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

[Steak]

'past prime' is a very broad term. its often used in conjuction with 'shot'(depending on the person(certainly not me)), which Holyfield definitely was not in the Lewis fights.

Holyfield was not prime against Lewis, in other words not at his all time best, but at the same time he was still a damn good fighter, and no doubt the second best heavyweight in the world behind Lewis at the time.

even though Holyfield wasnt at his absolute best agaisnt Lewis by that point, even a win over that version of him is still one of the better wins in the history of the heavyweight division, especially considering Lewis did it twice. and for that reason you should give Lewis a lot of credit for it.


remember, no one is saying Lewis should be above Louis or Ali, who are undoubtedly the top two all time...were just talking about top ten. and I really struggle to make a solid argument for 8 other heavyweights to be above Lewis.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

I consider a 36 year old fighter in which some of his argubale best wins were over 10 years earlier a fighter to be past prime.

In the James Toney thread you said the same thing about Mike McCallum, no? McCallum was a top fighter at that time also just like Holyfield was in 1999.

They share something in common; both were top fighters but were not in their prime or close to it

I'm not taking anything away from Lewis, at all. Lewis beating Holyfield was a top, legit win and put toward his legacy. No question about that, IMO. But I'm not going to agree that Holyfield was close to his prime because frankly, he wasn't. And there isn't much argument.

Absolutely, you can tear down many ATG HW resume, it still won't change the fact that Holyfield wasn't close to his prime in 1999. I''m sorry, it's something I am never ever going to agree on.

I know you like Lennox Lewis alot and that's cool. But I think you are being slightly biased in his favour in all honesty

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

I use a very simple standard: When it becomes apparent your reflexes are starting to slide then you're past-prime. When those start to go then you're simply NOT as good as you once were. When your reflexes are gone then you're shot.

Poet

[IronDanHamza]

'past prime' is a very broad term. its often used in conjuction with 'shot'(depending on the person(certainly not me)), which Holyfield definitely was not in the Lewis fights.

Holyfield was not prime against Lewis, in other words not at his all time best, but at the same time he was still a damn good fighter, and no doubt the second best heavyweight in the world behind Lewis at the time.

even though Holyfield wasnt at his absolute best agaisnt Lewis by that point, even a win over that version of him is still one of the better wins in the history of the heavyweight division, especially considering Lewis did it twice. and for that reason you should give Lewis a lot of credit for it.


remember, no one is saying Lewis should be above Louis or Ali, who are undoubtedly the top two all time...were just talking about top ten. and I really struggle to make a solid argument for 8 other heavyweights to be above Lewis.

And I'm not questioning any of that.

Lewis win over Holyfield was an excellent win against the best current HW other than himself. He deserves credit for that, no question.

But, to suggest he was close to his prime is quite frankly, ludacrous.

[JAB5239]

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.

The difference is that Holy didn't show as significant a drop off in how he fought compared to Ali.

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

What exactly is prime to you? How do you define it?

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

Im not, we just haven't discussed them yet.

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

Not even close. Mosley looked bad against a limited journeyman in Mayorga before capturing lightning in a both with Margarito. His physical decline in the way he fought was much more obvious than how Holyfield was fighting leading up to Lewis.

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

He was two years removed from the fight that will forever define his career and was the second best fighter in the division. He wasn't the fighter from the first or second Bowe fight, but he was still fighting great.

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

And btw, Hopkins IS past-prime.....well past-it and has been for years. It was pretty damn obvious when he lost to Jermaine Taylor: When you get OUTWORKED by a fighter who's known to gas-out then you're damn sure not what you once where. Hopkins has to be carefully matched to win now.

Poet

[IronDanHamza]

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.

Hopkins is past it, well past it. His best years were 10+ years ago.

Beating him now would be a legit win considering he is at the top of the division and still an evident capable fighter but he is still obviously well past his best years.

Similar to Lewis' win over Holyfield

Although; Beating Holyfield in 1999 >>>>>>>>>>> Beating Hopkins in 2011

[Steak]

can we make this a bit easier and start saying what 8 other hws should be rated above Lewis?(Louis and Ali are a given)

And I'm not questioning any of that.

Lewis win over Holyfield was an excellent win against the best current HW other than himself. He deserves credit for that, no question.

But, to suggest he was close to his prime is quite frankly, ludacrous.

yep, I dont really think theres any argument at all you could say Holyfield was still in his prime.

[IronDanHamza]

The difference is that Holy didn't show as significant a drop off in how he fought compared to Ali.

Sure he did. Compared to the Holyfield from the 80's he absolutely did.

[What exactly is prime to you? How do you define it?

Prime to me is when you are at your physical peak and mental peak and all your physical attributes are at their peak.

Something that Holyfield, was not.

[Not even close. Mosley looked bad against a limited journeyman in Mayorga before capturing lightning in a both with Margarito. His physical decline in the way he fought was much more obvious than how Holyfield was fighting leading up to Lewis.

But, then Mosley beat Margarito who was ranked #1 at WW in devastating fashion. Coming off one of the best wins of his career.

Why doesn't the same apply in this stance?

Maybe not to the extent of Holyfield's wins but surely if you use that logic for one then you must for the other?

[He was two years removed from the fight that will forever define his career and was the second best fighter in the division. He wasn't the fighter from the first or second Bowe fight, but he was still fighting great. [/FONT][/COLOR]

That doesn't matter if he was coming off his career defining win 2 years earlier. He still wasn't in his prime not close.

Using Ali as an example again but one could argue that Foreman was his career defining fight. Still many years from his prime when he fought him.

[$Bullsfam$]

You brought up a good point Jab with the "what do you guys consider past prime" but I think really the key factor to me is how weak the division is. I think Tua, Rahman, McCall, 2002 Tyson, Botha, Grant, Briggs, Morrison would have a lot of trouble beating guys like Quarry, Lyle, or Ken Norton who are legit B level heavyweights to even get their shot at Ali, Frazier, or Foreman. So I don't think it's a significant deal that Holyfield was able to be second best among those types of fighters. The division has only gotten worse as you still see those guys from the 90's I just mentioned fighting the Klitschko's today so even Holyfield at 40+ can beat a lot of guys today. I think he could easily got the distance and maybe even steal a few rounds from the Klitschko brothers today nevertheless Valuev.

I'm definitely going to have a different argument on this subject then IronDan because I hold Hopkins to a higher standard but I think Hopkins could be a serious contender 40+ with any middleweight or light heavyweight division, not saying he'd be the champ against some of the ATG middleweights, but he'd be a top 3 of that era too which is why I give Joe's win a A- even though he arguably loss and if Chad Dawson won he'd get an A- too. We can't necessarily say that about Evander because the heavyweight division has been lackluster since Tyson-Holyfield because Tyson wasn't really the same beast but I won't be like others and try to discredit Holyfield who I see as a top 10 ATG heavyweight himself. In the early 90's the heavyweight division picked up but then declined again and has only gotten worse.

I'm not saying having Lennox top 5 is absolutely ridiculous and won't say it's a bad list at all because for all I know or care people could say that about mine but I think everybody can agree and has I believe in the past said that after Ali, Louis, and Foreman their's a HUGE drop in caliber and people throw names everywhere from then on after the big 3. I just don't have him in mine is all I'm saying.