Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Its often said lennox lewis was cautious and even boring in the ring. People point to his seemingly timid displays against the likes of David Tua. But surely his explosive performances out weigh the timid ones. Briggs, Golota, Grant, Botha, Rahman II etc. Surely the critisicm is somewhat unfair. Far from being timid i would say Lennox produced his most attacking displays when faced with his most dangerous opponents.
I would say the 'boring' tag is unfair on two counts, firstly, as i have said there are numerous examples of exciting, attacking performances. Secondly, is it fair to call his more sedate affairs 'boring'? I for one would say there is nothing boring about an athletic, highly skilled heavy putting on a 12 round demonstration. I'm sure many people that moaned about him at the time would now love to have him about, if he was an emerging heavy now he would be seen as a messiah.
Any thoughts?
first off lennox was definately a safety first fighter, but that was his winning formula, and why not, why would anyone else want to change that, ive seen him throw caution to the wind tho, especially in the golota fight, he just went straight after him, regardless lennox was a great champion, he would of givin any champ in history a good fight and beat most of them, i give him nothing but respect, truly a great heavyweight
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
I always enjoyed Lennox in the ring. His fight with Vitali was one of the best heavyweight fights of the past 15 years.
The Bruno and Mason fights were wildy entertaining, as was his demolition of Razor Ruddock.
He was sensible when he had to be and didn't take unneccesary risks but his fights were far far more entertaining than Wlad's, Valuev's, Chagaev's etc.
If he was fighting today he'd be Mr Excitement compared to the current lot
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I always enjoyed Lennox in the ring. His fight with Vitali was one of the best heavyweight fights of the past 15 years.
The Bruno and Mason fights were wildy entertaining, as was his demolition of Razor Ruddock.
He was sensible when he had to be and didn't take unneccesary risks but his fights were far far more entertaining than Wlad's, Valuev's, Chagaev's etc.
If he was fighting today he'd be Mr Excitement compared to the current lot
totally agree
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paddy448
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Its often said lennox lewis was cautious and even boring in the ring. People point to his seemingly timid displays against the likes of David Tua. But surely his explosive performances out weigh the timid ones. Briggs, Golota, Grant, Botha, Rahman II etc. Surely the critisicm is somewhat unfair. Far from being timid i would say Lennox produced his most attacking displays when faced with his most dangerous opponents.
I would say the 'boring' tag is unfair on two counts, firstly, as i have said there are numerous examples of exciting, attacking performances. Secondly, is it fair to call his more sedate affairs 'boring'? I for one would say there is nothing boring about an athletic, highly skilled heavy putting on a 12 round demonstration. I'm sure many people that moaned about him at the time would now love to have him about, if he was an emerging heavy now he would be seen as a messiah.
Any thoughts?
first off lennox was definately a safety first fighter, but that was his winning formula, and why not, why would anyone else want to change that, ive seen him throw caution to the wind tho, especially in the golota fight, he just went straight after him, regardless lennox was a great champion, he would of givin any champ in history a good fight and beat most of them, i give him nothing but respect, truly a great heavyweight
Well said, i guess there is a distinction to make between 'boring' and 'timid'. A case could be made that he was timid (although id disagree), but the case that he was boring is far less strong. I would argue though (in regards to timidness or 'safety first') that a list of his aggressive, attacking performances would be lengthier than his negative, timid displays. (Although i accept perhaps this is due to them living longer in the memory)
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paddy448
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Its often said lennox lewis was cautious and even boring in the ring. People point to his seemingly timid displays against the likes of David Tua. But surely his explosive performances out weigh the timid ones. Briggs, Golota, Grant, Botha, Rahman II etc. Surely the critisicm is somewhat unfair. Far from being timid i would say Lennox produced his most attacking displays when faced with his most dangerous opponents.
I would say the 'boring' tag is unfair on two counts, firstly, as i have said there are numerous examples of exciting, attacking performances. Secondly, is it fair to call his more sedate affairs 'boring'? I for one would say there is nothing boring about an athletic, highly skilled heavy putting on a 12 round demonstration. I'm sure many people that moaned about him at the time would now love to have him about, if he was an emerging heavy now he would be seen as a messiah.
Any thoughts?
first off lennox was definately a safety first fighter, but that was his winning formula, and why not, why would anyone else want to change that, ive seen him throw caution to the wind tho, especially in the golota fight, he just went straight after him, regardless lennox was a great champion, he would of givin any champ in history a good fight and beat most of them, i give him nothing but respect, truly a great heavyweight
Well said, i guess there is a distinction to make between 'boring' and 'timid'. A case could be made that he was timid (although id disagree), but the case that he was boring is far less strong. I would argue though (in regards to timidness or 'safety first') that a list of his aggressive, attacking performances would be lengthier than his negative, timid displays. (Although i accept perhaps this is due to them living longer in the memory)
i hear ya mate, for the people that called him boring, he didint do bad makin 100 million plus in his career, thats not bad for a boring fighter, he basically knocked out most people he faced, compared thru history he was probably less aggressive than a fraizer or prime tyson, but theirs no shame in that, surely, for me personally hes a top 5 heavyweight of all time easily
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
I think it is unfair to call his body of work boring. I know I got really turned off with Lennox in the second Hoylfield fight. Everyone including Lennox knew the first decision was so bad that as long as he was still standing after 12 rounds he would get the nod. I thought he fought completely uninspired and had no intention of really mixing it up with Evander.
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanChilds
I think it is unfair to call his body of work boring. I know I got really turned off with Lennox in the second Hoylfield fight. Everyone including Lennox knew the first decision was so bad that as long as he was still standing after 12 rounds he would get the nod. I thought he fought completely uninspired and had no intention of really mixing it up with Evander.
i dont no what that was about.i no he got robbed of a win in their first fight tho
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Some fights he may have played it safe. In others he showed his skill and power. I would have LL in my top 5 of all time HWs. that's all that matters.
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paddy448
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanChilds
I think it is unfair to call his body of work boring. I know I got really turned off with Lennox in the second Hoylfield fight. Everyone including Lennox knew the first decision was so bad that as long as he was still standing after 12 rounds he would get the nod. I thought he fought completely uninspired and had no intention of really mixing it up with Evander.
i dont no what that was about.i no he got robbed of a win in their first fight tho
some would say he got a gift in the second fight
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Lennox at his best was a boxing master...He knew when to box and soften his opp up but he also knew how to finish a fighter withy the best of them.....He beat everone there was to beat and regardless of what they turned out to be in the end guys like...
Briggs, Morrison, Mercer, Tua, Botha, Golota, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno were dangerous men in their primes...
He put the exclamation on Holyfields prims coming to an end....He banished Tyson...Exposed so called future stars like Grant and Akinwande...
Avenged both his losses in superb fashion showing it was his arrogance of coming in under trained and not because either was the better fighter....
Handed Vitaly his only true stoppage....
He knew when it was time to hang them up...
All his KO's were highlight reel worthy...
Lennox was not dull he was just that good
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Lennox at his best was a boxing master...He knew when to box and soften his opp up but he also knew how to finish a fighter withy the best of them.....He beat everone there was to beat and regardless of what they turned out to be in the end guys like...
Briggs, Morrison, Mercer, Tua, Botha, Golota, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno were dangerous men in their primes...
He put the exclamation on Holyfields prims coming to an end....He banished Tyson...Exposed so called future stars like Grant and Akinwande...
Avenged both his losses in superb fashion showing it was his arrogance of coming in under trained and not because either was the better fighter....
Handed Vitaly his only true stoppage....
He knew when it was time to hang them up...
All his KO's were highlight reel worthy...
Lennox was not dull he was just that good
couldnt of said it better, love the signature as well
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
With me he's more appreciated in hindsight more and more.I remember watching him lumber around on that Hbo double bill against Levi Billups and thinking out loud....'you have to be fawking kidding me,Ruddock is going to utterly destroy this big oof with the two left feet'......whoops:-X.Slooooowly came to respect him in a big way.He was very tempered and methodical but knew when to bring the heavy stuff when the time was right.A very smart calculating fighter.The closest I would say he came off as dull was the fights with Mavrovic,Tucker and rematch with Holyfield...thought he lost that one.But when you counter that with solid scraps with A top form Mercer,Briggs,Bruno,Mason,Vitali,pulverizing Golota & heeeeeavily hyped Michael Grant,capable puncher Phil Jackson,and absolutley schooling David Tua.The resume speaks for itself and if Lewis was dull...we need many more of that sort in todays heavy ranks.
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
There was nothing dull about Lewis-McCall 1 and Lewis-Rahman 1 and 2.
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Watching Lennox Lewis was like watching concrete set! Slow and lumbering, Holmes and Ali would have boxed his ears off, Foreman would have flattened him and a prime Tyson would have destroyed him, i can't see him avoiding Smokin Joe's left hook either.
