NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 24 2008,12:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 24 2008,10:43)
Quote
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,20:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 23 2008,16:44)
Quote
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division.
I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not
Lewis fought every heavyweight of note in the nineties. He ducked no-one and he beat every single one of his opponents. You can't asked anymore than that. Ali lost to Ken Norton in his prime, a man who got took apart by Foreman, he also went on to lose to Spinks - albeit past his prime. Lewis did in the nineties what Tyson did in the eighties, he cleaned up the heavyweight division. It's unfair to belittle his achievements - he's in my top 5 heavyweights of all time.
Ken Norton was a good fighter, Joe Fraizer was a good fighter, Oliver McCall and Haseem Rahman were both junkies who could punch, nothing more, in years gone by they wouldnt have even made the radar. And you say Ali lost to Spinks like he was some kind of joke , Spinks won the gold in the 76 Olympics and was a quality fighter who couldnt handle the fame of being World Champion and ultimately lost his way
Lewis and Tyson may well be overlooked by the history books simply because of the lack of quality that was available to face them - as to say that Lewis is in the top 5 ever, eh? There were 5 better fighters in Alis era than Lewis ever faced (exception of maybe Holyfield)in Fraizer, Foreman, Noton, Liston and Holmes - do you think he would have beaten them? Personally I think he'd probably have beaten Fraizer and Norton because of his superior size, been knocked out by Liston and Foreman and been found wanting against a man with a better jab than he had in the Eastern Assassin. I look forward to your retort
It will always go against Lewis that he lost to McCall and Rahman, and your right in saying that most of his opponents were nowhere near as good as the seventies Heavyweight. Lewis' problem was complacency, yet the better his opponent was, the better he was prepared - that's why he never had a problem in any of his big fights. When an opponent was meant to test Lewis, then Lewis prepared hard, fought hard and won well. That's why he blasted out Ruddock (who had fought 12 hard rounds with Tyson previously), that's why he destroyed Grant (who was supposed to be the next great American Heavyweight), that's why he blew Golota away (after the latter made a name for himself by battering Bowe - but getting disqualified), that's why he hardly gave a round away out of 24 against Holyfield, that's why he avenged his only defeats well inside the distance (McCall was fukd up but Rahman was dismantled) and that's why Mike Tyson was so brutally disposed of.
It's an interesting argument though where Lewis should stand in history. Sure, he was the best of a bad bunch, but that could be said of so many former champions. Lewis did everything possible, he fought every decent boxer he could get his hands on, he ducked no-one, he fought and beat 12 boxers who had held, or went on to hold versions of the Heavyweight Championship belt and he was undisputed Champion. I think he's also in the top 3 or 4 boxers to have and the most Heavyweight title fights, although I can't find the stats to back that up.
If you look back through history, I don't think there are many heavyweights who would of beat him, that's why I rate him as top 5. You've mentioned Larry Holmes, but wasn't he the best of a bad bunch too? For what it's worth, I think Lewis would of knocked Holmes out. Holmes could jab, but Lewis could jab with power.