Lennox Lewis v USYK

[rob h]

Lewis was such a technically sound and smart boxer who could stick to a game plan. But what I really loved was that he proved he had that dog in him. If shit got real he could turn it on and slug it with the best of them. If his game plan didn't work then he had the option to just spark you out. In his younger days before Steward he was raw but powerful and very quick. Reminded me a bit of Nigel Benn when he would chuck that over hand right. He was excellent when fighting smaller fighters, but I think he secretly loved a tear up with bigger guys, he completely fucked up Michael Grant. He was definitely on the slide when he fought vitali, his boxing looked dishevelled. He grit his teeth though and nearly ripped vitalis face off with those uppercut. I've total respect for Lennox. If he fought Usyk 10 times I'd have him winning 8 of them.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Lewis that fought Bruno wasn't at his peak yet, still quite a few years off, I'd say Lewis' prime was around 28-32.

Bruno did outjab him, but then Lewis did what he needed to do, and took him apart.

I think Usyk is incredibly professional, and takes every fight seriously, I think Lewis thought McCall was just a patsy who would crumble, and thought Rahman was an also ran. Don't see Usyk ever coming in less than 100% prepared.

Lennox still struggled against Mercer, bang in the prime you're talking about. Good jabbers seemed to be Lennox's biggest weakness. Vitali, Mercer and Bruno all outjabbed him. Lennox never fought an elite southpaw either. But if he lands his big shots you'd think he could put Usyk away. If he doesn't I'd pick Usyk on points

Indeed, but Usyk's not a fantastic jabber, so don't think that's a massive factor - Mercer was really unfortunate to be around in the era he was, he was a hell of a fighter, gave lots of people murders.

Interesing guy who seemed to be a real bogeyman for a lot of people depsite having a patchy record was Jesse 'bigfoot' Ferguson, many came unstuck against him, and took a lot of the top boys the distance. Always been a bit intrigued by him, but never heard a lot about him outside the ring. Probably be a good subject for a book about the boxing business, strikes me he was probably one of those guys had the talent, but not the right management.

I'd disagree about Usyk not being a great jabber, I think he is

Mercer's relative success against both Lennox and Holyfield was a head scratcher. He essentially had a good jab and right cross and managed to find the range to set them off. I assume he didn't train for the first Ferguson fight, when he tried bribing his opponent mid fight

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

N - all valid points - heavyweights are heavyweights so we can contextualise them in that context.

I just wonder (and I've no answer to the question I'm about to ask) how the greats of all time would have been now. There were much fewer divisions so the differences between weights were more pronounced so would they have stepped up or down the weights of the lbs differential was smaller?

I rewatched Hagler - Hearns a couple of weeks ago (great mate of mines 50th and we all live in different places on different continents so he suggest a virtual birthday party where we watched that and a couple of other fights on Utube)

I cannot believe that any Middleweight in the history of boxing would have beaten him that night.

I'm confident that a middleweight Roy Jones beats Hagler. And maybe Hopkins does. I also give Mike Maccullum a serious chance

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

That's quite surprising, who have you got above Lewis?

I certainly can't think of more than 3-4 heavyweight champs I could rate higher.
Ali, Louis, Holmes Foreman, (mainly because of what foreman managed to achieve 2nd time around on top of his first run) after that, most champions were short lived, or really were from such a different era, that they belonged in a different weight class.

1.ali
2.louis
3.holmes
4.foreman
5.marciano
6.frazier
7.dempsey
8.johnson
9.lewis
10.holyfield

i could see ranks 7-9 as somewhat interchangable, especially jack johnson, who ill gladly admit to being far from an expert on.

Dempsey is undoubtedly one of the biggest Superstars the sport has ever produced, but because of his refusal to take on Black Challengers I think his rating as one of the All time Great Champions is severely diminished. Jack Johnson similarly once becoming Champion never again revisited the likes of Sam Langford, and Joe Jeanette.

Your Top 3 is right on the money.

If Usyk retired tomorrow I'd have him as a Top 10 Heavyweight. His achievements are equal to Holyfield's, and if he never loses history will see him as better than Holyfield.

Foreman, Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey and Johnson above Lennnox are all absolute jokes. Not having Wlad, Holyfield and Usyk above them is too. They should be below Tyson too

[jamesmcdonnell]

Foreman i think you can make a case for, due to his 2nd career which was quite astonishing

[jamesmcdonnell]

N - all valid points - heavyweights are heavyweights so we can contextualise them in that context.

I just wonder (and I've no answer to the question I'm about to ask) how the greats of all time would have been now. There were much fewer divisions so the differences between weights were more pronounced so would they have stepped up or down the weights of the lbs differential was smaller?

I rewatched Hagler - Hearns a couple of weeks ago (great mate of mines 50th and we all live in different places on different continents so he suggest a virtual birthday party where we watched that and a couple of other fights on Utube)

I cannot believe that any Middleweight in the history of boxing would have beaten him that night.

I'm confident that a middleweight Roy Jones beats Hagler. And maybe Hopkins does. I also give Mike Maccullum a serious chance

Jones yes, Hopkins no.

McCallum, very interesting fight that.

[DrDuke]

Lewis has been perceived great for so long, that's it's hard to pick Usyk over him instantly.

[ironbeard]

N - all valid points - heavyweights are heavyweights so we can contextualise them in that context.

I just wonder (and I've no answer to the question I'm about to ask) how the greats of all time would have been now. There were much fewer divisions so the differences between weights were more pronounced so would they have stepped up or down the weights of the lbs differential was smaller?

I rewatched Hagler - Hearns a couple of weeks ago (great mate of mines 50th and we all live in different places on different continents so he suggest a virtual birthday party where we watched that and a couple of other fights on Utube)

I cannot believe that any Middleweight in the history of boxing would have beaten him that night.

I'm confident that a middleweight Roy Jones beats Hagler. And maybe Hopkins does. I also give Mike Maccullum a serious chance

Jones yes, Hopkins no.

McCallum, very interesting fight that.

On that night there is no one who could be considered a yes, and only a couple of might haves.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I'm confident that a middleweight Roy Jones beats Hagler. And maybe Hopkins does. I also give Mike Maccullum a serious chance

Jones yes, Hopkins no.

McCallum, very interesting fight that.

On that night there is no one who could be considered a yes, and only a couple of might haves.

Personally I think Jones at 160, was as close to ubbeatable as I've seen - he wasn't there very long - as he outgrew the division pretty rapidly, but he made both Toney and Hopkins looks like clubfighters.

As good as Hagler was that night, Hearns wasn't Jones, wasn't as elusive, and didn't have the reflexes.

Of course, all just a bit of fun conjecture.

[rob h]

It's easy to forget how good young Jones was - phenom.

[gilgamesh]

I think that because boxing is a 1 on 1 sport people analyse whether X could beat Y but of course due to sports science they are completely different athletes (incidentally there is no PED allegation about what I'm saying).

Not sure, sports science plays as bigger role as is sometimes assumed. Does anyone think a peak WW 'Hurricane' Hank or Ray Robinson would lose to Mayweather Jnr? or Monzon to Canelo @ MW? Lomo - Duran @LW?

I think, moreso, in the case of boxing. historically anyways, its all about natural ability and 'styles making fights'. Norton (counter punchers) had the style to trouble Ali consistently for example. An exceptional slugger like Joe could but had to be on fire, to do so.

Not trying to diminish Uysk or his achievements by any stretch. He is a brilliant fighter but trying to walk down someone like Lennox would cause him all sorts of problems. He'd struggle badly against Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Liston, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, to name a few.

Greatest HW of this era, a given but for me, that does not equate to being 'up there' with some of the past, great champions.

All perspective, of course, however.

His achievements at Heavyweight are on par with Holyfield's in my opinion. Holyfield defended his title against Bowe, and lost 2 out of 3. Usyk fought Fury, and beat him.

Fury had been a long reigning Heavyweight Champion. So beating him was at least as impressive as Holyfield's win over Bowe in their 2nd bout if not more so.

[gilgamesh]

Jones yes, Hopkins no.

McCallum, very interesting fight that.

On that night there is no one who could be considered a yes, and only a couple of might haves.

Personally I think Jones at 160, was as close to ubbeatable as I've seen - he wasn't there very long - as he outgrew the division pretty rapidly, but he made both Toney and Hopkins looks like clubfighters.

As good as Hagler was that night, Hearns wasn't Jones, wasn't as elusive, and didn't have the reflexes.

Of course, all just a bit of fun conjecture.

He fought Toney at 168 I think.

[jamesmcdonnell]

On that night there is no one who could be considered a yes, and only a couple of might haves.

Personally I think Jones at 160, was as close to ubbeatable as I've seen - he wasn't there very long - as he outgrew the division pretty rapidly, but he made both Toney and Hopkins looks like clubfighters.

As good as Hagler was that night, Hearns wasn't Jones, wasn't as elusive, and didn't have the reflexes.

Of course, all just a bit of fun conjecture.

He fought Toney at 168 I think.

You are right of course.

[NazNaci1]

I think that because boxing is a 1 on 1 sport people analyse whether X could beat Y but of course due to sports science they are completely different athletes (incidentally there is no PED allegation about what I'm saying).

Not sure, sports science plays as bigger role as is sometimes assumed. Does anyone think a peak WW 'Hurricane' Hank or Ray Robinson would lose to Mayweather Jnr? or Monzon to Canelo @ MW? Lomo - Duran @LW?

I think, moreso, in the case of boxing. historically anyways, its all about natural ability and 'styles making fights'. Norton (counter punchers) had the style to trouble Ali consistently for example. An exceptional slugger like Joe could but had to be on fire, to do so.

Not trying to diminish Uysk or his achievements by any stretch. He is a brilliant fighter but trying to walk down someone like Lennox would cause him all sorts of problems. He'd struggle badly against Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Liston, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, to name a few.

Greatest HW of this era, a given but for me, that does not equate to being 'up there' with some of the past, great champions.

All perspective, of course, however.

His achievements at Heavyweight are on par with Holyfield's in my opinion. Holyfield defended his title against Bowe, and lost 2 out of 3. Usyk fought Fury, and beat him.

Fury had been a long reigning Heavyweight Champion. So beating him was at least as impressive as Holyfield's win over Bowe in their 2nd bout if not more so.

I would rate Bowe and Holyfied, in terms of ability and skillset, above Fury. Bowe was a huge, strong, hard puncher with good chin. Fury has reigned a long time but then you look at his list of title defences and that calibre and that counts against him and conversely, Uysk, imo.

Toss in wins over aging but still strong Foreman, Holmes, Mercer, Tyson and others, I can't place Uysk quite near that level. You can only beat what is around you, and that is a fair argument but I believe (and plenty do not) this is a particularly weak era in HWs.

However, as I said, its all perspective and personal opinions.

[gilgamesh]

Bowe at his peak is definitely a more impressive talent than Fury at his peak you get no argument from me on that one, but because Bowe's peak was so short, and was really only highlighted by 3 fights. I can't rate him particularly high historically.

He feels like more of a case of what could've been than what was.

However if someone were to rate Holyfield above Usyk, I'd have no issue with it. I honestly see their achievements are pretty much neck and neck right now.

I'd probably rate Usyk at 6 and Holyfield at 7. So if someone had Holyfield over Usyk, that's perfectly reasonable.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Not sure, sports science plays as bigger role as is sometimes assumed. Does anyone think a peak WW 'Hurricane' Hank or Ray Robinson would lose to Mayweather Jnr? or Monzon to Canelo @ MW? Lomo - Duran @LW?

I think, moreso, in the case of boxing. historically anyways, its all about natural ability and 'styles making fights'. Norton (counter punchers) had the style to trouble Ali consistently for example. An exceptional slugger like Joe could but had to be on fire, to do so.

Not trying to diminish Uysk or his achievements by any stretch. He is a brilliant fighter but trying to walk down someone like Lennox would cause him all sorts of problems. He'd struggle badly against Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Liston, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, to name a few.

Greatest HW of this era, a given but for me, that does not equate to being 'up there' with some of the past, great champions.

All perspective, of course, however.

His achievements at Heavyweight are on par with Holyfield's in my opinion. Holyfield defended his title against Bowe, and lost 2 out of 3. Usyk fought Fury, and beat him.

Fury had been a long reigning Heavyweight Champion. So beating him was at least as impressive as Holyfield's win over Bowe in their 2nd bout if not more so.

I would rate Bowe and Holyfied, in terms of ability and skillset, above Fury. Bowe was a huge, strong, hard puncher with good chin. Fury has reigned a long time but then you look at his list of title defences and that calibre and that counts against him and conversely, Uysk, imo.

Toss in wins over aging but still strong Foreman, Holmes, Mercer, Tyson and others, I can't place Uysk quite near that level. You can only beat what is around you, and that is a fair argument but I believe (and plenty do not) this is a particularly weak era in HWs.

However, as I said, its all perspective and personal opinions.

Bowe was a missed opportunity - his lack of discipline hurt his career, although I would say, he relied a bit too much on his ability to take a shot, which probably also shortened his career. He had a great skillset though. He was a naturally big man, with power in both hands, nice combination punching, and a great inside game, he had a great all around game.

Usyk won't be around at heavy long enough to be considered for ATG status at heavyweight, but he's an ATG fighter without a doubt.

[gilgamesh]

Even if you have relatively few fights in a division, which Usyk definitely does at Heavyweight. It definitely boosts your standing in the divisions history if the few fights you had there were against the cream of the crop.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Even if you have relatively few fights in a division, which Usyk definitely does at Heavyweight. It definitely boosts your standing in the divisions history if the few fights you had there were against the cream of the crop.

Oh absolutely - but Holyfield competed in one of the best eras ever, he lost some, but he took on absolutely everybody.

His first two fights with Bowe are still two of the best in the history of the division in my opinion.

[gilgamesh]

Even if you have relatively few fights in a division, which Usyk definitely does at Heavyweight. It definitely boosts your standing in the divisions history if the few fights you had there were against the cream of the crop.

Oh absolutely - but Holyfield competed in one of the best eras ever, he lost some, but he took on absolutely everybody.

His first two fights with Bowe are still two of the best in the history of the division in my opinion.

No doubt. I'd put the 1990's 2nd only to the 1970's.

But for the record. I'd put the current Heavyweight era at 3rd behind only the 70's and 90's, so if people say this is a weak era. I'd strongly disagree.

Compare it to most others, and it stacks up well.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Even if you have relatively few fights in a division, which Usyk definitely does at Heavyweight. It definitely boosts your standing in the divisions history if the few fights you had there were against the cream of the crop.

Oh absolutely - but Holyfield competed in one of the best eras ever, he lost some, but he took on absolutely everybody.

His first two fights with Bowe are still two of the best in the history of the division in my opinion.

No doubt. I'd put the 1990's 2nd only to the 1970's.

But for the record. I'd put the current Heavyweight era at 3rd behind only the 70's and 90's, so if people say this is a weak era. I'd strongly disagree.

Compare it to most others, and it stacks up well.

Just watching highlights of fight 1 with Bowe, Holyfield stood right in front of the bigger man and pretty much went toe to toe, I don't think there was another heavyweight around at that time, who could have done that, and made it the distance.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah I've watched Bowe vs Holyfield 1 several times. It's one of the very best Heavyweight Championship fights ever.

[polecateddy]

Holyfield was certainly extraordinary, if undoubtedly juiced to the gills. Probably far more so than Bowe or Lewis, who had more of a natural size.

[The Docker]

It's weird and I know just me, but I find it pitiful Usyk is being mentioned in the same breath as Holyfield at heavy. Just a massive is he fornicate in the same league as EH and very fortunate neither is AJ or TF.

[NazNaci1]

Bowe was a missed opportunity - his lack of discipline hurt his career, although I would say, he relied a bit too much on his ability to take a shot, which probably also shortened his career. He had a great skillset though. He was a naturally big man, with power in both hands, nice combination punching, and a great inside game, he had a great all around game.

Usyk won't be around at heavy long enough to be considered for ATG status at heavyweight, but he's an ATG fighter without a doubt.

For sure. An ATG and a fabulous fighter who has proved his worth again and again. However, as you say and which I do agree with, just not at HW.

Some disagree and that's ok. I get it.

[SeanBrennan]

It's weird and I know just me, but I find it pitiful Usyk is being mentioned in the same breath as Holyfield at heavy. Just a massive is he fornicate in the same league as EH and very fortunate neither is AJ or TF.

how is Usyk fortunate?