Lennox Lewis vs the Greats Part one

by The genius of PBF Sun 12 Jun 2011, 7:54 am

First topic message reminder :

Lennox Lewis vs Muhammad Ali

Muhammad Ali although the greatest heavyweight of all time never faced a boxer who was as good as Lennox Lewis who had the power, jab, adaptability and boxing skills to match anyone. Foreman hit harder than Lewis but didn’t have the boxing skills to beat Ali and win the tactical exchange but he would struggle with an intelligent boxer like Lewis. Ali would win rounds against Lewis with his speed and combinations but I think Lewis would get the better off him with his pistol like jab while landing right hands and uppercuts. Ali’s granite chin and heart sees him to the finish whilst taking the most punishment in his career but Lewis takes a close decision.

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:24 pm

coxy0001 wrote:
WelshDevilRob wrote:
coxy0001 wrote:
I thought the Lennox stoppage in the McCall fight was unfair. The ref couldn't speak a word of English and was in Don King's pocket.

Why did he need to speak a word of English when Lewis stumbled backwards, then forwards and was quite clearly on very very unsteady legs - to the point he was swaying around infront of the ref.

100% the correct decision to stop it. Were you one of the ones who were raging after Enzo was allowed to continue after getting decked and then having his senses re-arranged to the point we all thought he'd been killed? Lewis was in a bad bad way when the ref took a good hard look at him, can you answer me why a guy who's staggering around should be allowed to continue?

The smiling family photographs with Don King spoke volumes about the Mexican ref. Of course, you need someone who can speak the language. This wasn't a 4 round fight in Cancun but a fight between two English speakers in London. Makes perfect sense to have the ref being able to command the language.

Enoz Mac had a history of getting Ko'd and had already suffered heavy Ko's in pretty recent fights - Haye, Afolabi and Lebedev. Lennox was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion (WBC), so comparing him with Enzo or the situation seems way off the mark.

Your first part is potentially libellous and you've got zero proof whereas i've got a fighter staggering around the ring after being badly hurt and the ref being well within his right to stop it.

And way off the mark? So just because he's a champ he should be given extra room for recovering? I'm sorry - but where does it state that in the rules of boxing? The referee adjudged Lewis in no fit state to continue - and he ruddy well wasn't as he was stumbling around everywhere.

The comparison is that one wasn't allowed to continue and rightly so, the other was allowed to continue with an apparently similar level of daze and almost got killed. Lewis even stumbled after the fight was called off - he could barely stand up (like Enzo) and there was a very big chance he'd have got seriously hurt.

At what point do you think a guy should be stopped out of morbid curiosity? I mean we've got a guy who was knocked down badly, got to his feet and could barely stand up! Do you think Berbick should've been allowed to continue as he was busy stacking it round the ring like a guy who's sunk 20 pints of Stella on an empty stomach??!??!

Consensus was and still is that he was badly hurt, there's never been much debate about placing an asterisk next to that result as everyone accepted it was 100% the correct decision not to let him continue.

And please find me the rule where refs are supposed to let the "champ" continue and potentially put him in a place where he could get killed.

Nice try.

Let's not go into the realms of over exaggerating to suit your own agenda/belief's. Trevor Berbick? Bad choice of comparison and anyone who has seen Berbick attempting to get up compared to Lennox will see why.

Libellous about the ref? I think not as it was well documented in boxing magazines at the time. None got sued.

I'll tell you where I stand on referee's and interventions. Fighters these days in general are getting stopped far too early especially in the UK. I prefer a referee like Steve Smoger, who lets the fight go on abit longer.
Again Enzo Mac on a run of KO defeats should be protected as he has a history of getting KO'd. Its a common sense approach.

Are you one of these guys that would have stopped the badly shaken Nigel Benn in the 1st round against Gerald McClellan? I wouldn't have and he went onto win in a very hard fight. By the sounds of alot of replies on this topic that result would have been McClellan WTKO1st.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:25 pm

The genius of PBF wrote:
coxy0001 wrote:
He was that badly gone that he made it to his feet unaided

Berbick made it to his feet unaided before Mills Lane could it off - should he have been allowed to continue?

Bad comparison Berbick fell got back up fell got back up...Hardly the same thing isit.

Let's try a good comparison then, PBF.

Ali, '64 - '67. Nine title defences against ranked opponents. Never in serious trouble and never down.

Lewis twice lost his title by kayo.

Better ?

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:29 pm

Rob, you're speaking as though it is an established fact that Lewis wasn't kayoed by McCall. It isn't any such thing, but rather it is conjecture. A whole host of people believe the stoppage to have been legitimate. So do the record books.

I guess the Rahman kayo was fishy also, right ?

by captain carrantuohil Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:29 pm

Come on, coxy, Berbick also continued to fall over. Let's be sensible here.

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:33 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
WelshDevilRob wrote:

And 'Yes' we are discussing their reigns and not sure why your reminding others when your previous post is about Lewis being 'Poleaxed' in two fights without any regards to the rest of his career.

What on Earth do you mean by that, Rob ?

The question is simple. Was Ali of '64 - '67 a more dominant or less dominant champion than Lewis ?

Lewis' title reign was twice punctuated by kayo losses. Ali's wasn't.

That okay ?

The topic is this and I answered the topic in my first post in this topic.
-----------------------------
Lennox Lewis vs Muhammad Ali

Muhammad Ali although the greatest heavyweight of all time never faced a boxer who was as good as Lennox Lewis who had the power, jab, adaptability and boxing skills to match anyone. Foreman hit harder than Lewis but didn’t have the boxing skills to beat Ali and win the tactical exchange but he would struggle with an intelligent boxer like Lewis. Ali would win rounds against Lewis with his speed and combinations but I think Lewis would get the better off him with his pistol like jab while landing right hands and uppercuts. Ali’s granite chin and heart sees him to the finish whilst taking the most punishment in his career but Lewis takes a close decision.
-----------------------------

To reiterate and answer the topic once again. - I picked Ali based on the whole of his career.

by The genius of PBF Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:33 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
The genius of PBF wrote:
coxy0001 wrote:
He was that badly gone that he made it to his feet unaided

Berbick made it to his feet unaided before Mills Lane could it off - should he have been allowed to continue?

Bad comparison Berbick fell got back up fell got back up...Hardly the same thing isit.

Let's try a good comparison then, PBF.

Ali, '64 - '67. Nine title defences against ranked opponents. Never in serious trouble and never down.

Lewis twice lost his title by kayo.

Better ?

Never disputed Ali was the more dominant heavyweight champion, I like many regard him as the greatest heavyweight of all time...But I always thought Lewis would get the better off Ali in the ring, Lewis had the better jab, hit harder, was versatile, moved exceptionally well for a big guy and could adapt. Ali would have his hands full with Lewis.

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:35 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:Rob, you're speaking as though it is an established fact that Lewis wasn't kayoed by McCall. It isn't any such thing, but rather it is conjecture. A whole host of people believe the stoppage to have been legitimate. So do the record books.

I guess the Rahman kayo was fishy also, right ?

Your obviously not reading my posts as I answered regarding the Rahman KO loss earlier. But to once again repeat myself. Rahman Ko'd Lennox.

by **oxring** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:38 pm

WelshDevilRob wrote:Libellous about the ref? I think not as it was well documented in boxing magazines at the time. None got sued.

I think that not only I, but all other users who debated with ou on the Tyson vs the greats & Foreman article would think that statement a pretty huge case of double standards.

We pointed out that the article which claimed Tyson was afraid of fat ole'Foreman appeared in a respected journal (and Holyfield's first autobiography). Neither were sued. You said that was weak evidence.

Yet here because the magazines weren't sued to your knowledge - it is acceptable as evidence to back up your position.

Inconsistent thinking.

Furthermore - its an odd way to buy a fight. Don King pays the ref (who hadn't been bad up to that point) to stop the opponent when he is wobbling about the ring like Bambi on ice - ie Don King pays the ref to do his job.

Furthermore - as coxy said - where in the rules does it say that you have to KO the champ a little better than the challenger? That's not in any Marquis of Queensbury I've come across.

by coxy0001 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:38 pm

WelshDevilRob wrote:
coxy0001 wrote:
WelshDevilRob wrote:
coxy0001 wrote:
I thought the Lennox stoppage in the McCall fight was unfair. The ref couldn't speak a word of English and was in Don King's pocket.

Why did he need to speak a word of English when Lewis stumbled backwards, then forwards and was quite clearly on very very unsteady legs - to the point he was swaying around infront of the ref.

100% the correct decision to stop it. Were you one of the ones who were raging after Enzo was allowed to continue after getting decked and then having his senses re-arranged to the point we all thought he'd been killed? Lewis was in a bad bad way when the ref took a good hard look at him, can you answer me why a guy who's staggering around should be allowed to continue?

The smiling family photographs with Don King spoke volumes about the Mexican ref. Of course, you need someone who can speak the language. This wasn't a 4 round fight in Cancun but a fight between two English speakers in London. Makes perfect sense to have the ref being able to command the language.

Enoz Mac had a history of getting Ko'd and had already suffered heavy Ko's in pretty recent fights - Haye, Afolabi and Lebedev. Lennox was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion (WBC), so comparing him with Enzo or the situation seems way off the mark.

Your first part is potentially libellous and you've got zero proof whereas i've got a fighter staggering around the ring after being badly hurt and the ref being well within his right to stop it.

And way off the mark? So just because he's a champ he should be given extra room for recovering? I'm sorry - but where does it state that in the rules of boxing? The referee adjudged Lewis in no fit state to continue - and he ruddy well wasn't as he was stumbling around everywhere.

The comparison is that one wasn't allowed to continue and rightly so, the other was allowed to continue with an apparently similar level of daze and almost got killed. Lewis even stumbled after the fight was called off - he could barely stand up (like Enzo) and there was a very big chance he'd have got seriously hurt.

At what point do you think a guy should be stopped out of morbid curiosity? I mean we've got a guy who was knocked down badly, got to his feet and could barely stand up! Do you think Berbick should've been allowed to continue as he was busy stacking it round the ring like a guy who's sunk 20 pints of Stella on an empty stomach??!??!

Consensus was and still is that he was badly hurt, there's never been much debate about placing an asterisk next to that result as everyone accepted it was 100% the correct decision not to let him continue.

And please find me the rule where refs are supposed to let the "champ" continue and potentially put him in a place where he could get killed.

Nice try.

Let's not go into the realms of over exaggerating to suit your own agenda/belief's. Trevor Berbick? Bad choice of comparison and anyone who has seen Berbick attempting to get up compared to Lennox will see why.

Libellous about the ref? I think not as it was well documented in boxing magazines at the time. None got sued.

I'll tell you where I stand on referee's and interventions. Fighters these days in general are getting stopped far too early especially in the UK. I prefer a referee like Steve Smoger, who lets the fight go on abit longer.
Again Enzo Mac on a run of KO defeats should be protected as he has a history of getting KO'd. Its a common sense approach.

Are you one of these guys that would have stopped the badly shaken Nigel Benn in the 1st round against Gerald McClellan? I wouldn't have and he went onto win in a very hard fight. By the sounds of alot of replies on this topic that result would have been McClellan WTKO1st.

Again, can you please find me the rule that states a ref should be more protective of a figther just because he's chinny??!?! Seriously - go away and find me a rule page where refs will act differently based on a preconception?!?!

And dear me - Benn got back to his feet and wasn't staggering around - was he?!?!?!? I mean the very fact he clambered back into the ring and, from memory, was bouncing around on his feet a bit gave the ref the impression he was ok to continue.

And my Berbick example was taking the mick out of welshrob as Berbick was on his feet by the time of the stoppage, was the champ and so therefore should've been allowed to continue according to Rob's argument.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:40 pm

WelshDevilRob wrote:Your obviously not reading my posts as I answered regarding the Rahman KO loss earlier. But to once again repeat myself. Rahman Ko'd Lennox.

I read this one, Rob.

by coxy0001 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:50 pm

Can i just add before i go - Lewis has 2 stains on his reign, both legit stoppages and although he'd give Ali trouble he was always a bit too passive for me personally. Ali would raid him and waltz n dance to a decision more often than not, i'd be surprised if in 10 fights Ali lost more than once to be honest.

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:27 pm

oxring wrote:
WelshDevilRob wrote:Libellous about the ref? I think not as it was well documented in boxing magazines at the time. None got sued.

I think that not only I, but all other users who debated with ou on the Tyson vs the greats & Foreman article would think that statement a pretty huge case of double standards.

We pointed out that the article which claimed Tyson was afraid of fat ole'Foreman appeared in a respected journal (and Holyfield's first autobiography). Neither were sued. You said that was weak evidence.

Yet here because the magazines weren't sued to your knowledge - it is acceptable as evidence to back up your position.

Inconsistent thinking.

Furthermore - its an odd way to buy a fight. Don King pays the ref (who hadn't been bad up to that point) to stop the opponent when he is wobbling about the ring like Bambi on ice - ie Don King pays the ref to do his job.

Furthermore - as coxy said - where in the rules does it say that you have to KO the champ a little better than the challenger? That's not in any Marquis of Queensbury I've come across.

It's not double standards - you were using the source of George Benson from an article. I checked with some people in the know on such matters like Billy C and Johnny Bos and they said it was false. But claiming I'm using double standards is unfair.
By me agreeing with one article and not another is hardly relevent unless both articles were written by the same person which they weren't.

So it's not my inconsistant thinking but rather your inconsitant reasoning on this matter.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:31 pm

Unfortunately for you George Benson probably knows such matters better than anyone so the word of anyone who wasn't there isn't as equally valid.

Not to worry Rob we can all the inconsistency in your thinking here

by **oxring** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:32 pm

No Rob - you questioned our point that Benson wasn't sued. You are now using that same line of argument to strengthen your point. Either both points stand or both fall by the principles of logic.

And please remember, I was using Benson's article AND Becoming Holyfield - which you always ignore, mostly because, I suspect, you haven't read it.

by Rowley Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:33 pm

And please remember, I was using Benson's article AND Becoming Holyfield - which you always ignore, mostly because, I suspect, you haven't read it.
_________________________________________________________

Don't blame him, very average book.

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:35 pm

You guys aren't grasping the concept of different articles by different people. And there seems to be no way of helping you understand the difference. Believe what you like as I'm sure I can live with it. Very Happy

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:38 pm

Anyway, I think the debate has established that Ali would have won, so can we move onto Lennox next opponent. After a tough one like that he needs an easier opponent - Herbie Hide, maybe? Wink

by **88Chris05** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:38 pm

rowley wrote:And please remember, I was using Benson's article AND Becoming Holyfield - which you always ignore, mostly because, I suspect, you haven't read it.
_________________________________________________________

Don't blame him, very average book.

It was no great shakes, I admit, but I actually thought that 'Becoming Holyfield' was better than most would expect, considering who wrote it.

by The genius of PBF Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:39 pm

WelshDevilRob wrote:Anyway, I think the debate has established that Ali would have won, so can we move onto Lennox next opponet. After a tough one like that he needs an easier opponent - Herbie Hide, maybe?

Part two will be coming soon Wink

by Rowley Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:40 pm

Didn't much enjoy it to be honest Chris, there was not really enough of his fights in there. Did enjoy his defence of why he should be allowed to continue fighting though, even though it was wrong.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:43 pm

WelshDevilRob wrote:You guys aren't grasping the concept of different articles by different people. And there seems to be no way of helping you understand the difference. Believe what you like as I'm sure I can live with it.

Bypassing the point you made about one articles validity based on it not being subject to a law suit but ignored the same argument for another article. Using the very simple excuse of well I spoke to those in the know and they backed me up isn't a very strong argument, if I did that in my job think i'd be laughed at.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:43 pm

Can't believe anybody can say a guy that after the count of eight fell into the referees arms could continue..

Lewis-mccall was bonafide..

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:49 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:
WelshDevilRob wrote:You guys aren't grasping the concept of different articles by different people. And there seems to be no way of helping you understand the difference. Believe what you like as I'm sure I can live with it.

Bypassing the point you made about one articles validity based on it not being subject to a law suit but ignored the same argument for another article. Using the very simple excuse of well I spoke to those in the know and they backed me up isn't a very strong argument, if I did that in my job think i'd be laughed at.

I haven't bypassed anything - I gave an answer and my reasoning, I can't do anymore than that. Sorry, that you find it unacceptable that it doesn't go along with your theory. Live with it.
I'm sure not letting other people have their own opinion will get you laughed at aswell.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:53 pm

Fortunately for me, my opinion counts for something in my line of work so can get away with it but dismissing the opinion of someone who was at a certain discussion on the back of the opinion of someone not there would seem foolish to me.

by **oxring** Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:57 pm

WelshDevilRob wrote:You guys aren't grasping the concept of different articles by different people. And there seems to be no way of helping you understand the difference. Believe what you like as I'm sure I can live with it.

I'm glad you can live with it.

However - Ghosty and myself are merely trying to point out, in a friendly way - that the excuse "different articles by different people" doesn't wash. If you dismiss a line of argument that you later come to rely upon it weakens your position.

If you should wish to continue debating from a weakened position, that's fine - but your position is weakened by the "they didn't sue the articles" (which you haven't quoted btw) line.

by WelshDevilRob Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:58 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Fortunately for me, my opinion counts for something in my line of work so can get away with it but dismissing the opinion of someone who was at a certain discussion on the back of the opinion of someone not there would seem foolish to me.

Well we will have to agree to disagree and stop taking this topic off track.

by Young_Towzer Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:40 pm

Fortunately for me, my opinion counts for something in my line of work so can get away with it but dismissing the opinion of someone who was at a certain discussion on the back of the opinion of someone not there would seem foolish to me.
..................................................
your boss must let you not do work and sit on here then Very Happy

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:43 pm

Your right I don't usually allow myself on here during work hours but have taken a well earned day off

by No1Jonesy Tue 14 Jun 2011, 8:40 am

For what its worth I also disagree that the McCall stoppage was correct! So Lewis had unsteady legs but he was up, looking at the ref, proved he could put his hands up now he shoulda been given the chance to prove he could block shots with his hands / tie McCall up unti his senses were back which as we saw after the ref called it off were pretty much all back

Lewis had never been stopped prior to this - was the champion and although there are no rules stating a champion should get this treatment it is the general consensus

I've never thought of McCall as a devestating finisher so there is no basis to say he wouldve took his time and landed the flush shots he needed to, to go on and force a stoppage.

TBH Coxy i've sided with you on more things then not but the way you try to exert your opinion on this matter in a manner where it is obsurd for anyone to think different to you is completely wrong.

For the record - when Ali was put down with that left hook I didnt see Ali dancing around the ring straight away so dont know what fight you were watching!

Also to back up why Lewis is in the Top 2 (1 for me) heavyweights ever that somebody said earlier - I agree and basis for this is that I can see him beating any Heavyweight that has ever lived more times then they beat him

Lewis 8 - 2 Ali

by **oxring** Tue 14 Jun 2011, 8:48 am

No1Jonesy wrote:Lewis had never been stopped prior to this - was the champion and although there are no rules stating a champion should get this treatment it is the general consensus

Also to back up why Lewis is in the Top 2 (1 for me) heavyweights ever that somebody said earlier - I agree and basis for this is that I can see him beating any Heavyweight that has ever lived more times then they beat him

Lewis 8 - 2 Ali

1. Its not the general consensus. The title is removed from the ring at the start of the fight. Both fighters then fight for it on an equal footing. If that had been McCall would you have complained? If Lewis didn'twant to lose, he shouldn't have been caught flush and then wobbled about like a baby deer.

2. Sorry, you didn't explain - why does Lewis beat Ali (and everyone else) more times than he loses?

by The genius of PBF Tue 14 Jun 2011, 8:50 am

oxring wrote:
No1Jonesy wrote:Lewis had never been stopped prior to this - was the champion and although there are no rules stating a champion should get this treatment it is the general consensus

Also to back up why Lewis is in the Top 2 (1 for me) heavyweights ever that somebody said earlier - I agree and basis for this is that I can see him beating any Heavyweight that has ever lived more times then they beat him

Lewis 8 - 2 Ali

1. Its not the general consensus. The title is removed from the ring at the start of the fight. Both fighters then fight for it on an equal footing. If that had been McCall would you have complained? If Lewis didn'twant to lose, he shouldn't have been caught flush and then wobbled about like a baby deer.

2. Sorry, you didn't explain - why does Lewis beat Ali (and everyone else) more times than he loses?

I will make an article on Lewis vs the other great heavyweights in the coming weeks so explain it then.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue 14 Jun 2011, 8:57 am

No1Jonesy wrote:For what its worth I also disagree that the McCall stoppage was correct! So Lewis had unsteady legs but he was up, looking at the ref, proved he could put his hands up now he shoulda been given the chance to prove he could block shots with his hands / tie McCall up unti his senses were back which as we saw after the ref called it off were pretty much all back

Lewis had never been stopped prior to this - was the champion and although there are no rules stating a champion should get this treatment it is the general consensus

I've never thought of McCall as a devestating finisher so there is no basis to say he wouldve took his time and landed the flush shots he needed to, to go on and force a stoppage.

TBH Coxy i've sided with you on more things then not but the way you try to exert your opinion on this matter in a manner where it is obsurd for anyone to think different to you is completely wrong.

For the record - when Ali was put down with that left hook I didnt see Ali dancing around the ring straight away so dont know what fight you were watching!

Also to back up why Lewis is in the Top 2 (1 for me) heavyweights ever that somebody said earlier - I agree and basis for this is that I can see him beating any Heavyweight that has ever lived more times then they beat him

Lewis 8 - 2 Ali

No1Jonesy, it is all about opinions, but you are seriously limiting any "top 10" lists by only applying one criteria. Lewis may or may not beat every other incumbent more often than not, but surely we can't just use that as justification for been number 1? It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare completely different eras and as such, head to heads can't be used as the sole barometer of greatness.

Jeffries, Johnson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Louis, Marciano? Lennox may beat them all on any given night, but likewise, they all have the potential to do the reverse and all have better claims to higher places than Lewis in my opinion.

As I said, it is all about opinions, but it is a touch ludicrous to suggest he is number one purely because you think he would beat them in a head to head.

by No1Jonesy Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:08 am

Wow Oxring - if you dont want to lose, dont get caught flush the face.... you've really hit the nail on the head there, if only boxers knew about this resolution... you should start a campaign to make them aware!!

I dont know how long you've been watching boxing but general consesus amongst pundits & boxers is that the champion gets that little bit more - how many more times have you heard commentators say the champion shoulda been given a chance! Secondly if what you say is true then why should close rounds go to the champion or why does a challenger need to take a title rather then just win it and dont come back saying its not true coz it damn well is

Scondly I touched on why in my comment at the beginning of this article and have many times before on why I think that and Windmill can vouch for it.

Tino - as just stated I have many times placed my reasons why I believe Lewis is number one but for the purpose of this artice (which is a head to head between the two) I will base it on that criteria - head to head Lewis is number one

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:18 am

Tino - as just stated I have many times placed my reasons why I believe Lewis is number one but for the purpose of this artice (which is a head to head between the two) I will base it on that criteria - head to head Lewis is number one[/quote]

Jonesy, no problems with your resoning in relation to this article. I was making a more general point, but if you are just using this criteria against the theme of the thread then so be it. I will leave it here for now and wait for another top 10 thread!

by coxy0001 Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:21 am

I've never thought of McCall as a devestating finisher so there is no basis to say he wouldve took his time and landed the flush shots he needed to, to go on and force a stoppage.

Again, can you please go find me a link where it states in boxing rules that a ref can let a guy continue based on how the other guy is perceived to be a "finisher". You can't - can you?

TBH Coxy i've sided with you on more things then not but the way you try to exert your opinion on this matter in a manner where it is obsurd for anyone to think different to you is completely wrong.

No, you and others are actually making up rules which is why i'm getting impatient.

For the record - when Ali was put down with that left hook I didnt see Ali dancing around the ring straight away so dont know what fight you were watching!

I don't know what fight you were watching either to be honest because he got up at 3 AFTER THE BELL HAD GONE, then walked to his corner and regained his senses in the 64s (or whatever the official time was, the myth he got alot of extra time is bull) and then came back out on legs that were fine.

Difference is he had OFFICIAL time to recover and didn't have to regain his senses there and then, i.e. a ruddy round break, Lewis still had what - 2m30 left in the round? Please go and watch the video again, he pretty much falls into the ref when raising his gloves and was staggering around prior to that.

by No1Jonesy Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:34 am

Coxy - A ref can do pretty much what he wants in the best interest of a boxer so I think you'll find IT IS in the rules that if he wished to allow Lewis to continue he damn well could have - unless I read your first comment back wrong?

Number 2 - I've made no rules up, i disagreed with the stoppage, i felt the ref was premmature and voiced my opinion....

He regained his senses in the 64 seconds..... that says it all and at no point did I even bring up the myth - I believe Lewis still had the wits about him to hold McCall (Its not as if he werent big and strong enough) as soon as he got close or get on his bike with his hands up until full recovery and shouldve had the chance to prove it

by **oxring** Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:41 am

No1Jonesy wrote:Wow Oxring - if you dont want to lose, dont get caught flush the face.... you've really hit the nail on the head there, if only boxers knew about this resolution... you should start a campaign to make them aware!!

I dont know how long you've been watching boxing but general consesus amongst pundits & boxers is that the champion gets that little bit more - how many more times have you heard commentators say the champion shoulda been given a chance! Secondly if what you say is true then why should close rounds go to the champion or why does a challenger need to take a title rather then just win it and dont come back saying its not true coz it damn well is

Scondly I touched on why in my comment at the beginning of this article and have many times before on why I think that and Windmill can vouch for it.

Tino - as just stated I have many times placed my reasons why I believe Lewis is number one but for the purpose of this artice (which is a head to head between the two) I will base it on that criteria - head to head Lewis is number one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jmFXl1sHh0

I love it. The general consensus amongst pundits and boxers. Of which you are neither. Find the rule or stop quoting it.

Where do we stop - should the champ get a slower count than the challenger? Is the champ allowed to be KOd twice?

Zab Judah was IBF LW champ when Tszyu made him dance. Should he have been allowed to carry on? His head had cleared by 10 seconds - it was just that he wobbled initially - just like Lewis did.

If it was the other way around - would you be calling it a "bad" stoppage?

And you are misunderstanding coxy - we are both trying (but failing it seems) to remind you that there is no written rule that the champion gets longer. Nor is there a rule that states a fighter is allowed to continue if the other guy isn't thought of as that much of a puncher.

Griffith was known as a boxer more than a puncher - but he still killed Paret. It doesn't matter what the guy's power is "thought of". It doesn't matter if the guy regains his wits by 12 seconds - when he falls into the referee - the fight has to be stopped.

by coxy0001 Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:45 am

He regained his senses in the 64 seconds..... that says it all and at no point did I even bring up the myth - I believe Lewis still had the wits about him to hold McCall (Its not as if he werent big and strong enough) as soon as he got close or get on his bike with his hands up until full recovery and shouldve had the chance to prove it

Or get given the chance to have his head ripped off because he was struggling with his senses? A guy who practically stumbles into the ref shouldn't be allowed to given any sort of chance that could potentially lead to him getting seriously injured.

by No1Jonesy Tue 14 Jun 2011, 9:51 am

Boxing pundits/commentators live at a fight on tv whilst it is happening - you are honestly telling me you've never heard them saying the champ shuldve hjad more of a chance etc - you're aving a laugh fella!!

Also how does a champ get knocked out twice? I saw he got knocked down then got up - no knock out there!

Now you've really topped yaself off - you may as well stick whipped cream and a cherry on ya head. You have just compared a bloke who got knocked down - got up and did some crazy chicken dance then try to walk and launched himself toward the canvas again to Lewis getting up on wobbly legs - I might also remind you when Judah saw what he did he stated he had no idea what he was doing - again different to Lewis

No I am understanding Coxy - he states the ref doesnt have to give the champion the option to go forward and prove he is capable just because he is the champion and no rule says that - I'm saying the stoppage was premature and sometimes the ref should factor in the champion status even though there is no rule saying it - not making up new rules at all

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:05 am

Ridiculous idea that the challenger has to do more to win than the current champion

by The genius of PBF Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:06 am

Lewis is very underrated by a lot of people. Lewis was very strong and had great power. He didn't always open up and unleash his power, preferring to treat the fight like a chess match and bide his time. He had great awareness in the ring and could dictate the pace of the fight well. He had a very good right upper cut and over hand right, his jab was great too.

by **oxring** Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:08 am

Oh dear.

Lets go through this slowly shall we?

You are saying that the ref should factor into his decision making champion status.
No such statement is written in the rules of boxing.
You are therefore making up a new rule.

You also should possibly look up sarcasm and hyperbole.

Judah has said that he was KOd properly - but the proof of that was he didn't stay on his knees until late in the count.

Are you trying to suggest that Lewis wasn't in trouble? He got up, staggered sideways, backwards and then lurched forwards into the ref. You abuse Judah for heading "towards the canvas" - where was Lewis heading when he almost knocked the ref over?

Funny really - all those pundits assembled at ringside seem to be stating that it was definitively a fair stoppage. Where's the one shouting about giving the champ an extra chance?

by Rowley Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:12 am

As i said earlier on this thread I have seen folk allowed to continue in worse condition but importantly have seen guys stopped in a lot better nick and for this reason it is a stoppage Lewis can have no complaints with. My understanding is when a fighter gets up the ref will ask him if he is OK to continue, ask him to put his gloves up and normally ask him to take a couple of steps forward to see if he is on steady legs. Quite clearly the last of these criteria was one Lewis failed to meet and so, particularly if one factors in how long was left in the round the stoppage was more than fair.

by **88Chris05** Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:15 am

I think one or two people are having trouble seeing the difference between a rule, a consensus or merely an opinion. And I think the whole idea of a champion deserving that extra 'benefit of the doubt' is merely that - an opinion. Not a consensus at all, and certainly not something that a referee should be criticized for not following.

Personally, I find the idea that a champion should be given extra allowances and more discretion than a challenger a ridiculous one. In essence, people are saying it's fine to give one fighter an extra advantage or two, hence it's no longer a fair fight.

Likewise, I disagree strongly that a challenger needs to outpoint the champion more conclusively than a champion does a challenger. If you win a fight you win a fight, regardless of whether it's a shut out or a by a single point. Again, I'm not sure how anyone can justify saying that a challenger won the fight, but 'not enough' to take the title. They either won or they didn't, and the other guy either lost or they didn't, simple as that.

by **oxring** Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:17 am

88Chris05 wrote:I think one or two people are having trouble seeing the difference between a rule, a consensus or merely an opinion. And I think the whole idea of a champion deserving that extra 'benefit of the doubt' is merely that - an opinion. Not a consensus at all, and certainly not something that a referee should be criticized for not following.

Personally, I find the idea that a champion should be given extra allowances and more discretion than a challenger a ridiculous one. In essence, people are saying it's fine to give one fighter an extra advantage or two, hence it's no longer a fair fight.

Likewise, I disagree strongly that a challenger needs to outpoint the champion more conclusively than a champion does a challenger. If you win a fight you win a fight, regardless of whether it's a shut out or a by a single point. Again, I'm not sure how anyone can justify saying that a challenger won the fight, but 'not enough' to take the title. They either won or they didn't, and the other guy either lost or they didn't, simple as that.

Lennox Lewis vs the Greats Part one - Page 3 1710857839

I'm suspicious that if it wasn't a British HW champ who lost we wouldn't be having this conversation.

by Zeb the owl Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:17 am

It was a fair stoppage, Lewis got caught flush and was stumbling, it could have been dangerous for the ref to let it continue. Nothing wrong with the decision at all.

Maybe if the ref had let it continue, Lewis might have held on that round and went on to win, thats a big if and if we are gonna make that excuse for lewis then why arent we making it for every champ that gets clobbered and the ref decides to stop it.

by The genius of PBF Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:18 am

oxring wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:I think one or two people are having trouble seeing the difference between a rule, a consensus or merely an opinion. And I think the whole idea of a champion deserving that extra 'benefit of the doubt' is merely that - an opinion. Not a consensus at all, and certainly not something that a referee should be criticized for not following.

Personally, I find the idea that a champion should be given extra allowances and more discretion than a challenger a ridiculous one. In essence, people are saying it's fine to give one fighter an extra advantage or two, hence it's no longer a fair fight.

Likewise, I disagree strongly that a challenger needs to outpoint the champion more conclusively than a champion does a challenger. If you win a fight you win a fight, regardless of whether it's a shut out or a by a single point. Again, I'm not sure how anyone can justify saying that a challenger won the fight, but 'not enough' to take the title. They either won or they didn't, and the other guy either lost or they didn't, simple as that.

I'm suspicious that if it wasn't a British HW champ who lost we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not really think Ruiz and Tua was a premature stoppage as well.

by **oxring** Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:22 am

The genius of PBF wrote:
oxring wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:I think one or two people are having trouble seeing the difference between a rule, a consensus or merely an opinion. And I think the whole idea of a champion deserving that extra 'benefit of the doubt' is merely that - an opinion. Not a consensus at all, and certainly not something that a referee should be criticized for not following.

Personally, I find the idea that a champion should be given extra allowances and more discretion than a challenger a ridiculous one. In essence, people are saying it's fine to give one fighter an extra advantage or two, hence it's no longer a fair fight.

Likewise, I disagree strongly that a challenger needs to outpoint the champion more conclusively than a champion does a challenger. If you win a fight you win a fight, regardless of whether it's a shut out or a by a single point. Again, I'm not sure how anyone can justify saying that a challenger won the fight, but 'not enough' to take the title. They either won or they didn't, and the other guy either lost or they didn't, simple as that.

I'm suspicious that if it wasn't a British HW champ who lost we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not really think Ruiz and Tua was a premature stoppage as well.

ROFL (you are joking right?)

by Michaels, Sean Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:34 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Can't believe anybody can say a guy that after the count of eight fell into the referees arms could continue..

Lewis-mccall was bonafide..

As I said earlier, King shafted him. Lewis, as champion should have been given a chance. Wlad was in a far worse state with the 3 Peter knock downs.

The Americans didn't like a British Heavyweight champion of the world (Full Stop).

by No1Jonesy Tue 14 Jun 2011, 10:34 am

Yes it is rediculous that the challenger has to do more then the champion to win but we all know that 90% of the time this is the case - I'm not saying this is right I'm stating the bleeding obvious.....

Oxring - I will also in turn break it down for you.... I... am.... not..... requesting....... a ...... new ....... rule...... for....... referees......

I am stating that a bit more thought could've gone in this ref's stoppage and if you think that no ref in the history of boxing doesnt give the champion that extra chance to defend HIS title then you are being very very naive

Judah said he was KO'd properly? Right what do you determine a KO?? I determine a KO as down and out - no getting up - no arguing - no debate ala Lewis v Rahman 1

Additionally i didnt abuse Judah for going to the canvas because without a shadow of a doubt i would not ave even lasted 20 seconds with Tzyu but what i said is his stoppage has no comparison to Lewis - why is that so hard to understand???

IMO it was a premature stoppage - you dont think so? Fine thats you're opinion

by Sponsored content