30 Year Old Lennox Lewis v 30 Year Old Larry Holmes.Who Wins

[DaxxKahn]

Larry Holmes was not faster than Lennox Lewis, are you seriously kidding me ? Larry Holmes was much faster than Lennox Lewis, regarding putting punches together and moving round the ring.

Larry Holmes was also a better all round fighter, he could box he could brawl. He could also fight off the ropes, im sorry but Frank Bruno jabbed Lennox Lewis's socks off.

Lennox Lewis was always off balance and couldn't put his punches together, and he would of lost that fight. If Frank Bruno had survival instincts, and i still think it was a bit of a lucky punch aswell.

And then theres the fight with Ray Mercer, when Lennox Lewis allowed himself to get in trouble. Against a much smaller mans jab.

Im sorry but i think Larry Holmes, would of convincingly beaten Lennox Lewis over 12 rounds atleast by 4 rounds.

So Brunos jab gave Lewis trouble, Lennox still knocked him the fuck out, and still won v Mercer. Oh so u thought it was a lucky punch? Well it must have been cos u know all..... Lucky punch my ass. You are looking at Holmes thru rose glasses my friend, Lewis was as dominant at heavyweight as Holmes was, but in a much stronger era. Just match up their opponents, Lewis's are a mile better than Holmes. Guys who could match Holmes for size and similiar skill gave him trouble eg Norton and Witherspoon. If Tim Witherspoon and Ken Norton could push a prime Holmes to a close decision i daresay Lewis could do as well if not better.

How is the chess going?

I don't know why your acting, so aggressively. I never said i know it all and i never said my opinion is right. No one can ever be right in mythical match ups, i just think Larry Holmes's jab would be the key to beating Lennox Lewis. Because he struggled against fighters with decent jabs.

And yes i do think the punch against Frank Bruno, was lucky. He was up until that point getting totally thrown off by Frank Bruno's jab, and he got trapped in the corner, and swung a wild left hook out of desperation. Which saved the fight for him to his credit, but that showed he could be beaten by fighters with decent jabs, and this was also evident in the Ray Mercer fight aswell.

Im sorry but i think Larry Holmes, pretty much does everything better than Lennox Lewis except for power.

Larry Holmes beat Ken Norton more convincingly than Muhammad Ali ever did, with a torn bicep. Which actually makes Larry Holmes look better.

As for Tim Witherspoon he was almost exactly like Ken Norton, in his prime. A terrific fighter who let himself go, but again he had that crab like style, to bother Larry Holmes's boxing just like Ken Norton.

I don't see these two fights, as evidence that Lennox Lewis would bother Larry Holmes IMO.

Lastly you said Lennox Lewis beat much better opposition ? im not sure about that. But im too tired to compare there records at the moment, but maybe you can pull the stats out for me, because im far too tired.

To say Larry nwould win is one thing but to say Lewis would not even bother Larry is another...You talk out of your ass sometimes.....

Thats why people on the forums get aggressive with you and when you can't come up with a good arguement you want to go to paper stats...

As for opp they beat

Holmes opp he won against had a combined 1270-379 w/l ratio

Lewis had 1064/229 w/l ratio

Larry accomplished this with 69 wins

Lennox with 41 wins

[Drago]

most peoples opinions seems to be a close fight which is the way i think of it also. cant remember who said it but i think holmes would of beaten tyson in their primes, but i think lewis beats tyson in their primes also

[ICB]

So Brunos jab gave Lewis trouble, Lennox still knocked him the fuck out, and still won v Mercer. Oh so u thought it was a lucky punch? Well it must have been cos u know all..... Lucky punch my ass. You are looking at Holmes thru rose glasses my friend, Lewis was as dominant at heavyweight as Holmes was, but in a much stronger era. Just match up their opponents, Lewis's are a mile better than Holmes. Guys who could match Holmes for size and similiar skill gave him trouble eg Norton and Witherspoon. If Tim Witherspoon and Ken Norton could push a prime Holmes to a close decision i daresay Lewis could do as well if not better.

How is the chess going?

I don't know why your acting, so aggressively. I never said i know it all and i never said my opinion is right. No one can ever be right in mythical match ups, i just think Larry Holmes's jab would be the key to beating Lennox Lewis. Because he struggled against fighters with decent jabs.

And yes i do think the punch against Frank Bruno, was lucky. He was up until that point getting totally thrown off by Frank Bruno's jab, and he got trapped in the corner, and swung a wild left hook out of desperation. Which saved the fight for him to his credit, but that showed he could be beaten by fighters with decent jabs, and this was also evident in the Ray Mercer fight aswell.

Im sorry but i think Larry Holmes, pretty much does everything better than Lennox Lewis except for power.

Larry Holmes beat Ken Norton more convincingly than Muhammad Ali ever did, with a torn bicep. Which actually makes Larry Holmes look better.

As for Tim Witherspoon he was almost exactly like Ken Norton, in his prime. A terrific fighter who let himself go, but again he had that crab like style, to bother Larry Holmes's boxing just like Ken Norton.

I don't see these two fights, as evidence that Lennox Lewis would bother Larry Holmes IMO.

Lastly you said Lennox Lewis beat much better opposition ? im not sure about that. But im too tired to compare there records at the moment, but maybe you can pull the stats out for me, because im far too tired.

To say Larry nwould win is one thing but to say Lewis would not even bother Larry is another...You talk out of your ass sometimes.....

Thats why people on the forums get aggressive with you and when you can't come up with a good arguement you want to go to paper stats...

As for opp they beat

Holmes opp he won against had a combined 1270-379 w/l ratio

Lewis had 1064/229 w/l ratio

Larry accomplished this with 69 wins

Lennox with 41 wins

Why don't you read my previous post, i said i think Larry Holmes would win by 4 points. I never said Lennox Lewis wouldn't bother Larry Holmes, don't put words into my mouth. I said i think he would win comfortable decision, meaning points wise which is why i said by 4 points.

I never said he would beat Lennox Lewis from pillar to post for 12 rounds, without ever having problems.

And where have i brought out stats in this thread ? infact i don't actually use stats that often. I think i've gave very good argument why i think Larry Holmes would win. And are you honestly telling me, i got to paper stats when i can't debate something. Are you kidding me ? i thought i've always been a pretty decent debater. And i debate on many different era's and fighters, and i've done it without stats.

No comment's on any of my post's in this thread, should be replied to in an aggressive manner. All i've done is state my opinion, while backing it up with some good arguments.

I don't think Lennox Lewis would be able to deal with Larry Holmes's jab, sorry but i don't. And i think he would beat Lennox Lewis comfortably on points, it wouldn't be easy but there's no doubt in my mind. Larry Holmes would be the clear winner.

Lastly people can get as annoyed at my post, as they want. I don't really care i've said nothing wrong, and an opinion shouldn't make anyone annoyed unless its a ridiculous one. But my opinion isn't ridiculous and its an opinion backed up with a good case.

Doesn't mean its right doesn't mean its wrong, as i said to Eagle no one can ever be right discussing mythical match ups.

[Spicoli]

I can't give Lewis flack for the Mercer fight.I think he was making a statement as co feature to Holyfield.He sat in with a fit and ready Mercer who was on a nice run,had just jabbed the heck outta Holyfield in a good display of boxing turned shoot out.Maybe not smart for Lewis but that was a turning point for me as far as respecting him.Mercer has always had a short blunt jab...irony was he fancied himself a one man wrecking crew leading up to fight with ancient Holmes as he had just battered Morrison and came back from the brink of defeat with one punch KO over Damiani.He took it all for granted.Of all things it was Mercer outjabbing Holmes at least in round 1,had Holmes on rubber legs with a jab.

[ICB]

I can't give Lewis flack for the Mercer fight.I think he was making a statement as co feature to Holyfield.He sat in with a fit and ready Mercer who was on a nice run,had just jabbed the heck outta Holyfield in a good display of boxing turned shoot out.Maybe not smart for Lewis but that was a turning point for me as far as respecting him.Mercer has always had a short blunt jab...irony was he fancied himself a one man wrecking crew leading up to fight with ancient Holmes as he had just battered Morrison and came back from the brink of defeat with one punch KO over Damiani.He took it all for granted.Of all things it was Mercer outjabbing Holmes at least in round 1,had Holmes on rubber legs with a jab.

Ray Mercer never outjabbed Larry Holmes, he caught Larry Holmes. With a sharp jab coming in, that caught Larry Holmes by suprise and had him off balance. Other than that Ray Mercer was given a boxing, when Larry Holmes was 42. Where as a prime Lennox Lewis just about beat Ray Mercer by the skin of his teeth.

[Spicoli]

I can't give Lewis flack for the Mercer fight.I think he was making a statement as co feature to Holyfield.He sat in with a fit and ready Mercer who was on a nice run,had just jabbed the heck outta Holyfield in a good display of boxing turned shoot out.Maybe not smart for Lewis but that was a turning point for me as far as respecting him.Mercer has always had a short blunt jab...irony was he fancied himself a one man wrecking crew leading up to fight with ancient Holmes as he had just battered Morrison and came back from the brink of defeat with one punch KO over Damiani.He took it all for granted.Of all things it was Mercer outjabbing Holmes at least in round 1,had Holmes on rubber legs with a jab.

Ray Mercer never outjabbed Larry Holmes, he caught Larry Holmes. With a sharp jab coming in, that caught Larry Holmes by suprise and had him off balance. Other than that Ray Mercer was given a boxing, when Larry Holmes was 42. Where as a prime Lennox Lewis just about beat Ray Mercer by the skin of his teeth.

He didn't look off balance to me,he was stunned bad by a jab and then Holmes went right hand happy.Clear round for Mercer to me.He baited and set traps in the corner all night for somewhat sloppy Mercer as it went.Damiani also gave him a boxing lesson,Odum also found him easy with jabs and craftiness.Long gap between those fights and does not all translate 1+1 =2.Styles.Just about beating does not translate to actually achieving it as far as Lewis.Like I said I think Lewis made matters worse for himself by meeting Ray frontal and not fighting a complete smart fight.

[JazMerkin]

I don't know why your acting, so aggressively. I never said i know it all and i never said my opinion is right. No one can ever be right in mythical match ups, i just think Larry Holmes's jab would be the key to beating Lennox Lewis. Because he struggled against fighters with decent jabs.

And yes i do think the punch against Frank Bruno, was lucky. He was up until that point getting totally thrown off by Frank Bruno's jab, and he got trapped in the corner, and swung a wild left hook out of desperation. Which saved the fight for him to his credit, but that showed he could be beaten by fighters with decent jabs, and this was also evident in the Ray Mercer fight aswell.

Im sorry but i think Larry Holmes, pretty much does everything better than Lennox Lewis except for power.

Larry Holmes beat Ken Norton more convincingly than Muhammad Ali ever did, with a torn bicep. Which actually makes Larry Holmes look better.

As for Tim Witherspoon he was almost exactly like Ken Norton, in his prime. A terrific fighter who let himself go, but again he had that crab like style, to bother Larry Holmes's boxing just like Ken Norton.

I don't see these two fights, as evidence that Lennox Lewis would bother Larry Holmes IMO.

Lastly you said Lennox Lewis beat much better opposition ? im not sure about that. But im too tired to compare there records at the moment, but maybe you can pull the stats out for me, because im far too tired.

To say Larry nwould win is one thing but to say Lewis would not even bother Larry is another...You talk out of your ass sometimes.....

Thats why people on the forums get aggressive with you and when you can't come up with a good arguement you want to go to paper stats...

As for opp they beat

Holmes opp he won against had a combined 1270-379 w/l ratio

Lewis had 1064/229 w/l ratio

Larry accomplished this with 69 wins

Lennox with 41 wins

Why don't you read my previous post, i said i think Larry Holmes would win by 4 points. I never said Lennox Lewis wouldn't bother Larry Holmes, don't put words into my mouth. I said i think he would win comfortable decision, meaning points wise which is why i said by 4 points.

I never said he would beat Lennox Lewis from pillar to post for 12 rounds, without ever having problems.

And where have i brought out stats in this thread ? infact i don't actually use stats that often. I think i've gave very good argument why i think Larry Holmes would win. And are you honestly telling me, i got to paper stats when i can't debate something. Are you kidding me ? i thought i've always been a pretty decent debater. And i debate on many different era's and fighters, and i've done it without stats.

No comment's on any of my post's in this thread, should be replied to in an aggressive manner. All i've done is state my opinion, while backing it up with some good arguments.

I don't think Lennox Lewis would be able to deal with Larry Holmes's jab, sorry but i don't. And i think he would beat Lennox Lewis comfortably on points, it wouldn't be easy but there's no doubt in my mind. Larry Holmes would be the clear winner.

Lastly people can get as annoyed at my post, as they want. I don't really care i've said nothing wrong, and an opinion shouldn't make anyone annoyed unless its a ridiculous one. But my opinion isn't ridiculous and its an opinion backed up with a good case.

Doesn't mean its right doesn't mean its wrong, as i said to Eagle no one can ever be right discussing mythical match ups.

Ice, I think people can get a bit wound up because with certain boxers (Larry Holmes & James Toney most particularly) you tend to come across as if they were unbeatable & would have destroyed all & sundry.

Your assessment of Holmes acheivements could just as easily be turned around. For example on the Holmes/Norton debate, whilst you feel Holmes won it handily, I thought Norton just took it, & for my mind this was a Norton a little shot by the Ali trilogy. You might disagree with that, but others will get a bit irritated if you constantly twist the facts in a context that suits your fighter, which I think was what Daxx was implying.

However, whilst I disagree with your arguments for why, I do agree that Holmes would probably beat Lewis, I think his jab was just that fantastic that it could take him to a win & although I think Lewis would have him down, I reckon Holmes would just carry it over for a close & controversial decision.

[ICB]

To say Larry nwould win is one thing but to say Lewis would not even bother Larry is another...You talk out of your ass sometimes.....

Thats why people on the forums get aggressive with you and when you can't come up with a good arguement you want to go to paper stats...

As for opp they beat

Holmes opp he won against had a combined 1270-379 w/l ratio

Lewis had 1064/229 w/l ratio

Larry accomplished this with 69 wins

Lennox with 41 wins

Why don't you read my previous post, i said i think Larry Holmes would win by 4 points. I never said Lennox Lewis wouldn't bother Larry Holmes, don't put words into my mouth. I said i think he would win comfortable decision, meaning points wise which is why i said by 4 points.

I never said he would beat Lennox Lewis from pillar to post for 12 rounds, without ever having problems.

And where have i brought out stats in this thread ? infact i don't actually use stats that often. I think i've gave very good argument why i think Larry Holmes would win. And are you honestly telling me, i got to paper stats when i can't debate something. Are you kidding me ? i thought i've always been a pretty decent debater. And i debate on many different era's and fighters, and i've done it without stats.

No comment's on any of my post's in this thread, should be replied to in an aggressive manner. All i've done is state my opinion, while backing it up with some good arguments.

I don't think Lennox Lewis would be able to deal with Larry Holmes's jab, sorry but i don't. And i think he would beat Lennox Lewis comfortably on points, it wouldn't be easy but there's no doubt in my mind. Larry Holmes would be the clear winner.

Lastly people can get as annoyed at my post, as they want. I don't really care i've said nothing wrong, and an opinion shouldn't make anyone annoyed unless its a ridiculous one. But my opinion isn't ridiculous and its an opinion backed up with a good case.

Doesn't mean its right doesn't mean its wrong, as i said to Eagle no one can ever be right discussing mythical match ups.

Ice, I think people can get a bit wound up because with certain boxers (Larry Holmes & James Toney most particularly) you tend to come across as if they were unbeatable & would have destroyed all & sundry.

Your assessment of Holmes acheivements could just as easily be turned around. For example on the Holmes/Norton debate, whilst you feel Holmes won it handily, I thought Norton just took it, & for my mind this was a Norton a little shot by the Ali trilogy. You might disagree with that, but others will get a bit irritated if you constantly twist the facts in a context that suits your fighter, which I think was what Daxx was implying.

However, whilst I disagree with your arguments for why, I do agree that Holmes would probably beat Lewis, I think his jab was just that fantastic that it could take him to a win & although I think Lewis would have him down, I reckon Holmes would just carry it over for a close & controversial decision.

I don't think James Toney is unbeatable by any means, are you on about the thread where i said James Toney had all the attributes ? yes i did say that and i think it would take, a hell of a fighter to beat a prime James Toney.

But i don't think he's unbeatable he struggled against fighters with good movement, and i can think of a handful of fighters, that could of beat James Toney.

As for Larry Holmes again i've never said he's unbeatable, and i've not once implied that in this thread. All i've done is state an opinion, i don't know why im getting this much stick either.

This is one of the reason's i don't come on the site as much, because all i seem to be doing is arguing.

As for the Ken Norton fight, its a fact Larry Holmes had a torn bicep i believe ? or ETC. Which IMO makes Larry Holmes look even better.

And i think he won atleast 7 or 8 rounds in a row. After the 1st round which he clearly lost. Then Ken Norton made a good comeback, but he still lost atleast 2 rounds IMO , especially the 13th round i believe it was.

I do think it is an overrated close fight, but thats my opinion. I would like to see your scorecard though.

But you can't tell me Ken Norton was a bit past his prime, after the Muhammad Ali trilogy.

Ken Norton fought the fight of his life, and was no worse than he was in the Muhammad Ali fights.

I never said Larry Holmes would destroy anyone, your saying i am but i never said that. All i said was that Larry Holmes's jab would the key, and that IMO he would win by 4 rounds 8 rounds to 4, comfortably scoring wise.

Hell Vanchilds had the same prediction as me, regarding the scoring why isn't he getting all this ?

Not that im saying anyone should, but i honestly don't see what i've done wrong other than having an opinion.