Lennox Lewis: A Career Re-Examined

[IronDanHamza]

Huh? He beat Holyfield for the titles, he beat Rahman for the titles he had lost, he beat Tucker the WBC champ if I'm not mistaken and he would have gotten Tyson or Bowe at some stage when they were champs if King and cowardice hadn't gotten in the way.

You are very much mistaken and you once again expose yourself for the umpteenth time.

Why do you think Tony Tucker was the WBC Champion? Here's why, because you typed in "Lennox Lewis" on Boxrec, scrolled down and saw that when he fought Tony Tucker in 1993 that the WBC Title was on the line and assumed that Tony Tucker was defending the WBC title against Lennox Lewis. As any other "Boxrec Warrior" like yourself would.

If you knew anything about Boxing at that particular time, which clearly you do not, you would know that Rid**** Bowe threw the WBC title in the bin (vacated it) when Bowe and Lewis couldn't make a deal, so the WBC upgraded Lewis to WBC Champion and Lewis then made his first defence against Tony Tucker.

[IronDanHamza]

To follow on, Sonny is correct there.

The only reigning Champions Lewis beat were Evander Holyfield and Hasim "The Worst Heavyweight Champion ever" Rahman.

He was upgraded by the WBC in 93 then fought for the Vacant WBC a few years after losing it to Oliver McCall.

[sonnyboyx2]

To follow on, Sonny is correct there.

The only reigning Champions Lewis beat were Evander Holyfield and Hasim "The Worst Heavyweight Champion ever" Rahman.

He was upgraded by the WBC in 93 then fought for the Vacant WBC a few years after losing it to Oliver McCall.

Yes, your correct Dan. The bottom line is, that no matter which way you look at it. Lewis picked a belt out of the bin in 93 lost it to a journeyman in 94. fought that same journeyman for a vacant title in 97. was gifted the Undisputed titles in late 99 when awarded a very dubious, debatable decision. Lewis then lost the titles to another mediocre journeyman. Regained it from that journeyman, then refused to fight the No1 contenders, so was stripped of all belts.. There is no other way of looking at Lewis career other than through "Rose-Tinted Glasses"..In reality Lewis claim to being a genuine World Champion is his debatable decision win over old Holyfield in November 1999. Lewis title defences of that title are farcical. As his opponents were nothing but hand-picked low-level fighters. With Lewis being stripped of his belts for refusal to fight the No1 contenders.. Lewis fans always paint a different picture to the reality of how it unfolded.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes, your correct Dan. The bottom line is, that no matter which way you look at it. Lewis picked a belt out of the bin in 93 lost it to a journeyman in 94. fought that same journeyman for a vacant title in 97. was gifted the Undisputed titles in late 99 when awarded a very dubious, debatable decision. Lewis then lost the titles to another mediocre journeyman. Regained it from that journeyman, then refused to fight the No1 contenders, so was stripped of all belts.. There is no other way of looking at Lewis career other than through "Rose-Tinted Glasses"..In reality Lewis claim to being a genuine World Champion is his debatable decision win over old Holyfield in November 1999. Lewis title defences of that title are farcical. As his opponents were nothing but hand-picked low-level fighters. With Lewis being stripped of his belts for refusal to fight the No1 contenders.. Lewis fans always paint a different picture to the reality of how it unfolded.

In fairness, whilst I agree with you in scoring the second fight to Holyfield (close) as we both know Lewis deserved the belts in their first bout. So by the same token he beat the Champion in the first one.

But I agree with the rest of your post and can't deny anything you've said there.

[sonnyboyx2]

In fairness, whilst I agree with you in scoring the second fight to Holyfield (close) as we both know Lewis deserved the belts in their first bout. So by the same token he beat the Champion in the first one.

But I agree with the rest of your post and can't deny anything you've said there.

Yes i agree with you, Lewis was unfortunate to only come away with a draw in their first fight in March 1999. Lewis championship years started back in 1992 when he picked the belt discarded by Rid**** Bowe, out of the bin. Yet it was 7yrs before he actually won a legitimate title. There was a long list of Champions during those 7yrs which Lewis could have fought. Yet he chose not too.. Lewis reign as Champion from 1999 to his retirement in 2004 is again questionable. Lewis was stripped of two title belts for refusing to face the No1 contenders. He lost and regained the title against mediocre journeyman Hasim Rahman. His fight against Cash-Cow Mike Tyson who was drug addict at that time, along with his fortunate victory over Vitali Klitschko, Makes Lennox Lewis anything but, the dominant champion his fans try to make him out to have been.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes i agree with you, Lewis was unfortunate to only come away with a draw in their first fight in March 1999. Lewis championship years started back in 1992 when he picked the belt discarded by Rid**** Bowe, out of the bin. Yet it was 7yrs before he actually won a legitimate title. There was a long list of Champions during those 7yrs which Lewis could have fought. Yet he chose not too.. Lewis reign as Champion from 1999 to his retirement in 2004 is again questionable. Lewis was stripped of two title belts for refusing to face the No1 contenders. He lost and regained the title against mediocre journeyman Hasim Rahman. His fight against Cash-Cow Mike Tyson who was drug addict at that time, along with his fortunate victory over Vitali Klitschko, Makes Lennox Lewis anything but, the dominant champion his fans try to make him out to have been.

I agree.

Also to touch on your point about dominance, between the loss's to McCall and Rahman, I had him losing to Mercer aswell.

So in my eyes that's far from dominant, especially considering who those loss's came to.

Like I said earlier in this thread, Lewis was a good fighter, not great IMO.

[soul_survivor]

You are very much mistaken and you once again expose yourself for the umpteenth time.

Why do you think Tony Tucker was the WBC Champion? Here's why, because you typed in "Lennox Lewis" on Boxrec, scrolled down and saw that when he fought Tony Tucker in 1993 that the WBC Title was on the line and assumed that Tony Tucker was defending the WBC title against Lennox Lewis. As any other "Boxrec Warrior" like yourself would.

If you knew anything about Boxing at that particular time, which clearly you do not, you would know that Rid**** Bowe threw the WBC title in the bin (vacated it) when Bowe and Lewis couldn't make a deal, so the WBC upgraded Lewis to WBC Champion and Lewis then made his first defence against Tony Tucker.

Actually, I was going off memory of watching the fight where the wbc title was on the line. Now stop trying to act like you're a boxing fan and go back slurping some mayweather juice.

And I don't see you dis*****g Holyfield or Rahman were champs when he fought them, that's cos I'm right. You **** head.

[IronDanHamza]

Actually, I was going off memory of watching the fight where the wbc title was on the line. Now stop trying to act like you're a boxing fan and go back slurping some mayweather juice.

And I don't see you dis*****g Holyfield or Rahman were champs when he fought them, that's cos I'm right. You **** head.

Yeah, right

If you're going off memory then why would you think Tucker had the belt? Lewis already had the belt for the Tucker fight. It wasn't vacant for that fight.

You've clearly exposed yourself (again), it's clear as day. You went onto Boxrec, saw that Lewis had no belt the fight prior to Tucker, then saw the WBC belt was on the line for the Tucker fight and assumed Tucker had the belt.

What the hell does Holyfield or Rahman have to do with the fact you had no idea about the WBC situation in 1993 and as the Boxrec warrior you are tried to say Tucker was the WBC Champ when Lennox fought him?

That's what you've been called out on, not Holyfield or Rahman.

[soul_survivor]

Yeah, right

If you're going off memory then why would you think Tucker had the belt? Lewis already had the belt for the Tucker fight. It wasn't vacant for that fight.

You've clearly exposed yourself (again), it's clear as day. You went onto Boxrec, saw that Lewis had no belt the fight prior to Tucker, then saw the WBC belt was on the line for the Tucker fight and assumed Tucker had the belt.

What the hell does Holyfield or Rahman have to do with the fact you had no idea about the WBC situation in 1993 and as the Boxrec warrior you are tried to say Tucker was the WBC Champ when Lennox fought him?

That's what you've been called out on, not Holyfield or Rahman.

Reiterating your first point doesn't make a valid argument.

Also, go back to trying to "expose" me on the p4p thread, where your lack of english comprehension skills were clearly "exposed".

This has been building up for a while I guess, with me constantly making you look ****** or just plain taking the piss. Let it all out, it will help.

[IronDanHamza]

Reiterating your first point doesn't make a valid argument.

Also, go back to trying to "expose" me on the p4p thread, where your lack of english comprehension skills were clearly "exposed".

This has been building up for a while I guess, with me constantly making you look ****** or just plain taking the piss. Let it all out, it will help.

Doesn't make a valid argument?

You said Tony Tucker was the WBC Champion What more of an argument do I need? It's right there in writing.

You exposed yourself (again). Simple as that no damage control can change that.

Similar to when you said "The only controversial fight Marciano had was against Ezzard Charles" Clearly you have no clue at all.

It's normal when people like yourself are obviously reasonably new to the sport. I wouldn't mind, I don't usually call people out for their mistakes but I call you out when you endlessly expose yourself because you're a c*nt.