BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:

witherspoon wrote:Lennox Lewis v Evander Holyfield.

Take the first fight as best case scenario for Lewis, disciplined approach, good use of the jab and plenty of movement. Did anyone seriously see Holyfield winning more than 3 rounds (and those debatable too).

Second fight Lewis much more stationary and willing to stand and trade, wins the fight clearly, in my eyes.

If these are the best and worst case scenarios for Lewis I think he takes everything in between.

Bullshit!!

Odd choice to make, considering myself and the majority of ringside reporters scored the rematch for Holyfield. Lewis was at his peak and Evander well past his and he struggled with Holyfield both times (yes, Lewis had some big moments in their first fight but it had lots of close rounds where Lennox didn't do much of anything)

Barkley - Hearns and 2 are already in the bank.

Jones/Toney is an obvious one.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Over ruled Saad. Liston could never land enough to make a decision and never catch Ali clean enough to knock him out.

Maybe not as an old man that trained on Hotdogs and beer. In his prime he would have had a chance. I'd wager he would take at least one or two against any heavyweight.

Not against Ali mate. There is no evidence to support your case. Case dismissed.

Let Eddie Futch train Liston, show him how to use his jab to defeat Ali (like Eddie did with Kenny Norton), and Liston beats Clay or Ali.

dempseyfire wrote:Bullshit!!

Lewis was at his peak and Evander well past his and he struggled with Holyfield both times (yes, Lewis had some big moments in their first fight but it had lots of close rounds where Lennox didn't do much of anything)

keithmoonhangover wrote: This isn't a time machine thread. It's Liston vs Ali as was in their two fights, not young Liston against young Clay.

I maintain Lennox Lewis v Evander Holyfield qualifies.
I want 2 more Bullshits before I quit on this one.

EDIT - From members other than Dempsey and Saad. (left myself wide open there)

witherspoon wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

witherspoon wrote:Lennox Lewis v Evander Holyfield.

Take the first fight as best case scenario for Lewis, disciplined approach, good use of the jab and plenty of movement. Did anyone seriously see Holyfield winning more than 3 rounds (and those debatable too).

Second fight Lewis much more stationary and willing to stand and trade, wins the fight clearly, in my eyes.

If these are the best and worst case scenarios for Lewis I think he takes everything in between.

Bullshit!!

Odd choice to make, considering myself and the majority of ringside reporters scored the rematch for Holyfield. Lewis was at his peak and Evander well past his and he struggled with Holyfield both times (yes, Lewis had some big moments in their first fight but it had lots of close rounds where Lennox didn't do much of anything)

The only criticism I can make of Lewis in the first fight (being extremely harsh) is that he was not aggressive enough when he had Holyfield in trouble. Even Harold Lederman could not give Evander more than three rounds!

To my eye, Holyfield looked very strong in both fights and nowhere near washed up. He fought hard all the way in both fights. When Lewis used alot of movement and long, hard jabs Holyfield could do nothing to get near him.
The second fight was closer because Lewis was much more stationary, Holyfield closed the gap on Lewis in the mid rounds before Lewis pulled away in the last 3-4 rounds.

Dempseyfire, it would be interesting to see your scoring of the second fight, if you post yours I will do the same. I did watch these fights very recently, after many years, and have to say that I was surprised how widely I gave the rematch to Lewis, having heard for years how Evander was robbed.

Holyfield fought hard all the way? That's the first I've heard of that. Every TV commentary and report noted that Evander had become a 'flurry' fighter who would have a burst of activity and then needed 60 seconds to rest after that. He was not nearly as active as he'd been at his peak (which had been 7+ years prior) nor were his reflexes what they had been either. And this wasn't just vs Lewis . . he'd been like that vs Bean and in the Moorer rematch. And looked like that in his next fight when he needed a gift decision vs John frikkin' Ruiz. Holyfield was not even near his prime in that fight at 37 years old.

As for my scorecard, gladly. I've posted this here before:

1) Holyfield (close round, E controlled the ring and landed the crisper shots)
2) Lewis
3) Even
4) Lewis
5) Holyfield
6) Holyfield
7) Holyfield
8) Lewis
9) Holyfield
10) Lewis
11) Lewis
12) Holyfield

A razor-thin 6-5-1 card for Evander. Certainly a close W for Lewis is not a bad scorecard, but if Holyfield could have this much success past his peak, a prime Evander who constantly gave angles and fired off 4-5 multi-punch combinations per round would've beaten Lewis definitively peak for peak.

Hearns-Duran @ 154lbs.

Possibly Hagler-Hearns, too. Some might say Tommy would learn & box, but I reckon Hagler would make him, sooner or later during each & every time, trade with him & that would be it!

Other than Foreman-Frazier and Liston-Paterson I don't agree with any of the others.

Tyson-Spinks
Tyson-McNeely
Holmes-Cobb
Hagler-Fletcher
Roy Jones versus all those non-entities he fought...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones/Toney is an obvious one.

Except if it happened today, or last year....or anytime since Jones went to HW.

Ezzard wrote:Other than Foreman-Frazier and Liston-Paterson I don't agree with any of the others.

Tyson-Spinks
Tyson-McNeely
Holmes-Cobb
Hagler-Fletcher
Roy Jones versus all those non-entities he fought...

Hagler never fought the Animal, but I agree on the outcome.

Joe Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacy
Jermain Taylor vs Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Margarito vs Miguel Cotto
Victor Ortiz vs Andre Berto

those fights are bullshit repellent.

big train express wrote:Joe Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacy
Jermain Taylor vs Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Margarito vs Miguel Cotto
Victor Ortiz vs Andre Berto

I don't know that Hopkins would beat taylor every time. The first one was pretty close.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

big train express wrote:Joe Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacy
Jermain Taylor vs Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Margarito vs Miguel Cotto
Victor Ortiz vs Andre Berto

I don't know that Hopkins would beat taylor every time. The first one was pretty close.

Taylor would beat him 10 times out of 10. All competitive, but he would win every time.

big train express wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

big train express wrote:Joe Calzaghe vs Jeff Lacy
Jermain Taylor vs Bernard Hopkins
Antonio Margarito vs Miguel Cotto
Victor Ortiz vs Andre Berto

I don't know that Hopkins would beat taylor every time. The first one was pretty close.

Taylor would beat him 10 times out of 10. All competitive, but he would win every time.

If Duane Ford had his way. Congratulations on coming up with one that deserves more ridicule than Pryor/Arguello.

It's worth a double, BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I assumed you were joking.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

big train express wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I don't know that Hopkins would beat taylor every time. The first one was pretty close.

Taylor would beat him 10 times out of 10. All competitive, but he would win every time.

If Duane Ford had his way. Congratulations on coming up with one that deserves more ridicule than Pryor/Arguello.

It's worth a double, BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I assumed you were joking.

you my friend need to start watching more boxing.

big train express wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

big train express wrote: Taylor would beat him 10 times out of 10. All competitive, but he would win every time.

If Duane Ford had his way. Congratulations on coming up with one that deserves more ridicule than Pryor/Arguello.

It's worth a double, BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I assumed you were joking.

you my friend need to start watching more boxing.

That's the last thing I need. I should probably watch less.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Other than Foreman-Frazier and Liston-Paterson I don't agree with any of the others.

Tyson-Spinks
Tyson-McNeely
Holmes-Cobb
Hagler-Fletcher
Roy Jones versus all those non-entities he fought...

Hagler never fought the Animal, but I agree on the outcome.

I was sure he won a KO1 defence against Fletcher...

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Other than Foreman-Frazier and Liston-Paterson I don't agree with any of the others.

Tyson-Spinks
Tyson-McNeely
Holmes-Cobb
Hagler-Fletcher
Roy Jones versus all those non-entities he fought...

Hagler never fought the Animal, but I agree on the outcome.

I was sure he won a KO1 defence against Fletcher...

Nope, he starched Caveman Lee in 1. The Animal was on his way to a shot and he got upset. Maybe against Roldan but it could have been someone else.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Hagler never fought the Animal, but I agree on the outcome.

I was sure he won a KO1 defence against Fletcher...

Nope, he starched Caveman Lee in 1. The Animal was on his way to a shot and he got upset. Maybe against Roldan but it could have been someone else.

Mate, you reaad my mistake... Mind reading from across the Atlantic... That's impressive...

It was Lee.

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote: I was sure he won a KO1 defence against Fletcher...

Nope, he starched Caveman Lee in 1. The Animal was on his way to a shot and he got upset. Maybe against Roldan but it could have been someone else.

Mate, you reaad my mistake... Mind reading from across the Atlantic... That's impressive...

It was Lee.

That era is my wheelhouse.

Great thread but I don't understand how close fights like Pryor-Arguello and Taylor-Hopkins are worthy candidates here. These are fight that would swing the other way if Pryor or Taylor had just the slightest off-night, which would certainly happen over 10 fights. I would say Norton winning 10 straight over Ali, with fair judging, is more likely that Pryor beating Arguello ten in a row as Norton clearly had Ali's number.

Pryor-Arguello, Holyfield-Lewis and Taylor-Hopkins. BULLSHIT Trifecta.
Barrera-Morales? Gatti-Ward? Mosley-DLH?

I think MAB beats the shit out of the Prince everytime around.

Good to see some sensible thoughts coming in on Pryor/Arguello. I thought the entire forum was running a practical joke on me,

On Holyfield vs Lewis I agree that is BS because those were two close fights and the slightest difference could have made a difference. The same for Hopkins vs Taylor. Those were too close.

Having said that Idisagree with Pryor/Arguello. Arguello fought valiantly because that is the only way he knew how to fight. However, the conclusion would have been always the same, Pryor by KO. That is a definite answer as opposed to two close fights that went the distance. There is no way that Arguello could have come in a better condition that he did for the first fight. By the time the second took place it was obvious that Arguello was out of his weight class and diminishing skills.

You guys argue that there is no way that Pryor could come up in the same condition for 10 fights. How about Arguello, can he come up 10 times in good enough shape to beat Pryor?

I don’t think so. He was at the end of his career and although, he look game in both it was clear his skills were not the same he displayed at 130 or 135.