Who Was The Top Heavyweight Of The 90's?

For me this really isn't even a debate. From the moment Holyfield began campaigning at HW, the question always lingered about how he would do against the young, bigger guys in the division like Bowe and Lewis.

Sure Holyfield faired well against retreaded yet game opponents like Dokes, Foreman and Holmes. But none answered the nagging question as to whether Holyfield was really the best in the division. Bowe, Lewis and Tyson were still out there.

And when Holyfield did face one of the big guys in Bowe, he lost. It was a tough fight and Holyfield gave a great account of himself, but ultimately did lose and in part because of size, which had been the question mark all along.

Meanwhile, Lennox Lewis clearly set himself apart from the rest of the division by beating anyone and everyone put in front of him. Even after the loss to McCall, he acquitted himself by destroying Oliver both physically and mentally in the rematch.

The bottom line is at the end of the day Lennox Lewis had the division on lock down and was unquestionably the top guy in the division. But Holyfield never really owned the division or successfully answered questions about his HW status.

 

:atu:
Revisionist history right there. Bowe and Lewis were not even on the radar when Holyfield started his Heavyweight campaign.

Evander's first fight at Heavyweight was against "Quick" Tillis in July of 1988. Bowe and Lewis hadn't even contested their OLYMPIC Super-Heavyweight final at that time.

 

I'm not trying to revise anything. I didn't meant Bowe and Lewis specifically. I meant bigger guys in the division and then it became Bowe and Lewis specifically. Trust me, it's not that big a point to try and revise.

Maybe I am remembering history with distortion but the question was there about Holyfield's size all along.

 

Well let's get it straight...neither Bowe or Lewis had yet turned pro..so you didn't mean Bowe or Lewis..AT ALL.

So who was left in the late 80s? Tyson? Not considered a large heavyweight. Bonecrusher Smith, Tucker, Bruno? Never seen as threats to Holyfield. Who else were as big as Bowe or Lewis (6'6", 230+ pounds) and athletic as well? Razor Ruddock? Not even..and even then he wasn't seen as a big threat to Evander Holyfield until around 1991.

Anyway...by the time Bowe and Lewis were considered top contenders..Evander had established himself as the true Heavyweight champion and he was at least even money with either of them in the eyes of the public.

Now we can say that Evander lost to Bowe, 2 out of 3 times and had one draw and one close loss to Lewis...but a prime Evander was never knocked clean out by guys on the level of Rahman or McCall either.

That's why it's difficult for me to accept an argument that outright dismisses Evander in favour of Lewis.

 

Well, based on the premise of this thread, Rahman can't be considered for Lewis anymore than Byrd or Ruiz can be held against Holyfield since they weren't in the 90's.

But again, during Holyfield's reign as HW Champion, he was never clearly the unquestioned king of the division outside of the brief period following the Douglas bout. Shortly after that the mega fight with Tyson was scheduled yet fell apart for various reasons leaving the question unanswered.

Lennox, as I mentioned, established himself as the top guy in the division without question for a lengthy period by beating anyone and everyone.

For me, that is the difference that gives Lewis the easy nod.

 

So basically Evander went 1-3-1 against Bowe and Lewis and that's some how less detracting than Lewis getting caught with a big shot against McCall and then later destroying McCall.

Not to me. To me, Holyfield was lucky (Parachute incident) to get a narrow victory in 1 out of 3 fights with Bowe and even luckier to get a clearly undeserved draw with Lewis.

And you also overlook the fact that Holyfield was beaten by Michael Moorer, which in my opinion is far more telling than either of the other losses during the 90's by Holy and Lewis.

 

Don't get me wrong...I believe Lewis is teh better fighter...certainly the better Heavyweight. But what you must not forget is that Lewis was only considered by fans and the public alike as the top Heavyweight when he finally beat Evander Holyfield..and that was at the end of the decade. The McCall loss and the bad showings against Bruno, Tucker etc had hurt him somewhat up to that point, If my memory serves me correctly...Evander was the slight favourite by the time they fought and Evander was considered by most as the true champion even though Lennox had the "linear" (from beating Briggs who beat Foreman who beat moorer). Evander had beaten Tyson and Moorer and that's all that had mattered to the fans and the sports writers.

So as i said..for MOST of the decade, the division revolved around Evander Holyfield (Tyson too...but moreso Evander)..Lennox did well..but he wasn't the "big talk" until 1999 and then the 00s.

 

the first is my opinion. the second is pretty much truth. are you suggesting there would have been a huge uproar over the rematch had things played out as i illustrated?

 

Lewis, and it isn't even close for the reasons given by quite a few others.

MTF

 

I voted for Lemmon.

It's as clear cut as Pacquaio as the fighter of this decade.

 

Yeah I hate Lewis, but its pretty clear he was the heavy of the 90's.

Just like its VERY clear that Jones was the fighter of the 90's. Even the Roy haters cant really doubt that one.

 

there's at least two reasons, other than the possibility Holyfield actually won the fight, that could account for a lack of uproar had Holyfield been given the decision in the Lewis rematch:

1. Holyfield was by far at the time the fan favorite. Not only did most people pick Holyfield to win their first fight, but even more wanted him to win.

2. Lewis performed far worse in the rematch and Holyfield, arguably better.

 

He used the word "like".

"Like Bowe and Lewis"

And besides, when Evander entered the heavyweight division, he was a non-entity. Tyson was all the rage. Once Holyfield had beaten Douglas, the attention turned very much onto how well he would do with the bigger dudes.

 

How can Lewis rule the 00s when he only fought until June of 2003 and was KTFO once in that time?

 

I wouldn't call him the best of that period either, for reasons I earlier outlined.

 

As great as Lewis was and considering how bad Bowe made Holyfield look, why was Lennox never able to beat Holy the way Bowe did?

Seriously, their styles were similar. They were about the same size. And Lennox was clearly a bigger puncher. So why was Bowe able to consistently hurt Holyfield and Lennox not?

Obvious the KO win over Holyfield was clear, and without checking scorecards, Bowe's decision win over Holyfield was far clearer than either of Holyfield's fights with Lewis.

Just curious as to some thoughts about it.

 

He's British, sort of. And after a hundred years of Heavyweight futility, they deserve two freaking decades.

 

I don't see Bowe & Lewis as stylistically similar at all, to be honest. Not at all. I would also dispute that Lewis, "clearly" hit harder than Bowe did. I would probably hazard a guess that Lewis' overhand right may've been the biggest single shot in either man's arsenal, but I don't see any clear disparity in power overall. Both could definitely bang.

Bowe was an excellent & applied bodypuncher. This was critical to his hurting Holyfield throughout their series, particularly in the first meet. You ever see Lewis look anywhere near schooled when it came to bodypunching? I sure didn't. Bowe was also a better combination puncher during his brief peak than Lewis ever was, & strung heavy shots --- both upstairs & down --- together better than Lewis could. He was also more aggressive, shooting for the KO & abandoning defense, whereas Lewis was a lot more cautious & defensive, both in style & skill.

Finally, Lewis' first victory (the, "draw") over Holyfield was a hell of a lot wider on any realistic person's scorecard than Bowe's decision over Holyfield was. Yes, Bowe out-pointed a prime Holyfield, & Lewis a rather faded one, but just on the strength of the cards, Lewis beat Holyfield first-time out with a lot more room to spare on the cards than did Bowe.

 

Lewis' fights against Holyfield were not close. He won both very clearly. Very clearly.

Bowe was less about defense than Lewis and it allowed him to land more telling blows against Holyfield in their trio. It's why I thought Lewis and Tyson would both do well against Bowe because he is so easy to hit. Holyfield, for the most part, couldn't hurt Bowe.

 

I don't feel Lewis won the rematch with Holyfield by much at all. I could see a case for a draw there. As it was, I had an at-times lacklustre Lewis up by two at the final bell. He definitely coasted to victory in the first meet, though.

As for your other point, while I'm in the minority in picking Bowe (slight favourite) to beat Lewis prime-to-prime (& definitely in 93, when Bowe was at his peak & Lewis was yet to get there), I do agree with what you're saying about Bowe being so open --- & I concur it would've been his undoing against Tyson, whose explosive blend of speed & power would've proven fatal.

 

I think Lewis outlanded Holyfield by 2-1 in the rematch instead of 2.5-1 in the first fight. I didn't think Holfyield actually won many rounds in the rematch, at all. (checking compubox it was lewis 348/613 vs 130/386 in their first fight or 2.7-1; he outlanded Holy 195-137 in the rematch.)

Lewis' standing has greatly increased from what it was in the 90's. I was in the minority picking him over Bowe or Holyfield back then. Bowe did seem to peak earlier than Lennox, and I appreciate that Bowe and Holyfield at their best would have a decent chance against Lewis, particularly Bowe.

 

Wait, don't get me wrong. I feel Lewis won both fights with Holyfield relatively clearly. However, neither was as convincing as the way Bowe beat him.

 

You are right that Lewis' stature has grown considerably since his days of activity. You can chalk some of this upto a fighters' reputation growing with age, & most of it being down to how good he looks in comparison to the less-gifted replacement (Klitschko) & outright mediocre contenders falling over for him.

I was one who felt Lewis didn't quite get the credit he deserved, for the most part, during his day, but he now is at danger, I feel, of being over-rated. He often had his hands low or fell unexpectedly short on stamina, hung his chin high, failed to capitalise on obvious opportunities for a knockout. I think Lewis deserves a place in (or very near to) the top-10 in division history, but when people start talking top-5, or suggesting he'd probably beat the likes of a prime Foreman or Holmes, I can't agree. Honestly, I would not have him surviving the Tyson of his peak years (though Lewis is the more accomplished HW, no question).

Lewis anywhere from 8-12 all-time seems reasonable to me. Few men could've had such a singularly consistent career. Certainly, his foremost contemporaries (Bowe, Holyfield, & Tyson) proved they couldn't have dreamed it, let alone lived it.

 

I agree, they weren't all that similar stylistically, Bowe was more of an infighter, could put his punches together, had a good uppercut, etc....he had attributes that could be effective against a smaller heavyweight, especially one that only weighs 205. I think Evan Fields recognized that, which is probably why he bulked up following the loss, and made a change in his corner.

I think the Holyfield from the rematch more closely resembles the fighter Lewis fought than the one from the first fight, and if you're going to use Holyfield fights to compare Bowe and Lewis, you might want to use the second fight.

If you counter by saying that that's not fair to Bowe, considering that Bowe was heavier and in apparently worse condition than he was in the first, one could counter that by saying Bowe was still in his mid 20's and only a year removed from the first fight (with three easy rounds against two easy opponents in between), while Lewis, who was older than Bowe, was in his mid 30's when he fought Holyfield in '99.

Bowe didn't even really make it to his 30's as a professional fighter, at least not unless you count his sad comeback (his short "prime" being something that you can probably, at least partially, attribute to his "aggressive, shooting for the KO & abandoning defense, whereas Lewis was a lot more cautious & defensive, both in style & skill").

 

Are you saying because Bowe hurt Holyfield (visibly, & more than once) whereas Lewis did not? I could understand that. Lewis definitely outpointed Holyfield in their first fight more soundly than Bowe did in 1992, but it's true that Bowe hurt Holyfield, while Lewis did not.

 

Good post. Soundly written.

Although, Lewis may've been in his mid-thirties when he fought Holyfield, but that was the equivolent of Bowe being twenty-five, IMO. Lewis matured very slowly as a fighter. Both he & Bowe were in their primes when they fought Holyfield, as I see it.

 

Saying Lewis matured slowly kinda sets side the fact that Lewis was actually the better amateur, he was more accomplished, having fought twice in the Olympics, and won gold by beating Bowe.

In fact, I seem to remember some at the time they were both coming up saying Bowe was actually more of the late bloomer (and that line of thinking did make it easier to explain '88).

Even if you take the stance that Lewis didn't fully mature - or reach his peak - as a fighter until he paired up with Steward, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't possess enough tools prior to that to beat one or both of them, and it certainly doesn't mean that at some point earlier in his peirod with Steward he hadn't progressed to the point where he could beat a Bowe or Holyfield.

The point being that just because Lewis didn't beat Holyfield until 1999, it doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten him earlier, or couldn't have beaten him more decisively earlier.

 

Certainly not, but I'd be betting against it, pre-Steward. I don't know about you, but the stock I place in the Olympics is fairly minimal. Lewis' actual victory over Bowe counts for nought to me, because...

A) It was the amateurs. The distinction between this level & the pros is positively gargantuan.

B) The stoppage was completely non-sensical, as I saw it.

Bowe peaked earlier than Lewis in the pros, but as ams, Lewis had much, much more experience than Bowe when they fought in '88.

 

We've already had this discussion about the Olympic meeting and I think you're using the debate over the stoppage to get around the fact that while the ending of the fight can be debated, who the better boxer was cannot be.

Lewis had Bowe hurt on more than one occasion in the fight...maybe not enough for a clear-cut stoppage, but I think it was enough to show who was superior boxer at the time...not the superior amateur, the superior boxer.

The point being Lewis was better than him when they were younger.

And going by how their careers ended, it's rather easy to make the case that Lewis was better when they were older.

You can to argue that there was a window in their careers when Bowe was better, which is fine, but I think it's a bit of a stretch when that entire opinion is based on one fight that came against a 205 heavyweight who also slugged it out with opponents like Foreman and Cooper.

If you want to make the case that it wasn't just one fight, that Bowe was the better fighter up to and including the first Holyfield fight (or even up to the rematch, to include the Dokes and Ferguson fights), fine, but I'm saying that when I watch a fight like Bowe-Coetzer, I don't see it.

 

this above post reads like bowe wasnt landing a lot of shots on lewis in their amateur fight. as if lewis was the only one landing punches the entire time.