BoxRec

I couldn't pick young Lennox from around the time of Bruno over tyson. Best on best it would be interesting. If lewis could get through the early apprehension, he could take over the fight.

I have to say I've enjoyed watching BRR get owned here. Not that you can't pull up any thread and see it, but this one wasn't as dull as the hourly drubbings he takes on Boxing.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I have to say I've enjoyed watching BRR get owned here. Not that you can't pull up any thread and see it, but this one wasn't as dull as the hourly drubbings he takes on Boxing.

- I rather get a good laugh seeing you hang off in the shadows, not game enough to hang with the big boys, but eyes shining in misty eyed bewonderment as they battle it out.

It's good that you've identified that other soft lad, Spoon, to latch your self esteem to. He could even box some!

I don't lurk, you're just not even worth talking to. I'm certainly not going to argue with a troll day after day. If you didn't get quoted so relentlessly from being a retard i wouldn't even knew you existed besides the notification of ignored posts. Once in a while I forget to log in and catch gems like this.

You're too pathetic to even get under my skin. Not sure why you keep trying. I care more about flushed turds than anything you have to say.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't lurk

- You lurk. You claim to have me on ignore, but like resident stray puppie, collie, you can't help commenting on me or my posts, usually absent zero boxing content or analysis, generally consisting of a noun, a verb, an adjective, and pronoun.

So congrats on your coming out post:

I couldn't pick young Lennox from around the time of Bruno over tyson. Best on best it would be interesting. If lewis could get through the early apprehension, he could take over the fight.[/quote]

Wow, three consecutive sentences strung together, a record, and then PAYDIRT with the last sentence, the most dynamic, bonecrunching analysis of a fight of the century that has ever existed withIN you. WoW!

Stupid thread. Lewis has to be rated above Tyson. In terms of achievement and longevity he is Iron Mike's superior. He also knocked Tyson out and beat a former Tyson nemesis in Holyfield. Both Lennox's defeats were shocking but he avenged both. Ergo he beat every man he ever fought. Tyson can't say the same. People are also conveniently forgetting that Tyson paid Lewis millions and millions in step aside money in the 1990s rather than fight him. That's just a fact. There was a REASON for this. And that reason came to light in June 2002.

If you don't see Lennox Lewis as an all-time top 10 heavyweight, you don't know what you are looking at.

goods - the guy who has the overall say in the world of boxing


i dont rate lewis as a top 10 fighter - that is my opinion , many will agree or disagree , thats what the forums are for...

to debate - to share an opinion

TheGoods wrote:Stupid thread. Lewis has to be rated above Tyson. In terms of achievement and longevity he is Iron Mike's superior. He also knocked Tyson out and beat a former Tyson nemesis in Holyfield. Both Lennox's defeats were shocking but he avenged both. Ergo he beat every man he ever fought. Tyson can't say the same. People are also conveniently forgetting that Tyson paid Lewis millions and millions in step aside money in the 1990s rather than fight him. That's just a fact. There was a REASON for this. And that reason came to light in June 2002.

If you don't see Lennox Lewis as an all-time top 10 heavyweight, you don't know what you are looking at.

- Probably more like we don't know what you were looking at, but now we have some clues.

Speaking of convenience, you conveniently forgot to mention that Tyson did 95% of his best work before Lewis ever turned pro and that Lewis earned his early pro chops against the spare leftovers of Tyson. You also fail to mention that Lewis sued Tyson and then gave back Tyson part of that "so-called" millions and millions in step aside money to keep him from fighting Mercer as a tuneup fight to Lewis, and dat's just the facts Jacko.

There was a REASON for this, but apparently the reason got tangled up with you being a posterboy in Stupid thread.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think we can all agree that Broughton is the biggest moron to ever walk the earth. It's horrifying to see his legal opinions are even more pathetic than his take on Boxing. Somebody should put that old horse to sleep.

Lewis -Ali - Foreman top 3, any order you want.

V Klitcthco, Holmes, Tyson, and Joe Louis the others inked in to top 10.

Not an intersecting point. The best Lewis (maybe 97-02?), the best Tyson (86-90), my money's on the latter.

However, I rank Lewis' accomplishments above Tyson's.

sg1985 wrote:I definitely agree about Lewis's accomplishments, but I think, prime for prime Lewis had enough to keep him of and out box him to a late stoppage.

Had enough to keep him off? Absolutely. Lesser men with similar, but not as impressive, tools as Lewis, "kept Tyson off," for varying lengths of time.

My problem with that is Lewis is just too damn slow to stop the incoming, & too damn fragile to absorb it, to win this fight.

Tyson early, IMO. I would not rule out Lewis completely, but he is in no way durable enough to absorb Tyson's onslaught clean, & would have to find another gear in terms of his general speed & reaction time. I never saw it.

Yep, the glass-chinned "all time great."

No thank you.

Every one is entitled to their opinion, for mine, I rate Lewis in my top ten heavyweights. To discount him due to his two KO losses is absurd, I have never met a man who couldn't be KO'd. Both of his knockouts where from big punches that caught him cold, both where avenged.

Lewis was undisputed world champ during an era rich with good heavies, one of a couple of golden eras. His career defined as much by who wouldn't fight him as by those who did. He was a large and powerful fighter, even for a heavy weight. Lewis could fight on the back foot off of his jab, on the front foot with devastating effect and could also fight on the inside, no mean feet considering he was usually the tallest man in the ring.

I cannot put Marciano before him as Marciano was a small heavy weight from a relatively uncompetitive era. I cannot put Tyson before him as Tyson, as exciting and devastating as he was, was a one dimensional bully who would never, at any time of his career, beat Lewis, or Holyfield for that matter. I don't know that Lewis would have taken him either.

If lewis doesn't make your all time top ten, for whatever reason, then thats fine, although I think to discount him for his only two, avenged, losses may be a little bit narrow minded. I believe Lewis to be one of the all time great heavy weights.

dberry wrote:Every one is entitled to their opinion, for mine, I rate Lewis in my top ten heavyweights. To discount him due to his two KO losses is absurd, I have never met a man who couldn't be KO'd. Both of his knockouts where from big punches that caught him cold, both where avenged.

Lewis was undisputed world champ during an era rich with good heavies, one of a couple of golden eras. His career defined as much by who wouldn't fight him as by those who did. He was a large and powerful fighter, even for a heavy weight. Lewis could fight on the back foot off of his jab, on the front foot with devastating effect and could also fight on the inside, no mean feet considering he was usually the tallest man in the ring.

I cannot put Marciano before him as Marciano was a small heavy weight from a relatively uncompetitive era. I cannot put Tyson before him as Tyson, as exciting and devastating as he was, was a one dimensional bully who would never, at any time of his career, beat Lewis, or Holyfield for that matter. I don't know that Lewis would have taken him either.

If lewis doesn't make your all time top ten, for whatever reason, then thats fine, although I think to discount him for his only two, avenged, losses may be a little bit narrow minded. I believe Lewis to be one of the all time great heavy weights.

Thats exactly how I see it. Lots of people make an issue of his ko losses but as you say they were to two big punchers and they were both avenged. Any fighter can be ko'ed if hit right. People have short memories, Joe Louis who is considered a top 5 heavy in anyones books was ko'ed by Schmeling, plus Louis was way behind in this fight as well.




.

Controversial wrote:

dberry wrote:Every one is entitled to their opinion, for mine, I rate Lewis in my top ten heavyweights. To discount him due to his two KO losses is absurd, I have never met a man who couldn't be KO'd. Both of his knockouts where from big punches that caught him cold, both where avenged.

Lewis was undisputed world champ during an era rich with good heavies, one of a couple of golden eras. His career defined as much by who wouldn't fight him as by those who did. He was a large and powerful fighter, even for a heavy weight. Lewis could fight on the back foot off of his jab, on the front foot with devastating effect and could also fight on the inside, no mean feet considering he was usually the tallest man in the ring.

I cannot put Marciano before him as Marciano was a small heavy weight from a relatively uncompetitive era. I cannot put Tyson before him as Tyson, as exciting and devastating as he was, was a one dimensional bully who would never, at any time of his career, beat Lewis, or Holyfield for that matter. I don't know that Lewis would have taken him either.

If lewis doesn't make your all time top ten, for whatever reason, then thats fine, although I think to discount him for his only two, avenged, losses may be a little bit narrow minded. I believe Lewis to be one of the all time great heavy weights.

Thats exactly how I see it. Lots of people make an issue of his ko losses but as you say they were to two big punchers and they were both avenged. Any fighter can be ko'ed if hit right. People have short memories, Joe Louis who is considered a top 5 heavy in anyones books was ko'ed by Schmeling, plus Louis was way behind in this fight as well.




.

First of all, Schmeling > Daylight > Streets > A country mile > McCall > Rahman (very close to the worst linear titleist there ever was in the division). Second, sixty right hands, or whatever the count was, to fell a man is not the same as one shot.

Lewis is in my top-10, & I agree completely that dismissing him on the basis of his losses is unduly swift, but those fights exposed him as a fighter with a severe lack of recuperative ability.

My top ten based on them being at their best on their best day, styles do make fights, and its based on who would beat the other on their best day and not neccesarily how many title defences etc:

my top 10

Muhammed Ali
George Foreman
Jack Dempsey
Jou Louis
Jack Johnson
Joe Frazier
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis.

I cant in clear conscience put Rocky Marciano in there as I cannot see him beating any of the fighters on this list. The George Foreman I have rated is the one of the 1970's.Although I think a hybrid of the 1973 powerful brutal Foreman and the strong willed, defensive master with an iron chin of 1989-92's Foreman could perhaps have even come close to the incomparable Ali!!!!

Actually Lewis is higher on my list because of the reversals of his losses.

mugabi wrote:...defensive master with an iron chin of 1989-92's Foreman could perhaps have even come close to the incomparable Ali!!!!

Strong willed, of course, but defensive master??

Of course what's really sad is how many posters on this forum actually support this opinion; most likely without having actually watched many of Old George's fights.

Jimmy Young was a defensive master.

The Great John L wrote:

mugabi wrote:...defensive master with an iron chin of 1989-92's Foreman could perhaps have even come close to the incomparable Ali!!!!

Strong willed, of course, but defensive master??

Of course what's really sad is how many posters on this forum actually support this opinion; most likely without having actually watched many of Old George's fights.

Jimmy Young was a defensive master.

I know it's your thing to keep a perceived over-rating of the old Foreman (which I could not disagree with more), but, in this instance, I agree with you. He was no defensive master, he was very hittable --- & no one should begrudge a fighter of his age & condition for being so.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I know it's your thing to keep a perceived over-rating of the old Foreman (which I could not disagree with more), but, in this instance, I agree with you. He was no defensive master, he was very hittable --- & no one should begrudge a fighter of his age & condition for being so.

My thing? Perceived over rating? Sorry, but anyone thinking that close wins over Stewart, Savarese and Schulz, a good KO win over Moorer after being dominated all night, a stoppage over a washed up Cooney and loses to Holyfield and Morrison somehow establishes that the old, fat and glacier slow Foreman was better than the Foreman that stopped Lyle, Frazier and Norton is delusional. What George accomplished in his later years was quite impressive for someone his age, but it probably did nothing more than define him as a very good HW of the late 80's and early 90's.

Do you really think any version of the 70's Foreman would have had any problems stopping everyone of the guys I listed pretty easily, with the exception of Holyfield?

What? When did I even imply I thought the 90's Foreman was better than the 70's version!?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:What? When did I even imply I thought the 90's Foreman was better than the 70's version!?

That is a somewhat common opinion posted on this forum, for obviously you do not subscribe. My appologies for the mistake.

No worries.

I think the Foreman of the 70's slaughters his later self, to be clear.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:No worries.

I think the Foreman of the 70's slaughters his later self, to be clear.

Probably, but it's not outrageous to imagine the younger Foreman gassing against his more patient and durable elder self.

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:No worries.

I think the Foreman of the 70's slaughters his later self, to be clear.

Probably, but it's not outrageous to imagine the younger Foreman gassing against his more patient and durable elder self.

Sorry, but I think that's pretty far feteched. The younger Foreman would have had a field day with the old, glacier slow George. Imagine if a 24yo George had been hitting old George rather than the shot, fat Qawi, or the limited Stewart. Old George wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds with young George.