Lennox - does he crack an all-time top 10?

[jezzamundo]

(and the fact remains Holyfield won the second fight Vs Lewis. Again, even Emanuel Stewert has said as much here in the Detroit Freepress during one of his long two-part type stories done on Emanuel Stewert and his long career within boxing. He said he clearly could have seen the second fight going to Holyfield (that says a lot!) - Most ring side observers all felt Holyfield won the fight as well (if one turns off the ridiculous TV commentary the fight looks a lot different).

I will agree that the fight was closer than some (or at least one) of the judges scored it, but I cannot agree with anyone that simply states that Holy won this fight. Having watched it several times (with and without commentary) and I have never given Holy more than 3 or 4 rounds (I score a couple of rounds even). Holy did not win the fight, some people scored it to him (some of whom were biased against Lewis IMO) fair enough, and the decision was not as close as it should have been, but I think it is a bit rich to simply say that it is fact that Holy won.

Lewis makes the bottom half of my top-ten, but I think at his best he would have beaten pretty much anyone from any era.

[Marciano Frazier]

He's not in my top 10, but I can see how you could have him in there. I personally rank him #13 of all time. Perhaps my opinion will change as we get further from his actual title reign and can look at things in retrospect more, but as of now, I think the two early-round KO losses against fringe contenders in his prime are enough counterbalance to his otherwise dominating his era that he falls short of the top 10.

[-KOKid-]

Might cause a stink this concept - now he's retired does Lennox Lewis get into a list of all-time top 10 heavyweights? And not based purely on his size advantage over fighters from 70 years ago, but based on his achievements in his own era against others in theirs?

Personally I reckon he might just about get in at 10.

Not in my list, I have him somewhere between 12-15 on my list. Still, he was a solid champion though, being among the top 15 heavies of all time says a lot about his level of skill and ring achievements.

-KOKid-

[Cojimar 1945]

While Lewis's losses do hurt his legacy somewhat the fact that he got the better of his best contemporaries makes up for this. Sam Langford lost quite a bit but was still dominant in that he got the better of his opponnents in their overall fight series.

[barry]

>>>While Lewis's losses do hurt his legacy somewhat the fact that he got the better of his best contemporaries makes up for this.<<<

I also have difficulty ranking him because when he was faced with his biggest challenge to date, against Holyfield, Lewis fought like a small heavyweight and really blew his opportunity to scale top ten lists. I thought he won the first bout, not impressively, but rather easily and was duked by a bum decision from Jerry Roth, but the rematch could have and probably should have went to Holyfield...and old Holyfield at that.

As I said before, Lewis was too hot and cold for me and it seemed that he was cold more than hot. He looked great against Ruddock, Golota and a couple of others, but then he looked like someone contient only on jabbing, clinching, jabbing and clinching...and throw in that less than stellar chin and what do you have...a big heavyweight that not only refuses to ever mix it up, but a heavyweight completely concerned with being hit. He had the tools to be one of the best, but like so many others who had the tools, he did utilize those tools and he only flung that big right hand when he was certain that there would be no return-fire!

Lewis would always be a heavyweight that would be difficult for any fighter to land a good shot on because he was always defensive-minded first...personally, I prefer an offensive-minded heavyweight!

[pundit]

In my book he does. He was the best heavyweight of the great 1990s era, this alone should grant him a top 10 ranking.

[RazorKO]

I don't even have Lewis in my top 20 heavyweights!

Well I dont rank Lewis in my top 5 British heavyweights let alone top 20 heavyweights.

[The Great John L]

>>>While Lewis's losses do hurt his legacy somewhat the fact that he got the better of his best contemporaries makes up for this.<<<

I also have difficulty ranking him because when he was faced with his biggest challenge to date, against Holyfield, Lewis fought like a small heavyweight and really blew his opportunity to scale top ten lists. I thought he won the first bout, not impressively, but rather easily and was duked by a bum decision from Jerry Roth, but the rematch could have and probably should have went to Holyfield...and old Holyfield at that.

As I said before, Lewis was too hot and cold for me and it seemed that he was cold more than hot. He looked great against Ruddock, Golota and a couple of others, but then he looked like someone contient only on jabbing, clinching, jabbing and clinching...and throw in that less than stellar chin and what do you have...a big heavyweight that not only refuses to ever mix it up, but a heavyweight completely concerned with being hit. He had the tools to be one of the best, but like so many others who had the tools, he did utilize those tools and he only flung that big right hand when he was certain that there would be no return-fire!

Lewis would always be a heavyweight that would be difficult for any fighter to land a good shot on because he was always defensive-minded first...personally, I prefer an offensive-minded heavyweight!

Barry, while I generally agree with your comments, many of these same criticisms can be made of just about any of the ATG HWs. Did Louis look great in all of his fights? Or Ali, Marciano, or Dempsey? I don’t think I have to list the individual fights, but each of them had less than impressive performances against fighters that should have presented few problems. It’s just the nature of sports that even the greats have off nights, or they run into someone who has their number.

As to where Louis ranks all time, that’s a tough one. When I rate him on skills and ability I have him 17th, and that almost seems high. But when I put him in my head-to-head xls against my top 77 he comes out #10. That’s mainly due to some pretty simple logic. He’s much larger than almost everybody else on the list and he has pretty good basic skills, a decent jab and very good power. That’s a pretty tough combination to beat, and a pretty hard thing for a guy who thinks boxing talent is almost non-existent today due to the sports nearly complete meltdown. But when the fighter has some skills, then size definitely matters.

[pound per pound]

Barry you say Lewis lost to bums and shouldnt deserv a place in your top 20.. but what about Dempsey who is number 3 on your list.. he got KO in the first round against a guy with a 36-27 record. and that was 4 years after he had turned pro. although Demspey avenged that loss knocking hiout himself in the 1st round.. just like Lewis did against his 2 ever losses...

there may be debate about whther lewis makes the top 10 or not.. but not making top 20 is abit riduculas

Agree. Lewis should be top 20 on every list. For my money, McCall and Rhaman solid contenders with the ability to upset many champions. In truth many great champions were upset by lesser fighters than Rahman or McCall.

[HomicideHenry]

Lennox Lewis, like Larry Holmes, I believe will be judged more kindly by historians in the future than he will be in the next few years.

Lewis beaten virtually every top man in the division with the lone exception of Riddick Bowe, and of course Ruiz and Byrd, whom he dropped belts to because he felt they were beneath him.

There is no question in my mind that Lewis is the best big man since Holmes. Lewis' weakness was his ego, as he would not train properly against mean he felt were not on his level---both were losses to Rahman and McCall---though he avenged those in short order.

In my opinion he would have been ranked or respected better if he had left and bowed out when he beat Tyson by KO in the 8th round, rather than go on and win by cuts over Vitali Klitschko in a sluggish matchup in which Lewis was losing on all score cards.

I would rank him in the top 10-15 of all time.

[barry]

>>>Did Louis look great in all of his fights?<<<

Of course not, but he was never knocked out by two less than stellar heavyweights while in his prime.

[Ezzard]

>>>While Lewis's losses do hurt his legacy somewhat the fact that he got the better of his best contemporaries makes up for this.<<<

I also have difficulty ranking him because when he was faced with his biggest challenge to date, against Holyfield, Lewis fought like a small heavyweight and really blew his opportunity to scale top ten lists. I thought he won the first bout, not impressively, but rather easily and was duked by a bum decision from Jerry Roth, but the rematch could have and probably should have went to Holyfield...and old Holyfield at that.

As I said before, Lewis was too hot and cold for me and it seemed that he was cold more than hot. He looked great against Ruddock, Golota and a couple of others, but then he looked like someone contient only on jabbing, clinching, jabbing and clinching...and throw in that less than stellar chin and what do you have...a big heavyweight that not only refuses to ever mix it up, but a heavyweight completely concerned with being hit. He had the tools to be one of the best, but like so many others who had the tools, he did utilize those tools and he only flung that big right hand when he was certain that there would be no return-fire!

Lewis would always be a heavyweight that would be difficult for any fighter to land a good shot on because he was always defensive-minded first...personally, I prefer an offensive-minded heavyweight!

Maybe I don't give as much weight to how a fighter 'looks'. I always think of the result and if they had a bad night and won then that says a lot about their ability and determination. Of course looking good does mean a lot though. I think, Barry, that your last sentence says a lot... Many people dislike or underestimate Lewis because he was cautious. I used to hear a lot of these accusations against Holmes...

I'm always surprised at how much Lewis is disliked. Detractors always talk about Lewis' reluctance to mix it. IMO if you find a way to win that limits your chances of getting hurt then you'd be a fool not to use that strategy.

For me Lewis is around number 10. Sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower. I do appreciate some of the reservations though.

[barry]

I realize that I, more than likely, rate Lewis lower than I probably should, but I just cannot get over the two knockout losses and the other sub-par performances that he had, when he had the chance to really shine.

I don't have a problem praising him for fighting everyone, with the exception of maybe a handful, but those bouts that didn't happen were not really Lewis' fault as he was willing to fight anyone, but I cannot overlook the fact that he competed in a pretty weak era of heavyweights either. With his size stregth and skill, Lewis should have been a very exciting heavyweight, but he was more concerned with being defensive than offensive. He was the dominate heavyweight in one of the weaker era's of heavyweight boxing and I certainly like it better when he was fighting because he was the only champion compared to the four, or five trinket-holders today.

[Ezzard]

I realize that I, more than likely, rate Lewis lower than I probably should, but I just cannot get over the two knockout losses and the other sub-par performances that he had, when he had the chance to really shine.

I don't have a problem praising him for fighting everyone, with the exception of maybe a handful, but those bouts that didn't happen were not really Lewis' fault as he was willing to fight anyone, but I cannot overlook the fact that he competed in a pretty weak era of heavyweights either. With his size stregth and skill, Lewis should have been a very exciting heavyweight, but he was more concerned with being defensive than offensive. He was the dominate heavyweight in one of the weaker era's of heavyweight boxing and I certainly like it better when he was fighting because he was the only champion compared to the four, or five trinket-holders today.

Barry, was that era really so bad? I consider the 1990s to be a good one for HW boxing. We had Lewis, Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield who all had immense potential. Then we had a lot of game fighters who were good contenders: Mercer, McCall (when he turned up), Ruddock, Tua, Golota, Morrison and many more...

4 great fighters overlapping as they all did is quite something. the biggest problem was that most of them met when not in their primes but still...

Lewis' KO losses do look bad, especially the Rahman fight. On TV in UK Hagler pretty much called the KO a round or two before it happened. personally I think the second performance against Holyfield really lets him down. A win over Bowe would have also boosted him.

[The Great John L]

>>>Did Louis look great in all of his fights?<<<

Of course not, but he was never knocked out by two less than stellar heavyweights while in his prime.

Of course he wasn’t, but no one is saying that Lewis was as good as Louis. Wasn’t Dempsey KO’d by a very over the hill Jim Flynn? And didn’t he also lose to “Fat” Willie Meehan – several times? I’m no fan of either McCall or Rahman, but they were both better than a past it Flynn or a prime Meehan. And didn’t Jack Johnson get KO’d by 170 lb Joe Choynski, and Klondike? And I’m not trying to denigrate Dempsey or Johnson, both of whom I rate in my top 5, but simply trying to point out how silly it is to put too much emphasis on two fights in an otherwise stellar career.

And I would also debate the fact that Lewis was in his prime when he got KOd by Rahman. He was 35+ years old and obviously not at his best that night.

[Andy Mac]

I think it is fair to say that Lennox deserves a top ten rating. Lennox's problem was he fought and trained as he percieved the danger his opponent presented to him. Hence the sometimes negative displays he put on unneccessarily. By the same token if he thought the opponent as no threat he was almost contemptuous in his attitude, as was the case with Rahman 1 :ie going filming and arriving in South Africa a week before the fight. However in his rematches he applied himself properly and gained revenge. Also it would be ridiculous to not take his formidable power, reach and size into any equation when considering how he would have fought in any era.

[barry]

>>>Jack Johnson had been boxing as a pro for seven years when he was knocked out by Choynski, and he was 38 when he was knocked out by Willard.<<<

Was Johnson in his prime when knocked out...I don't think so! Not to mention that Choynski and Willard are both Hall of Famers...but then again...maybe you think McCall and Rahman are Hall of Fame worthy, but I doubt that you will ever get many people to agree with you!

[Cojimar 1945]

I don't think Willard is very deserving of the hall of fame. The hall of fame has become a joke.

[barry]

>>>I don't think Willard is very deserving of the hall of fame. The hall of fame has become a joke.<<<

I agree, but Willard, at his best, is/was, in my opinion, a more formidable foe than either McCall, or Rahman.

The Hall of Fame, you’re right it is about as bad as the alphabet soup orgs. Harry Carson, who played linebacker for the NY Giants, after years of being snubbed and looked over by the Pro Football HOF, stated that he certainly does not need the vote, or approval of some sports writer to validate his career in football as being successful. Now that was a great thing to hear and a quote that is so very true with any sport, but after he finally did get elected he was rather happy about it. Personally, I prefer the World Boxing Hall of Fame as opposed to the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

[BoxBuzz]

I think we need to remember what the name implies. All the early HW champions in the linear order certainly deserve to be in it. It is about FAME that does not always distill down to skill. It is what it is, let's not make it out to be something other than that.


More "pop" boxing enthusiasts know about the linear HW champions than know a name like Bennie Briscoe, though I would agree if it was called the "Hall of Competence" or "Hall of Skill" A Briscoe or a Burley would be in and Willard would not. Carnera is in the HOF right?.....or is he?

[kick asner]

Jack Johnson had been boxing as a pro for seven years when he was knocked out by Choynski, and he was 38 when he was knocked out by Willard.

Lewis had been boxing as a pro for five years when he was knocked out by McCall, and he was 35 or 36 when he was knocked out by Jess Willard.

There is painfully little difference between those losses, yet you rank Johnson in the top five. Moreover, Lewis avenged both of his kayo defeats and defended his title against the best possible opposition, while Johnson didn't.

Did you mean Lewis was 35 or 36 when he was knocked out by Hasim Rahman?

[barry]

No, Carnera has not been elected yet, but it's a good possibility that he will be, but then again maybe not, or else he probably already would have been. Carnera is one of the very few heavyweight champs that has not been elected. I don't know if he is in the World Boxing HOF though.

[JAHamilton77]

Seriously, dont ask about Lewis' place in the pantheon of the heavyweight division yet. Wait about 5-10 years and let his achievements (or lack there of) sink in and let people put his career in perspective.

Look at all time lists of divisions & look at mythical match ups. Current guys rarely get their just due.

Before certain people on here go apeshit, I am not suggesting Lewis belongs in the top 20 or not, I am just saying that Boxing (and all sports) historians often favor guys from the past more than contemporaies (though they will strongly deny this bias).

[Cojimar 1945]

Woulden't there be a tendency to overrate the most recent athletes because it seems that records are constantly being broken as athletes achieve higher and higher performance levels.

People may be very reluctant to rate old timers over more recent athletes that are achieving greater performance than all their predecessors.

[kick asner]

"People may be reluctant to rate old timers over more recent athletes"

I think in this forum the older fighters are usually rated pretty high. I think sometimes guys like Max Baer and Jack Demsey maybe are rated a bit to high. You also have guys like Jack Johnson, Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Mickey Walker, Henry Armstrong and scores of other old time fighters who are always in the top five ratings. I'm not saying they shouldn't be rated high just that they receive plenty of recognition. A quick review of the forum will bear that out