Max Kellerman on Lennox Lewis

[Kalasinn]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]!/video/video.php?v=1383288063731

I was wondering what Classic posters think of what Kellerman has to say in this video. He seems strongly of the opinion that size and weight equals superiority. Claiming that Lewis hits harder than Shavers becuase he weighs more and Lewis is the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time. Also he believes that Lewis vs. Tyson would have always been a mismatch due to weight, height, reach and 'level of opposition'.

[PowerPuncher]

I dont completely agree, but Lewis is 1 of the biggest punchers ever and seriously underrated, maybe even up there with Shavers.

Prime Tysons speed and skill gives Lewis problems

[Mendoza]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]!/video/video.php?v=1383288063731

I was wondering what Classic posters think of what Kellerman has to say in this video. He seems strongly of the opinion that size and weight equals superiority. Claiming that Lewis hits harder than Shavers becuase he weighs more and Lewis is the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time. Also he believes that Lewis vs. Tyson would have always been a mismatch due to weight, height, reach and 'level of opposition'.

Kellerman is not a bad guy. He just often takes one or two tangents, then build an entire reply based on those tangents.

I do think Lewis beats Tyson 7 out of 10 times.

Size and weight give you advantages, but so does skill. When you have a size, weight, and skill edge then you are tough to beat.

[mr. magoo]

I found myself having a hard time trying to agree with very much of what he was saying.. For one thing, I can't see Tyson in his prime as being a mismatch for Lewis, when afterall he lasted 8 rounds and stunned him a few times when he was beyond shot. He also credits Lewis has having beaten better opposition, when frankly I don't think there much difference between the two men's list, and in fact, shared some of the same opponents.. Its possible that Lewis hit harder than Shavers, but its not a forgone conclusion. While I am the first to give merit to the size argument, anytime you have two guys who are over 200 lbs, its pretty fair game, and that does not even beging to factor in styles.. It's also interesting how he never mentioned the McCall and Rahman losses.

[lefthook31]

Lewis was knocked out by two far inferior fighters to Tyson who didnt use their size or reach to knock him out. I believe there is some merit to the size arguement, but not in the case of 225-250 pounds.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis was knocked out by two far inferior fighters to Tyson who didnt use their size or reach to knock him out. I believe there is some merit to the size arguement, but not in the case of 225-250 pounds.


Agreed,

When I refer to one fighter as having a great size avantage over another, I am generally referring to a 220 lb guy over a man who is 190 or something... But when comparing a 220 guy to one who is 250, the same 30 lbs differential does not have as much of a bearing..

[Silver]

Lewis was knocked out by two far inferior fighters to Tyson who didnt use their size or reach to knock him out. I believe there is some merit to the size arguement, but not in the case of 225-250 pounds.
kellerman is an idiot. and not only that, a 6'1" mercer gave lewis hell.

[Silver]

Agreed,

When I refer to one fighter as having a great size avantage over another, I am generally referring to a 220 lb guy over a man who is 190 or something... But when comparing a 220 guy to one who is 250, the same 30 lbs differential does not have as much of a bearing..
and when you have a fighter as talented as a young tyson, 25-30lbs is not something that is impossible for him to overcome considering the man usually was smaller then his opponents anyway.

[mr. magoo]

kellerman is an idiot. and not only that, a 6'1" mercer gave lewis hell.


Indeed,

And I find it interesting how Lewis despite his collosal size advantage, was taken a combined 24 rounds by a 37 year old Holyfield who stood 6'2" and weighed 215 lbs...

[mr. magoo]

and when you have a fighter as talented as a young tyson, 25-30lbs is not something that is impossible for him to overcome considering the man usually was smaller then his opponents anyway.


Absolutely,

Tyson made a career out facing and beating guys who's height and weights ranged anywhere from 6'3" - 6'5", and 215-240. Granted, Lewis was a better fighter than Tucker, Smith, Ruddock, Green, etc., but I don't think that size alone is the main factor...

[lefthook31]

Kellerman knows a lot of boxing outcomes and history but little insight to the technical side of the sport and thats why him and Emanuel Steward are often describing two completely different events playing out in a fight. I dont know where he fits in as a commentator, his historical knowledge is a little deeper than Lampley and Merchants, but his commentary cant hold their jockstraps.

[Silver]

Indeed,

And I find it interesting how Lewis despite his collosal size advantage, was taken a combined 24 rounds by a 37 year old Holyfield who stood 6'2" and weighed 215 lbs...
the first fight, lewis dominated and was robbed, second fight however was dissapointing and raises the question, could a prime holyfield beat lewis. the thought is certainly conceivable

[Silver]

Absolutely,

Tyson made a career out facing and beating guys who's height and weights ranged anywhere from 6'3" - 6'5", and 215-240. Granted, Lewis was a better fighter than Tucker, Smith, Ruddock, Green, etc., but I don't think that size alone is the main factor...
exactly, it matters but there are other aspects to consider

[mr. magoo]

the first fight, lewis dominated and was robbed, second fight however was dissapointing and raises the question, could a prime holyfield beat lewis. the thought is certainly conceivable


I would definitely be inclined to putting my money on the Holyfield who rocked the division from 1989-1992. There are some here who try and justify Lewis as struggling with an aged Holyfield by saying things like " Holy improved his skill set" or " had better stamina at 37 than he did at 29. " Frankly, I think its all bullshit....

[Vanboxingfan]

Indeed,

And I find it interesting how Lewis despite his collosal size advantage, was taken a combined 24 rounds by a 37 year old Holyfield who stood 6'2" and weighed 215 lbs...


And the combined score on that should have been about 17-7 in favour of Lewis, give or take a few rounds. 9-3 in the first fight and 8-4 in the second, 7-5 in the second if you're being generous. I don't get this idea of focusing on only the outcome of one fight when trying to make a point. They fought twice. The first wasn't close and the second one was closer than the first, but still a clear Lewis win, but most people.

[Silver]

I would definitely be inclined to putting my money on the Holyfield who rocked the division from 1989-1992. There are some here who try and justify Lewis as struggling with an aged Holyfield by saying things like " Holy improved his skill set" or " had better stamina at 37 than he did at 29. " Frankly, I think its all bullshit....
agreed. look at it more of 50/50 type fight with the slight edge to holyfield. but to the original topic, despite lewis's size, he did always impose himself due to the fact that he was a bit passive at times. there are big fighters who imposes their size on their opponents more frequently then lewis did.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Indeed,

And I find it interesting how Lewis despite his collosal size advantage, was taken a combined 24 rounds by a 37 year old Holyfield who stood 6'2" and weighed 215 lbs...

You do know Lewis was a safety first fighter, right?
And that Holyfield in 28 fights upto Toney was only stopped once by Bowe in an all out slugfest which took a good Bowe 8 rounds.

Foreman 6'4 250+lbs collosal size advantage.
Bowe 6'5 240+ collosal size advantage.

Two legends, he lasted 44 rounds out of 48.

[mr. magoo]

You do know Lewis was a safety first fighter, right?
And that Holyfield in 28 fights upto Toney was only stopped once by Bowe in an all out slugfest which took a good Bowe 8 rounds.

Foreman 6'4 250+lbs collosal size advantage.
Bowe 6'5 240+ collosal size advantage.

Two legends, he lasted 44 rounds out of 48.


My point is that despite facing a man who was years past his best, and significantly smaller, he was not able to finish him, nor have him in any real trouble... I agree that Lewis won the vast majority of the rounds in those two fights, but I still don't know if even to this day I'd call it an all out domination.... A prime Holy has a very good chance at beating a prime Lewis, which given his status as a former cruiserweight, would really put an ugly dent in Kellerman's argument.

[Vanboxingfan]

My point is that despite facing a man who was years past his best, and significantly smaller, he was not able to finish him, nor have him in any real trouble... I agree that Lewis won the vast majority of the rounds in those two fights, but I still don't know if even to this day I'd call it an all out domination.... A prime Holy has a very good chance at beating a prime Lewis, which given his status as a former cruiserweight, would really put an ugly dent in Kellerman's argument.

It's hard to say. There's a definate size different that may have given Holyfield trouble at any stage of his career. And fighters often fight down to their level of opposition. Meaning Lewis may have fought differently if he felt it was close or he was loosing. That said, prime Holyfield's no joke for any fighter. He's incredibly hard to knock out and in his prime he had a good work rate. That makes getting decision wins fairly common.

[BoxingFanNo1]

My point is that despite facing a man who was years past his best, and significantly smaller, he was not able to finish him, nor have him in any real trouble... I agree that Lewis won the vast majority of the rounds in those two fights, but I still don't know if even to this day I'd call it an all out domination.... A prime Holy has a very good chance at beating a prime Lewis, which given his status as a former cruiserweight, would really put an ugly dent in Kellerman's argument.

How many safety first fighter ko'd guys with grade A chins?
Not too many I'd imagine.

The only chance Holyfield has is a decision, and Lewis never lost one of those.

The first fight was an all out demolition, Holyfield went on to the ropes in round 3 and practically stayed there till round 12.

The second much closer, there's even an argument that it could be a draw.

Prime Holy has a good chance of beating most ATG HW's.

[itrymariti]

Kellerman knows a lot of boxing outcomes and history but little insight to the technical side of the sport and thats why him and Emanuel Steward are often describing two completely different events playing out in a fight. I dont know where he fits in as a commentator, his historical knowledge is a little deeper than Lampley and Merchants, but his commentary cant hold their jockstraps.

Steward talks a lot of drivel as well though, to be fair. When he was congratulating Taylor on losing rounds I lost a lot of faith in his knowledge.

[lefthook31]

Steward talks a lot of drivel as well though, to be fair. When he was congratulating Taylor on losing rounds I lost a lot of faith in his knowledge.
Not technically he doesnt, but yes he does change up his prediction in mid fight, which is always comical.

[Pachilles]

He makes a great point, one which will blow completely over your heads. Because yes, it is cool to rank ancient fighters higher. And its also cool amongst anonymous internet armchair critic nobodies who's involvment in the sport is limited to sitting at a computer acting like they know it all, with no credibility in the world of boxing, to discredit and mock credible proffessionals involved in the world of boxing.

[TheGreatA]

He makes a great point, one which will blow completely over your heads. Because yes, it is cool to rank ancient fighters higher. And its also cool amongst anonymous internet armchair critic nobodies who's involvment in the sport is limited to sitting at a computer acting like they know it all, with no credibility in the world of boxing, to discredit and mock credible proffessionals involved in the world of boxing.

Because Mike Tyson was a boxer from the ancient past and a fight with Lewis in their primes would have been a mismatch due to size?

[Pachilles]

Because Mike Tyson was a boxer from the ancient past and a fight with Lewis in their primes would have been a mismatch due to size?

I'm talking about the not cool to rank modern fighters, and Lewis greatest HW(H2H atleast), points.

[TheGreatA]

I'm talking about the not cool to rank modern fighters, and Lewis greatest HW(H2H atleast), points.

Most people don't rank contemporary fighters because it's difficult to truly judge a fighter until their career is over. Some might put Pacquiao into their top 15 all-time now but what if (and that's a big if) he gets knocked out by Clottey in his next fight? There would be those who say he was never any good to begin with. But those who will patiently wait until the end of his career are the ones who will judge him based on his overall career, not recent success or lack of success.

Same with Roy Jones, to some he was the greatest after the Ruiz win but he has been abandoned by many fans since then. To me he's still a great fighter, just not a top 10 all-time great.

As for Lewis being the greatest heavyweight, I don't think there's much of a case. Head-to-head he is tough to beat but size is not everything. I'm not saying that a Rocky Marciano would beat Lewis but a Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes definitely could.

[Pachilles]

Most people don't rank contemporary fighters because it's difficult to truly judge a fighter until their career is over. Some might put Pacquiao into their top 15 all-time now but what if (and that's a big if) he gets knocked out by Clottey in his next fight? There would be those who say he was never any good to begin with. But those who will patiently wait until the end of his career are the ones who will judge him based on his overall career, not recent success or lack of success.

Same with Roy Jones, to some he was the greatest after the Ruiz win but he has been abandoned by many fans since then. To me he's still a great fighter, just not a top 10 all-time great.

As for Lewis being the greatest heavyweight, I don't think there's much of a case. Head-to-head he is tough to beat but size is not everything. I'm not saying that a Rocky Marciano would beat Lewis but a Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes definitely could.

I'm talking more along the lines of 19th century fighters making it into top 10 P4P lists and being favoured H2H, despite the fact that nobody alive was around to witness any aspect of there life and career and there is no surviving footage, or so little of such poor quality you cannot make out who is who.

[TheGreatA]

I'm talking more along the lines of 19th century fighters making it into top 10 P4P lists and being favoured H2H, despite the fact that nobody alive was around to witness any aspect of there life and career and there is no surviving footage, or so little of such poor quality you cannot make out who is who.

I don't see any 19th century fighters making top 10 ATG lists. Perhaps you mean Sam Langford? He fought into the 1920's and there's a bit of film on him, some of which is fairly impressive.

[Silver]

He makes a great point, one which will blow completely over your heads. Because yes, it is cool to rank ancient fighters higher. And its also cool amongst anonymous internet armchair critic nobodies who's involvment in the sport is limited to sitting at a computer acting like they know it all, with no credibility in the world of boxing, to discredit and mock credible proffessionals involved in the world of boxing.
you're assuming thats what he meant. but can the same logic apply to the fighters of the same era?