BoxRec

This is descending into one of these snarky childishness internet arguments now, so I'll wrap up.

Ruddock boxed like an amateur against Lennox Lewis. Norton's not going to hang his chin out like Ruddock did, in between some unsophisticated hail marry Smash swings. Whatever, if 70s Foreman is 'slow and ponderous' God only knows what Ruddock and McCall are. Or maybe your elevating them out of neccessity of your own LL hero worship? Who knows? I don't.

I don't think anyone can really dismiss Ken Norton as a puncher while at the same time selling Oliver McCall as one. I'd certainly rate Ken Norton as the better hitter out of those two.

I would agree that the 70s version of Foreman was robotic and predictable. Lewis would have taken either that version or the comeback Foreman apart with relative ease.

loaded_gloves wrote:This is descending into one of these snarky childishness internet arguments now, so I'll wrap up.

Ruddock boxed like an amateur against Lennox Lewis. Norton's not going to hang his chin out like Ruddock did, in between some unsophisticated hail marry Smash swings. Whatever, if 70s Foreman is 'slow and ponderous' God only knows what Ruddock and McCall are. Or maybe your elevating them out of neccessity of your own LL hero worship? Who knows? I don't.

I don't think anyone can really dismiss Ken Norton as a puncher while at the same time selling Oliver McCall as one. I'd certainly rate Ken Norton as the better hitter out of those two.

Let’s see I’m saying that the 6-5 240+ lb guy that dominated his era, beat everyone available and exhibited one punch KO power could stop someone whose resume is little more than 3 fights against Ali and I’m the exhibiting some type of bias?

BTW, since you’re the one that thinks the same Norton who got KO’d by every big puncher he faced is going to be able to vanquish the big punching top dog of the 90’s, what exactly were you doing during Nortons prime in the 70s? I was watching him and all of the other great HWs of the time and following the sport closely. The guy you’re worshiping was one of my favorites, yet I seem to be one of the few reasonable guys around here that can recognize the shortcomings of the HWs of the 70s that seem to many on here to be deified. Yes, the 70’s era was stronger than the Lewis era, but that doesn’t mean anything if you only beat a few of the top guys of the period. Lewis beat everybody of note during his era.

BTW, I don’t need to elevate anybody to raise Lewis accomplishments because Lewis record stands by itself. He beat everyone of note during his career. Take the 3 fights against Ali away and what’s left of the Norton resume?

The Great John L wrote:what exactly were you doing during Nortons prime in the 70s? I was watching him and all of the other great HWs of the time and following the sport closely. The guy you’re worshiping was one of my favorites, yet I seem to be one of the few reasonable guys around here that can recognize the shortcomings of the HWs of the 70s that seem to many on here to be deified. Yes, the 70’s era was stronger than the Lewis era, but that doesn’t mean anything if you only beat a few of the top guys of the period. Lewis beat everybody of note during his era.

different topic, would like your opinion. a thing that
always puzzles me is the intensity and willingness to
take risks in the great era of the seventies. whenever
i see a bout of norton, shavers, ali, foreman, lyle or
holmes i feel like they have some tactic but they are
at all times willing to forget about it and go to war.

whenever i see current fights, by current i mean post
lewis, i feel like people are either unwilling or unable
to do that. i do miss the athletic intensity so to speak.
be it tactical reasons or at times physical inability, i feel
like something is different. this is why i would think lyle
would have no problem with anyone below the ks.

now here is my question. wladimir is a great boxer,
but even now, at the peak of his achievements and
confidence, he in my opinion lacks this intensity. which
makes me always doubt he could beat a top five contender
in the seventies. they would just out-intensify him. does
that makes any sense, what do you think?

John, who did you have winning the Ray Mercer fight? I think I already know the answer.

I have no problem with the Foreman and Shavers fights being held against Norton in regards to Lewis, you surely don't think Lewis could take a shot on the chin from Foreman or Shavers?

Norton has a better body of work than just his Ali fights, but regardless, is beating Muhammad Ali not an accomplishment now? Is bombing Ruddock and Golota now greater? If there's a knock against the 70s, it was certainly an era that threw up less built up big names with glossy records who couldn't fight all night at a brutal fight and would flop in quick time when hit early thus serving as another incredible win for the fighter in question.

loaded_gloves wrote:This is descending into one of these snarky childishness internet arguments now, so I'll wrap up.

Ruddock boxed like an amateur against Lennox Lewis. Norton's not going to hang his chin out like Ruddock did, in between some unsophisticated hail marry Smash swings. Whatever, if 70s Foreman is 'slow and ponderous' God only knows what Ruddock and McCall are. Or maybe your elevating them out of neccessity of your own LL hero worship? Who knows? I don't.

I don't think anyone can really dismiss Ken Norton as a puncher while at the same time selling Oliver McCall as one. I'd certainly rate Ken Norton as the better hitter out of those two.

Lewis was at his best vs. Ruddock he was perfect that night, so calm composed, his body language before that fight was awfully impressive. Ruddock looked spooked by Lewis's calm, IMO he fell apart mentally under the pressure of it all. Lewis was just marvelous that night. Still hear the echos of George Foreman screaming high pitch seconds after the KO how Lewis could become an all time great. Lewis was spectacular that night, that's what did Ruddock in, he just fell apart mentally and then physically.

Lewis was spectacular that night, absolutely.

loaded_gloves wrote:Lewis was spectacular that night, absolutely.

Remember reading in the Ken Gorman book about Lewis that Lou Duva was asked after Lewis beat Razor what would Holy need to beat Lewis? Duva replied, "A shotgun."

The winner of Bowe-Holy two weeks later was contractually supposed to face the Lewis-Ruddock winner, but after Bowe beat Holyfield, Rock Newman and Bowe decided to take much safer options than a date with Lewis. Bowe ended up facing Michael Dokes and Jesse Ferguson

I think the logic says that Ali would win it, after all he is the most talked about and most documented heavyweight of all time. Problem with me, though, is that Ali never fought a guy anywhere near like Lennox Lewis in his entire career. He may of fought guys just as tall or close. He may of fought guys as heavy or as close. He may of fought as good a boxer or close. Etc. But he never fought a guy with a combination of all those things. It wouldnt have been easy for Ali to beat a man who was fast and nimble on his feet, with a dominating jab, who was nearly 6'8" and 250 pounds when trained down and was solid muscle.

montrealsuper wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Lewis was spectacular that night, absolutely.

Remember reading in the Ken Gorman book about Lewis that Lou Duva was asked after Lewis beat Razor what would Holy need to beat Lewis? Duva replied, "A shotgun."

The winner of Bowe-Holy two weeks later was contractually supposed to face the Lewis-Ruddock winner, but after Bowe beat Holyfield, Rock Newman and Bowe decided to take much safer options than a date with Lewis. Bowe ended up facing Michael Dokes and Jesse Ferguson

The media love affair with Lewis quickly ended after his dismal right hand happy performance against a waning Tucker, a lowly regarded (but underrated) Bruno, the useless Jackson, and then the McCall splattering.
The Ruddock fight was seen as incongruous for a long time.

For whatever reason, their have often been popular opinions about Lewis that have been off. (apparently some people even think he was taller than he is.)

You often hear about his jab being great. It wasn't. Sometimes it was good, but often he just pawed with it. Even when he tried to snap it, it was not very fast.

On the other hand, he gets criticism from his detractors for not having a good chin. He had a good chin, just not a great one.

You could say that Ali never fought a fighter just like Lewis; and that is true.
And you could also say that Lewis never fought anyone just like Ali; and that would be true as well.

HomicideHenry wrote:I think the logic says that Ali would win it, after all he is the most talked about and most documented heavyweight of all time. Problem with me, though, is that Ali never fought a guy anywhere near like Lennox Lewis in his entire career. He may of fought guys just as tall or close. He may of fought guys as heavy or as close. He may of fought as good a boxer or close. Etc. But he never fought a guy with a combination of all those things. It wouldnt have been easy for Ali to beat a man who was fast and nimble on his feet, with a dominating jab, who was nearly 6'8" and 250 pounds when trained down and was solid muscle.

Where did u get 6ft 8 from!!!!!
I ran with lennox lewis in danson park in around 1990...nice bloke...not 6ft 8 tho...6ft 5.....i love lennox...hometown boy...he wouldnt have beaten ali at his best tho..the fight would be a cross between ali vs terrell and lewis vs holy 2...

Of course, they have no common opponents, so it is hard to say with any real certainty, but I believe the Clay/Ali from 1964 to 1975 would have beaten Lewis at any time in Lennox's career without too much trouble.

evrenb wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I think the logic says that Ali would win it, after all he is the most talked about and most documented heavyweight of all time. Problem with me, though, is that Ali never fought a guy anywhere near like Lennox Lewis in his entire career. He may of fought guys just as tall or close. He may of fought guys as heavy or as close. He may of fought as good a boxer or close. Etc. But he never fought a guy with a combination of all those things. It wouldnt have been easy for Ali to beat a man who was fast and nimble on his feet, with a dominating jab, who was nearly 6'8" and 250 pounds when trained down and was solid muscle.

Where did u get 6ft 8 from!!!!!
I ran with lennox lewis in danson park in around 1990...nice bloke...not 6ft 8 tho...6ft 5.....i love lennox...hometown boy...he wouldnt have beaten ali at his best tho..the fight would be a cross between ali vs terrell and lewis vs holy 2...

Tyson-Lewis, the referee for the contest himself was 6'5" and Lewis towered over him.

HomicideHenry wrote:

evrenb wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I think the logic says that Ali would win it, after all he is the most talked about and most documented heavyweight of all time. Problem with me, though, is that Ali never fought a guy anywhere near like Lennox Lewis in his entire career. He may of fought guys just as tall or close. He may of fought guys as heavy or as close. He may of fought as good a boxer or close. Etc. But he never fought a guy with a combination of all those things. It wouldnt have been easy for Ali to beat a man who was fast and nimble on his feet, with a dominating jab, who was nearly 6'8" and 250 pounds when trained down and was solid muscle.

Where did u get 6ft 8 from!!!!!
I ran with lennox lewis in danson park in around 1990...nice bloke...not 6ft 8 tho...6ft 5.....i love lennox...hometown boy...he wouldnt have beaten ali at his best tho..the fight would be a cross between ali vs terrell and lewis vs holy 2...

Tyson-Lewis, the referee for the contest himself was 6'5" and Lewis towered over him.

Eddie Cotton was it? He was 6ft 5 in 1966...

HomicideHenry wrote:

evrenb wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I think the logic says that Ali would win it, after all he is the most talked about and most documented heavyweight of all time. Problem with me, though, is that Ali never fought a guy anywhere near like Lennox Lewis in his entire career. He may of fought guys just as tall or close. He may of fought guys as heavy or as close. He may of fought as good a boxer or close. Etc. But he never fought a guy with a combination of all those things. It wouldnt have been easy for Ali to beat a man who was fast and nimble on his feet, with a dominating jab, who was nearly 6'8" and 250 pounds when trained down and was solid muscle.

Where did u get 6ft 8 from!!!!!
I ran with lennox lewis in danson park in around 1990...nice bloke...not 6ft 8 tho...6ft 5.....i love lennox...hometown boy...he wouldnt have beaten ali at his best tho..the fight would be a cross between ali vs terrell and lewis vs holy 2...

Tyson-Lewis, the referee for the contest himself was 6'5" and Lewis towered over him.

Look about the same height to me

Cotton was very weird that night, he seemed to be anti Lewis and pro Mike. He had a suspicious demeanor the whole fight. And an undercover beard which he never wore before or after. One got the sense if Mike floored Lennox, Eddie would have jumped the gun with an ultra quick stoppage. Which would have enraged Lewis bettors.

Not only was Lewis not 6'8, he also wasn't nimble. He showed excellent footwork on some nights, but as big a Lewis fan as I am, I would never call him nimble, specially not if he's sharing a ring with pre-exile Ali.