-
Was Lennox truly dull?
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?
-
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.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Lennox Lewis beat Holyfield and Tyson in their prime? lol
The Brits tend to overrate their champs, see Ricky Hatton as a prime example.
Yes Lewis did beat Holyfield twice, and beat Tyson, but let's not say he beat them at their prime. Holyfield was 37 when they met, and Tyson was a washed up fighter.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Lennox Lewis beat Holyfield and Tyson in their prime? lol
The Brits tend to overrate their champs, see Ricky Hatton as a prime example.
Yes Lewis did beat Holyfield twice, and beat Tyson, but let's not say he beat them at their prime. Holyfield was 37 when they met, and Tyson was a washed up fighter.
im british born bulldog but im from a solid irish family and proud of my irish routes, have u ever heard of bartley gorman, he was my grandad, he was a bare knuckle boxing champ, anyway i dont over rate the british champs, but lennox is and will remain one of the best no question, in fact hes probably the best britsh fighter ever, nothing overrated about that mate
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Lennox Lewis beat Holyfield and Tyson in their prime? lol
The Brits tend to overrate their champs, see Ricky Hatton as a prime example.
Yes Lewis did beat Holyfield twice, and beat Tyson, but let's not say he beat them at their prime. Holyfield was 37 when they met, and Tyson was a washed up fighter.
and yeah lennox got holyfield and tyson out of their prime but he still did what he had to do, i do believe a 20 year old tyson beats anyone in history tho
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
I personally didn't think he beat Mercer or Holy the second time.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanChilds
I personally didn't think he beat Mercer or Holy the second time.
agree with u on the 2nd holyfield fight van, thought he beat mercer tho, whens ur next stint may i ask mate
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
I don't think lennox is slow, he's intelligent, cautious. He tends to measure his opponent first. He isn't a brawler but if given the oppotunity he seize it.
Just like the Grant and Botha fight.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paddy448
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanChilds
I personally didn't think he beat Mercer or Holy the second time.
agree with u on the 2nd holyfield fight van, thought he beat mercer tho, whens ur next stint may i ask mate
not sure...dont' think it will be till late 2010
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
George Foreman would disagree with you He said the same I i have " Lennox Lewis is the best HW champion since Ali. George said there was no way he could beat Lennox
Lennox beat every man he fought in the pro ring. The fights he lost were basically his own fault he totally underestimated McCall & turned up late & out of shape in S Africa to fight Rahman. Lennox focussed destroyed both
Arise Sir Lennoz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
i don't see any heavy beating Lewis, not saying he is the best ever but i just don't think physically the heavys of the past could have coped. Factoring in natural progress through the eras i would still put lennox top 5.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Even when he was in safety mode he still throws his right hand alot more than Wlad does when he fights ;D.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
littlebif
Even when he was in safety mode he still throws his right hand alot more than Wlad does when he fights ;D.
absolutely, wlad makes lennox look like a real mayorga!
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
i think the chess player mentality steered him towards to side of caution. However he had his fair share of exciting fights and performances. Mason, Ruddock, Bruno, Mercer, Golota, Briggs, Grant, Botha, Rahman, Klitschko.
He was the most dominant heavyweight of his era so he must have been doing something right.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
I was never much of a Lennox Fan, but I credit him with being one of the smarter fighters in heavyweight history. Yeah he was slow and kinda of boring most of the time, but the truth is he took the easiest route to win the fight because he was smart enough to.
He used distance,a heavy jab and movement against guys he couldn't afford to get into a fire fight with and bum rushed the guys he knew were mentally fragile or known for not having a heart. He was a boxer more than a fighter... and a strategist as opposed to a beast. Its a formula that brought him success.
I really only took exception when he used strategy to coast to a safe win and celebrated by pounding his chest like he just mauled someone.:rolleyes:
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
I dont think Lennox was dull. Hes one of the heavyweights i actually enjoy watching.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
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.
Lennox had a superb jab...Not quite the quality of Holmes but would give Larry a run for his money...He was stronger and he was a better finisher...
Frazier would have ended up the same way as he did in the Foreman fight...Lennox was fond of the uppercut perfect for the crossarm defense to sneak through.......
He would have given Ali a run for his money and Prime for Prime he was a better boxer then Tyson and a harder one punch KO finisher.....Lewis ate the Right hands of Mercer and Tua who were harder punchers then Tyson who was a quanity volume combination KO finisher not a one shot knockout artist
He was a better boxer then Foreman but of course the power did not compare (In his prime no one compared to Foreman)....
How can you believe all these men would have flattened and outboxed Lennox so easily?
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
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.
Lennox had a superb jab...Not quite the quality of Holmes but would give Larry a run for his money...He was stronger and he was a better finisher...
Frazier would have ended up the same way as he did in the Foreman fight...Lennox was fond of the uppercut perfect for the crossarm defense to sneak through.......
He would have given Ali a run for his money and Prime for Prime he was a better boxer then Tyson and a harder one punch KO finisher.....Lewis ate the Right hands of Mercer and Tua who were harder punchers then Tyson who was a quanity volume combination KO finisher not a one shot knockout artist
He was a better boxer then Foreman but of course the power did not compare (In his prime no one compared to Foreman)....
How can you believe all these men would have flattened and outboxed Lennox so easily?
Two names McCall and Rahman, both were not in the same class as the others mentioned. Lewis just appeared lazy to me, Frazier would have got in underneath him and let that left hook go, if he could flatten Ali with it then Lewis would be no problem. Tyson in 1986-88 would destroy him, Holmes and Ali would win easy UD decisions (Holyfield made Lewis look slow and lumbering in fight number 2)and Big George might not think he could have beaten Lewis but he would have landed something big and Lewis would be counting light globes! I'm talking about the George of 1973!
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
He Was So Dull No Charisma
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
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.
Lennox had a superb jab...Not quite the quality of Holmes but would give Larry a run for his money...He was stronger and he was a better finisher...
Frazier would have ended up the same way as he did in the Foreman fight...Lennox was fond of the uppercut perfect for the crossarm defense to sneak through.......
He would have given Ali a run for his money and Prime for Prime he was a better boxer then Tyson and a harder one punch KO finisher.....Lewis ate the Right hands of Mercer and Tua who were harder punchers then Tyson who was a quanity volume combination KO finisher not a one shot knockout artist
He was a better boxer then Foreman but of course the power did not compare (In his prime no one compared to Foreman)....
How can you believe all these men would have flattened and outboxed Lennox so easily?
Two names McCall and Rahman, both were not in the same class as the others mentioned. Lewis just appeared lazy to me, Frazier would have got in underneath him and let that left hook go, if he could flatten Ali with it then Lewis would be no problem. Tyson in 1986-88 would destroy him, Holmes and Ali would win easy UD decisions (Holyfield made Lewis look slow and lumbering in fight number 2)and Big George might not think he could have beaten Lewis but he would have landed something big and Lewis would be counting light globes! I'm talking about the George of 1973!
Your basing this on 2 losses by an undertrained fighter?...Whats next Henry Cooper could have dropped Lewis because he dropped Ali?.....You are comparing the competition of Tyson in 86-88 to the skillset of Lennox Lewis?.....
These are not valid reasons for what you stated.....You are discounting a career of huge wins over high caliber fighters (at the time) against 2 short comings.....
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Lennox had a superb jab...Not quite the quality of Holmes but would give Larry a run for his money...He was stronger and he was a better finisher...
Frazier would have ended up the same way as he did in the Foreman fight...Lennox was fond of the uppercut perfect for the crossarm defense to sneak through.......
He would have given Ali a run for his money and Prime for Prime he was a better boxer then Tyson and a harder one punch KO finisher.....Lewis ate the Right hands of Mercer and Tua who were harder punchers then Tyson who was a quanity volume combination KO finisher not a one shot knockout artist
He was a better boxer then Foreman but of course the power did not compare (In his prime no one compared to Foreman)....
How can you believe all these men would have flattened and outboxed Lennox so easily?
Two names McCall and Rahman, both were not in the same class as the others mentioned. Lewis just appeared lazy to me, Frazier would have got in underneath him and let that left hook go, if he could flatten Ali with it then Lewis would be no problem. Tyson in 1986-88 would destroy him, Holmes and Ali would win easy UD decisions (Holyfield made Lewis look slow and lumbering in fight number 2)and Big George might not think he could have beaten Lewis but he would have landed something big and Lewis would be counting light globes! I'm talking about the George of 1973!
Your basing this on 2 losses by an undertrained fighter?...Whats next Henry Cooper could have dropped Lewis because he dropped Ali?.....You are comparing the competition of Tyson in 86-88 to the skillset of Lennox Lewis?.....
These are not valid reasons for what you stated.....You are discounting a career of huge wins over high caliber fighters (at the time) against 2 short comings.....
well said, the brutal revenge he took on both these men ADDS to his legacy. Lennox has better names on his record than any other heavy of the last 30 years (it seems weird that 1980 was almost 30 years ago!)
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
Two names McCall and Rahman, both were not in the same class as the others mentioned. Lewis just appeared lazy to me, Frazier would have got in underneath him and let that left hook go, if he could flatten Ali with it then Lewis would be no problem. Tyson in 1986-88 would destroy him, Holmes and Ali would win easy UD decisions (Holyfield made Lewis look slow and lumbering in fight number 2)and Big George might not think he could have beaten Lewis but he would have landed something big and Lewis would be counting light globes! I'm talking about the George of 1973!
Your basing this on 2 losses by an undertrained fighter?...Whats next Henry Cooper could have dropped Lewis because he dropped Ali?.....You are comparing the competition of Tyson in 86-88 to the skillset of Lennox Lewis?.....
These are not valid reasons for what you stated.....You are discounting a career of huge wins over high caliber fighters (at the time) against 2 short comings.....
well said, the brutal revenge he took on both these men ADDS to his legacy. Lennox has better names on his record than any other heavy of the last 30 years (it seems weird that 1980 was almost 30 years ago!)
Yes it does and Yes he did
Now that you mention it it doesnt seem like 1980 was that long ago:-\.....
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Well at first I always thought Lennox was very boring compared to Holyfield and Tyson. You look at Lennox he was a very safe fighter. Until you would think he would be in a good fight he would just end it. Razor Ruddock I remember being a youngster saying "damn Holyfield had trouble with Dokes and Ruddock destroyed Dokes. Lennox is going to be in a tough fight". Then boom Lennox disposed of Ruddock. Again it happened Holyfield fought Bowe in 3 amazing fight's then Golota mops the floor with Bowe but because of stupidity ( sorry no way else to explain it ) he fouls himself out of a rather easy fight with Bowe. So now I am thinking once again Lennox will be in a tough fight and then how long did it take for Lennox to take Golota out? Point being it seems when Lennox would be in a safety first fight he rose above and dominated,when he was supposed to win he would draw the fight's out in a long boring jab contest and fight safety first. So all and all IMO he was dull but at the wrong times.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Lennox had a superb jab...Not quite the quality of Holmes but would give Larry a run for his money...He was stronger and he was a better finisher...
Frazier would have ended up the same way as he did in the Foreman fight...Lennox was fond of the uppercut perfect for the crossarm defense to sneak through.......
He would have given Ali a run for his money and Prime for Prime he was a better boxer then Tyson and a harder one punch KO finisher.....Lewis ate the Right hands of Mercer and Tua who were harder punchers then Tyson who was a quanity volume combination KO finisher not a one shot knockout artist
He was a better boxer then Foreman but of course the power did not compare (In his prime no one compared to Foreman)....
How can you believe all these men would have flattened and outboxed Lennox so easily?
Two names McCall and Rahman, both were not in the same class as the others mentioned. Lewis just appeared lazy to me, Frazier would have got in underneath him and let that left hook go, if he could flatten Ali with it then Lewis would be no problem. Tyson in 1986-88 would destroy him, Holmes and Ali would win easy UD decisions (Holyfield made Lewis look slow and lumbering in fight number 2)and Big George might not think he could have beaten Lewis but he would have landed something big and Lewis would be counting light globes! I'm talking about the George of 1973!
Your basing this on 2 losses by an undertrained fighter?...Whats next Henry Cooper could have dropped Lewis because he dropped Ali?.....You are comparing the competition of Tyson in 86-88 to the skillset of Lennox Lewis?.....
These are not valid reasons for what you stated.....You are discounting a career of huge wins over high caliber fighters (at the time) against 2 short comings.....
Well, now that you mention it Cooper would be most capable of landing one on 'slow coach'!
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
Two names McCall and Rahman, both were not in the same class as the others mentioned. Lewis just appeared lazy to me, Frazier would have got in underneath him and let that left hook go, if he could flatten Ali with it then Lewis would be no problem. Tyson in 1986-88 would destroy him, Holmes and Ali would win easy UD decisions (Holyfield made Lewis look slow and lumbering in fight number 2)and Big George might not think he could have beaten Lewis but he would have landed something big and Lewis would be counting light globes! I'm talking about the George of 1973!
Your basing this on 2 losses by an undertrained fighter?...Whats next Henry Cooper could have dropped Lewis because he dropped Ali?.....You are comparing the competition of Tyson in 86-88 to the skillset of Lennox Lewis?.....
These are not valid reasons for what you stated.....You are discounting a career of huge wins over high caliber fighters (at the time) against 2 short comings.....
well said, the brutal revenge he took on both these men ADDS to his legacy. Lennox has better names on his record than any other heavy of the last 30 years (it seems weird that 1980 was almost 30 years ago!)
Ali and Holmes were still fighting 30 years ago. Are you saying Lennox Lewis has a better resume than those 2? Like I say, Brits tend to overrate their fighters into something which they are not, we all saw this with Ricky Hatton, but at least Hatton fought 2 great fighters in their prime while Lewis beat the 2 biggest names in the HW ranks when they were shot and/or old.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Well Third with your logic because Tyson was outboxed by Douglas i am sure Lennox could as well i mean bringing up all the bad about Lennox. I mean i think your hate for the dude kinda clouds the judgement abit. Ali had a hell of time with lesser fighters then Lennox so did Holmes. Bring up Foreman when he was young mean the same man out boxed by young. And as far as Tyson never really beat anybody worth a shit in his prime. And Holyfeild as much as i am a fan would of had troubles with Lewis anytime.
-
Re: Was Lennox truly dull?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Well Third with your logic because Tyson was outboxed by Douglas i am sure Lennox could as well i mean bringing up all the bad about Lennox. I mean i think your hate for the dude kinda clouds the judgement abit. Ali had a hell of time with lesser fighters then Lennox so did Holmes. Bring up Foreman when he was young mean the same man out boxed by young. And as far as Tyson never really beat anybody worth a shit in his prime. And Holyfeild as much as i am a fan would of had troubles with Lewis anytime.
We all know if Lennox came out after the '84 Olympics, you know who would be waiting for him? A prime Holyfield that was dominating the cruiserweight division and coming into the HW ranks. A Tyson that still had the Catskill gang and was dominating the HW division.
Lewis caught them at the right time, as in Holyfield was 37 and declining and Tyson was shot.
And it's kind of funny that someone here said that Lewis had a better record than any hw in the last 30 years, because 30 years ago Ali and Holmes was still fighting. And any boxing fan wouldn't say Lewis had a better record/resume than Holmes and especially ALi.
