People tend to make the ASSumption that Lennox was too big for most of the 70s/80s Heavyweights. This is of course, nonsense. Consider this: Styles makes fights yada yada yada...but the fact is an Ancient Larry Holmes beat a prime Ray Mercer far easier than a Prime Lennox Lewis beat a slightly past prime Ray Mercer. Also Lennox arguably lost to Holyfield in their rematch...and Holyfield is a former Cruiserweight. I'm as big a Lennox fan as anyone on this board but let's not act like his size, coupled with his abilities, means he'd be too much for past greats. Holmes by decision.
Prime Holmes via disputed decision over prime Lewis Young or prime Lewis UD over 40+year old Holmes 37 year old Lewis decision over 40+year old Holmes Holmes that fought Tyson decision over 37-year old Lewis Did I cover every version
Very interesting one. If you could match or better Lewis' jab he resorted to brawling & Holmes is one of the few who could probably handle that, too. Could go either way.
You know, actually - Holmes. If borderline shot Odlyfield can nearly do it prime Holmes does it with something to spare. As does a younger Holy.
And of course, if old Norton could nearly do it, then Lewis could do. Or green Witherspoon, or crap Berbick. These ALWAYS work both ways. It is true that if you could match Lewis' jab he was in trouble (Mercer, Bruno, Tucker to lesser extent) But the same goes with Holmes. Carl the Truth, Smith, even Weaver troubled him a lot in addition to those mentioned earlier. Also, I see very little similarities between Holyfield and Holmes. Holmes and Lennox were same level of fighters and it depends on styles who beats whom more impressively. As for their fight, I'd learn towards Lewis, I think his greater firepower might earn the points needed. But it is very very close and I can see Holmes taking it just as easily
Coin toss for me. I think Larry could out-jab Lennox, but the problem I see for him is that he'd have to. That's not to say Larry can't do anything else but if Lennox is able to gain the advantage in that dept it's an upward battle for the Easton Assassin.
You just tried to say that since Holmes had an easier time with mercer than Lewis did that he could beat lewis. I have seen you lecture people repeatedly on the flaw in this logic.
See lewis/holy I to see Lewis when he fights to win. See lewis/holy ii to see how lewis fights after he interprets having been robbed to mean that he has to duke it out or be robbed again.
I didn't think Lewis-Holyfield II was arguable in any way tbh. Lewis won clearly, whilst Holyfield fought much better than in the first fight, yet not good enough to win. Lewis swept the first four rounds and there's no way Holyfield won seven of the last eight. Holmes is a very troublesome style for Lewis though. I'd pick Lewis but can't really argue against those who side with Holmes, it's a very close match up.
