, or a McCall.
Um, actually Holmes did lose to McCall. He was 47 and all, but he still did lose to him.
So Lewis, by this logic, at any stage of his career is better than a 47 year old Holmes, right?
And?????????????????

No, a prime Lewis got KTFO by McCall. Wheras a 47 yo Holmes lost a decision.

Holmes would embarass Lewis. I cant beleive anyone would see Lewis winning he's just not that good.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Mar 2006, 05:34

holmes would really bust lennox up in all areas, though i will give lennox a punchers chance. holmes TKO 13 lennox.

take a look at common opponents

44 year old holmes w 12 WIDE unanimous over ray mercer

prime lennox W 10 close controverial over ray mercer

47 year old holmes L close 12 decision oliver mccall

prime lennox L KO by 2 oliver mccall

man, those facts are NOT helping lennox out one bit!

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 28 Mar 2006, 13:14

Lewis was not in Holmes league. I don't particularly like Holmes, but he was better than Lennox who got clean KO'd by two very ordinary fighters and Holmes opposition was better. Lennoxs' chin will always cave when he's hit damn hard and Holmes will nail him more than Rahman who was average. Lewis' stamina was not near as good, they both had great jabs, but overall, Holmes had more grit, heart and could take it better than Lewis. For a guy with such physical advantages, Lennox never showed true greatness...

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 28 Mar 2006, 13:15

Oh I do agree that Lewis has a punchers chance and he could really wallop when given the chance. I just think Larry may be too cute to be caught napping

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 28 Mar 2006, 19:46

Decagon wrote:A lot of you guys seem to be arguing with Boxrec or something. Holmes was more hurt against Shavers than Lewis was against Rahman. The referee simply let Holmes-Shavers II continue.

But Larry got up in time

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Mar 2006, 20:48

McCall??? Ok then....well now thats a completely different kettle of fish. I was about to go after ya there.

rufus payne · Post by **rufus payne** » 29 Mar 2006, 16:27

Holmes a better boxer

Larry Holmes vs Lennox Lewis (My View)

Larry Holmes vs Lennox Lewis (My View)

Holmes vs Lewis

Holmes prime

prime Lewis

Re: Larry Holmes vs Lennox Lewis (My View)