BoxRec

In terms of this old-timers versus contemporary fighters debate there are a few other things to consider...

I think it was Decagon who raised a point in a different thread that most people tend to favour the athletes from when they were around 13. I'm not sure how he got to this conclusion but from personal experience I'd say he has a point. Still, I do my best to put my bias aside.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the people making money off the fighters: promoters, managers, TV, magazines, journalists have a vested interest in telling you that the current fighters are the best there have ever been. These people are making a good living off the endeavours of fighters and they want us to all buy into it.

Aplogies to all the journalists who may take offence but the nature of sports journalism is such that a certain pandering to egos is par for the course. If you want access to a fighter then there's no better way than talking him up in your pieces. It's a thin line between keeping in with the promoters/managers/fighters and telling it as it is. Journalists must play both as close to the wire as they can for (1) to maintain their contacts and (2) maintain their professional integrity.

This is not menat to put down current fighters or journalists. There's no system in place but generally this is how it works. If you want to be the man who writes the champ's biography, gets the exclusive interviews, gets the place in the dressing room then it's best to tell the world that he would have licked Sugar Ray with one arm tied behind his back.

Well if Decagon would ever do any research on the old-timers, ionstead of just looking over a record, he would see that the fighters of today do not hold a light to the old-timers. As has been said recently, the old-timers would lose a fight and they would be back in the ring in a couple of weeks and before the year was out they had made up for the loss, whereas the fighters of today lose one bout and it's all down-hill from there! The older fighters were superior in pretty much all of the aspects that matter. Now today's fighters can look prettier in the ring compared to the older fighters, but looking pretty is not effect, though there are a few who seem to be mesmerized, Dec being one of those, by the 20-punch a round, shadow-boxers of today!

Dec, you can try to make all the excuses you like and you can yap about Bill Tate and Klondike all you like too, but as I have said before, it will never, ever cover-up the fact that you simply have no clue about pre-1950 boxing, which you often demonstarte with such outstanding quotes like "Winky Wright would kill Bob Fitzsimmons," or my personal favorite of yours, "Stanley Ketchel was nothing but a 160 pound John Ruiz!"

As I have suggested to Dec time and time again...looking at a record alone will tell you very litttle about a fighter...I'm not an old-timer nuthugger...I just know what I'm talking about!!!!

barry wrote:Well if Decagon would ever do any research on the old-timers, ionstead of just looking over a record, he would see that the fighters of today do not hold a light to the old-timers. As has been said recently, the old-timers would lose a fight and they would be back in the ring in a couple of weeks and before the year was out they had made up for the loss, whereas the fighters of today lose one bout and it's all down-hill from there!

Very good point. And Lewis is actually a good example of a contemporary fighter who kept working after a loss and was able to climb back to the top on two different occasions. Some other recent examples are Barerra, Holyfield and DLH.

As you noted, way too many people put a lot of emphasis on a loss or two and don’t look at the whole career. In fact, many times a loss in a fighter’s career is a very good thing.

The Great John L wrote: In fact, many times a loss in a fighter’s career is a very good thing.

It's an odd thing to say but I agree. if you fight the best out there often enough you will lose some.

Ezzard wrote:

The Great John L wrote: In fact, many times a loss in a fighter’s career is a very good thing.

It's an odd thing to say but I agree. if you fight the best out there often enough you will lose some.

hell going undefeated only brings skeptics to disect your every move. Having a loss and avenging it is better than not fighting the opponent at all.

Today's boxing is so "watered-down" that's it ridiculous! There is a very small group of "real" fighters who could compete with some of the better fighters in history, but it is only a select few and everyone else is either a set-up fighter, or an over-hyped possible prospect who is just waiting to lose.

Fighters today, for the most part, simply just do not know how to fight As I’ve said before, they know how to look pretty in the ring, but when it comes down to blood, guts and heart, eight out of ten will fail. Today's fighters are built up on weak opposition until they reach a record of something like 25-0 and then they step up and I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of fighters fail than succeed when making the step up.

Those that continue to progress usually go on to the top while the bigger percent go back to facing corpses, which some like to call the re-building process, but the fact is...the fighter was never built to begin with.

They fight once, or twice a year during which time they spend countless hours sparring, which sparring has some benefits, but it sure as hell is not nearly as effective as fighting.

Also, very rare is it that we see a fighter today who goes into a bout with Plan A and a Plan B. They usually have one plan and if it does not work then they're screwed, and that is something that we see a lot. Which you would think that with all the sparring and the two to six months that today's fighters prepare for one fight it looks like they would have a few different strategies, but how often do we ever see that...not much!

I would say that all the sparring and having only one or two bouts a year is why fighters today are not as tough as the older fighters. Hell, they do all of this training, well some do, but they train and rarely fight and when they get tagged in a real fight it feels a lot different than the hits taken in sparring. The older fighters are far superior compared to today’s bunch, though there is a couple who would stand out in any era!

These days many guys seem to be crushed by a single defeat. As long as a fighter continues to learn all he has to do is work his way abck up the rankings.

It also amazes me just how much many fight fans think a guy who ahs lost a few fights can't be any good.

Lennox Lewis be in the All-Time top 10 heavyweights?

In my Top 10, I wouldn't have him in it.

However, If your asking if he should be considered for a spot, then I would say yes, BUT only if you also examine and consider Evander Holyfield for a spot.

I'mnot a great fan of Holyfield (Or Lewis for that matter) but he was the man who finished Mike Tyson off once and for all, he puched the fire out of Tysons belly.

And the mjority people tend to forget that Lewis and Holyfield drew the first time they met and Lewis only won by a matter of a few points the seocnd time round...

SO, all-in-all, there's not that much to choose between Lewis and Holyfield in their respective primes...

>>>It also amazes me just how much many fight fans think a guy who ahs lost a few fights can't be any good.<<<


The fighter that immediately came to mind was Teddy "RedTop" Davis. If someone just looked at his record without knowing anything about his career they would probably get the impression that Davis was not much, but read into his career and you will see a very good fighter who gave some of the best featherweights of his era all they could handle and more! That's one reason that I dislike people trying to debate a fighter based only on what his record looks like. Records are helpful, but other than telling the result of a bout, that is about all that a record is good for. It's better to read about a fighter and read accounts of his fights and then look at his record, but a record alone is nothing but empty stats...which Davis' record is a prime example as he has more losses than wins, but those "L's" in his record does not tell of the "bum" decisions, or the bouts that very easily could have gone in Davis' favor...nothing but empty stats!

Terence wrote:The thing Lewis does is mix the best of both world, a lot of our modern heavyweights are big and athletic (Klitschko, both of them, Grant and the ilk) whereas the older guys were, by dint of the social size trends, smaller but had better technique. Jack Johnson, on the footage we have seen, has better technique, better style and a more relaxed fighting posture than the likes of Vitali and Wlad. Give Johnson a modern conditioning coach and put him in with a robotic fighter then watch him break them down, let them work of their tense, nervous energy and then he'd KO them, as Larry said he'd get them drunk and mug them.

For my money Lewis mixed-up both worlds, big and strong plus great technique. He did not get this spurious and silly tag 'old-school' but he could block, parry and tie guys-up, people don't bring it up, especially when they are slating Ruiz, but there was a lot of clinching in the older fights, a lot of these guys fought 'dirty' (which for Lewis detractors means having the sense to, god help him, clinch when tired/hurt. Funny how it is used as a black mark for Lewis that he could clinch and a black mark for Bruno that he couldn't clinch). Lewis lost a fight and worked on his technique, he was also the most well-put together athlete out there and a marvellous specimin. Place the Klits or Grant in those eras and they'd be big guys who fell apart due to stamina problems, Lewis would acquit himself well and has a a fine record, he is easily a top ten heavyweight. Maybe not if you pad a 30 fighter heavyweight list with fighters you can only have seen in action for a round or two but by most criterion he is right up there. It is not his fault his defining fight, for many, came against a flat-track bully with more pout than puff.

I think you have raised some very good points concerning Lewis. he's a hard one to rate but he was a top fighter. For soem reason he is not very popular and this seems to get in the way of many people's judgement.

Terence wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Terence wrote:The thing Lewis does is mix the best of both world, a lot of our modern heavyweights are big and athletic (Klitschko, both of them, Grant and the ilk) whereas the older guys were, by dint of the social size trends, smaller but had better technique. Jack Johnson, on the footage we have seen, has better technique, better style and a more relaxed fighting posture than the likes of Vitali and Wlad. Give Johnson a modern conditioning coach and put him in with a robotic fighter then watch him break them down, let them work of their tense, nervous energy and then he'd KO them, as Larry said he'd get them drunk and mug them.

For my money Lewis mixed-up both worlds, big and strong plus great technique. He did not get this spurious and silly tag 'old-school' but he could block, parry and tie guys-up, people don't bring it up, especially when they are slating Ruiz, but there was a lot of clinching in the older fights, a lot of these guys fought 'dirty' (which for Lewis detractors means having the sense to, god help him, clinch when tired/hurt. Funny how it is used as a black mark for Lewis that he could clinch and a black mark for Bruno that he couldn't clinch). Lewis lost a fight and worked on his technique, he was also the most well-put together athlete out there and a marvellous specimin. Place the Klits or Grant in those eras and they'd be big guys who fell apart due to stamina problems, Lewis would acquit himself well and has a a fine record, he is easily a top ten heavyweight. Maybe not if you pad a 30 fighter heavyweight list with fighters you can only have seen in action for a round or two but by most criterion he is right up there. It is not his fault his defining fight, for many, came against a flat-track bully with more pout than puff.

I think you have raised some very good points concerning Lewis. he's a hard one to rate but he was a top fighter. For soem reason he is not very popular and this seems to get in the way of many people's judgement.

Probably due to the fact when he did get the elite fights he made some look easy and out-boxed his guy in others, without taking any risks. Fighters who have long-dragged out wars usually have them due to a lack of top-level talent, there are exceptions which prove my rules, Ali-Frazier for instance.

I read one article in which Lewis was criticised for not being aggressive enough!!! We all like a crowd pleaser but being a great boxer is about finding away to limit your chances of losing whilst increasing your chances of winning. You ahve to do what you have to do.

Lewis hasn't always been perfect, far from it, but he has beaten a lot of decent contenders.

i rate lewis in my top ten for a few differnt reasons, how long he stayed at the top, the fighters he beat, his strength, height and technique would have been a handfull for anyfighter of anytime.
i think people underate him because of those two losses against McCall and Rahman, but IMO he was not in his prime for any of those losses, and he bruttaly avenged both of them anyway.

Just out of interest, I am still compiling a list of all time top heavyweights, according to votes by BoxRec users.

At the moment Lennox Lewis comes in at number 9.

jezzamundo wrote:(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.

I agree, Holyfield didn't win either fight with Lewis he did slightly better in the second fight but didn't win.

The big audience and money for boxing has always been in the States, and Americans have always chanted the mantra that their heavyweights are the best in the world. Lennox Lewis came along, having won the Olympic gold not for America, but for Canada! This bugged most American boxing fans. Then Lewis turned pro and elected to fight in Britain, not the good ol' USA! How dare he. More fans were turned off. And then there was his oddly American attitude that he was the best heavyweight on the planet! Holy mackeral, talk about nerve! From this point on these particular jingoist boxing fans decided that no way would they ever root for Lewis. Objective fans in the US decided they'd wait and reserve judgement. The "Kitchener Thunderbolt", as his Canadian fans referred to him, went about his business taking on whomever the promoters put in front of him, and began an impressive win streak. Lewis got a little full of himself and underestimated McCall, but he got his revenge in the rematch. Then he ran off another streak before going into the first Rahman fight with less than a complete focus, distracted by Hollywood amongst other things. He lost, though he might have recovered between rounds given a chance. When he was given a chance to avenge this loss, he left no question as to who was the better man. In this he reminded me of fellow Canadian heavyweight Champ, Earl Walls.

Lennox Lewis fought the best of his day, except for one who ran away rather than meet him in the ring. At the top of his game, he had all the tools and the ring smarts to beat many in the HOF today. I'd put him in my top ten without question.

Cap

Lewis is near to, effectively equal to the top10 in BoxRec's all-time ratings. The measure is the average rating of his best 5 annual ratings.

NOPE!

Lenox Lewis isn't even great, 'never-mind' all-time great!

Cap wrote:The big audience and money for boxing has always been in the States, and Americans have always chanted the mantra that their heavyweights are the best in the world. Lennox Lewis came along, having won the Olympic gold not for America, but for Canada! This bugged most American boxing fans. Then Lewis turned pro and elected to fight in Britain, not the good ol' USA! How dare he. More fans were turned off. And then there was his oddly American attitude that he was the best heavyweight on the planet! Holy mackeral, talk about nerve! From this point on these particular jingoist boxing fans decided that no way would they ever root for Lewis. Objective fans in the US decided they'd wait and reserve judgement. The "Kitchener Thunderbolt", as his Canadian fans referred to him, went about his business taking on whomever the promoters put in front of him, and began an impressive win streak. Lewis got a little full of himself and underestimated McCall, but he got his revenge in the rematch. Then he ran off another streak before going into the first Rahman fight with less than a complete focus, distracted by Hollywood amongst other things. He lost, though he might have recovered between rounds given a chance. When he was given a chance to avenge this loss, he left no question as to who was the better man. In this he reminded me of fellow Canadian heavyweight Champ, Earl Walls.

Lennox Lewis fought the best of his day, except for one who ran away rather than meet him in the ring. At the top of his game, he had all the tools and the ring smarts to beat many in the HOF today. I'd put him in my top ten without question.



Cap

I don't want to take your post out of context but am confused when you say Lewis was rejected by Americans for not residing in the United States and then say they have the nerve to think he is a great fighter. So it sounds like you are saying they are wrong either way they lean. Just nead a bit of clarification.