What if Lewis came along a in the 80's?

[redrooster]

Competing with Holmes in place of Cooney. I think he would take guys like Weaver, Page, and Coetzee, probably the likes of Thomas but Berbick could probably upset him. Prime Dokes would definitely whip Lennox.

Cooney would probably get to his chin and shatter it before he got going. But i see Larry having problems with his size. Since Lennox could take most of the top contenders, could he possibly become champion?

[Seamus]

He would wipe the slate clean. If he wasn't an underskilled, drug addict like most pathetic HW's were in that era.

[brooklyn1550]

If he came along in 1980, he would probably unify the titles and have some excellent/competitive fights with Larry Holmes to determine who the best was. In the late 1980s if he was slowing down, a young Tyson would probably beat him.

[prime]

This scenario is not feasible, as Lennox's home country, Canada, boycotted the '80 Moscow Olympics, so he would have to turn pro after the '84 Olympics. He actually had a chance to do this after placing fifth in Los Angeles, but decided to play the waiting game and go to Seoul.

Skinny Lennox was in no hurry to face Mike Tyson in the pros, even though Cus D'Amato had prophesied their eventual clash. With Tyson safely out of the picture in the '90s, Lennox emerged and went on his successful run.

[AnthonyJ74]

Holmes would probably price himself out of a fight with Lennox in the 80's. Or ditch his belt if Lennox were his mandatory.

[bb251]

the holmes of '77-'83 would beat lewis... after '83ish holmes however, lewis could take that version of larry...

[Holmes' Jab]

He would wipe the slate clean. If he wasn't an underskilled, drug addict like most pathetic HW's were in that era.

Exactly. Lewis and Holmes would be neck and neck duking it out to be the best fighter of the era (early-mid/late 80's). When Tyson came along on the scene, presumably at the same time, it would make things very interesting ...

Three Top 10 ATG's in their prime in the same era. :hey

[Holmes' Jab]

the holmes of '77-'83 would beat lewis... after '83ish holmes however, lewis could take that version of larry...

Fair comment. :good

[achillesthegreat]

He would dominate much the same as he did in the 90s.

[Boro chris]

Holmes is the only one I'd favour over Lewis. Apart from that Lewis was very successful in a more competitive era. Early Tyson might be too much for Lewis as well.
I wonder if he'd be ducked at all in a Bowe-like fashion?

[Quick Cash]

Lewis would dismantle Larry if ever they were to meet prime for prime, assuming they got their starts at close to the same time, etc. Although it is true that Holmes had great lateral movement, I'd peg Lewis to cut off the ring effectively to garner at least a unanimous decision behind an inferior albeit longer left jab.

[Vanboxingfan]

A Holmes - Lewis fight in their primes would be very interesting for boxing purists, as I see it as being a strategic fight each using their best traits. But I don't envision fireworks along the lines of a Tyson - Frazier type fight. Basically it would be a cautious fight which I believe Lewis might win due to his superior power.

[godking]

Competing with Holmes in place of Cooney. I think he would take guys like Weaver, Page, and Coetzee, probably the likes of Thomas but Berbick could probably upset him. Prime Dokes would definitely whip Lennox.

Cooney would probably get to his chin and shatter it before he got going. But i see Larry having problems with his size. Since Lennox could take most of the top contenders, could he possibly become champion?Lewis could take all the guys Larry fought he would however suffer an upset loss to one or two of them.

[apollack]

Lewis did come around in the 80s, sort of. He lost to Tyrell Biggs in the '84 Olympics at age 17 or 18. He remained amateur until '88 when he beat Bowe in the Olympics.

[McGrain]

If he came along in 1980, he would probably unify the titles and have some excellent/competitive fights with Larry Holmes to determine who the best was. In the late 1980s if he was slowing down, a young Tyson would probably beat him.


Spot on. He'd be a dominant champ who would probably get the best of a split series with Larry. Though it's possible, of course, that Larry could win 2 out of the 3. Wouldn't be where i'd be putting my money, personally.

[mr. magoo]

He would dominate much the same as he did in the 90s.

I wouldn't exactly call losing to Oliver Mccall, drawing with an aging Holyfield and barely taking a desputed decision over Mercer dominating.

[ChrisPontius]

I wouldn't exactly call losing to Oliver Mccall, drawing with an aging Holyfield and barely taking a desputed decision over Mercer dominating.
He fought about twenty top10 contenders in a row, he was ranked in the top5 for 11 years straight and only lost only twice, avenging both those losses by a stoppage and was the first to unify the titles since Tyson did ten years earlier. If that's not dominating then what is? And bringing up the draw with Holyfield........ :patsch

[Duodenum]

Mike Weaver adds Lennox to his string of late one punch knockout wins over Tate and Coetzee.

[mr. magoo]

He fought about twenty top10 contenders in a row, he was ranked in the top5 for 11 years straight and only lost only twice, avenging both those losses by a stoppage and was the first to unify the titles since Tyson did ten years earlier. If that's not dominating then what is? And bringing up the draw with Holyfield........ :patsch


All very good points, and I admit, Lewis was very impressive,

Except he barely defeated a 35 year old Mercer who hadn't won a fight in 2.5 years, and I personally felt that fight was close enough to where it could have been a draw. He was cleanly Ko'd by Mccall who was a good fighter, but not an all time great. The rematch wasn't a stoppage by the way. It was a case in which MCcall showed up in one of the strangest moods that I ever saw a fighter in a title match, and began sobbing for no particular reason, until his corner conceded and the victory was awarded to Lewis. The Holyfield draw was controversial, but that was a very shot Evander, and let's just say that both fights were very close. In addition, a lot of those 20 contenders that you speak of had extremely padded records, and would likely not have been title challengers in a stronger era. That said, I feel that Lewis was definately worthy of top ten status in terms of being one of the great heavyweight champions, but let's not get carried away with this whole domination thing.

[Vanboxingfan]

The Holyfield draw was controversial, but that was a very shot Evander, and let's just say that both fights were very close

Better yet, let's not say they were both very close because they weren't.

Did you actually see the first fight? If you did, you certainly wouldn't say it was close, that's precisely why the draw was so contriversial. And the second fight while closer, was still clearly won by Lewis. It's funny how many people actually want to re-write history, intentionally or otherwise.

[anut]

LARRY HOLMES WOULD HAVE JABBED HIM TO DEATH IN THE 80S.....THEN TYSON WOULD KNOCK HIM OUT:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke

[Bummy Davis]

He would have dominated the 80's alot easier than the 90's

[Sonny's jab]

I would dispute the claim that Lewis dominated the 1990s.
Actually, a lot of his best work came after the 90s (v.Tua, Rahman 2, Tyson.)
Take a look at '90 to '94 : I'd say the only really big and massively impressive win of Lewis's was his KO of Razor Ruddock. That's the first FIVE YEARS of the decade, and no one claimed Lewis was dominating the division.
'95 and '96, following a 2 round TKO defeat to Oliver McCall, Lewis showed great improvement and register wins over Morrison and Mercer, but no one thought him the dominant heavyweight, that top dog honour was up for grabs through the best part of the decade and Lewis was usually a major player.
His 1997 win over 1st round Golota put him back in a top position, and it was just him and Evander left to duke it out, and Lewis proved superior in 1999, and the END of the 90s.
Many of the top names of the 1990s are nowhere to be found on Lewis's record. I think it's pure revisionism or lazy historical analysis to claim he dominated the 1990s.

Lewis's real dominance happened 1999-2003, including that swiftly-avenged hiccup against Rahman.

[ChrisPontius]

Except he barely defeated a 35 year old Mercer who hadn't won a fight in 2.5 years, and I personally felt that fight was close enough to where it could have been a draw.

He still won. When you fight contenders that often, you are bound to have some dodgy fights. Bottomline is the win went to him and 6-4 is a good score.


He was cleanly Ko'd by Mccall who was a good fighter, but not an all time great.
He wasn't cleanly KO'd at all. He was up at six and yes he wobbled around the ring, but it was a bad stoppage anyway. Merchant didn't scream WHAT?! for no reason and many other similar fighters were allowed to continue: Golota vs Lewis, Holyfield vs Bowe III (16 seconds to recover), Holmes vs Shavers, Holmes vs Snipes, etc etc.



The rematch wasn't a stoppage by the way.

Unless you can convince me that Lewis won a unanimous decision, it must have been a stoppage win.


It was a case in which MCcall showed up in one of the strangest moods that I ever saw a fighter in a title match, and began sobbing for no particular reason, until his corner conceded and the victory was awarded to Lewis.

Again you have your facts wrong. McCall's corner didn't stop anything, it was Mill Lane who stopped the fight. You can't blame Lewis for McCall breaking down after not being able to lay a glove on him.


The Holyfield draw was controversial, but that was a very shot Evander, and let's just say that both fights were very close.


Let's not. I suggest you watch these fights because almost all of your judgements are way off. The first fight was a one-sided domination from Lewis, 9-3 in rounds is the best score you can give Holyfield. The rematch was closer because Lewis fought Holyfield's fight but it was still a clear 8-4 decision in favor of Lewis.

A shot fighter is a fighter who once was champion or contender but now loses to contenders, fringe contenders or even journeymen. Tyson vs McBride, Charles post Marciano, Ali vs Berbick, Liston vs Martin, etc.

Holyfield carried two titles in the ring, having just beaten Tyson who was thought of as invincible and avenged his loss to Moorer by KO. After his fights with Lewis he would beat two more ranked contenders and today, a full NINE years later, he's getting another shot at a title. You wanna tell me that when someone is a "very shot" fighter, he can still fight for a title nine years after he is very shot and beat several contenders along that road?


In addition, a lot of those 20 contenders that you speak of had extremely padded records, and would likely not have been title challengers in a stronger era.

A stronger era, like the 80's? :lol:
You wanna tell me that in a world 19-8 Weavers, 14-0 David Beys, Scott Ledouxes, Tate, etc, guys like Tua, Klitschko, Holyfield, Morrison, etc wouldn't have been title challengers?

[JohnThomas1]

He still won. When you fight contenders that often, you are bound to have some dodgy fights. Bottomline is the win went to him and 6-4 is a good score.


He wasn't cleanly KO'd at all. He was up at six and yes he wobbled around the ring, but it was a bad stoppage anyway. Merchant didn't scream WHAT?! for no reason and many other similar fighters were allowed to continue: Golota vs Lewis, Holyfield vs Bowe III (16 seconds to recover), Holmes vs Shavers, Holmes vs Snipes, etc etc.



Unless you can convince me that Lewis won a unanimous decision, it must have been a stoppage win.



Again you have your facts wrong. McCall's corner didn't stop anything, it was Mill Lane who stopped the fight. You can't blame Lewis for McCall breaking down after not being able to lay a glove on him.



Let's not. I suggest you watch these fights because almost all of your judgements are way off. The first fight was a one-sided domination from Lewis, 9-3 in rounds is the best score you can give Holyfield. The rematch was closer because Lewis fought Holyfield's fight but it was still a clear 8-4 decision in favor of Lewis.

A shot fighter is a fighter who once was champion or contender but now loses to contenders, fringe contenders or even journeymen. Tyson vs McBride, Charles post Marciano, Ali vs Berbick, Liston vs Martin, etc.

Holyfield carried two titles in the ring, having just beaten Tyson who was thought of as invincible and avenged his loss to Moorer by KO. After his fights with Lewis he would beat two more ranked contenders and today, a full NINE years later, he's getting another shot at a title. You wanna tell me that when someone is a "very shot" fighter, he can still fight for a title nine years after he is very shot and beat several contenders along that road?


A stronger era, like the 80's? :lol:
You wanna tell me that in a world 19-8 Weavers, 14-0 David Beys, Scott Ledouxes, Tate, etc, guys like Tua, Klitschko, Holyfield, Morrison, etc wouldn't have been title challengers?

That's a cracking post.

[Sonny's jab]

If Lewis had come along 10 years earlier I think he'd have been one of the best fighters of the 1980s.

If an up-and-coming Lewis fought an early 80s Larry Holmes I would expect Holmes to clearly outbox him.
I cannot easily pick a winner between a late 80s peak Tyson and a peaking Lewis.
I guess Lewis would be too consistent to be dominated by the other top heavyweights of the era, but a few would stand a chance of upsetting him.
Mike Weaver, Trevor Berbick, Renaldo Snipes or Tim Witherspoon could conceivably do what Oliver McCall did to Lewis.

[JohnThomas1]

I guess Lewis would be too consistent to be dominated by the other top heavyweights of the era, but a few would stand a chance of upsetting him.
Mike Weaver, Trevor Berbick, Renaldo Snipes or Tim Witherspoon could conceivably do what Oliver McCall did to Lewis.

I know someone a lot faster with a bigger right hand and size than Snipes that could be hell when on (rare)

:think

[Sonny's jab]

I know someone a lot faster with a bigger right hand and size than Snipes that could be hell when on (rare)

:think

Super Greg Page.

[mr. magoo]

He still won. When you fight contenders that often, you are bound to have some dodgy fights. Bottomline is the win went to him and 6-4 is a good score.

A guy who hasn't won a fight in 2.5 years and only won 3 out of his previous 4 outings is not a top contender in my book, which you frequently tend to disagree with.

[QUOTE]
He wasn't cleanly KO'd at all. He was up at six and yes he wobbled around the ring, but it was a bad stoppage anyway. Merchant didn't scream WHAT?! for no reason and many other similar fighters were allowed to continue: Golota vs Lewis, Holyfield vs Bowe III (16 seconds to recover), Holmes vs Shavers, Holmes vs Snipes, etc etc.




I haven't seen the fight since 1994, however I remember clearly thinking that Lewis was a beaten fighter.


Unless you can convince me that Lewis won a unanimous decision, it must have been a stoppage win.



Yeah, when a guy breaks down sobbing for no particular reason, it certainly reflects a stelar performance on the part of his opponent.


Again you have your facts wrong. McCall's corner didn't stop anything, it was Mill Lane who stopped the fight. You can't blame Lewis for McCall breaking down after not being able to lay a glove on him.


Again, I haven't seen the fight in many years, but who gives a shit if it was his corner or the ref? The point is the guy was deemed unable to compete that night, and I believe was even denied his purse for his actions.



Let's not. I suggest you watch these fights because almost all of your judgements are way off. The first fight was a one-sided domination from Lewis, 9-3 in rounds is the best score you can give Holyfield. The rematch was closer because Lewis fought Holyfield's fight but it was still a clear 8-4 decision in favor of Lewis.


I have seen those fights , and frankly I think Holyfield at the age of 36 and with noticeably deteriorating skills fought as galantly as he possibly could, and put up a good effort despite losing. The draw was a poor verdict, but some people make it out like Holyfield got killed in those fights, and that simply isn't the case.


A shot fighter is a fighter who once was champion or contender but now loses to contenders, fringe contenders or even journeymen. Tyson vs McBride, Charles post Marciano, Ali vs Berbick, Liston vs Martin, etc.

Holyfield carried two titles in the ring, having just beaten Tyson who was thought of as invincible and avenged his loss to Moorer by KO. After his fights with Lewis he would beat two more ranked contenders and today, a full NINE years later, he's getting another shot at a title. You wanna tell me that when someone is a "very shot" fighter, he can still fight for a title nine years after he is very shot and beat several contenders along that road?



This depends on how good his abilities are in contrast to what he used to be. I grew up watching Holyfield all the way back to the olympics. His best years in my opinion, were probably between 1989 and 1992. By the time he fought Lewis, he had already been beaten twice by Riddick Bowe ( once by knockout ) Lost in a poor performance to Michael Moorer, had undergone some health issues, and had been in numerous wars with many contenders/champions in which he took a great deal of punishment. Not to mention being 36 years old.

Can Holyfield still fight 9 years after the fact? The answer is absolutely. Yes he most certainly can. In this era, what great former champion couldn't?


A stronger era, like the 80's? :lol:
You wanna tell me that in a world 19-8 Weavers, 14-0 David Beys, Scott Ledouxes, Tate, etc, guys like Tua, Klitschko, Holyfield, Morrison, etc wouldn't have been title challengers?


I wasn't necessarily illuding to the 80's and nor were the fighters that you listed from that era it's best participants. Like always though, You'll make take whatever angle best suits your argument and providing you with an opening for a good retort.

[JohnThomas1]

Super Greg Page.


Hey, now that you mention it


:happy

[Titan1]

I could see Larry decisioning or stopping Lennox late, as could Page and Witherspoon.Tubbs could conceivably outbox him if he doesn't get stopped, and I would give Thomas, Weaver, and Berbick a shot of defeating him.

[mr. magoo]

I could see Larry decisioning or stopping Lennox late, as could Page and Witherspoon.Tubbs could conceivably outbox him if he doesn't get stopped, and I would give Thomas, Weaver, and Berbick a shot of defeating him.

You almost describe him as though he wouldn't even be a top 10 heavyweight in the 80's. Personally, I think he likely would have been Holmes toughest rival and possibly a champion.

[redrooster]

the holmes of '77-'83 would beat lewis... after '83ish holmes however, lewis could take that version of larry...

I agree. One year sometimes makes a big difference and Larry came across as too slugish. Lewis would have topped the rest of them including Thomas and Witherspoon.

[JohnThomas1]

You almost describe him as though he wouldn't even be a top 10 heavyweight in the 80's. Personally, I think he likely would have been Holmes toughest rival and possibly a champion.

Yeah, soulds like Lewis would have struggled to cut it at all in the 80's.

Personally i think the only one with a decent chance is Holmes, and that's not exactly certain. Lewis would hammer the inconsistent and unmotivated in the 80's, which there were plenty.

[JIm Broughton]

Considering that Larry had his toughest fights against men his own size who could box and jab(Witherspoon,Williams,Snipes,Berbick) it is'nt too hard to imagine that a 6'5" 230-240lb Lewis who could box and bang and stratagize very well would give Larry fits if not beat him outright. Fighters like Holmes and Ali do not like to be jabbed back at which is why men like Norton,Witherspoon,Williams etc...gave them trouble. They look thier best against shorter men who come at them looking to land a bomb ala Frazier and Shavers etc.. A jabber disrupts thier rythym and Lewis could jab...and follow it up with a straight right that carried plenty of power to boot. Larry's prime were the years between the Norton-Shavers-I fight when he weighed between 210-215lbs. Sleek and fast no doubt but he would look rather slight in comparison to Lewis' 235-240 solid lbs. If Lewis was a big stiff then all that size would'nt make a difference against a fighter of Larry's caliber but he certainly was no stiff. Lewis in the 80's would have wreaked havoc against most of the HW's in that era, provided he was focused and in shape. Size matters if you're good and let's face it boxing fans, Lewis was good.

[TIGEREDGE]

No way lennox beat larry easy. He would really struggle witrh a m master like holmes. who did lewis beat that says he would of destroyed holmes?

The 80's were better than the late 90's, early millenium when lewis ruled. Witherspoon, dokes, cooney, smith and co were better than rahman, shot holyfield and co

[Titan1]

You almost describe him as though he wouldn't even be a top 10 heavyweight in the 80's. Personally, I think he likely would have been Holmes toughest rival and possibly a champion.\

He could've been a top ten, but many of those guys could've given him hell if his head wasn't in the right place.Lennox and John Tate was a potential good matchup.

[mr. magoo]

\

He could've been a top ten, but many of those guys could've given him hell if his head wasn't in the right place.Lennox and John Tate was a potential good matchup.

For the record,

Tate was a guy who's head wasn't always in the right place either. I think Lewis would have destroyed Tate and most of the other alpha champs of the 80's. A well trained and motivated Tim Witherspoon ( a rare commodity ) would have potentially given Lewis some trouble due to his awkward style and physical attributes however.

[JohnThomas1]

A well trained and motivated Tim Witherspoon ( a rare commodity ) would have potentially given Lewis some trouble due to his awkward style and physical attributes however.

What would you consider Witherspoon's "physical attributes" ?

[Holmes' Jab]

Prime Witherspoon possessed immense raw strength, an awkward and agressive gung-ho fighting style as well as being extremely tough and durable.

Page vs Witherspoon on their respective best nights would have been a potential classic, perhaps a pick 'em fight. I just don't think he looked quite himself in the actual fight against Witherspoon (as occured pretty frequently with GP)

[JohnThomas1]

Page vs Witherspoon on their respective best nights would have been a potential classic, perhaps a pick 'em fight. I just don't think he looked quite himself in the actual fight against Witherspoon (as occured pretty frequently with GP)

Page and Witherspoon were both very disappointing when they did actually fight. With Page coming off a brilliant effort vs Snipes and Witherspoon coming off his valiant effort vs Holmes on the very same night one was expecting both to be absolutely soaring. Instead they left their audience snoring. A terrible fight and very poor application by both. Page was possibly a bit flat because he had been building up for Holmes but he also thought he only need to just turn up to win this fight. You can lead a horse to water, but you make make it drink.

[Sonny's jab]

As I remember it, a peak Lennox Lewis had a load of trouble with an out-of-shape Ray Mercer in 1996.
So I can see why guys like Witherspoon, Dokes, Berbick and Page at their best could be favoured over Lewis.

[JohnThomas1]

As I remember it, a peak Lennox Lewis had a load of trouble with an out-of-shape Ray Mercer in 1996.
So I can see why guys like Witherspoon, Dokes, Berbick and Page at their best could be favoured over Lewis.

Picking out small ripples on a large ocean can be decieving tho. Peak Holmes had stuggles vs the likes of Snipes and Weaver. Holyfield had life and death vs Bert Cooper of all people and was quite disappointing in one of the Bowe battles. Near all of them have their isolated moments. How anyone can favour a fighter of Berbick's style and assets over Lewis i will never ever know. Well any of those 4 even at their best with Lewis anywhere near his. Pretty harsh assessment Sonny.

[Sonny's jab]

Picking out small ripples on a large ocean can be decieving tho. Peak Holmes had stuggles vs the likes of Snipes and Weaver. Holyfield had life and death vs Bert Cooper of all people and was quite disappointing in one of the Bowe battles. Near all of them have their isolated moments. How anyone can favour a fighter of Berbick's style and assets over Lewis i will never ever know. Well any of those 4 even at their best with Lewis anywhere near his. Pretty harsh assessment Sonny.

Well, I think Lewis was at his peak and using a good set of tools against Mercer. I dont think I picked out an especially bad performance. It's a good 10 rounds to assess Lewis on.
In fact I think Lewis looked far worse or less complete a fighter in lots of his other wins. And Mercer is a relevant example because he's the type of rugged typical American fighter who can easily be lumped in with the 80s crop who we are discussing.

What Lewis fights do you think is fair to look at ?

[JohnThomas1]

Well, I think Lewis was at his peak and using a good set of tools against Mercer. I dont think I picked out an especially bad performance. It's a good 10 rounds to assess Lewis on.
In fact I think Lewis looked far worse or less complete a fighter in lots of his other wins. And Mercer is a relevant example because he's the type of rugged typical American fighter who can easily be lumped in with the 80s crop who we are discussing.

What Lewis fights do you think is fair to look at ?

Pretty much any from after the McCall loss to Tyson. You've probably dragged out one of the two worst.

Realistically tho we need to assess the whole picture, not just a bad performance or two to drag him down with. What about the great ones? Can't we pick one of these and shoot him to the heavens?

No, as i said we simply need to look at the whole picture.

[Sonny's jab]

Pretty much any from after the McCall loss to Tyson. You've probably dragged out one of the two worst.

Realistically tho we need to assess the whole picture, not just a bad performance or two to drag him down with. What about the great ones? Can't we pick one of these and shoot him to the heavens?

No, as i said we simply need to look at the whole picture.

If you want to discuss the details of what he might have done against X and Y it's best to look at what he did against A and B.

Looking at the "whole picture" is just like saying "he had a better career".
I have no problem with saying he'd have a better career in the 80s than Witherspoon or Page had. My original post says so.
But I can also see why a few guys could be favoured over him on their best night against him at his peak too.
Head-to-head rather than accomplishments.

BTW, I think Lewis was very good against Mercer.
He looked less impressive against Butler, McCall 2, Mavrovic, Rahman 1 and Vitali IMO.
And I dont think comparing peak Witherspoon, Page, Dokes to the likes of Golota, old Tyson and Tua is as satisfactory for a fair assessment on how Lewis would match up.
Mercer is a better example surely, but that seems to be something you disagree with or refuse to acknowledge.

[JohnThomas1]

If you want to discuss the details of what he might have done against X and Y it's best to look at what he did against A and B.


Well where's your Y? Rahman I i guess? How about we pick Holyfield I? Holyfield at this stage IMO still has more than Berbick and co to be honest. How about Golota?

We're picking out the lesser performances of Lewis, how about Snipes beating Berbick at his peak? How about Crusher beating Witherspoon? Dokes should have been peak vs Coetzee, how bout that one? Can't see any of these guys troubling Lewis let alone beating him when hand picking those peak efforts. You're picking these guys on their best night vs Lewis on a very ordinary effort cut to suit.


Looking at the "whole picture" is just like saying "he had a better career".

Not at all as explained above.

I have no problem with saying he'd have a better career in the 80s than Witherspoon or Page had. My original post says so.
But I can also see why a few guys could be favoured over him on their best night against him at his peak too.


Why don't you just plain come out and say you think Lewis is crap Sonny? How in gods name can those guys be favoured over Lewis at his peak? In essence you are saying you rate these guys, who never rose near the heights Lewis did ability wise, as better fighters than Lewis. Jesus Christ. Is there anyone you don't favour over Lewis on a good night? Surely Tex Cobb can wear him down and catch him late with a bar room right hand.

BTW, I think Lewis was very good against Mercer.

Of course you do, then you can take him down by saying Mercer gave him hell and that was the best Lewis had to offer :lol: You also consider the Douglas fight Tyson at his utter best. Fair go mate.

He looked less impressive against Butler, McCall 2, Mavrovic, Rahman 1 and Vitali IMO.


I'm interested to know what he did wrong vs McCall?

And I dont think comparing peak Witherspoon, Page, Dokes to the likes of Golota, old Tyson and Tua is as satisfactory for a fair assessment on how Lewis would match up.

Yeah, not fair to Lewis that is. Add aged but still effective Holyfield, the dangerous Morrison, Briggs and plenty more. His win over the still dangerous Ruddock holds him in fine stead. What's a guy like Berbick got to help him survive, let alone thrive vs Lewis? Sweet bugger all. Berbick is made for Lewis.

Mercer is a better example surely, but that seems to be something you disagree with or refuse to acknowledge.

What Mercer is is a thinly veiled attempt to drag Lewis down the shitter. Douglas is the same per Tyson.

As we've chatted on before, i think for whatever reason you really don't even begin to give Tyson and Lewis their fair due. It's so out of character for you, 99% of your posts are absolute rippers and always just smicko. Lewis and Tyson are just a total anomoly. Sorry if you feel i'm being unfair, but at least i'm honest and upfront.

[mr. magoo]

Both John and Sonny have good points here, and very close to meeting in the middle. John is absolutely correct in his assesment of Lewis that he indeed had some boteable career accomplishments and would have been a huge force during the 80's. Sonny on the other hand, acknowledges that Lewis was great, but had the tendency to be vulnerable on occasions. I agree with both authors. In my opinion, Lewis would have beaten most of the top 80's heavyweight and likely would have been Holmes, toughest rival, perhaps even beaten him. It's not however, entirely out of the realm of possibility for Lewis to be upset by say, a motivated Witherspoon or Weaver on the right evening. My guess is that Lewis would have emerged as one of the decades best fighters, but not without a couple of L's

[JohnThomas1]

Both John and Sonny have good points here, and very close to meeting in the middle. John is absolutely correct in his assesment of Lewis that he indeed had some boteable career accomplishments and would have been a huge force during the 80's. Sonny on the other hand, acknowledges that Lewis was great, but had the tendency to be vulnerable on occasions. I agree with both authors. In my opinion, Lewis would have beaten most of the top 80's heavyweight and likely would have been Holmes, toughest rival, perhaps even beaten him. It's not however, entirely out of the realm of possibility for Lewis to be upset by say, a motivated Witherspoon or Weaver on the right evening. My guess is that Lewis would have emerged as one of the decades best fighters, but not without a couple of L's

If Lewis took Witherspoon or Weaver as legitimate threats they have next to no chance at all. Even if they did upset him he's coming back to kick their ass. That's what he did, that's all he did

:smoke

[ChrisPontius]

I
He looked less impressive against Butler, McCall 2, Mavrovic, Rahman 1 and Vitali IMO.

Less impressive Against McCall 2, Mavrovic and Vitali??
He totally dominated every second of the McCall rematch up to the point when McCall was drained of his confidence to the point he stopped fighting.
You won't see Lewis faster, accurate and relaxed than there. I would say this was Lewis' peak fight.

Dito against Mavrovic, he won all of the rounds. There was one point when Mavrovic was having succes (read: he landed a punch, similar to Foreman having succes against Holyfield, only this was even more lopsided). And when he had succes, Lewis came back 10 seconds later to hit him with far more punches, resulting in him losing that round as well.
The fight may have been boring because of the one-sidedness and Mavrovic's iron chin, but it was an absolute dominate performance.

As for Klitschko, he's an extremely akward fighter who makes everyone look bad and loses few rounds, but he still digged deep and pulled out the win when he was 37 and seemingly not in the best condition. If anything, this fight proved his heart and resilience.

Rahman 1 was less impressive, for obvious reasons although it should be noted that he won all rounds fairly easy untill the KO came.



About Mercer, Lewis never fought someone who could take his best punch and keep coming forward. Lewis went on agressive anyway which obviously played into Mercers hands thus resulting in a close fight, but still a win for Lewis. Witherspoon, Berbick, Page et all are fairly durable but not in Mercers league. He took a shitload of punishment from Wladimir Klitschko when he was 42, more punishment than i've ever seen a heavyweight take, and still ended on his feet.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=JohnThomas1]If Lewis took Witherspoon or Weaver as legitimate threats they have next to no chance at all.


Possibly,

However on nights when guys like Spoon, Dokes, Weaver and some of the others took themselves and their opposition more seriously and weren't using drugs while in training, the opposite might be true as well. It works both ways, and while I fully agree that Lewis was out of the league of many of the 80's fighters, he wasn't immune to losing or looking unimpressive as we saw during his actual career. Once again, Lewis was an all time great whereas, those alpha champs weren't, but to just write them off as an easy win for Lewis with no chance of victory, is not a notion that I agree with, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be pending on Lewis having his head up his ass or not.

[mr. magoo]

About Mercer, Lewis never fought someone who could take his best punch and keep coming forward. Lewis went on agressive anyway which obviously played into Mercers hands thus resulting in a close fight, but still a win for Lewis.


This was hardly the best version that we've ever seen of Ray Mercer. He was 35 years old, and hadn't won a fight in 2 1/2 years. In fact he had only won about 3 out of his last 4 outings, and was only fighting on average once per year in the mid 90's. nevertheless, he took Lewis the distance in a fight that I and many others felt should have been a draw. Keep in mind, this is generous given that a few thought it was a robbery.

Of course you don't have to respond because I already know the explanation. Lewis wasn't motivated right?

[ChrisPontius]

This was hardly the best version that we've ever seen of Ray Mercer. He was 35 years old, and hadn't won a fight in 2 1/2 years. In fact he had only won about 3 out of his last 4 outings, and was only fighting on average once per year in the mid 90's. nevertheless, he took Lewis the distance in a fight that I and many others felt should have been a draw. Keep in mind, this is generous given that a few thought it was a robbery.

Of course you don't have to respond because I already know the explanation. Lewis wasn't motivated right?

I have never said Lewis wasn't motivated for the Mercer fight and i never will. The only fight he looked unmotivated for was Rahman I.

I already adressed it: Lewis was agressive and tried to score a spectacular knockout to promote a fight between him and Tyson and had never run into a fighter who could take his best punch all night and keep coming forward. He fought Mercers fight which played into Mercer's hands yet Lewis still won. This was a great learning experience on Lewis' part because he proved he could go to the trenches, take a lot of punches without wilting and come out on top. It proved he could fight multiple styles and answered questions about his toughness.

To make a comparison, Holmes getting knocked down badly by an inexperienced Snipes, not really known for his power, was not that impressive either, but he did prove his heart and resilience to come back.


Lewis proved in the Tua fight that he learnt from it and no logner went after an iron chin with extreme agression, but boxed smart to a shutout decision.
Hope that answers your question. :happy

[Sonny's jab]

?

We're picking out the lesser performances of Lewis, how about Snipes beating Berbick at his peak? How about Crusher beating Witherspoon? Dokes should have been peak vs Coetzee, how bout that one? Can't see any of these guys troubling Lewis let alone beating him when hand picking those peak efforts. You're picking these guys on their best night vs Lewis on a very ordinary effort cut to suit.

No, I'm just saying I can see how they could be favoured over him on their best nights.
I'm actually saying Lennox Lewis performed well against Mercer but had his hands full against that fighter. You're the one who is rubbishing that Lewis effort, and then painting me as having an anti-Lewis agenda for mentioning it.

I've already said Lewis would excel in the 1980s.
That's not good enough for you. You seem very intent on painting me as a "Lewis hater" which I am clearly not.


Why don't you just plain come out and say you think Lewis is crap Sonny?

Because I think Lewis was great.

I've never understood the problem that you have in regards to my posts about Lewis.

How in gods name can those guys be favoured over Lewis at his peak?

Because they were very good on their best nights. I'm not saying I'd pick them, and definitely not as certainties. But I can understand why they could be favoured.
I mean, apparently according to some it's not totally unreasonable to say Riddick Bowe on his best night might beat Lewis on his best night, or even that the best Buster Douglas might have beaten Holyfield ! But it's a crime to say the best Tim Witherspoon (who gave Larry Holmes hell) might reasonably be favoured over Lewis ??

In essence you are saying you rate these guys, who never rose near the heights Lewis did ability wise, as better fighters than Lewis.

Never said that. Read my posts carefully.


Jesus Christ. Is there anyone you don't favour over Lewis on a good night? Surely Tex Cobb can wear him down and catch him late with a bar room right hand.


Dont be silly.


Of course you do, then you can take him down by saying Mercer gave him hell and that was the best Lewis had to offer :lol: You also consider the Douglas fight Tyson at his utter best. Fair go mate.


Why do you bring up Tyson and Douglas ?


I'm interested to know what he did wrong vs McCall?


I'm interested to know what he did wrong vs Mercer.
He showed me more in the Mercer fight.


Yeah, not fair to Lewis that is. Add aged but still effective Holyfield, the dangerous Morrison, Briggs and plenty more. His win over the still dangerous Ruddock holds him in fine stead. What's a guy like Berbick got to help him survive, let alone thrive vs Lewis? Sweet bugger all. Berbick is made for Lewis.


Berbick was awkward and strong and out-hustled a lot of guys who you'd figure to beat him.
I'd favour Lewis over Berbick but I can see why others might favour Berbick.


What Mercer is is a thinly veiled attempt to drag Lewis down the shitter. Douglas is the same per Tyson.


Well, this is where you're just intent on calling me a dishonest poster. I've explained why I think Mercer fight is a worthy example. It's a good 10 round fight against a rugged typical US-styled fighter where Lewis displays a lot of his repetoire.
You think Lewis sucked in that night, not me.
So you accuse me of attempting to "drag Lewis down the shitter".

I rate you highly enough as a poster not to accuse you of dishonesty and low deceit.
For some reason you insult me with this nonsense. Not sure why.



As we've chatted on before, i think for whatever reason you really don't even begin to give Tyson and Lewis their fair due. It's so out of character for you, 99% of your posts are absolute rippers and always just smicko. Lewis and Tyson are just a total anomoly. Sorry if you feel i'm being unfair, but at least i'm honest and upfront.


Tyson and Lewis were great fighters.

[mr. magoo]

I have never said Lewis wasn't motivated for the Mercer fight and i never will. The only fight he looked unmotivated for was Rahman I.

I already adressed it: Lewis was agressive and tried to score a spectacular knockout to promote a fight between him and Tyson and had never run into a fighter who could take his best punch all night and keep coming forward. He fought Mercers fight which played into Mercer's hands yet Lewis still won. This was a great learning experience on Lewis' part because he proved he could go to the trenches, take a lot of punches without wilting and come out on top. It proved he could fight multiple styles and answered questions about his toughness.

To make a comparison, Holmes getting knocked down badly by an inexperienced Snipes, not really known for his power, was not that impressive either, but he did prove his heart and resilience to come back.


Lewis proved in the Tua fight that he learnt from it and no logner went after an iron chin with extreme agression, but boxed smart to a shutout decision.
Hope that answers your question. :happy

You may have some valid points, but I just find it interesting how everytime someone questions one of Lewis's lesser performances, someone ( not necessarily yourself ) always seems to have an excuse of some sort or another. Lewis wasn't motivated against McCall, or he fought the wrong kind of fight against Mercer, or he didn't see Rahman as a threat, or he wasn't training with Manny Steward yet, etc. I agree that Lewis was one of the greatest fighters of all time, and I'm not trying to take that away from him, but you have authors on this board who aren't even willing to compromise and admit, that while he was certainly an elite fighter, that he wasn't invincible. It's actually gotten as bad or worse as in the case with Tyson appologist, who make excuses for him losing to Douglas.

It's also proven to be an obstacle when trying to engage in a truly intelligent debate.

[Sonny's jab]

Less impressive Against McCall 2, Mavrovic and Vitali??
He totally dominated every second of the McCall rematch up to the point when McCall was drained of his confidence to the point he stopped fighting.
You won't see Lewis faster, accurate and relaxed than there. I would say this was Lewis' peak fight.

Fair enough.
I'm not saying he was unimpressive, but I think he had to show a limited array of his ability to win in that fight.
Against Mercer I saw more.



Dito against Mavrovic, he won all of the rounds. There was one point when Mavrovic was having succes (read: he landed a punch, similar to Foreman having succes against Holyfield, only this was even more lopsided). And when he had succes, Lewis came back 10 seconds later to hit him with far more punches, resulting in him losing that round as well.
The fight may have been boring because of the one-sidedness and Mavrovic's iron chin, but it was an absolute dominate performance.


I dont equate impressive performance with dominant performance.
Some of the most impressive performances are in close fights, even in losing efforts.


As for Klitschko, he's an extremely akward fighter who makes everyone look bad and loses few rounds, but he still digged deep and pulled out the win when he was 37 and seemingly not in the best condition. If anything, this fight proved his heart and resilience.


He showed heart and resilience vs. Mercer, another reason I rate him in that fight.
IMO the Lewis of the Mercer fight beats the Lewis of the Klitschko fight, and a '96 Mercer would beat a '03 Lewis.


Rahman 1 was less impressive, for obvious reasons although it should be noted that he won all rounds fairly easy untill the KO came.


True, but he got hit with dangerous and clumsy punches before the final punch.

About Mercer, Lewis never fought someone who could take his best punch and keep coming forward. Lewis went on agressive anyway which obviously played into Mercers hands thus resulting in a close fight, but still a win for Lewis.

I disagree in that I thought Lewis wasn't quite aggressive enough. Anyway, I agree, a win for Lewis, yes. And I was impressed with him, he showed to have many dimensions.
Others were clearly unimpressed by the Mercer fight, I dont know why. Mercer was a decent fighter.

[Bill1234]

the holmes of '77-'83 would beat lewis... after '83ish holmes however, lewis could take that version of larry...


In 83 Larry was noticeably a lot slower. IMO a fight in 83 would be pretty close, but before that, Larry IMO, would take Lewis quite clearly.

[JohnThomas1]

No, I'm just saying I can see how they could be favoured over him on their best nights.
I'm actually saying Lennox Lewis performed well against Mercer but had his hands full against that fighter. You're the one who is rubbishing that Lewis effort, and then painting me as having an anti-Lewis agenda for mentioning it.


My view is simple, when it comes to Tyson and Lewis you almost always take the negative road. Unlike anything else you post about. Hey, we all have our bias.


I've already said Lewis would excel in the 1980s.
That's not good enough for you. You seem very intent on painting me as a "Lewis hater" which I am clearly not.

Blind Freddy knows Lewis would excel in the 80's, how could he not.

I wouldn't call you a hater, but your opinions are certainly outside the norm either way.

Because I think Lewis was great.

I've never understood the problem that you have in regards to my posts about Lewis.

You think he was great but can see how Berbick, Page, Witherspoon, Dokes and goodness knows how many others can be favoured over him on their best night.

" No, I'm just saying I can see how they could be favoured over him on their best nights."

Because they were very good on their best nights. I'm not saying I'd pick them, and definitely not as certainties. But I can understand why they could be favoured.
I mean, apparently according to some it's not totally unreasonable to say Riddick Bowe on his best night might beat Lewis on his best night, or even that the best Buster Douglas might have beaten Holyfield ! But it's a crime to say the best Tim Witherspoon (who gave Larry Holmes hell) might reasonably be favoured over Lewis ??

You also favoured Witherspoon over Tyson. Witherspoon gets quite the ride from a losing effort vs a fading Holmes who stated he overtrained (yeah, excuses are common)

Never said that. Read my posts carefully.

I read your post perfectly, yes head to head you basically do.


Why do you bring up Tyson and Douglas ?

Because it gives great weight to my claims.


Why do you bring up Tyson and Douglas ?

You weren't impressed with him vs McCall II, what more could he have done?

Berbick was awkward and strong and out-hustled a lot of guys who you'd figure to beat him.
I'd favour Lewis over Berbick but I can see why others might favour Berbick.

Berbick never outhustled anyone anywhere near Lewis' level, not even close. He didn't beat Holmes and he didn't beat Tyson, the only two he ever fought near or around Lewis' class. Anyone favouring Berbick knows jackshit about boxing.

Well, this is where you're just intent on calling me a dishonest poster. I've explained why I think Mercer fight is a worthy example. It's a good 10 round fight against a rugged typical US-styled fighter where Lewis displays a lot of his repetoire.
You think Lewis sucked in that night, not me.
So you accuse me of attempting to "drag Lewis down the shitter".

I rate you highly enough as a poster not to accuse you of dishonesty and low deceit.
For some reason you insult me with this nonsense. Not sure why.

I'm sorry you feel this way, really, but dishonest, deceit, insult, it's too strong. Lets stick with biased or unappreciating. We've all got some of it, some more than others. I think you're one of the least biased posters one could ever find, except per this topic which is why i am so surprised. I readily go at Pryor and Hagler, who i consider overrated to small extents. Well Pryor substancially.

Tyson and Lewis were great fighters.

Great fighters don't have the likes of Berbick and Witherspoon favoured over them Sonny. Not to mention the others.

[Sonny's jab]

JohnThomas, perhaps the difference between myself and your version of "the norm" is that I dont put as much weight on a "great" fighter over a "very good" one.

I think the great ones are the ones who had the best careers, but in most cases they aren't a vastly different (superior) species of fighter to the "very good" ones who they build there reputations competing against.

In fact, the greatness of guys like Lewis and Holyfield is in a large part built on the fact that they were consistent against men of similar ability to themselves.
It wasn't insane to favour Ruddock over Lewis, or Douglas over Holyfield, or Golota over Lewis, or Tyson over Holyfield.
And even in light of the way those fights turned out it wouldn't be insane to believe that those other guys could get it right in a rematch.
Lewis and Holyfield's superiority lies in the fact that they got it right on the night on many nights, not because they are just superior and could never have lost any of those fights.

Some try to make sense of things in their own way, there's too much categorization of fighters, and I believe their is a tendency to fetishize the "greatness" of certain fighters to such an extent that an event like Douglas beating Tyson needs elaborate explanations and exaggeration to rationalize it.

I just say "Well, Douglas boxed his best fight, and he probably deserved to be ranked about 4th in the world going in to the fight, Tyson was number 1. Tyson didn't beat him, he got beat up, Douglas's style worked well for him. On another night Tyson might have beat him, or maybe Douglas would win again. Both guys were in their prime."

Just because Tyson was "greater" (ie. he had a better career) doesn't make me try to explain it away by stressing how it wasn't "the real Tyson" and the rest of it.
I knows this irks people, but that's the way I see it.
There are usually guys among the contenders who have the ability to beat the great champions. The great champions are great because they usually win, often against men who in the cold light of day it would be reasonable to favour over them.

[Sonny's jab]

You weren't impressed with him vs McCall II, what more could he have done?

I didn't say I wasn't impressed with him.
I said I thought he was less impressive in that fight than against Mercer.

There was a lot of holding from Lewis against McCall. Against Mercer he showed more short-punching and better combinations, IMO.

[Bill1234]

Picking out small ripples on a large ocean can be decieving tho. Peak Holmes had stuggles vs the likes of Snipes and Weaver. Holyfield had life and death vs Bert Cooper of all people and was quite disappointing in one of the Bowe battles. Near all of them have their isolated moments. How anyone can favour a fighter of Berbick's style and assets over Lewis i will never ever know. Well any of those 4 even at their best with Lewis anywhere near his. Pretty harsh assessment Sonny.


Larry seemed to bring out the best in his oppenents, wouldn't you say? Of course not all of them, but a lot. Like Weaver, Witherspoon, Norton, Cooney. They all had some of their best performances against Larry. If you saw them you would never think all of their stats were what they were.

[mr. magoo]

How anyone can favour a fighter of Berbick's style and assets over Lewis i will never ever know.

Yet he defeated two of your favourite lovers namely, Stinklon Thomas and Greg Page, whom I doubt you'd rate below Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman.



I suppose I should add a few of these: :deal :hey perhaps this: :huh one of these: :bbb Oh, and let's not forget the infamous: :good

And just for shits and giggles: :asskiss

[JohnThomas1]

Yet he defeated two of your favourite lovers namely, Stinklon Thomas and Greg Page, whom I doubt you'd rate below Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman.



I suppose I should add a few of these: :deal :hey perhaps this: :huh one of these: :bbb Oh, and let's not forget the infamous: :good

And just for shits and giggles: :asskiss

:roll:

[JohnThomas1]

Larry seemed to bring out the best in his oppenents, wouldn't you say? Of course not all of them, but a lot. Like Weaver, Witherspoon, Norton, Cooney. They all had some of their best performances against Larry. If you saw them you would never think all of their stats were what they were.

A critic would simply say they showed Larry's vulnerabilities and overratedness more so than their own surprising abilities Bill. That's a lot of guys suddenly rising out of the blue.

As to my views i'd hardly say Cooney fought anything above expected.