Lennox Lewis: Is He in the Great Larry Holmes' Class?

[GreenShadow]

Yeah, approximately 300 million Yanks.

we can trade insults all day and night if you want to. but what's the point in that.

[GreenShadow]

Yeah, approximately 300 million Yanks.

we can trade insults all day and night if you want to. but what's the point in that.

Then take your own advice and be quiet, like you were telling folks to do on the Leonard / steroid thread.

Oh and by the way my reading comprehension is so good I can even correct the spelling mistakes. It is " be quiet " not be quite.

thanks for proof reading, now just try reading, see how you make out with that.

[Controversial]

Lewis was good enough to beat any HW in history on his night. Although he was stopped twice both times it was to decent punchers, 16.5 stone McCall and 18 stone Rahman. Sometimes these things happen it doesn't mean his chin was necessarily bad, anyone caught flush by punchers that size could face a similar fate. He beat too many other punchers without a hiccup so those defeats were unfortunate but more importantly avenged.

[Cojimar 1946]

It's unfortunate the Tyson and Holyfield fights didn't happen at earlier dates.

[ewenhay]

It's unfortunate the Tyson and Holyfield fights didn't happen at earlier dates.

You could say the same about the Holyfield v Tyson fights. The only ones of the top 4 fighters of that era who fought near to prime v prime were Bowe v Holyfield. When the others fought each other they were all post prime to greater or lesser degrees

[Ambling Alp II]

What about important factors such Lewis winning at "all levels" such as the British title? The Olympic Gold Medal? Being a beast?
The great Larry Holmes was unable to do these things.

Lennox Lewis was a good champion. Not a great one. He didn't had as many fights as the great Larry Holmes. He didn't dominate the heavyweight division like Holmes did. Holmes defended the crown 20 times in 7 years. An amazing run. He was the real beast. Don't compare my words of what I have said about the great Pascual Perez. Perez was a better flyweight than Lewis being a heavyweight.

It just cracks me up with the varying criteria that you use. Suddenly silly stuff like national titles and being a beast don't mean anything when it doesn't favor your guy. Nor does an Olympic Gold Medal for Lewis but it does for Perez. For Pascual Perez it was a big deal because you like him. For Lewis it isn't because you don't like him.

I think Holmes was slightly better but nowhere near as much as you say. That is because I use the same criteria when evaluating fighters. I don't just pick and choose what favors the guy I like which is what you do.

There is plenty of things in Lewis' favor:
He unified the title. If the situation was reversed, you would make a big deal about it.
Holmes was as badly hurt vs Snipes and Lewis was vs McCall. The difference was that the referee jumped in the McCall fight.
Holmes barely beat Witherspoon; the decision could have gone the way. He looked bad for most of the Weaver fight. The Williams decision was ridiculous; Holmes looked terrible in the fight.

[elmersalsa]

What about important factors such Lewis winning at "all levels" such as the British title? The Olympic Gold Medal? Being a beast?
The great Larry Holmes was unable to do these things.

Lennox Lewis was a good champion. Not a great one. He didn't had as many fights as the great Larry Holmes. He didn't dominate the heavyweight division like Holmes did. Holmes defended the crown 20 times in 7 years. An amazing run. He was the real beast. Don't compare my words of what I have said about the great Pascual Perez. Perez was a better flyweight than Lewis being a heavyweight.

It just cracks me up with the varying criteria that you use. Suddenly silly stuff like national titles and being a beast don't mean anything when it doesn't favor your guy. Nor does an Olympic Gold Medal for Lewis but it does for Perez. For Pascual Perez it was a big deal because you like him. For Lewis it isn't because you don't like him.

I think Holmes was slightly better but nowhere near as much as you say. That is because I use the same criteria when evaluating fighters. I don't just pick and choose what favors the guy I like which is what you do.

There is plenty of things in Lewis' favor:
He unified the title. If the situation was reversed, you would make a big deal about it.
Holmes was as badly hurt vs Snipes and Lewis was vs McCall. The difference was that the referee jumped in the McCall fight.
Holmes barely beat Witherspoon; the decision could have gone the way. He looked bad for most of the Weaver fight. The Williams decision was ridiculous; Holmes looked terrible in the fight.

It ain't that I don't like Lennox Lewis. He just simply was not a great fighter like people want him to be. He was a good champion. But, he lacked that great win to categorize him as a great fighter.

You can't compare him to the career of the great Pascual Perez. Perez had much more fights and was a consistent winner in his weight class. He had 92 professional boxing matches. For a fighter, that is a lot of fights. He was champion in all levels of competition. And he started at 26. I imagine if he would have start in 1948 instead of 1952? He would have had much more fights fighting at that rate. Perez had 11 interrupted title defenses. His first defeat was at age 33 after more than 52 bouts.

[Controversial]

It ain't that I don't like Lennox Lewis. He just simply was not a great fighter like people want him to be. He was a good champion. But, he lacked that great win to categorize him as a great fighter.

Who was Holmes' great win over?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Lennox Lewis was a good champion. Not a great one. He didn't had as many fights as the great Larry Holmes. He didn't dominate the heavyweight division like Holmes did. Holmes defended the crown 20 times in 7 years. An amazing run. He was the real beast. Don't compare my words of what I have said about the great Pascual Perez. Perez was a better flyweight than Lewis being a heavyweight.

It just cracks me up with the varying criteria that you use. Suddenly silly stuff like national titles and being a beast don't mean anything when it doesn't favor your guy. Nor does an Olympic Gold Medal for Lewis but it does for Perez. For Pascual Perez it was a big deal because you like him. For Lewis it isn't because you don't like him.

I think Holmes was slightly better but nowhere near as much as you say. That is because I use the same criteria when evaluating fighters. I don't just pick and choose what favors the guy I like which is what you do.

There is plenty of things in Lewis' favor:
He unified the title. If the situation was reversed, you would make a big deal about it.
Holmes was as badly hurt vs Snipes and Lewis was vs McCall. The difference was that the referee jumped in the McCall fight.
Holmes barely beat Witherspoon; the decision could have gone the way. He looked bad for most of the Weaver fight. The Williams decision was ridiculous; Holmes looked terrible in the fight.

It ain't that I don't like Lennox Lewis. He just simply was not a great fighter like people want him to be. He was a good champion. But, he lacked that great win to categorize him as a great fighter.

You can't compare him to the career of the great Pascual Perez. Perez had much more fights and was a consistent winner in his weight class. He had 92 professional boxing matches. For a fighter, that is a lot of fights. He was champion in all levels of competition. And he started at 26. I imagine if he would have start in 1948 instead of 1952? He would have had much more fights fighting at that rate. Perez had 11 interrupted title defenses. His first defeat was at age 33 after more than 52 bouts.

What was the great win Perez had that Lewis lacked?

[banjo]

Depends on how highly you rate Holmes and I don't rate him as highly as some people seem to.

[elmersalsa]

It just cracks me up with the varying criteria that you use. Suddenly silly stuff like national titles and being a beast don't mean anything when it doesn't favor your guy. Nor does an Olympic Gold Medal for Lewis but it does for Perez. For Pascual Perez it was a big deal because you like him. For Lewis it isn't because you don't like him.

I think Holmes was slightly better but nowhere near as much as you say. That is because I use the same criteria when evaluating fighters. I don't just pick and choose what favors the guy I like which is what you do.

There is plenty of things in Lewis' favor:
He unified the title. If the situation was reversed, you would make a big deal about it.
Holmes was as badly hurt vs Snipes and Lewis was vs McCall. The difference was that the referee jumped in the McCall fight.
Holmes barely beat Witherspoon; the decision could have gone the way. He looked bad for most of the Weaver fight. The Williams decision was ridiculous; Holmes looked terrible in the fight.

It ain't that I don't like Lennox Lewis. He just simply was not a great fighter like people want him to be. He was a good champion. But, he lacked that great win to categorize him as a great fighter.

You can't compare him to the career of the great Pascual Perez. Perez had much more fights and was a consistent winner in his weight class. He had 92 professional boxing matches. For a fighter, that is a lot of fights. He was champion in all levels of competition. And he started at 26. I imagine if he would have start in 1948 instead of 1952? He would have had much more fights fighting at that rate. Perez had 11 interrupted title defenses. His first defeat was at age 33 after more than 52 bouts.

What was the great win Perez had that Lewis lacked?

None of the two had a great win. That's why I said before, you can't go by quality of opposition alone when rating fighters. You gotta see the whole picture. Lennox Lewis had only 46 fights. Pascual Perez had 92, and won 84 of them. And he started real late as a pro at age 26. He probably would have had much more fights and probably over 100 wins if he would have started 4 years earlier by the rate he was going. He held the crown for 6 years and 11 interrupted title defenses. He lost his first fight after 52 contests. That is remarkable for any boxer.

[elmersalsa]

It ain't that I don't like Lennox Lewis. He just simply was not a great fighter like people want him to be. He was a good champion. But, he lacked that great win to categorize him as a great fighter.

Who was Holmes' great win over?

Holmes beat Ken Norton in one of heavyweight championship's greatest slugfests.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It ain't that I don't like Lennox Lewis. He just simply was not a great fighter like people want him to be. He was a good champion. But, he lacked that great win to categorize him as a great fighter.

You can't compare him to the career of the great Pascual Perez. Perez had much more fights and was a consistent winner in his weight class. He had 92 professional boxing matches. For a fighter, that is a lot of fights. He was champion in all levels of competition. And he started at 26. I imagine if he would have start in 1948 instead of 1952? He would have had much more fights fighting at that rate. Perez had 11 interrupted title defenses. His first defeat was at age 33 after more than 52 bouts.

What was the great win Perez had that Lewis lacked?

None of the two had a great win. That's why I said before, you can't go by quality of opposition alone when rating fighters. You gotta see the whole picture. Lennox Lewis had only 46 fights. Pascual Perez had 92, and won 84 of them. And he started real late as a pro at age 26. He probably would have had much more fights and probably over 100 wins if he would have started 4 years earlier by the rate he was going. He held the crown for 6 years and 11 interrupted title defenses. He lost his first fight after 52 contests. That is remarkable for any boxer.

You said Lennox lacked the great win to make him a great fighter. What was the great win that made Perez a great fighter?

[elmersalsa]

What was the great win Perez had that Lewis lacked?

None of the two had a great win. That's why I said before, you can't go by quality of opposition alone when rating fighters. You gotta see the whole picture. Lennox Lewis had only 46 fights. Pascual Perez had 92, and won 84 of them. And he started real late as a pro at age 26. He probably would have had much more fights and probably over 100 wins if he would have started 4 years earlier by the rate he was going. He held the crown for 6 years and 11 interrupted title defenses. He lost his first fight after 52 contests. That is remarkable for any boxer.

You said Lennox lacked the great win to make him a great fighter. What was the great win that made Perez a great fighter?

In comparison to Holmes. In comparison to Perez, none of the two beat a great fighter in their prime. But, Perez fought much more fights than Lewis. He doubled Lewis' amount of fights.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

None of the two had a great win. That's why I said before, you can't go by quality of opposition alone when rating fighters. You gotta see the whole picture. Lennox Lewis had only 46 fights. Pascual Perez had 92, and won 84 of them. And he started real late as a pro at age 26. He probably would have had much more fights and probably over 100 wins if he would have started 4 years earlier by the rate he was going. He held the crown for 6 years and 11 interrupted title defenses. He lost his first fight after 52 contests. That is remarkable for any boxer.

You said Lennox lacked the great win to make him a great fighter. What was the great win that made Perez a great fighter?

In comparison to Holmes. In comparison to Perez, none of the two beat a great fighter in their prime. But, Perez fought much more fights than Lewis. He doubled Lewis' amount of fights.

[drunkenpiper36]

[/quote]

He didn't dominate the heavyweight division like Holmes did. .
[/quote]

While I rate Holmes a little bit higher than Lewis, Larry hardly dominated his division. He never unified the title and was even stripped of the one belt he had for avoiding a mandatory. A lot of his defenses consisted of men like Lucien Rodriguez, Scott Frank, Alfredo Evangelista, Scott Ledoux, Lorenzo Zanon, David Bey, etc, when there were better challengers or co-champions around to fight.. He also might have benfited from a gift decision or two..

[ElJefe]

Both brilliant HWs. Both easily top 10. Arguably top 5. Aside from Ali and Louis, who stand out as 1 and 2 in either order, the rest of the top 10 is largely interchangeable. Was Holmes better than Lewis? Possibly. Could Lewis have beaten Holmes? Possibly. Is there a big enough gap between them in terms of skill and/or resume that you can say that one is a class above the other? Not in my opinion.

None of the two had a great win. That's why I said before, you can't go by quality of opposition alone when rating fighters. You gotta see the whole picture. Lennox Lewis had only 46 fights. Pascual Perez had 92, and won 84 of them. And he started real late as a pro at age 26. He probably would have had much more fights and probably over 100 wins if he would have started 4 years earlier by the rate he was going. He held the crown for 6 years and 11 interrupted title defenses. He lost his first fight after 52 contests. That is remarkable for any boxer.

You said Lennox lacked the great win to make him a great fighter. What was the great win that made Perez a great fighter?

In comparison to Holmes. In comparison to Perez, none of the two beat a great fighter in their prime. But, Perez fought much more fights than Lewis. He doubled Lewis' amount of fights.

So who was Holmes' great win?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He didn't have one as good as holyfield.

[elmersalsa]

He didn't have one as good as holyfield.

The Real Deal was shopworn and washed up when he fought Lewis.

[Ambling Alp II]

Both brilliant HWs. Both easily top 10. Arguably top 5. Aside from Ali and Louis, who stand out as 1 and 2 in either order, the rest of the top 10 is largely interchangeable. Was Holmes better than Lewis? Possibly. Could Lewis have beaten Holmes? Possibly. Is there a big enough gap between them in terms of skill and/or resume that you can say that one is a class above the other? Not in my opinion.

You said Lennox lacked the great win to make him a great fighter. What was the great win that made Perez a great fighter?

In comparison to Holmes. In comparison to Perez, none of the two beat a great fighter in their prime. But, Perez fought much more fights than Lewis. He doubled Lewis' amount of fights.

So who was Holmes' great win?

I pretty much agree with this.
I rate Holmes a shade ahead of Lewis, but don't find it ridiculous for someone to have Lewis slightly ahead. Reasonable people can disagree.
It is ridiculous to say that Lewis was not a great fighter. He was without question.

I do think Holmes win over Norton was better than anyone that Lewis beat at the time that Lewis beat them.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd go with evander over Norton. Either way better than the best Perez ever beat.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He didn't have one as good as holyfield.

The Real Deal was shopworn and washed up when he fought Lewis.

Ok buffoon boy. No moreso than Norton.

[elmersalsa]

He didn't have one as good as holyfield.

The Real Deal was shopworn and washed up when he fought Lewis.

Ok buffoon boy. No moreso than Norton.

Ken Norton was in better shape. The fight was a slugfest at it very best. Jackass!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The Real Deal was shopworn and washed up when he fought Lewis.

Ok buffoon boy. No moreso than Norton.

Ken Norton was in better shape. The fight was a slugfest at it very best. Jackass!

Holyfield was out of shape?

[elmersalsa]

Ok buffoon boy. No moreso than Norton.

Ken Norton was in better shape. The fight was a slugfest at it very best. Jackass!

Holyfield was out of shape?

Holyfield was shot and it showed. That wasn't the same Holyfield of the wars with Riddick Bowe and Mike Tyson.