Lennox Lewis vs Evander Holyfield - Who should be considered greatest?

[LacedUp]

You have got to be joking right.

Come on man, I know you don't like me much but do you really have to argue a foolish point with me just to assert yourself?

Holyfield fought a great run of opposition over his entire career. He beat a couple of truly great opponents too.

But Lennox Lewis's resume in terms of quality opponents is beyond the scope of who Holyfield fought.

Foreman openly ducked Lewis, Big George! The only fight he ever avoided! Bowe loved to fight little Holyfield being the dodger of power punchers that he was but served us with the most shameful ducking in all of boxing when it came to Lewis which would not be topped until the Floyd ducking of Pac.

Lennox did not bother with opposition like Byrd or Moorer or Ruiz. These opponents beat Holyfield btw. But for Lennox they were actively turned down in order to make a more competitive and lucrative fight, sometimes at the cost of a belt! Why? Because these opponents posed absolutely zero punch threat to Lewis whatsoever or any real technical threat to a skilled HW of Lewis's size.

Instead, Lewis proceeded to actively seek out, and destroy, some of the hardest hitting HW's the world has ever seen still to this day.

Where was the equivalent of Ruddock, McCall, Morrison, Golota, Briggs, Grant, Tua and Klitschko on Holyfield's resume?

If Evander had to go through LEnnox's resume instead, I foresee serious difficulties.

Conversely, had Lennox the luxury of cruising through Evander's instead to the year in which Lewis retired then, apart from those times when Lennox both had a strong opponent AND a bad day simultaneously, he would knock practically every single one of them out.

Holyfield is one of my favourite boxers but to claim that Holyfield's resume at HW is of comparable quality to Lewis's is simply ludicrous!

I think I said comparing their 90s resume - so what are guys like Ruiz and Byrd being mentioned for? You have to realize that Lennox was not the cash cow in the 90s, that was Tyson first, and then Holyfield. So people chose to fight Holyfield because Lewis was a harder option or so they though + they'd earn less money.

I think Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Buster Douglas, Riddick Bowe and 90s Mike Tyson would have done wonders for Lewis' résumé. Shannon Briggs was a bum and Foreman was robbed in their fight.

Holyfield's entire résumé or 90s version, it really doesn't matter. It's still better than Lewis'.

[Elroy1]

I think I said comparing their 90s resume - so what are guys like Ruiz and Byrd being mentioned for? You have to realize that Lennox was not the cash cow in the 90s, that was Tyson first, and then Holyfield. So people chose to fight Holyfield because Lewis was a harder option or so they though + they'd earn less money.

I think Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Buster Douglas, Riddick Bowe and 90s Mike Tyson would have done wonders for Lewis' résumé. Shannon Briggs was a bum and Foreman was robbed in their fight.

Holyfield's entire résumé or 90s version, it really doesn't matter. It's still better than Lewis'.

That's preposterous. Mike AVOIDED Lewis too. What do you think would have happened if Foreman DID fight Lewis? He is far too slow to land anything significant and the bombs he would take!

Michael Moorer! Really? We are talking about another 1st round wipe out win for Lennox there.

Those opponents replacing his real ones (barring Tyson) would have detracted from him.

I can certainly understand when you claim that the quality of his opposition is better than Klitschko's, but to then go on and claim Evander's were better than Lennox's? That's a bit of a story.

[Rustle Wilson]

Holy has the better wins and his losses (during his prime) aren't as bad as Lewis's...and he also arguably beat Lewis (in their 2nd fight) while he was over the hill and Lewis was near his peak.

Holyfield clearly. He's a top 5 Heavy in my book. Lewis just barely makes it into my top 10.

[bender2000]

holyfield clearly in my book , I thought an older holyfield outpointed lewis in there rematch, lewis is way overrated to much credance put into his win over an older has been nothing version of Tyson who was finished as a fighter years before , also holyfield didn't get one punch koed by 2 journeymen fighters.

[billeau2]

It is a shame to me....When i look at Lewis and Tyson both suffer from certain factors beyond their control and that bothers me. Especially because I read smart posters who seem not to notice the full scope of either guy (Lewis and Tyson).

To understand Tyson one has to appreciate how dominant he was. A lot of the guys he beat never got off the ground because of Tyson's performance. You can't judge this by resume so Tyson's prime gets undercut at times.

Even more so with Lewis. Lewis beat so many better fighters than Holyfield as a heavyweight. A lot of the guys Lewis beat never got that good precisely because Lewis beat them so bad. There is no way to measure this quality though....How do you pronounce how dominant Briggs, Golata, Ruddock, Morrison, Grant would have been if they had not run into lewis? You can't! Just sayin.....