Page 3 of 3
Posted: 30 Nov 2006, 05:31
by dr_devious
Collins2000 wrote:
Age is misleading. If Lewis had fought the calibre of fighters that those last 3 ATGs had fought he'd have been finished well before 36. He'd also have been KO'd at least a dozen times based on his being pole-axed by such men as McCall and Rahman.
Collins, when was Lewis pole-axed? Once by Rahman, the McCall fight he maybe could have carried on. In both fights it was obvious he took his opponents lightly; look what he did to them in re-matches (and I know the second McCall fight was odd). Look at Lewis's record when he had dangerous, top level opponents in front of him, when he was "up for it" - he won every time (robbed in first Holy fight). Your assertion he would have been knocked out at least a dozen times is bollox
Posted: 30 Nov 2006, 05:59
by yiddo14
Collins2000 wrote:yiddo14 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their own opinon.
Pundit pretty much summed it up at the start by saying there would be no defending people who rated Lewis in either the top 5 or lower than 20.
I agree with this.
All those who say he is'nt an all time great,and not worthy of being put in an all time top 15 heavyweight list,I would like to see the names you think would have dealt with a fit,focused Lennox Lewis.
I can't come up with many to be honest,maybe the usual suspects like Ali,Louis and Holmes...but these are the 3 greatest heavyweights ever.
I would like to see some of the Lewis knockers come up with 10-12 more names!!
You say you agree there is no defence for having him in the top 5.......... then in the same post you say, apart from
maybe Ali, Louis and Holmes you can't think of anyone else who deserves to be ahead of Lewis.
What more can I say?
Lewis is somewhere between 6-10 for me.I said apart from Louis,Ali and Holmes,there are'nt many more heavyweights I would back to BEAT(not rank ahead of) him on his best night.I did'nt say there were'nt any more that were capable of beating him,I just would'nt put my money on it.
Johnson,Frazier and Foreman would all be 50/50(ish)fights against Lewis,and I could'nt pick a winner with much conviction there.
As I have said(about 4 times now!)Lewis is in my top 10,but not my top 5.
Where would you rank him?
Posted: 30 Nov 2006, 06:06
by yiddo14
Collins2000 wrote:yiddo14 wrote:Collins2000 wrote:
That's just the thing though. Everyone of the Lewis nuthuggers is forced to rely on 'if' and 'but' when making out a case for a totally ridiculous top 5 inclusion.
"if only the ref had let him continue again mccall" (hahahaha Oliver feckin mccall)
"But Rahman was a big lad with a big punch and Lewis took him lightly (hahahaha Hasim feckin Rahman)"
As I see it, Lennox was pole-axed by 2 complete stiffs in his prime. Nice...
To start with,what I said was tongue in cheek.I ain't one for could of's or should of's.
Fact is this,Lewis lost to 2 lesser fighters.I would'nt dream of trying to defend that.
I think your assesment of two world heavyweight champions(one of them was a 2 time world champion!!)is a little harsh though!
Lewis makes my top 10 based on what he can do at his best.
Same as Joe Louis making top spot for me,I look at what he was capable of on his best night.I don't put the Joe Louis that got sparked by Max Schmeling as number 1,or the Ali that lost to Norton as my number 2.
Incidently,where would you rank Mike Tyson in an all time list?
The biggest if and but,should of,would of,could of man to ever be involved in the sport?
2 times heavyweight champ or not (and I shudder even writing that), Rahman is a stiff.
Let's put it into perspective, how many of the previous heavyweight champs would you fancy him to beat on their respective best days? You can include for consideration all the other fake alphabet ones of recent time to get a few runs on the board.
Rahman was by no means anything like a great heavyweight.And I,like you,shudder a little when mentioning him as a 2 time heavyweight champion!!! But,to me a stiff is someone who would'nt get anywhere near a world title shot let alone win it twice.
A stiff is a nothing fighter,that achieves exactly that.
A lot of people make the stiff/journeyman mistake when talking about McCall and Rahman.
A journeyman fighter is someone like Ross Puritty,someone whose there purely for others to see how their progressing.
Posted: 30 Nov 2006, 10:37
by pundit
yiddo14 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their own opinon.
Pundit pretty much summed it up at the start by saying there would be no defending people who rated Lewis in either the top 5 or lower than 20.
I agree with this.
All those who say he is'nt an all time great,and not worthy of being put in an all time top 15 heavyweight list,I would like to see the names you think would have dealt with a fit,focused Lennox Lewis.
I can't come up with many to be honest,maybe the usual suspects like Ali,Louis and Holmes...but these are the 3 greatest heavyweights ever.
I would like to see some of the Lewis knockers come up with 10-12 more names!!
I have Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, Foreman, Liston ahead of Lewis. I also used to have Sam Langford above him, but then it's awfully hard to compare a 6'5 with at 5'7 fighter. Sam Langford easily handled 6'2, 6'3 220 pound opponents in his time, but except for Bill Tate (6'6) -- who he also massacred -- there were no folks of Lewis' size around. So I put Langford a notch below Lewis now, as I do Frazier, Tunney (here you have my top 10), Marciano, Tyson, Dempsey, Charles, Holyfield, Schmeling, Wills, Sharkey, Walcott, Jeffries (my top 20), with a honorable mention for Patterson.
Posted: 30 Nov 2006, 15:41
by Collins2000
yiddo14 wrote:Collins2000 wrote:yiddo14 wrote:
To start with,what I said was tongue in cheek.I ain't one for could of's or should of's.
Fact is this,Lewis lost to 2 lesser fighters.I would'nt dream of trying to defend that.
I think your assesment of two world heavyweight champions(one of them was a 2 time world champion!!)is a little harsh though!
Lewis makes my top 10 based on what he can do at his best.
Same as Joe Louis making top spot for me,I look at what he was capable of on his best night.I don't put the Joe Louis that got sparked by Max Schmeling as number 1,or the Ali that lost to Norton as my number 2.
Incidently,where would you rank Mike Tyson in an all time list?
The biggest if and but,should of,would of,could of man to ever be involved in the sport?
2 times heavyweight champ or not (and I shudder even writing that), Rahman is a stiff.
Let's put it into perspective, how many of the previous heavyweight champs would you fancy him to beat on their respective best days? You can include for consideration all the other fake alphabet ones of recent time to get a few runs on the board.
Rahman was by no means anything like a great heavyweight.And I,like you,shudder a little when mentioning him as a 2 time heavyweight champion!!! But,to me a stiff is someone who would'nt get anywhere near a world title shot let alone win it twice.
A stiff is a nothing fighter,that achieves exactly that.
A lot of people make the stiff/journeyman mistake when talking about McCall and Rahman.
A journeyman fighter is someone like Ross Puritty,someone whose there purely for others to see how their progressing.
Maybe I should have used the word 'scrub' instead.
Hasim The Scrub Rahman sounds about right.
You can have the last word on the mighty Lummox Lewis as it seems that neither of us has anything to say that the other cares to listen to. Plus, you never spice your posts with humour which I find very thoughtless and uncaring!
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 01:16
by generic screen name
I have a hard time ranking Lewis, theres alot of woulda coulda shoulda, which was not all his fault. Losing to McCall and Rahman does minus some points for me, but he did defend the losses (Unlike Tyson). All the size talk bears nothing on me, I rank what they actually did. I give him #11.
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 09:20
by walshb
In a one on one at their peaks Lennox always has a punchers chance. He's a massive guy, but his two KO defeats by single shots to very average guys will never see him make my top 10. None of the alltime greats ever lost in that fashion. For a guy with all his physical advantages, he was a bit of a let down and his chin is very questionable. Rahman hit him with a bomb, but Ali, Holmes, Foreman etc all took equal if not harder shots and were hardly phased, hurt definitely but always regained their composure
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 09:40
by silkov
I dont see how you can put Lewis in the all time top ten, first there is the fact that his opposition was mediocre and his best opponents (Holifield and Tyson) were past their bests when Lewis beat them, then you have Lewis flaws, especially his dodgey chin... either way you look at it his losses to Rahman and Mccall are extremely poor results... trying to excuse them by saying that he took those fights likely is silly, Ali took plenty of fights lightly in his latter career but was never koed!... I'd rate Lewis at about 14 or 15... and above Tyson...
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 10:04
by Crease
Nah, I think that Lewis actually believed himself to be a top 10 fighter... I believe he thinks he was better than what he actually was...
I'd put him probably 10-15.
But I also think that;
Foreman would tank him out.
Liston would make a wee boy out of him.
+ that the young Tyson would KO him with ease.
Lewis was just a big lurch compared to these guys...
AND, any remarks saying that;
"Lewis is the new Ali" OR "Lewis would beat Marciano"
LUDICROUS.
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 10:14
by BoxBuzz
I'm thinking Lewis could take out Ludicrous (is that how you spell his name?) In less than two rounds.
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 10:31
by silkov
Well anyone saying that Lewis is comparable to Ali must be smoking something pretty strong... truth is that theres quite a gap between the likes of Lewis, Holifield, Tyson and Bowe and Ali...
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 10:53
by pundit
silkov wrote:Well anyone saying that Lewis is comparable to Ali must be smoking something pretty strong... truth is that theres quite a gap between the likes of Lewis, Holifield, Tyson and Bowe and Ali...
At least the 60s Ali would have blasted all these guys, on their best day.
Lewis era
Posted: 01 Dec 2006, 23:47
by Cojimar 1945
All this head to head talk is rather amusing. Each new generation of athletes seems to outperform the athletes of earlier eras. Saying Lewis would beat top fighters of earlier eras woulden't appear to be saying much given the improvements over time in other sports.
In the future I am sure there will be heavyweights with size and athleticism far beyond Lewis who would crush him like an insect.
wrong topic
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 04:22
by Cojimar 1945
I'm talking about the speed and strength of athletes.
Re: Lewis era
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 07:31
by JC
Decagon wrote:Cojimar 1945 wrote:All this head to head talk is rather amusing. Each new generation of athletes seems to outperform the athletes of earlier eras. Saying Lewis would beat top fighters of earlier eras woulden't appear to be saying much given the improvements over time in other sports.
In the future I am sure there will be heavyweights with size and athleticism far beyond Lewis who would crush him like an insect.
If things keep getting better, how come the 18th century is filled with the likes of Beethoven, Mozart and Hayden, when all we have is P. Diddy?
Can't fight evolution Dec, same reason George Bush is smarter than Thomas Jefferson.
Re: wrong topic
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 11:54
by silkov
Cojimar 1945 wrote:I'm talking about the speed and strength of athletes.
So how come fighters today are knackered after 3 or 4 rounds??... is that evolution??
Re: Lewis era
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 11:55
by silkov
Decagon wrote:Cojimar 1945 wrote:All this head to head talk is rather amusing. Each new generation of athletes seems to outperform the athletes of earlier eras. Saying Lewis would beat top fighters of earlier eras woulden't appear to be saying much given the improvements over time in other sports.
In the future I am sure there will be heavyweights with size and athleticism far beyond Lewis who would crush him like an insect.
If things keep getting better, how come the 18th century is filled with the likes of Beethoven, Mozart and Hayden, when all we have is P. Diddy?
Who's P. Diddly??...
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 12:55
by BoxBuzz
You know...I'm not sure where Lennox would fit in in the ATG list but as Louis said to Ali...when Ali asked him if he thought Ali was a "bum". Louis would be likely to respond the same way to Lennox by saying..... "You''d be on the tour".
And in this case Louis would get no argument from me.
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 13:42
by Syntax Error
6-10 for me.
Lennox is a tough one to gauge for me.
He had the size & skill to have beaten any HW in history, but then you look at the manner of his two defeats & you think, he wouldn't have lasted with half of the ATG's.
If you come somehow marry the leaner more aggressive Lewis of 1989 - 1994 with the heavier more cautious one of 1995 - 2003, then he would be top 5.
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 13:49
by pundit
Syntax Error wrote:6-10 for me.
Lennox is a tough one to gauge for me.
He had the size & skill to have beaten any HW in history, but then you look at the manner of his two defeats & you think, he wouldn't have lasted with half of the ATG's.
If you come somehow marry the leaner more aggressive Lewis of 1989 - 1994 with the heavier more cautious one of 1995 - 2003, then he would be top 5.
To be honest, his close fights with Bruno and especially Mercer cast more doubt on Lewis for me than these losses, where he just got unfocussed and sloppy for a moment.
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 14:02
by Syntax Error
pundit wrote:Syntax Error wrote:6-10 for me.
Lennox is a tough one to gauge for me.
He had the size & skill to have beaten any HW in history, but then you look at the manner of his two defeats & you think, he wouldn't have lasted with half of the ATG's.
If you come somehow marry the leaner more aggressive Lewis of 1989 - 1994 with the heavier more cautious one of 1995 - 2003, then he would be top 5.
To be honest, his close fights with Bruno and especially Mercer cast more doubt on Lewis for me than these losses, where he just got unfocussed and sloppy for a moment.
Good points.
He struggled unneccessarily with an average fighter like Bruno.
IMO, he should have beaten Frank without too much fuss.
It just goes to show that anybody that can jab with Lewis had a shot against him.
stamina
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 19:41
by Cojimar 1945
Some heavyweights have demonstrated good stamina with their exceptional punch outputs. According to compubox, Vitali Klitschko threw 430 punches in only six rounds against Lennox Lewis, Ike Ibeabuchi threw over 900 punches over 12 rounds against Tua, Golota threw 638 punches in just under 9 full rounds against Bowe, etc. These fighters demonstrated highly impressive work rates.
Re: stamina
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 21:44
by pundit
Decagon wrote:Cojimar 1945 wrote:Some heavyweights have demonstrated good stamina with their exceptional punch outputs. According to compubox, Vitali Klitschko threw 430 punches in only six rounds against Lennox Lewis, Ike Ibeabuchi threw over 900 punches over 12 rounds against Tua, Golota threw 638 punches in just under 9 full rounds against Bowe, etc. These fighters demonstrated highly impressive work rates.
Vitali was exhausted by the fifth, and his punch output was so high because he knew the cut was bad, and the fight wouldn't go the distance.
Wrong. Vitali never had stamina issues.
Posted: 02 Dec 2006, 23:49
by pundit
Decagon wrote:Then why was he breathing heavily halfway into the Williams fight? a third of the way into the Lewis fight? Did he have asthma?!?!?!
I rather think your eyes don't fuction properly whenever you see Vitali.
Maybe you should see a doc.
Posted: 03 Dec 2006, 00:27
by pundit
Decagon wrote:Seriously? The fights are probably on Youtube, and Vitali's clearly breathing out of his mouth in the fifth round against Lewis, and after the fifth against Williams. Anyone reading this topic can do a Youtube search and see that you're mistaken.
Oh yes man with the grey star
