True Or False?

[salsanchezfan]

............Lennox Lewis cannot be considered an all-time great; all-time greats do not get knocked out by people named Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman.

True or false?

[redrooster]

Lennox seemed to have a lot going for him. I don't think he could lick someone like Bowe but he was a respectable champion for a long while. I think he just let his guard down a couple times against a couple of non threatening fighters.

[rekcutnevets]

Avenged every loss in good time.

Faced a good list of opponents, and a great list of punchers. Morrison, Tyson, Tua, and Klitschko can all bang.

[Marciano Frazier]

False, but I do think the fact that those things both happened to him in his prime is a strong indication that he does not belong in the top five in the heavyweight division (where many have him these days).

[TBooze]

Lewis is not an all-time great, but there are IMO only three Heavyweights good enough for that level.

Lewis was a brilliant fighter and although the first McCall and Rahman fights does not help his resume, the redemption in the rematches does.

[fists of fury]

False.

If anything, the losses enhance rather than detract from his legacy. Let me explain.

I know L by KO 2 and L by KO 5 doesn't look too good, but he lost both fights on the basis of one punch. He wasn't dominated round after round, he wasn't cut up, hurt or bleeding. He wasn't being outfought, outboxed or outfoxed.
Basically, at the time of the knockout, he wasn't 2nd best in there.

I've lately become really tired of the constant Lennox worshipping on the site, but at the end of the day you have to give him his due. On the flip side, you have to give McCall and Rahman their due for knocking him out.

[JohnThomas1]

False

[DamonD]

False.

Because it completely ignores all the other stuff he did that almost no other heavyweights in history managed to do.

[Mendoza]

............Lennox Lewis cannot be considered an all-time great; all-time greats do not get knocked out by people named Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman.

True or false?

False. Many all time greats were stopped by lesser punchers. Two KO losses at heavyweight in 40+ fight is not bad. Compare and contrast that number to other ATG's. In addition, Lewis fought in a quality era, and pretty much fought everyone. His record in title defenses is right up there with the best of them. Lewis also beat every man he faced as a professional.

If Lewis is not an ATG, then the bar is set pretty high.

[McGrain]

He's arguably the #3 HW, all time. He should always, always be rated above Tyson whom he destroyed.

[janitor]

False.

If Lennox Lewis had been knocked out by Joe Grim he could still be considered an all time great if the rest of his record justified it.

[McGrain]

The degree to which you are wrong is so massive i can't even think of a similar degree of wrong occuring in history.

Maybe on par with the flat earth society today.

Tyson should also be ranked below Danny Williams.

[McGrain]

Peak Williams would always have given peak Tyson very serious problems though, you must admit? Tyson is so small by comparison, and he's a poof.

[janitor]

I would add that if we are comparing Lewis to other all time greats then we have to regard the McCall loss as a product of the era he fought in.

A few other all time great heavyweights could have picked up TKO losses if you exported those values.

[JohnThomas1]

Peak Williams would always have given peak Tyson very serious problems though, you must admit? Tyson is so small by comparison, and he's a poof.

:lol:

[Unforgiven]

There's no universal definition of what a fighter must or must not do to be an "all-time great".

[salsanchezfan]

Peak Williams would always have given peak Tyson very serious problems though, you must admit? Tyson is so small by comparison, and he's a poof.


:lol:

[McGrain]

Tyson IS a great fighter. But it seems unlikely to me that he would have done as well against Williams' competition as Williams did.

[Stonehands89]

Lennox is an ATG. The answer is false. Can he be considered an elite -say, top 2 or 3? I'd say no. Nor do you get knocked out by B-Level fighters in your prime.

All Time Great? Yes. Elite? Nah.

[mr. magoo]

False..

[PaddyD1983]

False, but I do think the fact that those things both happened to him in his prime is a strong indication that he does not belong in the top five in the heavyweight division (where many have him these days).

False.

I would also say that the McCall loss was not during his prime. His prime years came after that and after teaming up with Manny Steward.

Regardless, both losses were avenged. For a heavyweight there is always a risk of a loss. Lewis proved himself by beating every man he fought.

Whether he is an ATG is another question in my opinion. I think it comes more down to resume rather than losses. In terms of skill set, I think Lewis was as accomplished as any other heavy with the exceptions of Ali and Louis (and maybe Tyson in his pomp). After that its all down to resume. Lewis beat everyone, but was that down to poor opposition? Well he had better opponents than possibly Larry Holmes and Tyson. So for me there is only really then Marciano and Liston that you can class above him (after Louis, Ali and possibly Tyson).

[I caveat this with the disclaimer that my pre-war knowledge isnt great so I know I'm missing out Dempsey, Johnson etc but I really dont have enough knowledge to compare them to a Lennox Lewis]

For me that puts Lewis in as an ATG. Personally I have him #4 behind Ali, Louis and Tyson

[McGrain]

Of course, it also hurts Mike that he lost twice to blown up Light-heavyweight Hollyfield, who doesn't reside in my ten, during his absolute physical peak.

[mr. magoo]

Although the Rahman and McCall losses came during Lewis's prime, I don't think either of them occurred during his absolute peak. Sure, he was 29 years old, undefeated in 25 fights, and a two time olympian when he fought oliver McCall, but i do think that training with Manny Steward made him better. As for the Rahman loss, one could say that he was still the best heavyweight in the world, but at the age of 35 and nearing the end of his career, I wouldn't call this a peak version either.

In my opinion, Lewis's prime stretched from about 1992-2000, with his peak years coming probably between 1996-1999.

[PaddyD1983]

Although the Rahman and McCall losses came during Lewis's prime, I don't think either of them occurred during his absolute peak. Sure, he was 29 years old, undefeated in 25 fights, and a two time olympian when he fought oliver McCall, but i do think that training with Manny Steward made him better. As for the Rahman loss, one could say that he was still the best heavyweight in the world, but at the age of 35 and nearing the end of his career, I wouldn't call this a peak version either.

In my opinion, Lewis's prime stretched from about 1992-2000, with his peak years coming probably between 1996-1999.

I've never really differentiated between peak and prime, but this more accurately explains what I was trying to get at :good

[prime]

False, but I do think the fact that those things both happened to him in his prime is a strong indication that he does not belong in the top five in the heavyweight division (where many have him these days).

True.

That chin will forever prevent his entry into the pantheon of the elite, but, other than that, Lewis was an awesome boxer and a handful for any elite fighter.

[mr. magoo]

I've never really differentiated between peak and prime, but this more accurately explains what I was trying to get at :good

Agreed.

I know its kinda difficult to claim that Lewis wasn't in his prime against McCall. He was in his late 20's. He was unbeaten in 25 fights with wins over Ruddock, Tucker, Mason, Bruno and Jackson. He was a two time olympic medalist. To say that he wasn't prime is somewhat silly, however, as mentioned before, I do feel that he improved under the instruction of Steward.

On the otherhand, claiming that Lewis was peak against Rahman is somewhat on the ludicrous side. He was nearing the age of 36, and showing up to fights at career high weights. Frankly, i think a tad too much is made of the Rahman loss.

[janitor]

True.

That chin will forever prevent his entry into the pantheon of the elite, but, other than that, Lewis was an awesome boxer and a handful for any elite fighter.

If you are going to exclude Lennox Lewis from all time great status on the basis of his chin then a good few other historic fighters will get their credentials called into question.

Tommy Hearns to name but one.

[Ezzard]

Lewis is an ATG champion who has flaws...

25 years ago Foreman was considered to be a greta fighter with flaws. he hardly ever did well in h2h match ups because the way to beat him was considered to be easy...simply get into the late rounds and his awful stamina would see him deflate fast... Any argument about Foreman always had this tilt to it. of course only Ali and Young (2 of the greatest boxer HWs) actually managed to do this.

Same with Lewis now. Close your eyes and throw a right hand and you'll probably knock him out. Okay the guys who did it weren't in Ali or Young's class but Lewis many top punchers over his career.

I think between 5-10 is a defendable position for Lennox

[PaddyD1983]

Agreed.

I know its kinda difficult to claim that Lewis wasn't in his prime against McCall. He was in his late 20's. He was unbeaten in 25 fights with wins over Ruddock, Tucker, Mason, Bruno and Jackson. He was a two time olympic medalist. To say that he wasn't prime is somewhat silly, however, as mentioned before, I do feel that he improved under the instruction of Steward.

On the otherhand, claiming that Lewis was peak against Rahman is somewhat on the ludicrous side. He was nearing the age of 36, and showing up to fights at career high weights. Frankly, i think a tad too much is made of the Rahman loss.

At HW losses come with the territory for me. He proved himself against everyone he fought. Was linear champion for a long stretch and nobody looked like interrupting his dominance. Even after his losses he was favourite to win the rematches which showed that at the time people thought of them as 'flukes'.

As for the prime/peak thing, as I say I've never really explained it like that (or even heard it put like that) before. It makes a lot more sense when you say it that way, otherwise I'm limiting Lewis's 'prime' to about a two year stretch which doesnt really do him justice. Thanks :good

[mr. magoo]

At HW losses come with the territory for me. He proved himself against everyone he fought. Was linear champion for a long stretch and nobody looked like interrupting his dominance. Even after his losses he was favourite to win the rematches which showed that at the time people thought of them as 'flukes'.

As for the prime/peak thing, as I say I've never really explained it like that (or even heard it put like that) before. It makes a lot more sense when you say it that way, otherwise I'm limiting Lewis's 'prime' to about a two year stretch which doesnt really do him justice. Thanks :good

I think he's definately top 10. On any given day, I can have him rated anywhere from #5-#8. The losses hurt him a tad, but I think people place way too much emphasis on them. The man defeated more ranked contenders than most champions did, and often did so in decisive fashion. He unified his title and beat a lot of big punchers in their primes, and plenty of guys with good records. He also left the sport on a winning note, and against a very good fighter.

[MrMagic]

I don't think he could lick someone like Bowe but he was a respectable champion for a long while.

Yeah, that's why Bowe threw his belt away to avoid Lennox.


Suuuuuuuuuuuuure.:patsch

[prime]

If you are going to exclude Lennox Lewis from all time great status on the basis of his chin then a good few other historic fighters will get their credentials called into question.

Tommy Hearns to name but one.

Not at all. Just a matter of semantics.

I was going with Stonehands' differentiation between "all-time great" and "elite". Lewis is in my all-time top ten; just not in my top three or even five.

Why?

As you well know, especially at heavyweight you need an excellent chin lest you run into a bus, regardless of other quality tools you may have. Had Hearns had a better chin, he likely would have prevented his loss to Leonard.

Had Ali had an unreliable chin, Shavers may have kayoed him with one punch when he was clowning early on and absorbed that massive right.

Not to mention Holmes vs. Shavers.

And on and on.

[round15]

He's arguably the #3 HW, all time. He should always, always be rated above Tyson whom he destroyed.

Yeah, a 240 lb depleted, slower, past it Mike Tyson which he probably should have disposed earlier in the fight. Tyson didn't have much to offer and Lennox looked politely scared, probably out of respect for whatever power Tyson had left. Lewis vs Tyson, prime for prime, should have happened in the early 90's but we all know what happened to Tyson after the Douglas fight. As far as I'm concerned, Lennox Lewis rounds out the top ten HOAT, behind Frazier, Foreman and Holmes. I have him ahead of Sonny Liston, but he's not top five. That's reserved for Jack Johnson #1, Ali #2, Joe Louis #3, Marciano #4, and Dempsey #5.

[Minotauro]

You can't just look at those two fights when deciding if Lewis is an ATG you have to look at his entire career. Archie Moore got knocked out in one round against Leonard Morrow doesn't stop him from being an ATG.

[SuzieQ49]

Although the Rahman and McCall losses came during Lewis's prime, I don't think either of them occurred during his absolute peak. Sure, he was 29 years old, undefeated in 25 fights, and a two time olympian when he fought oliver McCall, but i do think that training with Manny Steward made him better. As for the Rahman loss, one could say that he was still the best heavyweight in the world, but at the age of 35 and nearing the end of his career, I wouldn't call this a peak version either.

In my opinion, Lewis's prime stretched from about 1992-2000, with his peak years coming probably between 1996-1999.


LOL. In denial. :-(


Also I would like to add if ur saying the peak lewis was the one who I watched get outjabbed and outworked in a dead even fight by a 36 year old ray mercer, and who was unable to floor, stagger or establish dominance against a 37 year old evander holyfield in 24 rounds, perhaps hes not who we thought he was.


I think Lennox looked most impressive vs ruddock, but hey what do I know. When lennox used his underated left hook, he was devastating. when steward made him go right hand crazy, he didnt appeal to me as much.

[SuzieQ49]

You can't just look at those two fights when deciding if Lewis is an ATG you have to look at his entire career. Archie Moore got knocked out in one round against Leonard Morrow doesn't stop him from being an ATG.


this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.

[janitor]

this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.

There are examples of consensus ATGs with knockout losses to B level fighters in other weight classes.

Tiger Flowers is one example.

[mr. magoo]

this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.

If you want to go by win percentage, then I think its an excellent example. Moore, while having 200 pro fights as opposed to Lennox's 43, also had 23 losses and 11 draws. And not all of them were to great fighters, if that's your next approach.

[McGrain]

If you want to go by win percentage, then I think its an excellent example. Moore, while having 200 pro fights as opposed to Lennox's 43, also had 23 losses and 11 draws. And not all of them were to great fighters, if that's your next approach.

Your comparison is fair. It's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Moore is top 20 all time almost inarguably - top 10 fo rme - whereas Lewis is a lot further down that list.

[mr. magoo]

Your comparison is fair. It's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Moore is top 20 all time almost inarguably - top 10 fo rme - whereas Lewis is a lot further down that list.

The double standards that are applied on this forum are some of the worst that I've seen anywhere. Fighters who existed pre-1960 are given a pass for having sometimes as many as dozens of losses, while a modern fighter like Lewis is highly scrutinized for two mere defeats, both of which to rated contenders and both avenged on top of that. It also seems to go unadressed that the guy creamed the living crap out of some 20 rated contenders and established a fair amount of dominance during his era.

[McGrain]

The double standards that are applied on this forum are some of the worst that I've seen anywhere. Fighters who existed pre-1960 are given a pass for having sometimes as many as dozens of losses, while a modern fighter like Lewis is highly scrutinized for two mere defeats, both of which to rated contenders and both avenged on top of that. It also seems to go unadressed that the guy creamed the living crap out of some 20 rated contenders and established a fair amount of dominance during his era.


Yeah. Everyone is different though.

Got a pick for the big fight on Saturday?

[mr. magoo]

Yeah. Everyone is different though.

Got a pick for the big fight on Saturday?

I'm going with WK

[ripcity]

False,false,false!
losing to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman dose hurt but Lewis is still an ATG.
Including the result of the rematchs he would be 39-0-1 (32).

[fists of fury]

On the otherhand, claiming that Lewis was peak against Rahman is somewhat on the ludicrous side. He was nearing the age of 36, and showing up to fights at career high weights. Frankly, i think a tad too much is made of the Rahman loss.

So how do you explain his performance in his very next fight, ironically against Rahman? He wasn't peak, but so what?
He was still at the top of his game when Rahman beat him. Same for McCall, and that's with Steward in his corner.

Maybe Rahman was past his prime in the rematch. Yeah, that's it. Rahman was beaten because he was past his prime...:hey
McCall was a blubbing emotional wreck when Lewis fought him. Excuses are easy to come by if you're looking for them.

All this talk of prime this or peak that is redundant.

[Unforgiven]

If you're number one in the world, or undisputed champion, then any LOSS that occurs IS fair game for much scrutiny.

Lennox certainly deserved to have all eyes on his performance against Rahman, because of the position he was in. The Tua fight was one of his best ever showings, he was considered at the top of his game at that point.

Against McCall the first time, Lewis was among the top 2 or 3 in the world for sure, and many say he was number 1 at that time. It is claimed by some that this Lewis would have destroyed Bowe and beaten Holyfield. Therefore, it's 100% fair game to point out he was beaten by McCall.

Some people take the view that these "one-punch" defeats aren't as much as a serious blemish as a more dominant sustained trouncing, whereas others point out that Rahman and McCall didn't even have to put on any sort of "great performance" (ala Douglas v. Tyson, or Bowe v Holyfield) to deprive Lewis of his status. Both points of view make sense, it's just a matter of perspective.

[Lobotomy]

so far im the only person to have answered correctly.Not any more. I'm with you on this one.

[Robbi]

............Lennox Lewis cannot be considered an all-time great; all-time greats do not get knocked out by people named Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman.

True or false?

False.

[fists of fury]

Not any more. I'm with you on this one.

I'm sure Zakman would feel likewise.

[Seamus]

He dominated a great era for the division, avenged these two losses, which were to large, powerful modern heavies not to lightheavies or middles, losses to which other more fashionable ATG's have been absolved.

H2H, I pick Lewis over damn near anyone all-time.

[Lobotomy]

I'm sure Zakman would feel likewise.No question. Zak's opinion of Lewis is well established here.

[TommyV]

False. He avenged those defeats. End of.

[Unforgiven]

I think the McCall and Rahman defeats impact on Lewis's status but dont necessarily preclude him being an ATG (a term which has no strict universal definition anyway).

I dont rate Lewis as highly as some do because frankly I think his opposition was weak, and I rarely saw him look good winning.

[salsanchezfan]

False. He avenged those defeats. End of.


..............See, I can't get on board with this line of thinking. The avenging of a loss does not mean that loss didn't happen. They did. I can quite clearly remember Lennox flat on his back on the canvas. Courtesy of the right hands of two clearly inferior opponents. If that isn't a ***** in someone's armor, I don't know what is.

[Hatesrats]

..............See, I can't get on board with this line of thinking. The avenging of a loss does not mean that loss didn't happen. They did. I can quite clearly remember Lennox flat on his back on the canvas. Courtesy of the right hands of two clearly inferior opponents. If that isn't a ***** in someone's armor, I don't know what is.
You are 100% correct bro^^^, I agree.

We can all sit here and say "Well, they landed a lucky shot"....
And maybe they did, but that same lucky shot work's both ways.
fact of the matter is, Lewis was Knocked out by both via "One Punch".
Yes he did avenge those defeat's, but they still exist.
(Even tho we would like to seep it under the rug)

[DINAMITA]

............Lennox Lewis cannot be considered an all-time great; all-time greats do not get knocked out by people named Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman.

True or false?

False.

In heavyweight boxing there is always a chance of being KO'd. If a 250lbs fighter catches you with one lucky swing at any point, it's likely you will fall. Lewis got caught like this twice in his whole career, and avenged both defeats with stoppage wins. The things that he achieved in his career mean more than two losses.

If you do believe that this prevents him from being an all-time great, then do you think that Evander Holyfield, Henry Armstrong, Manny Pacquiao, or Mike Tyson aren't ATGs then? Holyfield was stopped by a guy who fought at middleweight (Toney), Henry Armstrong lost 21 fights in his career, Manny Pacquiao was knocked out early in his career by a guy called Rustico Torrecampo, and Tyson was KO'd at his peak by Buster Douglas. Do these facts themselves mean that these guys cannot even be considered for ATG status? I don't think so. Like Lewis, their achievements mean more than these losses.

[Drew101]

..............See, I can't get on board with this line of thinking. The avenging of a loss does not mean that loss didn't happen. They did. I can quite clearly remember Lennox flat on his back on the canvas. Courtesy of the right hands of two clearly inferior opponents. If that isn't a ***** in someone's armor, I don't know what is.

They absolutely happened.

But, consider that McCall and Rahman, while certainly not A level, aren't nearly as bad as people have made them out to be. McCall was able to score some nice victories well into his 40's, while Rahman, while terribly inconsistant, was able to get the better of Tua in the 2nd fight, and defeat a younger, and probably better, version of Corrie Sanders that would go on to blitz Wlad Klitschko.

So, they were legit contenders, who happened to be better than anyone thought they were, and who also happened to be able to punch pretty damned hard, when so inclined.

Those factors will always lead to upsets.

In any event, the work that Lewis did aside from that is pretty staggering, so it depends on what you define as ATG status. I personally think Lewis is worthy of consideration for top 10 status at heavyweight, and falls into the 6th or 7th position rather easily. The two losses disqualify him from any higher ranking, but he was still a great, great fighter at his absolute best.

[JohnThomas1]

..............See, I can't get on board with this line of thinking. The avenging of a loss does not mean that loss didn't happen. They did. I can quite clearly remember Lennox flat on his back on the canvas. Courtesy of the right hands of two clearly inferior opponents. If that isn't a ***** in someone's armor, I don't know what is.

I think the point is it would be a lot lot worse if he didn't come back and avenge. Lord knows what we'd be reading then from the likes of Elite and co. Lewis came back and showed us the two losses were very much contrary to the norm. Lewis fought loads of opponents greater and more dangerous and his overall record shows these two losses to be anomalies more than common or expected happenings.

[punchy]

I think the point is it would be a lot lot worse if he didn't come back and avenge. Lord knows what we'd be reading then from the likes of Elite and co. Lewis came back and showed us the two losses were very much contrary to the norm. Lewis fought loads of opponents greater and more dangerous and his overall record shows these two losses to be anomalies more than common or expected happenings.

Lewis certainly avenged his losses much more so than Ali whose wins over Norton and Frazier are the subject of numerous debates here no one debates Lewis's victories and who else has knocked Rahman out like that.

[JohnThomas1]

Lewis certainly avenged his losses much more so than Ali whose wins over Norton and Frazier are the subject of numerous debates here no one debates Lewis's victories and who else has knocked Rahman out like that.

Fair call Punchy. And how about Tyson with Douglas? Tho i often argue the semantics Tyson was statistically around his peak and they never fought again. Take the Tyson fight off the Douglas record and does he really read that much better than Rahman and McCall?

[Robbi]

Lewis beat every opponent he faced. People continually say what works against him was his losses to average heavyweights, McCall and Rahman. But IMO Lewis gaining revenge over both evens things out. If Lewis never got those rematches then his resume wouldn't look too good. Understandable. Tyson never avenged any of his defeats. Boxing politics or not having the opportunity, don't give a dam. Tyson bottled it against Holyfield when he had the chance to turn the tables.

[Blacc Jesus]

False.