2 billion: More reasons why Lewis is an ATG top 10

[StarshipTrooper]

You're wrong my friend. Both were top 10 rated by The Ring and McCall was the WBC mandatory if I remember correctly.

Neither of them belonged there. McCall was the WBC madatory solely for his association with Don King.

Poet

[JAB5239]

Correct me If I'm wrong but are you saying that Evander Holyfield was in his peak when he fought Lewis the first time?

Because he wasn't.

No. What I am saying is throughout history very, very few ATG heavyweights have met when both were at the top of their game. Im not saying Holyfield was peak. In fact he was just slipping past his prime. But he was still the second best heavyweight in the world and a dangerous fighter.

[JAB5239]

Neither of them belonged there. McCall was the WBC madatory solely for his association with Don King.

Poet

Both had decent wins leading into their respective fights with Lewis. No world beaters, but as good as almost anyone else in the top 10 at the time.

[IronDanHamza]

No. What I am saying is throughout history very, very few ATG heavyweights have met when both were at the top of their game. Im not saying Holyfield was peak. In fact he was just slipping past his prime. But he was still the second best heavyweight in the world and a dangerous fighter.

I think the term 'just slipping past his prime' is an immense understatment.

At 36, his best years were way behind him.

Still, definitely a dangerous and legit fight for Lennox.

[StarshipTrooper]

Both had decent wins leading into their respective fights with Lewis. No world beaters, but as good as almost anyone else in the top 10 at the time.

Decent wins.....like WHO exactly? Hell, why not just rank some skid row winos if they're THAT desperate for contenders. I'm reasonably certain at least SOME of the lushes would turn out to be better fighters then those two.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

I think the term 'just slipping past his prime' is an immense understatment.

At 36, his best years were way behind him.

Still, definitely a dangerous and legit fight for Lennox.

Holyfield was already past-prime when he fought Tyson.

Poet

[JAB5239]

I think the term 'just slipping past his prime' is an immense understatment.

At 36, his best years were way behind him.

Still, definitely a dangerous and legit fight for Lennox.

Why "way" behind? He had just destroyed both Moorer and Tyson in the previous years and we had seen no signs of let up in those fights. Just a couple of years ago he should have gotten the win over Valuev.....his best days were WAY behind him then!

[IronDanHamza]

Holyfield was already past-prime when he fought Tyson.

Poet

Precisely.

Holyfield at 36 was still considered a legit fight for anyone but it's overwhelmingly difficult to suggest he was anywhere near his prime in 1999.

[IronDanHamza]

Why "way" behind? He had just destroyed both Moorer and Tyson in the previous years and we had seen no signs of let up in those fights. Just a couple of years ago he should have gotten the win over Valuev.....his best days were WAY behind him then!

So?

He was coming off good wins but how many times can we say that about Ali in the 70's? Even in the late 70's.

Still very very difficult to suggest he wasn't way past his prime years in and around the 70's.

Top wins doesn't mean prime, that has been done to death on these forums. Same applies for Lennox Lewis.

Also, were chosing to forget the signs he had shown before the Tyson and Moorer fights?

In that case, Shane Mosley wasn't way past his best years when he fought Mayweather, no? Isn't that the same logic?

Valuev? The guy was coming 50 when he fought Valuev. Of course he was way past his best years at that point.

You just simply cannot claim he was close to his prime when he fought Lewis. It simply isn't true.

[JAB5239]

Holyfield was already past-prime when he fought Tyson.

Poet

Precisely.

Holyfield at 36 was still considered a legit fight for anyone but it's overwhelmingly difficult to suggest he was anywhere near his prime in 1999.

What exactly is "past prime" to you guys? The fact is he was still fighting at a high level and beating the best fighters. If Chad Dawson beats Hopkins is he all of a sudden going to be long past it even though he's still capable and beating the best fighters at 175? Does anything change the fact that Holy was the second best heavy in the world? With all do respect to both you guys, you sound like you're trying to diminish him just for the sake of it. I can tear down EVERY top heavyweights resume in one form or another if I really want to. But I would be neglecting many things.