Liverpool FC Forum

[Big Niall]

In his prime I wanted Calzaghe to fight James Toney, Roy Jones, and Bernard Hopkins but for whatever reason the fights never happened.

Now they seem all willing to fight but Calzaghe is about 34 which is fairly old but Hopkins is 43 and Roy Jones is pushing 40.

These fights should have happened a decade ago and I am a bit p*ssed off about it all. They dodged each other in their primes and now that the Americans are way passed out they expect to get a big pay day to make the fight.

Calzaghe had loads of big fights never happen and only in the last year or so fought anybody, his manager built a career of safe fights, making a few quid each time.

While never a big De La Hoya fan, he fought everyone - won some and lost some. That's how a fighter should be.

[NiftyNeil]

What's the point of this thread? Are you having a go at Calzaghe? or are you having a go at Toney, Jones jnr and Hopkins?

[burjennio]

Naill I think the reason none of the top Americans fought him was that he was never  a draw in the states because of his awkward style and "slapping" punches (he hates that!), the only way to get any money out of the fight would have been to fight in Wales and we all know that the Yanks have no interest leaving their own shores, especially when its against a dangerous opponent.


Thankfully we're starting to see the marquee names fighting each other again after years of politics and playing it safe (aka the Don King Years) which in many peoples opinion is a direct reply to the increasing popularity of UFC in the US, where the top contenders do fight each other regularly, and the scorecards don't usually end up being a joke. 95% of all the fights are still as dull as dishwater though - too much rolling around, not enough punching in the face 

[Big Niall]

I have loved boxing since seeing Hagler V Hearns. I feel that boxing is in deep decline. I read that the British heavyweight Skelton was fighting for a version of the world heavyweight championship last weekend, I didn't even know about the fight, it wasn't on TV and I don't know who the champion is.

Who here even knows who the heavyweight champions are & why isn't there just one?

The 1990s were blessed with so many top middleweights that we could have had some great fights. They seem to be willing to do it now but not when they were at their prime.

Can you imagine if Muhammad Ali had fought his three fights with Frazier in the early 1980s.

The UFC is catching up "big time" and I think it deserves it. Wonderful fighters, very skillful, don't dodge opponents etc.

[NiftyNeil]

I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division.

[burjennio]

NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division.

I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not

[NiftyNeil]

NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division.

I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not

Lewis fought every heavyweight of note in the nineties. He ducked no-one and he beat every single one of his opponents. You can't asked anymore than that. Ali lost to Ken Norton in his prime, a man who got took apart by Foreman, he also went on to lose to Spinks - albeit past his prime. Lewis did in the nineties what Tyson did in the eighties, he cleaned up the heavyweight division. It's unfair to belittle his achievements - he's in my top 5 heavyweights of all time.

[Mikz]

I cant be bothered with boxing anymore...as has already been pointed out...the way they keep each avoiding one and other and the waiting time between fights - that!
Too many belts..too many weights - sort that out!
Unless a new TYSON or someone of that ability comes along I wont miss it...and still live in the golden days of Hagler Hearns and Leonard...

The UFC is a lot more exciting - so are the fighting gypsies 

[Big Niall]

I cant be bothered with boxing anymore...as has already been pointed out...the way they keep each avoiding one and other and the waiting time between fights - that!
Too many belts..too many weights - sort that out!
Unless a new TYSON or someone of that ability comes along I wont miss it...and still live in the golden days of Hagler Hearns and Leonard...

The UFC is a lot more exciting - so are the fighting gypsies 

agreed

[burjennio]

NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,20:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 23 2008,16:44)
Quote 
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division. 


I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not

Lewis fought every heavyweight of note in the nineties. He ducked no-one and he beat every single one of his opponents. You can't asked anymore than that. Ali lost to Ken Norton in his prime, a man who got took apart by Foreman, he also went on to lose to Spinks - albeit past his prime. Lewis did in the nineties what Tyson did in the eighties, he cleaned up the heavyweight division. It's unfair to belittle his achievements - he's in my top 5 heavyweights of all time.

Ken Norton was a good fighter, Joe Fraizer was a good fighter, Oliver McCall and Haseem Rahman were both junkies who  could punch, nothing more, in years gone by they wouldnt have even made the radar. And you say Ali lost to Spinks like he was some kind of joke , Spinks won the gold in the 76 Olympics and was a quality fighter who couldnt handle the fame of being World Champion and ultimately lost his way

Lewis and Tyson may well be overlooked by the history books simply because of the lack of quality that was available to face them - as to say that Lewis is in the top 5 ever, eh? There were 5 better fighters in Alis era than Lewis ever faced (exception of maybe Holyfield)in Fraizer, Foreman, Noton, Liston and Holmes - do you think he would have beaten them? Personally I think he'd probably have beaten Fraizer and Norton because of his superior size, been knocked out by Liston and Foreman and been found wanting against a man with a better jab than he had in the Eastern Assassin. I look forward to your retort 

[NiftyNeil]

NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,20:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 23 2008,16:44)
Quote 
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division. 


I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not

Lewis fought every heavyweight of note in the nineties. He ducked no-one and he beat every single one of his opponents. You can't asked anymore than that. Ali lost to Ken Norton in his prime, a man who got took apart by Foreman, he also went on to lose to Spinks - albeit past his prime. Lewis did in the nineties what Tyson did in the eighties, he cleaned up the heavyweight division. It's unfair to belittle his achievements - he's in my top 5 heavyweights of all time.

Ken Norton was a good fighter, Joe Fraizer was a good fighter, Oliver McCall and Haseem Rahman were both junkies who  could punch, nothing more, in years gone by they wouldnt have even made the radar. And you say Ali lost to Spinks like he was some kind of joke , Spinks won the gold in the 76 Olympics and was a quality fighter who couldnt handle the fame of being World Champion and ultimately lost his way

Lewis and Tyson may well be overlooked by the history books simply because of the lack of quality that was available to face them - as to say that Lewis is in the top 5 ever, eh? There were 5 better fighters in Alis era than Lewis ever faced (exception of maybe Holyfield)in Fraizer, Foreman, Noton, Liston and Holmes - do you think he would have beaten them? Personally I think he'd probably have beaten Fraizer and Norton because of his superior size, been knocked out by Liston and Foreman and been found wanting against a man with a better jab than he had in the Eastern Assassin. I look forward to your retort 

It will always go against Lewis that he lost to McCall and Rahman, and your right in saying that most of his opponents were nowhere near as good as the seventies Heavyweight. Lewis' problem was complacency, yet the better his opponent was, the better he was prepared - that's why he never had a problem in any of his big fights. When an opponent was meant to test Lewis, then Lewis prepared hard, fought hard and won well. That's why he blasted out Ruddock (who had fought 12 hard rounds with Tyson previously), that's why he destroyed Grant (who was supposed to be the next great American Heavyweight), that's why he blew Golota away (after the latter made a name for himself by battering Bowe - but getting disqualified), that's why he hardly gave a round away out of 24 against Holyfield, that's why he avenged his only defeats well inside the distance (McCall was fukd up but Rahman was dismantled) and that's why Mike Tyson was so brutally disposed of.
It's an interesting argument though where Lewis should stand in history. Sure, he was the best of a bad bunch, but that could be said of so many former champions. Lewis did everything possible, he fought every decent boxer he could get his hands on, he ducked no-one, he fought and beat 12 boxers who had held, or went on to hold versions of the Heavyweight Championship belt and he was undisputed Champion. I think he's also in the top 3 or 4 boxers to have and the most Heavyweight title fights, although I can't find the stats to back that up.
If you look back through history, I don't think there are many heavyweights who would of beat him, that's why I rate him as top 5. You've mentioned Larry Holmes, but wasn't he the best of a bad bunch too? For what it's worth, I think Lewis would of knocked Holmes out. Holmes could jab, but Lewis could jab with power.

For the non-believers : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuOzydfpv28

[Leonmc0708]

Big Niall in posting and moaning and generally being pessemistic SHOCKER !

Daily Sport.

[burjennio]

NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 24 2008,12:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 24 2008,10:43)
Quote 
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,20:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 23 2008,16:44)
Quote 
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division. 


I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not

Lewis fought every heavyweight of note in the nineties. He ducked no-one and he beat every single one of his opponents. You can't asked anymore than that. Ali lost to Ken Norton in his prime, a man who got took apart by Foreman, he also went on to lose to Spinks - albeit past his prime. Lewis did in the nineties what Tyson did in the eighties, he cleaned up the heavyweight division. It's unfair to belittle his achievements - he's in my top 5 heavyweights of all time. 


Ken Norton was a good fighter, Joe Fraizer was a good fighter, Oliver McCall and Haseem Rahman were both junkies who  could punch, nothing more, in years gone by they wouldnt have even made the radar. And you say Ali lost to Spinks like he was some kind of joke , Spinks won the gold in the 76 Olympics and was a quality fighter who couldnt handle the fame of being World Champion and ultimately lost his way

Lewis and Tyson may well be overlooked by the history books simply because of the lack of quality that was available to face them - as to say that Lewis is in the top 5 ever, eh? There were 5 better fighters in Alis era than Lewis ever faced (exception of maybe Holyfield)in Fraizer, Foreman, Noton, Liston and Holmes - do you think he would have beaten them? Personally I think he'd probably have beaten Fraizer and Norton because of his superior size, been knocked out by Liston and Foreman and been found wanting against a man with a better jab than he had in the Eastern Assassin. I look forward to your retort   

It will always go against Lewis that he lost to McCall and Rahman, and your right in saying that most of his opponents were nowhere near as good as the seventies Heavyweight. Lewis' problem was complacency, yet the better his opponent was, the better he was prepared - that's why he never had a problem in any of his big fights. When an opponent was meant to test Lewis, then Lewis prepared hard, fought hard and won well. That's why he blasted out Ruddock (who had fought 12 hard rounds with Tyson previously), that's why he destroyed Grant (who was supposed to be the next great American Heavyweight), that's why he blew Golota away (after the latter made a name for himself by battering Bowe - but getting disqualified), that's why he hardly gave a round away out of 24 against Holyfield, that's why he avenged his only defeats well inside the distance (McCall was fukd up but Rahman was dismantled) and that's why Mike Tyson was so brutally disposed of.
It's an interesting argument though where Lewis should stand in history. Sure, he was the best of a bad bunch, but that could be said of so many former champions. Lewis did everything possible, he fought every decent boxer he could get his hands on, he ducked no-one, he fought and beat 12 boxers who had held, or went on to hold versions of the Heavyweight Championship belt and he was undisputed Champion. I think he's also in the top 3 or 4 boxers to have and the most Heavyweight title fights, although I can't find the stats to back that up.
If you look back through history, I don't think there are many heavyweights who would of beat him, that's why I rate him as top 5. You've mentioned Larry Holmes, but wasn't he the best of a bad bunch too? For what it's worth, I think Lewis would of knocked Holmes out. Holmes could jab, but Lewis could jab with power.

I think you not giving Holmes the credit he deserves, in many respects he was and always will be the forgotten man of the Heavyweight division, probably born 5 years to late to really make his name on the sport the way he could have. Holmes was on course to break Marcianos record of 49-0 and was the victim of 1 of the most controversial and infamous decisions of all time when outpointed by Michael Spinks, many believing he was denied the decision so he wouldnt tarnish Marcianos legacy,  In the rematch he again lost a controversial decision and retired, coming back some 3 years later at almost 39 years old to challenge Tyson and actually looked good for about 2 and a bit rounds, then Tyson caught him with a wild hook showing that Holmes reflexes were gone, he got up but a short time later a similar haymaker found its target again, this time it was over.
As for saying he didnt have power, he holds the record for most consecutive KOS in heavyweight title bouts


Lewis is 3rd in title defences at Heavyweight behind Holmes and Joe Lewis according to Wiki, the fountain of mis-information

FWIW i think Holyfield won the rematch with Lewis, but boxings all about opinions

[NiftyNeil]

NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 24 2008,12:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 24 2008,10:43)
Quote 
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,20:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 23 2008,16:44)
Quote 
NiftyNeil Posted on Jan. 23 2008,16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think boxing is in decline, but I do think the heavyweight division is in a lull at the moment. The division tends to go through these lulls once in a while. After Ali hung up his gloves, the belts were bandied around between boxers like Weaver, Tate, Dokes and Berbick. No champions of note until Tyson cleaned up the division. Then when the belts were split up again, another poor crop of heavyweight took turns to hold the crown, Moorer, McCall, Seldon, a 45 year old Foreman and even our very own Frank Bruno. Once again, nobody dominated the division until Lewis unified the belts and dominated the division for several years. Since Lewis has retired, the belts have once again been distributed between B class boxers, none of who will be regarded as greats. I'm glad for the sake of the sport that Skelton didn't win the other night though. I don't think it will be too long before someone steps up to the mark once more to dominated the division. 


I wouldnt class Lewis as "dominating" the divison in the way that a Tyson or a Joe Lewis did. He was a good fighter but was up against sub-par ones. The best fighters he fought were Holyfield (who he was some 3 stone and 6 inches bigger than), Tyson (similar size difference and also well past his prime) and, er, well no one of note stands out really - Bruno, Klitschko, Morrison and Golota (who won a decision on the Jones-Trinidad undercard this past weekend whilst sporting one of the worst injuries I have ever saw in the ring link) are all mediocre heavyweights at best and when you couple it up with the 2 losses he had to McCall and Rahman you ahve to ask "would Ali, Louis or Tyson have lost to these guys in their prime?" I believe not

Lewis fought every heavyweight of note in the nineties. He ducked no-one and he beat every single one of his opponents. You can't asked anymore than that. Ali lost to Ken Norton in his prime, a man who got took apart by Foreman, he also went on to lose to Spinks - albeit past his prime. Lewis did in the nineties what Tyson did in the eighties, he cleaned up the heavyweight division. It's unfair to belittle his achievements - he's in my top 5 heavyweights of all time. 


Ken Norton was a good fighter, Joe Fraizer was a good fighter, Oliver McCall and Haseem Rahman were both junkies who  could punch, nothing more, in years gone by they wouldnt have even made the radar. And you say Ali lost to Spinks like he was some kind of joke , Spinks won the gold in the 76 Olympics and was a quality fighter who couldnt handle the fame of being World Champion and ultimately lost his way

Lewis and Tyson may well be overlooked by the history books simply because of the lack of quality that was available to face them - as to say that Lewis is in the top 5 ever, eh? There were 5 better fighters in Alis era than Lewis ever faced (exception of maybe Holyfield)in Fraizer, Foreman, Noton, Liston and Holmes - do you think he would have beaten them? Personally I think he'd probably have beaten Fraizer and Norton because of his superior size, been knocked out by Liston and Foreman and been found wanting against a man with a better jab than he had in the Eastern Assassin. I look forward to your retort   

It will always go against Lewis that he lost to McCall and Rahman, and your right in saying that most of his opponents were nowhere near as good as the seventies Heavyweight. Lewis' problem was complacency, yet the better his opponent was, the better he was prepared - that's why he never had a problem in any of his big fights. When an opponent was meant to test Lewis, then Lewis prepared hard, fought hard and won well. That's why he blasted out Ruddock (who had fought 12 hard rounds with Tyson previously), that's why he destroyed Grant (who was supposed to be the next great American Heavyweight), that's why he blew Golota away (after the latter made a name for himself by battering Bowe - but getting disqualified), that's why he hardly gave a round away out of 24 against Holyfield, that's why he avenged his only defeats well inside the distance (McCall was fukd up but Rahman was dismantled) and that's why Mike Tyson was so brutally disposed of.
It's an interesting argument though where Lewis should stand in history. Sure, he was the best of a bad bunch, but that could be said of so many former champions. Lewis did everything possible, he fought every decent boxer he could get his hands on, he ducked no-one, he fought and beat 12 boxers who had held, or went on to hold versions of the Heavyweight Championship belt and he was undisputed Champion. I think he's also in the top 3 or 4 boxers to have and the most Heavyweight title fights, although I can't find the stats to back that up.
If you look back through history, I don't think there are many heavyweights who would of beat him, that's why I rate him as top 5. You've mentioned Larry Holmes, but wasn't he the best of a bad bunch too? For what it's worth, I think Lewis would of knocked Holmes out. Holmes could jab, but Lewis could jab with power.

I think you not giving Holmes the credit he deserves, in many respects he was and always will be the forgotten man of the Heavyweight division, probably born 5 years to late to really make his name on the sport the way he could have. Holmes was on course to break Marcianos record of 49-0 and was the victim of 1 of the most controversial and infamous decisions of all time when outpointed by Michael Spinks, many believing he was denied the decision so he wouldnt tarnish Marcianos legacy,  In the rematch he again lost a controversial decision and retired, coming back some 3 years later at almost 39 years old to challenge Tyson and actually looked good for about 2 and a bit rounds, then Tyson caught him with a wild hook showing that Holmes reflexes were gone, he got up but a short time later a similar haymaker found its target again, this time it was over.
As for saying he didnt have power, he holds the record for most consecutive KOS in heavyweight title bouts


Lewis is 3rd in title defences at Heavyweight behind Holmes and Joe Lewis according to Wiki, the fountain of mis-information

FWIW i think Holyfield won the rematch with Lewis, but boxings all about opinions

I was merely trying to give Lewis the credit he deserves, I'm not trying to take anything away from Holmes, who was a great champion.

[burjennio]

and whatdaya know

Hall of Fame