If Lennox never fights again...

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 03 Nov 2003, 06:45

What you saw was Vitali at his BEST, and Lewis at his WORST, and Lewis still won.

Where is the logic in Vitali winning a rematch? I don't think so....

Lewis can only be better next time, and that spells disaster for Vitali.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 03 Nov 2003, 06:57

Loftgroov wrote:What you saw was Vitali at his BEST, and Lewis at his WORST, and Lewis still won.

Where is the logic in Vitali winning a rematch? I don't think so....

Lewis can only be better next time, and that spells disaster for Vitali.

I do predict Lewis to win the rematch, but there are some people who claim that Lewis didn't prove superiority the first time. A rematch WOULD demonstrate who is the better man, which for me will be Lewis.

That's why I'd like to see it, for a few other critics to eat humble pie.

PostMortem · Post by **PostMortem** » 04 Nov 2003, 08:26

Chris Byrd easily beat David Tua in the same fashion Lewis did. The only difference was that Chris Byrd wasn't defending the heavyweight championship of the world at the time. With a considerable height and skill advantage, why couldn't Lewis go the extra mile to dispose of Tua instead of jabbing his way to a boring 12 round UD? Its Lewis' inability to take risks that cause people to not consider him great. You can argue he takes risks (ie fighting Dr.K) but the majority (nearly 100%) of his career he walks into the ring the favorite. How does beating a Mike Tyson (who landed punches in the single digit range per round) cement your legacy as a great champion? Then he sues Tyson for not fighting him again. What has Tyson to offer boxing that was more than he had year ago? Nothing. Lewis wants another over-hyped low risk payday. Great champion you have there. David Tua, Michael Grant, all hype machines. For God's sake, Michael Grant was just KOed by a top 25 fighter, and you add him to Lewis resume as if it is something proud to have accomplished? Lewis probably took on Golata because his team figured Golata would start to low blow Lewis (And we all know there is nothing down there to hit and destroy) and Lewis would win via DQ. People keep saying McCall and Rahman got lucky. McCall you could say got lucky. Rahman lucky? A lucky punch? Four rounds of solid power lucky shots? Please. That was caused by Lewis' inability to take boxing seriously. Why else would he not come into the ring prepared, he knew Rahman was a low risk contender - or was he? Nice suprise, Lennox. On the eve of the end of Lennox career we see him training to fight who? Kirk Johnson? Like that was going to add to his legacy. And once again we find Lewis not taking him seriously and not training. You all argue that Lewis fought his worst fight and didn't come prepared and Klitschko had all the advantages - but you are all fooling yourselves. If anything Lewis had the advantage. He was training for months to fight a top 10 contender whereas Klitschko was training to fight a very small top 25 fighter. Big decision there, where would you wanna be: You go from top ten guy to top ten guy or do you go top twenty guy to heavyweight champion of the world. You all act like at 39, with complete apathy for the sport that made him, that Lewis is going to somehow magically get off his fat ass and start training to KO Klitschko (if there ever was such a rematch). You forget one thing and that is that Klitschko thought he had unofficially beat Lewis in their fight. That means Dr.K will come in with five times more confidence than he did the first time. And you forget that Dr.K is finally starting to mature into his prime right now - the only thing Lewis is doing is getting older and rustier........So how do you figure he will blast out Dr.K in 5 rounds? You British fans seem very stereotypical in your postings, you all claim that Americans are biased towards British fighters. Saying that if Lewis were American, that he would be number 1. It is simply this: ask an American who the greatest American heavyweight of the 90s were and you would most likely get Evander Holyfield. Ask a Brit who was the greatest British fighter in the 1990's and they would no doubt say Lennox Lewis. Now compare their fight history - who has more top-ranked fighters fought? Who has had more risks and great battles in their time? It sure wasn't Lennox.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 09:14

Entering their names into the search facility and looking at both their records to refresh my memory of the vast number of fights I have seen of both boxers, I have no...NO doubt that Lewis was the superior heavyweight.

Lewis has been incredibly foolish in his career on occassion. Not bothering to train or take seriously the Rahman fight being the prime example. But please....Holyfield is SOOOO OVER-RATED!!!

Lets look at the downsides of the two fighters careers, and I'll be as objective as I can be.......

Holyfield

Holyfield got BEAT TWICE by Bowe!!!!

Back in his prime in 1994, Holyfield loses to MICHAEL MOORER!!

In 1999, Holyfield loses (again) to Lennox Lewis, after a controversial first fight that the majority of the boxing public felt Lewis won! Lewis comes back the second time to win (again in my view)

Holyfield carries on, and loses to JOHN RUIZ!!!!

In his two most recent fights, and ageing Holyfield loses to both Chris Bird & cruiserweight James Toney, to cement a career record of 7 losses.

Lewis

In 1994, (the same year Holyfield is beaten by Moorer), Lewis suffers a shock defeat to McCall from an huge right that McCall throws to nothing with his eyes closed. Lewis quickly counted out on his feet.

In 2001, (the same year Holyfield is beaten by Ruiz) an arrogant display from Lewis sees him deservidly KO'd by Rahman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now looking objectively at the above how can anyone in their right minds even possibly state that Holyfield has proved himself to be better than Lennox Lewis? The Olympic Gold Medalist, has avenged both defeats of his career, which were both sustained from receiving a single huge (and somewhat lucky) punch, and his has NEVER...EVER been out-boxed or outclassed, or out-pointed in his entire career.

Holyfield, despite numerous solid wins has now sustained 7 (7!!) career losses, and was beaten comprehensively by both Lewis & Bowe.

Hmmmm....

Really tough huh...........

Lewis is to Holyfield what Ali was to Frazier. To the American public I say....just get over it!!! Holyfield was great, Lewis was great....and Lewis was better. end of.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:19

people over look one of lennoxs best wins against gary mason

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:38

People over-look many of Lewis' wins.

American's in particular CHOOSE TO it seems.

Riddick Bowie · Post by **Riddick Bowie** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:46

postmortem you are wrong. chris byrds win over david tua was razor thin, as was the ibeabuchi win. and you have the nerve to criticise lewis for his perfromance v tua. look at tuas post fight interview. have you ever seen tua so humbled, so bloodied and swollen? hi sface was like a melon and his ribs were broken. he had no excuses and knew he got his ass kicked and no one else has ever been able to do that to him in his 13 year career. lewis shut him down and won sensibly, so whats your beef.

postmortem trashes lewis for fighting grant and tua. who should he have fought? your logic is grant got knocked out by dominic guinn therfore he mustve also been a bum 3 years ago when he fought lewis. real nice. because you dont know anything about boxing/you dislike lewis so much, you 'ignore/are ignorant to the fact that' grant was the #1 contender in the world and was the fight everybody wanted to see. lewis took the fight and the big money, rather than fighting shitty john ruiz who no one gave a fornicate about and had beat nobody.

as for holyfield-vaughn bean, people LOVE to use this as ammunition to say holy was shot. funny how people forget that an absolute prime holyfield had a habit of beating up lower class challengers, THEN LETTING THEM INTO THE FIGHT. bert cooper and alex stewart and bobby czyz being great examples. holy had bean on the deck and out in the 10th. moorer and the big punching klitschko couldnt claim that.

PostMortem · Post by **PostMortem** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:05

Grant was a product of good promoting and paying off the sanctioning bodies for high rankings. The number one contender? Please, anyone in the top ten could have KOed him. So instead of defending his WBA belt and dispatching John Ruiz (which no doubt would have benefitted boxing a great deal) and preventing Holyfield from becoming a four time world champ (or however many it was) he took the money fight from a low risk contender who was a hype machine. I mean Golata beat down Grant and all of a sudden he is the number 1 contender after Golata goes crazy? Lewis wasn't even close to KOing Tua in their fight and he wasn't looking to do so. You say I am stupid for saying Grant was washed up from 3 years ago? Then you say Holyfield supporters are stupid for saying he was washed up in 1999 as opposed to 1995? Hypocritical British thinking for you.....Evander Holyfield fought Lewis when he was 37/38 years old - and look how good he did the second time, completely showing to the world what kind of grade A bitch Lewis is. At 38, did you see how rusted Lewis was when he fought Klitschko? Put this into perspective: Evander at 38 fought a man who had a 4 inch height advantage and a 30lb weight advantage over him, who was physically stronger and a better boxer. Lewis never took risks like that - who did he fight? An old washed up Mike Tyson who didn't even know where he was that night in the ring. This is why people like Holyfield. At 41 years old, he is still fighting, he has been to the top many times and still has the will to get there again. Lewis hasn't even been around as long as he has and Lewis has been not giving a shit for years.

PostMortem · Post by **PostMortem** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:12

Now look: (Big name fights)

Lennox Lewis

- Mike Tyson
- Evander Holyfield twice
- Ray Mercer
- Hasim Rahman twice
- V.Klitschko

Evander Holyfield

- George Foreman
- Bert Cooper
- Larry Holmes
- Riddick Bowe three times
- Ray Mercer
- Michael Moore twice
- Mike Tyson twice
- Lennox Lewis twice
- Hasim Rahman

Sometimes its not about winning and losing, its about who you fight and how you fight them, same ideology that made Micky Ward a favored fighter.

Riddick Bowie · Post by **Riddick Bowie** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:24

LOL!!!

so let me get this straight- MICHAEL GRANT (who beat golota, izon, savarese) was the product of hype and paying off sanctioning bodies, yet you say lewis shouldve fought JOHN RUIZ?!??! who beat NOBODY at all, was blown out in 19 seconds by david tua, and had made it to #1 like all don king fighters, paying the sanctionign bodies.

could you be anymore transparent.

and as if to enforce your bias, you inlcude a routine fight like bert cooper to increase holyfields big fights, and disregard lewis's big wins over ruddock, bruno, golota, tua, grant, morrison...

sad, very sad.

PostMortem · Post by **PostMortem** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:58

No, stupid. I was saying that Lewis would rather give up a belt and dodge Ruiz to fight a money fight with Grant rather than do his duty as champion. You are so fornicating blinded it is sad. Tua, Grant, Bruno, Rudduck - good fighters? Are you kidding? Tua I can see, but not the other 3. Grant gets beat down by Golata, beat David Izon (B class fighter) and Savarese (Another B class fighter) and somehow he is deserving to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world? In my opinion Ruiz should have never broken through the top 15 ranks - and never NEVER been a champion. This is purely Lewis' fault for letting him have the belt. Frank Bruno is a joke - you Brits need to get over your crappy fighters.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 05:37

PostMortem wrote:Now look: (Big name fights)

Lennox Lewis

- Mike Tyson
- Evander Holyfield twice
- Ray Mercer
- Hasim Rahman twice
- V.Klitschko

Evander Holyfield

- George Foreman
- Bert Cooper
- Larry Holmes
- Riddick Bowe three times
- Ray Mercer
- Michael Moore twice
- Mike Tyson twice
- Lennox Lewis twice
- Hasim Rahman

Sometimes its not about winning and losing, its about who you fight and how you fight them, same ideology that made Micky Ward a favored fighter.

Your criteria for big fights is bizarre to say the least.

Add to Lewis's list Ruddock, Grant ,Mcall and Tua which were all bigger fights than Holyfield-Rahman which was only a contest between 2 top 10 ranked Heavyweights at best.

And how was Bert Cooper a big fight? Maybe for the citizens of Atlanta but Cooper was a late sub for the fight too, just because you've seen a video clip of Holyfield getting hurt this doesn't make it a big fight!

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 05:44

PostMortem wrote:No, stupid. I was saying that Lewis would rather give up a belt and dodge Ruiz to fight a money fight with Grant rather than do his duty as champion. You are so fornicating blinded it is sad. Tua, Grant, Bruno, Rudduck - good fighters? Are you kidding? Tua I can see, but not the other 3. Grant gets beat down by Golata, beat David Izon (B class fighter) and Savarese (Another B class fighter) and somehow he is deserving to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world? In my opinion Ruiz should have never broken through the top 15 ranks - and never NEVER been a champion. This is purely Lewis' fault for letting him have the belt. Frank Bruno is a joke - you Brits need to get over your crappy fighters.

You are the blinded one fool. You have clearly been following boxing for only a year or two as you have no correct recollection of events at the time.

Nobody wanted Lewis to fight Ruiz who was known for being knocked out in 19 seconds by David Tua. Grant was the undefeated dangerman (who wasn't beat down by Golota, he got up to beat him actually).

And your post then degenrates into slating the British which basically sums up the fact you are a cretin whose posts are worth as much as the mucus that forms in my throat when I sleep.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 05:48

PostMortem wrote:Grant was a product of good promoting and paying off the sanctioning bodies for high rankings. The number one contender? Please, anyone in the top ten could have KOed him. So instead of defending his WBA belt and dispatching John Ruiz (which no doubt would have benefitted boxing a great deal) and preventing Holyfield from becoming a four time world champ (or however many it was) he took the money fight from a low risk contender who was a hype machine. I mean Golata beat down Grant and all of a sudden he is the number 1 contender after Golata goes crazy? Lewis wasn't even close to KOing Tua in their fight and he wasn't looking to do so. You say I am stupid for saying Grant was washed up from 3 years ago? Then you say Holyfield supporters are stupid for saying he was washed up in 1999 as opposed to 1995? Hypocritical British thinking for you.....Evander Holyfield fought Lewis when he was 37/38 years old - and look how good he did the second time, completely showing to the world what kind of grade A bitch Lewis is. At 38, did you see how rusted Lewis was when he fought Klitschko? Put this into perspective: Evander at 38 fought a man who had a 4 inch height advantage and a 30lb weight advantage over him, who was physically stronger and a better boxer. Lewis never took risks like that - who did he fight? An old washed up Mike Tyson who didn't even know where he was that night in the ring. This is why people like Holyfield. At 41 years old, he is still fighting, he has been to the top many times and still has the will to get there again. Lewis hasn't even been around as long as he has and Lewis has been not giving a shit for years.

Are you Nasty just posting under a different name? I have faith in humanity and absolutely refuse to believe there are 2 people as fornicating thick as this.

Riddick Bowie · Post by **Riddick Bowie** » 05 Nov 2003, 07:36

i think thats a unanimous decision in favour of postmortem being a cretin with little to no knowledge of boxing.

as it has been correctly stated, NOBODY wanted to see lewis-ruiz and michael grant DID beat golota.

listing bert cooper as a big holyfield fight then calling razor ruddock a crappy fighter??!?! razor ruddock, who hung 12 tough rounds with mike tyson. razor ruddock who was turned down as an opponent by the first SIX heavies on postmortems list of big holyfield fights BECAUSE HE WAS TOO DANGEROUS!!

of course these are all brand new facts to postmortem because he shows little evidence of following boxing for any decent lenght of time!

PS if posting on a forum with 'brits who cant get over their crappy fighters' is so abhorrent to you, then why dont you fornicate OFF to current scene where you belong?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 05 Nov 2003, 08:06

I have to say a disagree with that list put forward by Post mortem. If you want to look at big box office fights - then I'd include Holmes and Foreman. But I'd certainly drop Cooper from that list and Mercer too (considering he was used as a comeback opponent).

Drop Mercer from the Lewis list, but how about including Tua (who has beaten Rahman once), Golota (fresh off his two fight series with Riddick Bowe), Tommy Morrison - conquerer of Foreman, Ruddock.

Now, I'd DO and have alwaysed maintained that Holyfield should be ranked higher than Lewis on an all time basis. However, my argument point is that in 1999 Lewis was the fresher but Holyfield (at the very least) ran him close in the rematch. I believe (and its all opinionated) that the Holyfield who beat Tyson would have Lewis.

My other reasoning for placing Holyfield above Lewis is that Holyfield, on 3 occasions, beat 'the man' to win his belts (Douglas, Bowe and Tyson). Unfortunately, Lewis only became 'the man' in 1999 - the title he was awarded in 1992 didn't feel right, because he didn't win the belt. Also again, for reasons beyond his control, he could only fight for a vacant title in 1997.

I know it was not his fault, but this is how I feel on the matter.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 10:37

stujones wrote:I have to say a disagree with that list put forward by Post mortem. If you want to look at big box office fights - then I'd include Holmes and Foreman. But I'd certainly drop Cooper from that list and Mercer too (considering he was used as a comeback opponent).

Drop Mercer from the Lewis list, but how about including Tua (who has beaten Rahman once), Golota (fresh off his two fight series with Riddick Bowe), Tommy Morrison - conquerer of Foreman, Ruddock.

Now, I'd DO and have alwaysed maintained that Holyfield should be ranked higher than Lewis on an all time basis. However, my argument point is that in 1999 Lewis was the fresher but Holyfield (at the very least) ran him close in the rematch. I believe (and its all opinionated) that the Holyfield who beat Tyson would have Lewis.

My other reasoning for placing Holyfield above Lewis is that Holyfield, on 3 occasions, beat 'the man' to win his belts (Douglas, Bowe and Tyson). Unfortunately, Lewis only became 'the man' in 1999 - the title he was awarded in 1992 didn't feel right, because he didn't win the belt. Also again, for reasons beyond his control, he could only fight for a vacant title in 1997.

I know it was not his fault, but this is how I feel on the matter.

Stu - Good post and a far more intelligently stated case than some of the others.

One disagreement I have is that (pedantic I know) Lewis actually beat 'Da Man' in 1998 when he knocked out Shannon Briggs.

When you say 'Da Man' I assume we are talking about the linear champion?

If so Lewis again beat 'da man' when he avenged his defeat against Rahman thereby doign so twice.

Holyfield also did it twice with his victories over Douglas and Bowe.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 05 Nov 2003, 10:51

By "Da Man" I think Stu means the universally recognised #1 in the world at the time - which Briggs and McCall were definately not.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 11:13

Kilburn wrote:By "Da Man" I think Stu means the universally recognised #1 in the world at the time - which Briggs and McCall were definately not.

I would then dispute that Tyson was 'da man' when beaten by Holyfield in 1996, Lewis had a claim to this mantle, Tyson had beaten only Seldon and Bruno.

Rahman (not Mcall) was 'da man' by virtue of having beaten Lewis in the same way that Douglas was 'da man' by virtue of having defeated Tyson.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 05 Nov 2003, 11:17

Kilburn wrote:By "Da Man" I think Stu means the universally recognised #1 in the world at the time - which Briggs and McCall were definately not.

Yeah, thats what I meant. Can't really call Briggs or McCall 'the man', because although Briggs was officially linear champion (but really shouldn't have had his hand raised against Foreman). Foreman had given up all the belts and Tyson had gained two back.

Here's how I see the men since 1990.

Douglas, beating Tyson in 1990.
Holyfield. Beating Douglas in 1990.
Bowe. Beating Holyfield in 1992.
Holyfield. Beating Bowe in 1993.
Moorer. Beating Holyfield in 1994.
Foreman. Beating Moorer in 1994.
Tyson. Acquiring the WBC and WBA belts in 1996.
Holyfield. Beating Tyson in 1996.
Lewis. Beating Holyfield in 1999.
Rahman. Beating Lewis in 2001.
Lewis. Beating Rahman in 2001.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 11:22

It's funny how different people see it. I always hated that misperception of Holyfield as the champion going into those fights with Lewis!!

Lewis deserved at least parity on that score by right of being linear champion and that those 'universally recognised as No 1' had avoided him like the plague.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 05 Nov 2003, 11:31

Goz wrote:
Kilburn wrote:By "Da Man" I think Stu means the universally recognised #1 in the world at the time - which Briggs and McCall were definately not.
I would then dispute that Tyson was 'da man' when beaten by Holyfield in 1996, Lewis had a claim to this mantle, Tyson had beaten only Seldon and Bruno. .

So what exactly was Lewis's claim?? Beating McCall for the VACANT title. Remeber it was Tyson who vacated it following his victory over Bruno (who incidently did win the title from the champion). Then Tyson beat the reigning champion Seldon to win the WBA title. Lewis (in 1996) didn't hold any title of note - we was the IBC champion. So, not exactly the credentials of being labelled the geniune champion.

The only time Lewis beat a champion was in 1999. Not saying he wasn't avoided - but thats the what happened.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 05 Nov 2003, 11:48

It's a tough argument this one. IMO Tyson would've knocked out every heavyweight in 1996 apart from Holyfield. No other fighter could've gone into the eye of the storm and come out standing on the other side like Evander did. That was something truly special he did that night. And Tyson was too fit and quick to have lost to someone casually trying to jab and move around him, controlling the pace.

However I believe that had Lewis faced Holyfield in the same year he'd have come out the winner on points, much clearer than he did 3 years later simply because he had a much better workrate.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:18

Kilburn wrote:It's a tough argument this one. IMO Tyson would've knocked out every heavyweight in 1996 apart from Holyfield. No other fighter could've gone into the eye of the storm and come out standing on the other side like Evander did. That was something truly special he did that night. And Tyson was too fit and quick to have lost to someone casually trying to jab and move around him, controlling the pace.

I'm not so sure, Tyson was just exposed by Holyfield. Seldon and Bruno were terrified of him, Lewis has never been scared of anybody and think we would have had a similar result to last year, I really do, probably a little more competitive but ultimately Tyson gets stopped.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:39

stujones wrote: So what exactly was Lewis's claim??

Not an enormous one either it has to be said but just as legit as Mike's 2 wins over Bruno and Seldon. However I think Lewis's is a claim as strong as Holyfield's especially by the time they got to meeting in 1999. In 96 the title was totally fragmented, mainly due to everybody's ducking of Lewis.

There is a case either way but it's just that general assumption that Holyfield was the champ going into their 2 fights (and therefore the implication that Lewis had to somehow rip the titles away) that used to nark me.