Devils advocate, Lennox Lewis ducked chris Byrd and John Ruiz

[janitor]

I dont personaly believe this to be the case but I am going to argue it on the strength of the historical evidence and challenge anybody to prove otherwise on the basis of the same sources eg, records, newpaper acounts, rankings etc.

If you cant prove otherwis based on historical sources but you disagree then you should be more cautious about saying that historic fighters ducked a given contender because they were around and did not get to fight them.

[Sonny's jab]

I felt he should have fought Byrd instead of signing to fight Kirk Johnson.

Things worked out ok when he ended up fighting Vitali Klitschko instead of Johnson, but I seem to remember Byrd was available and calling out for the match, and was holding the IBF title. He'd beaten Tua in an eliminator too.

But Lewis-Byrd would have been boring. Lewis-Ruiz would have been awful too.

Maybe Lewis should have fought them both though. Kept the belts together instead of dumping them.

[janitor]

[quote=Sonny's jab]I felt he should have fought Byrd instead of signing to fight Kirk Johnson.

Things worked out ok when he ended up fighting Vitali Klitschko instead of Johnson, but I seem to remember Byrd was available and calling out for the match, and was holding the IBF title. He'd beaten Tua in an eliminator too.

But Lewis-Byrd would have been boring. Lewis-Ruiz would have been awful too.


Not only were they the two outstanding challengers at the time, but they were decisively beating the guys Lewis was defending the title against, Evander Holyfield, Vitally Klitschko, Hasim Ramhan, David Tua.

In many cases they beat them much more convincingly than Lewis. John Ruiz didnt need two atempts to get past Hasim Ramhan, Chris Byrd didnt neet two tries to get past Evander Holyfield and left the outcome in no doubt.

Maybe Lewis should have fought them both though. Kept the belts together instead of dumping them.

Surely anything would have been better than disgracing the heavyweight title by surendering two thirds of it without a punch being thrown?

[abraq]

I don't believe that either Byrd or Johnson stood a decent chance of beating Lewis. But it is a fact that they were highly deserving and available opponents who Lennox never fought. The reason ..... hmm.

Let me see....

Say what you will, compared to fighters of the seventies, all fighters of the nineties, including Lennox Lewis himself were slow and not as well conditioned. Chris Byrd (and to a lesser extent Holyfield) was the exception, particularly as far was speed was concerned. Possibly, Lennox did not want to be embarrassed by a small heavyweight like Byrd, however remote the chance. Come to think of it, a loss to Byrd would have delivered a terrible blow to the Lennox Lewis legacy.

John Ruiz's case is different. He was, and is, a "stink them out" type of fighter. I can't see at all how he would have created problems for Lewis. I am really stumped on this one. Maybe, Lewis just did not like John Ruiz.

[Russell]

I think it was more Lewis not liking Don King.

[mr. magoo]

He probably would have strengthened his legacy a tad by fighting and beating those guys I imagine. I never really hear that much fuss being made of it though. Byrd's win over Vitali Klitschko was highly controversial and one that most people wrote off as being more or less a fluke. His win over a shot Holyfield came 3 years after Lewis had fought him for the last time, so I can't see the point in making a comparison there. He was destroyed in 1999 by Ike Ibeabuchi, then beaten by Wlad in 2000. Sure, an argument can be made that Lewis should have fought him, but its not like he ducked a solid contender for an extended period that was comparable to Dempsey's case with Wills.

John Ruiz needed 3 meetings with a washed up Holyfield, and in the end, still came away with nothing particularly decisive. He then took a disqualification win over Johnson, then got humiliated by Roy Jones.

I think the major issue should be weather or not the public really wanted to see these fights. The demand seemed to be in favor of Lewis facing Mike Tyson, David Tua, rematch with Rahman, and Vitali Klitschko. Most of those wins were better in quality than victories over Ruiz or Byrd would have been, and in almost all cases, were likely better paying and fan satisfying.

[ChrisPontius]

I dont personaly believe this to be the case but I am going to argue it on the strength of the historical evidence and challenge anybody to prove otherwise on the basis of the same sources eg, records, newpaper acounts, rankings etc.

If you cant prove otherwis based on historical sources but you disagree then you should be more cautious about saying that historic fighters ducked a given contender because they were around and did not get to fight them.


On paper, you could make a decent case for Byrd. He was ranked in the top10 in 2001, 2002 and 2003. However, Byrd has a horribly boring style and he lost every single round against Wladimir Klitschko, who is very similar to Lewis.

Lewis was stripped in 2002 for facing Mike Tyson instead of Byrd.
Tyson was ranked in the top10 since 1999 (!) untill 2002 when Lewis and him fought, and Tyson was always higher ranked than Byrd too.
That, combined with Tyson being undefeated for six years and being a much, much bigger draw to the public easily justifies picking him over Byrd.


As for Ruiz, Lewis was stripped for not facing him right after he beat Holyfield. Ruiz struggled with and never proved to be superior to a more deteriorated version of Holyfield than the one Lewis comfortably conquered twice. Instead, Lewis faced Grant and Tua (with Botha as stay-active fight) , both of which were seen as much more dangerous than Ruiz. In fact, Tua layed Ruiz out in 17 seconds. Grant beat Golota which is more impressive than anything Ruiz had done up to then.

After struggling with an aging Holyfield, Ruiz goes on to beat Johnson by DQ in somewhat questionable fashion, then loses one-sidedly to a natural lightheavyweight, and after that, Lewis retired, while having faced Klitschko , Tua, Tyson and Rahman, all of whom were at least as good as if not better than Ruiz.

The fact that most of the people recognised Vitali Klitschko, not Byrd or Ruiz, as new linear champion after Lewis retired should tell you enough.




Now, if you want to make a case for Lewis ducking Wladimir Klitschko then you have a much, much stronger one. Wladimir was ranked #6 in 2000, #1 contender in 2001, the #1 contender in 2002 and the #1 contender in 2003 until Sanders Lambasted him, something Lewis should've done.

[gregor]

Not only were they the two outstanding challengers at the time, but they were decisively beating the guys Lewis was defending the title against, Evander Holyfield, Vitally Klitschko, Hasim Ramhan, David Tua.
Well, it took Ruiz only 19 seconds to "defend" anything against Tua... unless you meant Byrd -Tua, which I agree is a good win for Byrd.

Byrd won with Vitali decisively? Well, he was losing badly, and was more than lucky because T-800 had finally fallen apart. And, while none of them (including Lewis) met prime Holyfield, at least Lewis fought him in the right millenium. Not to mention that Ruiz trilogy finished (overally) in a draw.

[anon1]

who cares? it isn't important. what happened - happened. lewis fought the best fighters out there for 10+ years and did not duck anyone during that period. now he may have gone soft during his last 2-3 years - but you can't put him in scrutiny as great as you do if he was a peack champion e.g. 1999 who still had a lot to prove. this wasn't the case in 2000+. i'm glad lewis didn't take on byrd. in fact, i'd have criticized him at THAT point of his career. it would be as bad as foreman vs qawi. byrd could do NOTHING to lewis and the big man would just beat up on a defenseless person - like the way wladdy did (now wladdy i excuse because he wasn't undisputed champ - he was trying to resurrect his shattered career). lewis chose to take on a young, promising challenger in kirk johnson - i won't give him too much troube for it. in any case - these arguments are entirely inconsquential and pointless discussion (as the author himself denies the charge).

[mr. magoo]

I think it was more Lewis not liking Don King.

Partially true,

I remember as plain as it was yesterday, when Byrd beat holyfield, Larry Merchant was talking to Don King who was promoting Byrd. Merchant criticized king by flat out saying:

" I find it od that the one fighter who your man should be in the ring with happens to be the one fighter that you have no control over. "

-Larry Merchant-

[janitor]

I don't believe that either Byrd or Johnson stood a decent chance of beating Lewis.

Neither do I but that argument simply wont wash in 100 years time.

It would be like saying:

"I dont think that Peter Jackson had a chance against John L Sullivan"

Great but Jackson was the outstanding challenger and the onus was on him to prove it.

[mr. magoo]

Neither do I but that argument simply wont wash in 100 years time.

It would be like saying:

"I dont think that Peter Jackson had a chance against John L Sullivan"

Great but Jackson was the outstanding challenger and the onus was on him to prove it.

This is very true, and a point that is not easily refuted. The speculation that a champion could have easily beaten a challenger does not rid him of his responsibility to meet his mandatory. Things get a bit dicey in more modern times though, with multiple alpha titles and each one of them having different #1 challengers.

Just as an example, I think there are better fighers for Wladimir Klitschko to be facing right now, but his newly acquired WBO belt, demands that he face Tony Thompson. If Wlad were to renounce the WBO belt in an effort to face Samuel Peter or Ruslan Chagaev, he would be taking on the better opponents and probably satisfying the fans at the same time. The problem is, 10 years from now a harsh critic could always find a way to turn his reluctance in fighting Thompson into a pure " ducking" rather than a decision to go after better men for a higher cause. Sadly, people will always take different angles on history weather their views are based on pure fact or not.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]On paper, you could make a decent case for Byrd. He was ranked in the top10 in 2001, 2002 and 2003. However, Byrd has a horribly boring style

Boring style dosnt excuse not fighting the top contender in the eyes of history.


Lewis was stripped in 2002 for facing Mike Tyson instead of Byrd.
Tyson was ranked in the top10 since 1999 (!) untill 2002 when Lewis and him fought, and Tyson was always higher ranked than Byrd too.
That, combined with Tyson being undefeated for six years and being a much, much bigger draw to the public easily justifies picking him over Byrd.


Tyson went on to get destroyed by Danny Williams (who nobody will have heard of in 50 years) and loose to Kevin McBride. Byrd went on to establish himself as the outstanding contender of the division.

When was the last time Tyson had beaten anybody of any note anyway?

As for Ruiz, Lewis was stripped for not facing him right after he beat Holyfield. Ruiz struggled with and never proved to be superior to a more deteriorated version of Holyfield than the one Lewis comfortably conquered twice.

How can you argue that ruiz beat a more deteriorated Hollyfield when it was so soon after Lewis fought him?

Lewis himself didnt beat Holyfield verry convincingly anyway.

Instead, Lewis faced Grant

Who turned out to be nobody.

and Tua

Who chris Byrd beat.

(with Botha as stay-active fight) , both of which were seen as much more dangerous than Ruiz.

Justify it from the records on boxrec.

In fact, Tua layed Ruiz out in 17 seconds.

Even a boxrec hunter could see that this was not the version of Ruiz that was Lewis was faced with as champion.


Grant beat Golota which is more impressive than anything Ruiz had done up to then.


Ruiz also beat Golotta and had a much better resume generaly.

After struggling with an aging Holyfield,

Like Lewis.

Ruiz goes on to beat Johnson by DQ in somewhat questionable fashion,

You mean the guy that Lewis was going to defend his title against?

then loses one-sidedly to a natural lightheavyweight,

Yet another top contender that Lewis failed to fight.

I have dug up an archaic newspaper clipping arguing for a Lewis Jones title fight.


and after that, Lewis retired, while having faced Klitschko , Tua, Tyson and Rahman, all of whom were at least as good as if not better than Ruiz.


On paper none of them are as good as Ruiz.


The fact that most of the people recognised Vitali Klitschko, not Byrd or Ruiz, as new linear champion after Lewis retired should tell you enough.


You mean like Peter Maher after Jim Corbett retired?



Now, if you want to make a case for Lewis ducking Wladimir Klitschko then you have a much, much stronger one. Wladimir was ranked #6 in 2000, #1 contender in 2001, the #1 contender in 2002 and the #1 contender in 2003 until Sanders Lambasted him, something Lewis should've done.


Sure. The more the merrier.

[janitor]

Just as an example, I think there are better fighers for Wladimir Klitschko to be facing right now, but his newly acquired WBO belt, demands that he face Tony Thompson. If Wlad were to renounce the WBO belt in an effort to face Samuel Peter or Ruslan Chagaev, he would be taking on the better opponents and probably satisfying the fans at the same time. The problem is, 10 years from now a harsh critic could always find a way to turn his reluctance in fighting Thompson into a pure " ducking" rather than a decision to go after better men for a higher cause. Sadly, people will always take different angles on history weather their views are based on pure fact or not.

The crucial diference is that Wladamir Klitschko dose not already hold all the major belts so if he dropped one to fight another beltholder your boxrec hunter would be able to see that he was getting something tangible for the fight.

I also think that Byrd and Ruiz at least on paper were better than some of Lewis's title challengers. Trample on the evidence for 100 years and what will it look like?

[ChrisPontius]

Boring style dosnt excuse not fighting the top contender in the eyes of history.


It does if he's not the highest ranked contender. Tyson was consistently ranked higher and Lewis fought him.



Tyson went on to get destroyed by Danny Williams (who nobody will have heard of in 50 years) and loose to Kevin McBride. Byrd went on to establish himself as the outstanding contender of the division.


So, Lewis in 2002 should've said "Well, Tyson has the better resume over the last years, has consistently ranked higher and is the much more dangerous fighter considering i'm 35 and have a glass chin, but since Byrd will go on to do better things, i will fight him" ?



When was the last time Tyson had beaten anybody of any note anyway?


He destroyed Golota in a fashion that only Lewis did up until then and several years after. He knocked out all of his opponents.



How can you argue that ruiz beat a more deteriorated Hollyfield when it was so soon after Lewis fought him?


It is evident on film and he was 38 and 39 years old. He wasn't in his prime against Lewis, but at least closer to it.



Lewis himself didnt beat Holyfield verry convincingly anyway.


Not very convincing??? The first fight was a 9-3 decision at best for Holyfield, the second 8-4. How the hell is that not convincing?



Who turned out to be nobody.


Since when do boxers have a magic ball that tells them who is going to turn out to be somebody and who isn't?


Who chris Byrd beat.


Lewis beat him before Byrd beat him.



Justify it from the records on boxrec.


Why should i? You, me, reports of the time and everyone knows it.

Here is something boxrec to start with:
Lewis' sole weakness is his chin.

Tua has a sick KO percentage with a first round stoppage of Ruiz. Grant also has a high knockout percentage and stopped Golota.
Byrd has never knocked a contender in his entire career.

You have to be blind not to see how Byrd is absolutely no threat to Lewis while Tua and Grant were.



Even a boxrec hunter could see that this was not the version of Ruiz that was Lewis was faced with as champion.


A boxrec hunter would think that Ruiz has a glass chin and therefore no chance against a huge puncher like Lewis.

But who gives a flying fuck what a "boxrec hunter" thinks. You called me a boxrec hunter for pointing out Johnson's losing record against a fringe contender at the end of his days.




Ruiz also beat Golotta and had a much better resume generaly.


Ruiz fought Golota after Lewis had retired, this was not known at the time.

Grant stopped Golota, Ruiz barely squeeked out a decision which was doubted by many.




You mean the guy that Lewis was going to defend his title against?


Yep, the same guy Lewis was going to defend against was not convincingly beaten by Ruiz. But in the end, he fought Vitali Klitschko, a much better choice.




Yet another top contender that Lewis failed to fight.

I have dug up an archaic newspaper clipping arguing for a Lewis Jones title fight.


Really? Post it. Because everyone, and i mean every single person, that i have spoken or seen written on the subject gave Jones no chance and it was obvious that Jones ducked his way back to LHW.



On paper none of them are as good as Ruiz.


Yes they are. And i'm tired of this "debate". You are purposfully acting like a total retard ignoring any facts that speak in favor of Lewis.



You mean like Peter Maher after Jim Corbett retired?


I don't know Peter Maher well enough.




Tell me when Byrd and Ruiz were the #1 contenders for six year straight against all the best opposition. Untill then, i'm not going to continue arguing this. You haven't refuted any of my points that Tyson was ranked higher and longer than Byrd and that Ruiz' resume was nothing to write home about between 2000 and 2002, compared to Tua, Grant , Rahman and Klitschko.

[mr. magoo]

=janitor]The crucial diference is that Wladamir Klitschko dose not already hold all the major belts so if he dropped one to fight another beltholder your boxrec hunter would be able to see that he was getting something tangible for the fight.

Good points, but he'd still get criticized for failure to meet a mandatory, but I think it would most likely be reduced to a mere technicality for a desperate critic to make a case for himself.

I also think that Byrd and Ruiz at least on paper were better than some of Lewis's title challengers.

Possibly from a marginal standpoint. Neither Ruiz nor Byrd stood out as clear #1 bests though. As I've already pointed out, Ruiz never truly took anything away from the Holyfield trilogy, and Byrd had lost very recently to Ibeabuchi and Klitschko. His win over Vitali Klitschko was not a decisive victory, and a fight that he was in fact losing, before an injury unrelated to anything that Byrd was doing to Vitali forced a resignation.




Trample on the evidence for 100 years and what will it look like?


I can't attest for what people will think of this situation in a century from now. As it currently stands, we are only 5-7 years past the fact, and most seem to have forgotten most of the details already.

[janitor]

I can't attest for what people will think of this situation in a century from now. As it currently stands, we are only 5-7 years past the fact, and most seem to have forgotten most of the details already.

That is ultimately what I am getting at.

This thread is not about Lewis it is about how things will look based on the paper records in 100 years.

[mr. magoo]

That is ultimately what I am getting at.

This thread is not about Lewis it is about how things will look based on the paper records in 100 years.

Fair enough, and I think you made your point. In a 100 years, or for that matter, even 10 years, the only thing a person will see on boxrec is that Lewis was stripped of his titles, but not the explanations behind it. I suppose one of the things that separates a true historian from an amateur is the ability to research the history in further depth, rather than taking the lazy route in an effort to win a debate on a Friday afternoon when work is slow at the office.

[ChrisPontius]

On top of that, a boxing historian in 100 years time will easily have access to these fight films.

Hell, we already have instant access to various boxing films more than 100 years old via Youtube and other Internet sources. They can easily see that Byrd and Ruiz both are awfully boring fighters.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]It does if he's not the highest ranked contender. Tyson was consistently ranked higher and Lewis fought him.


Rankings tend only to get looked at by serious anoraks years after the event, and are given less weighting than records.

You yourself have tried to argue that Jack Dempsey ducked George Godfrey who was only ranked about 8th at the time despite the fact that he fought Tommy Gibbons who was ranked 2nd.


So, Lewis in 2002 should've said "Well, Tyson has the better resume over the last years, has consistently ranked higher and is the much more dangerous fighter considering i'm 35 and have a glass chin, but since Byrd will go on to do better things, i will fight him" ?


That is exactly the kind of judgment call that every boxrec hunter makes. Tom Heeney won an eliminator to fight Gene Tunney for the title, but all that anybody remembers is that he faded into obscurity while Jack Sharkey went on to become champion.

It really is the records around the period that people look at. Anything that Byrd went on to achiev subsequently will only increase the suspicion that Lewis ducked him.


He destroyed Golota in a fashion that only Lewis did up until then and several years after. He knocked out all of his opponents.


So basicaly you are saying that this guy has only one decent win over Andrew Golotta, who lost every time he steped up.

What will there be in 100 years to suggest that Golotta is a noteworthy win?


It is evident on film and he was 38 and 39 years old. He wasn't in his prime against Lewis, but at least closer to it.


What if there was no film of the Ruiz fights or the film was of verry poor quality.

Then what would your argument be?


Not very convincing??? The first fight was a 9-3 decision at best for Holyfield, the second 8-4. How the hell is that not convincing?


Acording to boxrec Lewis only managed a draw in the first fight. I also have an ancient newspaper clipping which suggests that Holyfield deserved the decision in the second fight.


Since when do boxers have a magic ball that tells them who is going to turn out to be somebody and who isn't?


That is what the majority of people on this board expect of historic fighters, and the context in which they are judged.


Lewis beat him before Byrd beat him.


Byrd still beat him though ant that is what history will remember.


Why should i? You, me, reports of the time and everyone knows it.


You and me knowing it is one thing.

Sombody in 100 years time deducing it from the records is another.


Here is something boxrec to start with:
Lewis' sole weakness is his chin.


Lets say that you dig that clipping up in 100 years time.

Another anorak will just find a diferent clipping which says that Byrd is the most deserving challenger.

Both will continue to rehash the clipping which suports their viewpoint or agenda.


You have to be blind not to see how Byrd is absolutely no threat to Lewis while Tua and Grant were.


Blind or living 100 years in the future.


A boxrec hunter would think that Ruiz has a glass chin and therefore no chance against a huge puncher like Lewis.


He might chalk the Tua loss up to early teething toubles and look at his subsequent record in which he proved verry durable.


But who gives a flying fuck what a "boxrec hunter" thinks. You called me a boxrec hunter for pointing out Johnson's losing record against a fringe contender at the end of his days.


I am presenting you with the equivalent of yourself 100 years in the future.

I dont personaly believe that Lewis ducked Byrd or Ruiz but the paper records taken on their own would suggest that he did.


Ruiz fought Golota after Lewis had retired, this was not known at the time.
Grant stopped Golota, Ruiz barely squeeked out a decision which was doubted by many.


OK but Golotta was nobody anyway right.

Yep, the same guy Lewis was going to defend against was not convincingly beaten by Ruiz.

Presumably Johnson fouled out because he was loosing.


But in the end, he fought Vitali Klitschko, a much better choice.


I know that and you know that but Mr boxrec dosnt.


Really? Post it. Because everyone, and i mean every single person, that i have spoken or seen written on the subject gave Jones no chance and it was obvious that Jones ducked his way back to LHW.


The point is that you would find an article somwhere.


Yes they are. And i'm tired of this "debate". You are purposfully acting like a total retard ignoring any facts that speak in favor of Lewis.


That is the point of the thread.


I don't know Peter Maher well enough.


Peter Maher had a title claim which withered on the vine.

VK could be a Peter Maher or he could be a Marvin Hart 100 years from now.

[janitor]

On top of that, a boxing historian in 100 years time will easily have access to these fight films.


Most of them get burned in 2050 because they are deemed a fire hazard.

[Sonny's jab]

Truth is, Byrd and Ruiz were mediocre fighters anyway.

I disagree with the idea that Tyson DESERVED to be ranked where he was when he challenged Lewis. Byrd should probably have been ahead of him, Ruiz and Holyfield also. But Tyson was BIG MONEY and the average man on the street perceived Tyson as still something to be reckoned with, so it made sense for Lewis to chase that fight, however distateful it seemed.

Lewis didn't have much decent opposition to go after. Were Wladimir's promoters really confident he could beat Lewis back in 2001 ? I think they wanted to get a few more wins under his belt there, and build him up a bit more. Lewis was really winding down by 2002 and most people were expecting his retirement then.

Lewis made no secret of the fact that Tyson was his main target. Grant and Tua were deserving challengers and Lewis destroyed them. There really weren't many good fighters around after he beat Holyfield.

Guys like Tyson, Rahman, and Ruiz and Byrd were crap really. But I know they have their supporters.

The heavyweight division's been shit for years now.

[Bigcat]

Lennox didn't duck them, he just had better fights to pursue..

Ruiz spent a long time with Maloney as his promoter years before he even became a heavyweight.. He sparred Lewis a lot and he never even scratched the surface.. Byrd wasn't technically well equipped to beat Lennox..

[janitor]

Lennox didn't duck them, he just had better fights to pursue..

Ruiz spent a long time with Maloney as his promoter years before he even became a heavyweight.. He sparred Lewis a lot and he never even scratched the surface.. Byrd wasn't technically well equipped to beat Lennox..

I agree wholehartedly.

The point of this thread is to make people more cautious about acusing guys like Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey of ducking contemporary fighters based on the fact that the timelines crossed.

[gregor]

Lennox didn't duck them, he just had better fights to pursue..
Exactly. It was the end of his career, and he didn't have anything to prove, he was just collecting retirement money. You may wonder how much $$$ and PPV a fight like Lewis-Byrd would generate... certainly nowhere close to 30 mln $ LL easily got for shot Tyson.

And the argument that Lewis ducked Byrd because Byrd was in top10 in 2001, 2002 and 2003 is simply wrong. Lewis fought only 3 opponents during this period, so following this argument it would mean he ducked at least seven other top10 fighters (or even eight, as Tyson was probably outside top 10 at this time). I agree it was lazy, but ducking is different thing.

Ruiz and (especially) Byrd had no chance against Lewis. I guess both would've turned out to be boring, one-sided contests and I really don't miss them. Well, maybe Lewis-Ruiz wouldn't be that bad as I don't mind seeing Ruiz badly beaten and possibly KO'd.

[mr. magoo]

I agree wholehartedly.

The point of this thread is to make people more cautious about acusing guys like Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey of ducking contemporary fighters based on the fact that the timelines crossed.

Just out of curiosity, what were Dempsey's reasons for not fighting Wills, or staying inactive for three years for that matter? Lewis didn't face Byrd or Ruiz on the pretense that better matches were available, and he most certainly never went longer than 12 months without a single fight. Who was around that could make a better case than Harry Wills for getting a title shot? What prevented Dempsey from not fighting anyone over a three year duration?

I understand the point of your thread and agree that its a valid one. What I don't see, is the comparison between Lewis and Dempsey in terms of reasons for not meeting mandatories and the context they are held in.

[ChrisPontius]

Rankings tend only to get looked at by serious anoraks years after the event, and are given less weighting than records.


No they don't.


You yourself have tried to argue that Jack Dempsey ducked George Godfrey who was only ranked about 8th at the time despite the fact that he fought Tommy Gibbons who was ranked 2nd.


But you just said that rankings aren't important. Which one is it?



Oh, and i didn't say Dempsey ducked Godfrey. I said the fact that he didn't face Godfrey was yet another piece of evidence that pointed in the direction that he wanted no part of a good colored fighter.





So basicaly you are saying that this guy has only one decent win over Andrew Golotta, who lost every time he steped up.

What will there be in 100 years to suggest that Golotta is a noteworthy win?



The fact that he absolutely thrashed Riddick Bowe twice, who was seen as one of the if not the best heavyweight at the time.


What if there was no film of the Ruiz fights or the film was of verry poor quality.

Then what would your argument be?


Holyfield was declining and it's no secret that every boxer loses a lot past the age of 37.


The best case scenario is that Holyfield was just as good as against Lewis.

Okay, but Ruiz did not prove superiority over Holyfield, their series was a draw and most people thought Holyfield edged it.

Lewis, on the other hand, dominated once and the other time comfortably decisioned him.



Acording to boxrec Lewis only managed a draw in the first fight. I also have an ancient newspaper clipping which suggests that Holyfield deserved the decision in the second fight.


Show me the newspaper article. Even the most biased American retard, Ron Borges, gave Holyfield a draw and that's as far as you can go. The other 6.000 articles will have Lewis winning handily.





Lets say that you dig that clipping up in 100 years time.

Another anorak will just find a diferent clipping which says that Byrd is the most deserving challenger.

Both will continue to rehash the clipping which suports their viewpoint or agenda.


Yep, but if a decent researcher does any work, he'll find any article which says Byrd has no power, is too small and has no chance against Lewis, on top of the fact that no-one wants to see that boring fight.

And that won't take long, considering 99,99% of the people shared that opinion.



Blind or living 100 years in the future.


No you don't. KO percentages, reports will all say the same thing: Grant and Tua were big threats while Byrd wasn't.



I am presenting you with the equivalent of yourself 100 years in the future.


If we have 100 year old films at this point, then it is of negligble probability that in 100 years time, we won't have Lewis vs Tyson on film.



The point is that you would find an article somwhere.


Really? How can you find an article that doesn't exist?

If you can dig up an article that say Jones would KO Lewis, go ahead. :lol:

And you can be sure that it's easier to find an article now that it's fairly recent than in 100 years time. Even if there is one such article, the chance of running into now or 100 years from now is negligible as 99% of the articles state otherwise.

[ChrisPontius]

I agree wholehartedly.

The point of this thread is to make people more cautious about acusing guys like Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey of ducking contemporary fighters based on the fact that the timelines crossed.


Why?

Ruiz and Byrd weren't beating every single contender around and undefeated in doing so for 6 full years. Dito with Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey with the only exception being losses to each other.


Nice try but Dempsey and Johnson's duck jobs are the absolute worst in history and trivial matters like the opponents having boring styles or not had nothing to do with it.

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo]Just out of curiosity, what were Dempsey's reasons for not fighting Wills,

When Dempsey won the title Doc Kearns gave assurances that his man would draw the colour bar as every manager did post Jack Johnson.

Later Dempsey anounced that he was disolving the colour bar and would fight Harry Wills

He tried twice to arrange a fight with Wills.

The first time the state athletic comision refused to saction the bout.

The second time Dempseys cheque bounced because it was a dubious deal.

To be honest Wills was the John Ruiz of his day. He won fights in a ugly manner and the fans hated it. When he beat Firpo he was ridiculed for his tactics compared to the dynamic and crowd pleasing Dempsey.

I dont want to paint Dempsey as the good champion betrayed by his evil managers/politics of the time.

He was happy to wait for trouble to come to him but was prepared to face it when it came.

or staying inactive for three years for that matter?

He wanted to screw A list actreses more than he wanted to defend the title.

Presumably he used the time well.


Lewis didn't face Byrd or Ruiz on the pretense that better matches were available, and he most certainly never went longer than 12 months without a single fight. Who was around that could make a better case than Harry Wills for getting a title shot?

By the politics of the day yes. Luis Firpo for example was hyped to the roof.

What prevented Dempsey from not fighting anyone over a three year duration?

Screwing actresses

All part of a heavyweight resume.


I understand the point of your thread and agree that its a valid one. What I don't see, is the comparison between Lewis and Dempsey in terms of reasons for not meeting mandatories and the context they are held in


Jack Johnson would be a better comparison in some ways. He had a lot of good challengers who were not flavour of the month.

Dempsey is worth noting also.

Wills was like a hyper John Ruiz.

Unlike Ruiz he was a great fighter, one of the greatest his weight, but he would never have been a crowd pleaser.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]

When Dempsey won the title Doc Kearns gave assurances that his man would draw the colour bar as every manager did post Jack Johnson.

Later Dempsey anounced that he was disolving the colour bar and would fight Harry Wills

He tried twice to arrange a fight with Wills.

The first time the state athletic comision refused to saction the bout.

The second time Dempseys cheque bounced because it was a dubious deal.

To be honest Wills was the John Ruiz of his day. He won fights in a ugly manner and the fans hated it. When he beat Firpo he was ridiculed for his tactics compared to the dynamic and crowd pleasing Dempsey.

I dont want to paint Dempsey as the good champion betrayed by his evil managers/politics of the time.

He was happy to wait for trouble to come to him but was prepared to face it when it came.



He wanted to screw A list actreses more than he wanted to defend the title.

Presumably he used the time well.




By the politics of the day yes. Luis Firpo for example was hyped to the roof.



Screwing actresses

All part of a heavyweight resume.



Jack Johnson would be a better comparison in some ways. He had a lot of good challengers who were not flavour of the month.

Thanks for the insight, and I now have a better view of the picture. I must say however, that I still found it shameful that Fighters like Lewis and Holmes were held accountable for not facing their mandatories, but Dempsey wasn't. No one took his title away during the three years that he was " screwing actresses ". Apparently, some felt that these women were better qualified for a shot at the champ than Wills was, but it still makes his resume look bad.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Why?
Ruiz and Byrd weren't beating every single contender around and undefeated in doing so for 6 full years.


Together they have a winning record against Lewis's title oponents over that period.


Dito with Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey with the only exception being losses to each other.


They had a fair few losses outside of eachother.

Nice try but Dempsey and Johnson's duck jobs are the absolute worst in history and trivial matters like the opponents having boring styles or not had nothing to do with it.

Fair enough.

By that criteria Lewis would presumably be the third worst duck job in history.

Based on the records.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

Thanks for the insight, and I now have a better view of the picture. I must say however, that I still found it shameful that Fighters like Lewis and Holmes were held accountable for not facing their mandatories, but Dempsey wasn't. No one took his title away during the three years that he was " screwing actresses ". Apparently, some felt that these women were better qualified for a shot at the champ than Wills was, but it still makes his resume look bad.

Lets not get distracted from the main issue.

[ChrisPontius]

Together they have a winning record against Lewis's title oponents over that period.


Yeah and together they had a lot of losses, embarrassing and one-sided ones, unlike Wills.

Who cares what they had together, anyway? If you're playing it that way then we could invoke Langford and Wills together.




By that criteria Lewis would presumably be the third worst duck job in history.




No, that honor goes to either Riddick Bowe or Floyd Patterson.


And i'm sure there are other fighters in history that didn't get their shot. I wasn't talking about heavyweight only, i was talking about any weight division.

Ruiz and Byrd never once even reached the #1 contender spot! They were ranked in the top10 for quite a few years as well as the opponents that Lewis did fight, most of which were more rightfully ranked and higher/longer.

END OF!

[ChrisPontius]

But to summarize, janitor, address the following points:



-Ruiz went even with an older Holyfield than the one Lewis decisively beat. Although any news paper report will have the first draw going to Lewis, if we keep that as a draw for the moment, then Lewis still did better against Holyfield than Ruiz.

-Rahman, Tua, Klitschko and Grant were all at the same level of a Ruiz and ranked accordingly.

-Tyson was consistently higher than Byrd. Byrd never knocked out a ranked contender and considering a similar fighter in Wladimir Klitschko lopsidedly decisioned Byrd, a Byrd win is highly unlikely.


All of this is clear even if we somehow didn't have their fights on film and no newspaper accounts.

[godking]

I dont personaly believe this to be the case but I am going to argue it on the strength of the historical evidence and challenge anybody to prove otherwise on the basis of the same sources eg, records, newpaper acounts, rankings etc.

If you cant prove otherwis based on historical sources but you disagree then you should be more cautious about saying that historic fighters ducked a given contender because they were around and did not get to fight them.Lewis chose not to fight Byrd and frankly it is not a fight i would have wished to see .

Pop in Byrd vs Wlad 1 and 2 to see how a Lewis fight would have went.

Byrds best bet is that Lewis is content to get a points vicroty which means that Byrd only gets a 12 round beating as opposed to a 4 round brutal stoppage which would happen if Lewis wanted to make this an early night.

Lewis ''ducked" Ruiz to fight the heir apparent in Grant. At that point in time Ruiz was known as nothing more then Tua's 19 second bitch.

[Sizzle]

I agree wholehartedly.

The point of this thread is to make people more cautious about acusing guys like Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey of ducking contemporary fighters based on the fact that the timelines crossed.

Most historians don't do this, I think the only one on this site that does is Mendoza.

Unless there is newspaper evidence (i.e., a reporter suggesting Lewis should fight Byrd or Ruiz, or a report suggesting Lewis is taking the easy route) then you can't really consider it likely, can you?

[EARL]

Lewis KO1 Jack Johnson.

[FROST]

I don't think Lewis ducked Ruiz and Byrd, but if we are to suppose that this was the case, then let me put it this way: very good for Ruiz and Byrd...

[Marciano Frazier]

I think there is a stronger argument that Lewis ducked Wlad Klitschko while Wlad was #1 contender during 1999-2001 than there is that he ducked Byrd or Ruiz.

[KobeIsGod]

lewis would have handled both. Ruiz may have been able to hug his way to wide decision loss but lewis would have stopped byrd who stands in front of his opponent too much.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]But to summarize, janitor, address the following points:
-Ruiz went even with an older Holyfield than the one Lewis decisively beat. Although any news paper report will have the first draw going to Lewis, if we keep that as a draw for the moment, then Lewis still did better against Holyfield than Ruiz.


Yes but based on the paper records you might eroneously conclude that Ruiz was about on the same level as Hollyfield around the time that Lewis beat him.


-Rahman, Tua, Klitschko and Grant were all at the same level of a Ruiz and ranked accordingly.


You know that and I know that but the paper records viewed in isolation tell a diferent story.

Historical rankings do not count for much on this board.

Quintin Romero Rojas anybody?


-Tyson was consistently higher than Byrd. Byrd never knocked out a ranked contender and considering a similar fighter in Wladimir Klitschko lopsidedly decisioned Byrd, a Byrd win is highly unlikely.


There is nothing about Tysons resume in this period to suggest that he was on a par with Byrd.

As you know many people on this board question Gene Tunneys wins over Dempsey despite the fact that he beat Jack Sharkey around the time.

To the boxrec hunter Tyson would cease to be a going concearn after his last win over a name opponent.

[janitor]

Unless there is newspaper evidence (i.e., a reporter suggesting Lewis should fight Byrd or Ruiz, or a report suggesting Lewis is taking the easy route) then you can't really consider it likely, can you?

You could find some obscure newspaper article saying that Lewis should have fought, Byrd Ruiz, Wlad, Jones, Hulk Hogan, prety much anybody.

[janitor]

Yeah and together they had a lot of losses, embarrassing and one-sided ones, unlike Wills.

Who cares what they had together, anyway? If you're playing it that way then we could invoke Langford and Wills together.


I have to say that I have read articles from the 1920s trotting out all the arguments that we have heard in this thread.

Wills has a boring style.

Wills stinks the place out with every fight.

Wills is not in Dempseys league.

There must be a take home message somewhere.

[godking]

[quote]


Yes but based on the paper records you might eroneously conclude that Ruiz was about on the same level as Hollyfield around the time that Lewis beat him.



You know that and I know that but the paper records viewed in isolation tell a diferent story.

Historical rankings do not count for much on this board.

Quintin Romero Rojas anybody?



There is nothing about Tysons resume in this period to suggest that he was on a par with Byrd.

As you know many people on this board question Gene Tunneys wins over Dempsey despite the fact that he beat Jack Sharkey around the time.

To the boxrec hunter Tyson would cease to be a going concearn after his last win over a name opponent.Ruiz ?

The choice was for Lewis to either fight Ruiz or the supposed heir apparent in Micheal Grant .

Because Ruiz did a little better later one does not change the fact that at the time that a Lewis fight could have materialised Ruiz was only known for getting blown out in 19 seconds by Tua.

If Lewis had fought Ruiz instead of Grant you would be making a thread about why Lewis fought Ruiz instead of Grant.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]Ruiz ?

The choice was for Lewis to either fight Ruiz or the supposed heir apparent in Micheal Grant .

Because Ruiz did a little better later one does not change the fact that at the time that a Lewis fight could have materialised Ruiz was only known for getting blown out in 19 seconds by Tua.

If Lewis had fought Ruiz instead of Grant you would be making a thread about why Lewis fought Ruiz instead of Grant.

This thread is not in any way intended as a criticism of Lewis, or his choice of oponents.

The point is, how it would look if you only had the boxrec records for each fighter.

In that case Grant would be nobody and Ruiz would be one of the greatest fighters never to hold the lineal title.

[kenmore]

I dont personaly believe this to be the case but I am going to argue it on the strength of the historical evidence and challenge anybody to prove otherwise on the basis of the same sources eg, records, newpaper acounts, rankings etc.

If you cant prove otherwis based on historical sources but you disagree then you should be more cautious about saying that historic fighters ducked a given contender because they were around and did not get to fight them.

As I recall, in the late '90s and early '00s Lewis was concerned about his marketability and making big paydays. Fighting Ruiz or Byrd might have been a box office disaster for Lewis, and for this reason he wasn't eager to have these fights.

Lewis would have knocked Ruiz out easily and decisively, but the bout would have proven nothing. It would have not have drawn many fans, and the poor audience reception might have soured the cable stations on Lewis's future financial prospects.

As for Byrd, Lewis would have won but he would have looked terrible doing so. The bout would be boring, and it would go to the cards. Such a match would definitely have hurt Lewis's popularity, much like Klitschko's recent win over Ibragimov has tarnished Vlad's box office appeal somewhat.

I'm basing my remarks on stuff I remember reading in the papers.

[janitor]

As I recall, in the late '90s and early '00s Lewis was concerned about his marketability and making big paydays. Fighting Ruiz or Byrd might have been a box office disaster for Lewis, and for this reason he wasn't eager to have these fights.

Lewis would have knocked Ruiz out easily and decisively, but the bout would have proven nothing. It would have not have drawn many fans, and the poor audience reception might have soured the cable stations on Lewis's future financial prospects.

As for Byrd, Lewis would have won but he would have looked terrible doing so. The bout would be boring, and it would go to the cards. Such a match would definitely have hurt Lewis's popularity, much like Klitschko's recent win over Ibragimov has tarnished Vlad's box office appeal somewhat.

I'm basing my remarks on stuff I remember reading in the papers.

When Jack Dempsey was champion there were people saying the same thing about Harry Wills rightly or wrongly.

Not to compare Harry Wills to John Ruiz.

I personaly have Harry Wills in my top 15 all time heavyweights encroaching on my top 10 and consider him an all time great.

[godking]

[quote=godking]

This thread is not in any way intended as a criticism of Lewis, or his choice of oponents.

The point is, how it would look if you only had the boxrec records for each fighter.

In that case Grant would be nobody and Ruiz would be one of the greatest fighters never to hold the lineal title.hinfsight is 20/20

At the time that the fight between Ruiz and Lewis could have materialised . The choice was between the undefeated heir apparent Grant and a guy who got destroyed in 19 seconds.

[godking]

When Jack Dempsey was champion there were people saying the same thing about Harry Wills rightly or wrongly.

Not to compare Harry Wills to John Ruiz.

I personaly have Harry Wills in my top 15 all time heavyweights encroaching on my top 10 and consider him an all time great.What did Wills do to be a top 15 HW encroaching on the top 10 ?

What film and real evidence have you seen to give Wills a top 15 spot ?.

[abraq]

Neither do I but that argument simply wont wash in 100 years time.

It would be like saying:

"I dont think that Peter Jackson had a chance against John L Sullivan"

Great but Jackson was the outstanding challenger and the onus was on him to prove it.
I am not trying to justify Lewis avoiding (if at all) Byrd or Ruiz on the ground that he would have easily beat them. If you read my post carefully, you will see that I actually give Byrd a chance (howsoever slim) of beating Lewis. No chance for Ruiz though.

The thing is that, as most posters has pointed out, Lewis opted to face better (both from the point of view of competition as well as gate) opponents. Now, you can't really blame him for that, can you?

And he kept fairly busy. So you can't say that he could have squeezed them in somewhere in the line. But considering the easy time he would have had with them, maybe he should have.

[janitor]

What did Wills do to be a top 15 HW encroaching on the top 10 ?


Wills probably beat more world classs fighters than any heavyweight in history including Ali and Louis. Make no mistake Wills is an all time great heavyweight.

I am in the curious position of defending Dempsey for not fighting Wills while I rate him higher than most and argue the case for others to do likewise.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]hinfsight is 20/20

At the time that the fight between Ruiz and Lewis could have materialised . The choice was between the undefeated heir apparent Grant and a guy who got destroyed in 19 seconds.

My point in making this thread was to prove that critical details like the ones you point out get lost when looking back over 50 or 100 years.