Better hw resume, Lewis or Holyfield?

The McCall loss isn't the same as the Rahman loss.

Against McCall, Lewis was being aggressive and McCall countered appropriately. I don't think Lewis was underprepared or anything, he just had never been caught in that fashion before. It's boxing, shit happens, and McCall hits hard.

Against Rahman I, Lewis' preparation and performance indicate that he was not at his best. It was his fault and the loss in this fight seemed preventable. Props to Rahman for taking advantage of Lewis' lack of prep.

I don't think Lewis could undertrain enough to be beaten by Moorer or have a tough fight against Vaughn Bean or Bobby Czyz, though.

 

Holmes was an old man when he fought Spinks and Spinks was a great boxer... the fight was STILL close

Lennox was arguably in his peak form as a fighter, all of his gifts fully realized, everything put together. He didn;t bother to prepare himself and got knocked cold by a journeyman (Rahman was a journeyman heavyweight, he was not a major contender, the fact that he became famous for the win does not alter who he actually was) ... that's a major blemish on his professionalism, his preparation, his dedication... Rahman couldn;t carry his jock and yet, by being lazy and unprofessional, Lennox gave him one of the biggest upset wins in history. Michael Moorer was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman, hands down. He was a much better boxer. Losing a decision to him in a pretty competetive fight is a lot more acceptable than losing to a total scrub you would have killed if you had shown up for work prepared.

AGAIN, I still think Lennox has the edge over Evander, by virtue of his more sensational victories. But the loss to Rahman is inexcusable, one of the worst examples of a champion not taking his title seriously you could ever find (see Tyson/Douglas, same thing) ... Lennox should be criticized for that loss forever, it detracts from his legacy because of the opponent and the manner in which he prepared for him.

 

I hear what you are saying. Of course Lennox deserves plenty of criticism for that performance and result. I actually hate it when a fighter's loss is excused for the reason he didn't bother to train properly.

The point I was making is that it is arguable which kind of loss tells more about fighter (not depending whether he has trained or not): a loss where his concentration lapses for a moment and he gets KOd by a big punch, or one where he gets outboxed for several rounds. A loss is a loss of course, but I think this could be seen both ways. As it is, even though Rahman is probably a worse heavyweight compared to Spinks, Spinks on the other hand would never KO Lewis even if he was sleep walking and thus would probably never beat him. Thus the level of the opponent is not the only conclusive thing, it is also about what abilities the fighter has.

I'd find it much worse if Lewis had lost a decision to Rahman after being dominated by him, because Rahman was not a good boxer.

 

Too bad Bowe didn't have the guts to face Lewis. There'd be no debate here. He ran from Lewis and dumped a belt rather than face him. That's shameless running.

 

Saddest thing is Bowe was flat-out better than Lewis in 1992-93.

 

Arguably better the first time he fought Holyfield. He was never better after that night.

 

Lewis was still way too green to deal with Bowe around 92-93. I thought Bowe edged the return fight with Holyfield.

 

Bowe unquestionably had a better trainer at the time. I'd pick Lewis over the Bowe from Holyfield II. A year earlier, it's a tough call.

 

A prime Lewis, to me, would probably beat the best Bowe, but he would have his hands full. Even the somewhat soft Bowe of the Holyfield rematch was still a far more complete and overall superior boxer, IMO.

I guess Im saying Bowe somewhat out of shape is better than Lewis probably three to four full years short of his peak.

 

I don't have a problem with that. Not sure I agree, but it's a fair opinion.

 

Bowe had the more conventional technique but he was very easy to hit already then and he never fought a puncher like Lennox. I'd say it was a 50:50 chance, but there was a reason why Bowe avoided the fight

 

bowe offered lewis the fight. lewis turned down the offer and chose to go with the purse bid instead. set his career back several years. if he had just taken the offer and knocked bowe out he would have been on top of the world back then

 

I don't know if I'd call Rahman a journeyman. I'd say he qualified as a legit contender at his best, if a fringe one.

 

According to Bowe's recently published autobiography, his offer was 90:10, in other words they knew Lewis (nor anyone else) wouldn't accept it

 

bowe was on top of the game, and could dictate things like that. if lewis were so confident he'd win then he was free to accept, knock bowe out and become the guy in control. instead he chose the other route and i guess it worked out ok for him in the long run. but he had to wait years to make the real big money he'd have began to earn with a KO of bowe.

 

Assuming he could beat Bowe back then. I dont think he would.

 

Lewis was far clumsier and less-skilled than Bowe at that point, and he'd not faced anyone with Bowe's punch variety or technique, much less one who could hit that hard.

 

lewis and his people obviously werent as confident either otherwise they'd have taken the 10% and gone for the gusto.

if the fight happened Im sure bowe would have been motivated to show up in the type of condition he was against holyfield.

 

No. Lewis already made big money in England and he was not a star in USA anyway, so even though the victory would have been big for him, it was not as if he needed Bowe. Champion's status suffers more if he doesn't have the guts to take on his best contenders, even though champ can "dictate things like that".

According to this same biography btw., Bowe said he was not afraid of Lennox but Lennox had been disrespectful towards him and that's why he didn't deserve a chance. Had Lewis been more nice, he would have given him the fight :laugh11:

 

This is true but these are not necessarily things that decide a fight. Lewis was the more difficult to hit and the bigger puncher, that could have decided the fight in his favor. We know Bowe was better in an inside firefight back then, but Lewis didn't fight that way

 

You really think a legitimate top challenger should be willing to take 10% of the purse? Lewis had just crushed Razor Ruddock and had a win over Bowe? You don't think 10% would be considered a slap to the face? Also keep in mind that the Lewis-Ruddock fight determined the number one contender to fight Bowe, and Lewis won in dramatic fashion. 10% at that point was basically step-aside money.

 

Thats what gets me everytime....you got guys like Floyd talking about not taking fights over money, or Bernard not taking fights over money, Roy and Bernard arguing over money, and now Lewis comes out of the Olymps with a win over Bowe, destroys Ruddock, and is expected to take the short-end money, and if he doesn't, he's pussy???. :wack:

 

Only Neil thinks that

 

All I'm saying is that Lewis was an undefeated challenger, an Olympic Gold Medallist who had beaten Bowe of all people and had just crushed Donovan "Razor" Ruddock with surprising quickness. The champ usually gets the lion's share, and that is usually 75-80%. Lewis was a mandatory who earned his #1 ranking by not just beating but destroying a respected former title challenger who gave Tyson all he could handle.

It's basically saying, "Yes, you bring all these things to the table, but you should take half or less than half what you should actually make!"

Bowe didn't want that fight ever. He wanted Dokes and Ferguson, and then he wanted a rematch with Holyfield who many people thought would have wilted considerably in the rematch.

Instead Bowe got to be the WBHobo champion because he and Rock Newman burned every bridge they ever stepped on.

 

i think if lewis wanted the fight as bad as he portrayed he would have taken the offer. if he had done so and won then he would have began to make the 20 million dollar paydays seven years earlier. you act as though it is unheard of for a deserving challenger to take less money, bet on himself, win and then take the drivers seat. plenty of guys have done so in the past.

 

i didnt say he was a pussy. bad business decision though, if he was confident he would win.

 

You think he would have taken 10% of the purse when he was a mandatory #1 challenger against a guy he had already beaten? Bowe was also the one saying he would knock him out.

When is the last time a mandatory took 10%? Did Floyd vs Genaro Hernandez?

You act as though it is unheard of for a deserving #1 mandatory challenger to get paid the same rate everyone else gets paid for being in the same position. When Bowe was getting ready to fight a rematch with Holyfield, the figure was about $20 million with Bowe getting around $12 million and Holyfield around $7-8 million.

If he could do that with Holyfield, then a #1 contender grudge match with revenge doesn't need to be 90-10. He was fine with around 60/40 in a Holy rematch, but then people thought Evander was on his way out, so maybe he was willing to take that kind of split for what he thought was a soft touch.

 

Here's Bowe suing Main Events because he claimed he wanted to fight Lewis or Morrison rather than the first rematch with Evander.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/24/sports/boxing-riddick-bowe-co-file-suit-against-lou-duva-co.html

So Bowe thought he was going to get Lewis or Morrison to take 90/10? I call bullshit on that one, and I don't see why you're siding with Bowe, Neil.

 

It's basically unheard of when it comes to guys with the promise and profile that Lewis had at that point. And I think history has shown us this. It's not like Lewis was Rocky Balboa at the time, with no clout, no backing and no name recognition. Get real.

 

you cant get any more real than what actually happened. lewis was shut out of a big time fight for 7 years. if he had taken the offer and won then that would not have been the case.