ali vs the greats prime for prime

I am rooting for Wlad. I am betting 250Million points on Wlad over at NSb if anybody is looking to bet

Here are some lists I've found.

Monte cox Johnson 3 Lewis 9
Eddie Futch claimed Jack Johnson was the 3rd best after Louis and Ali
ESPN has Jack Johnson rated #4 Lennox is not in the top 10
Bert Sugar ranks Johnson at 4, Lennox is not on it.

Most lists I have seen place Jack Johnson higher than Lewis. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen Lewis ranked higher, aside from a few hardcore Lennox fans.

This is the only forum I have been on where Lennox is praised so highly, which is fine. This forum has a lot of people from Britain who support Lennox Lewis and I am not saying there is anything wrong with it, but a poll comparing Lennox Lewis and Jack Johnson, to me, is kind of funny. But a man's opinion is his opinion, and I don't make lists myself, but I do believe that Jack Johnson is far far ahead than Lennox Lewis and in my mind that can not even be debated.

 

Sure when fighters were fighting 100 fights a year with no BS weight classes. Henry Armstrong fought 300 fights in 3 different weight classes with no bogus super and junior crap, yeah you bet your ass those guys fought for their lives. They didn't make great money and they weren't well managed puppets - they were fighters.

Find me a fraud from the past, it will be hard. There are many frauds in the sport today that can't hold a candle to the greatness of those guys.

Yes, I do look at fighters like Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Ali, Tunney, Greb, Armstrong, Robinson, etc.. in a higher regard than most fighters. That is why I frequent classic forums - boxing was different then and it was better. Who's who fought the who's who, aside from some color lines 100 years ago that were out of the fighters hands.

 

The ESPN list is Bert Sugar's list, didn't you know?

 

No I did not know. I did a search on top 10 heavyweights and found these links and they mentioned Berts list and ESPN as two separate lists. I do know he does a lot of work with ESPN ringside but I was not aware that it was his list. It makes sense though.

 

Yes, i have the 5 hour ESPN classic "The 10 Greatest Heavyweights" 3 DVD set. It's mainly Bert Sugar & Teddy Atlas doing the talking, & it says it's Bert Sugar's list. The list is:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Tunney
6. Marciano
7. Charles
8. Foreman
9. Frazier
10. Holmes

Quite a quirky list if you ask me!

 

I think it's a pretty good list, to be honest. I would take out Holmes and add Tyson but aside from that, those are all great heavyweights. I've seen much worse lists.

 

Do you really think Tunney & Charles are greater Heavyweights than Lennox Lewis?

 

Wow hahaha holy ****

 

This is just too much... Jesus...

 

That one line just saved me a huge counter argument.:good

 

I would expect that you would only point that out and disregard the opinions of legendary historians such as Futch and Monte Cox, who do not rank Lennox Lewis at all. Instead, you will point to the fact that the Sugar list and ESPN list were the same.

Your agenda is clear. Ignore strong opinions and pick at a minor detail. Typical of a fan boy, yet you claim to not be a fan boy. What is your opinion on Monte Cox, Futch, and Bert Sugars take on not ranking Lewis in the top 10?

 

All 3 of those guys left not just Lewis, but Tyson & Holyfield out of their top 10 lists too.

Now that is pretty ridiculous. :-(

 

Kally again hit the nail exactly on the head.
Those historians, as great and knowledgeable as they are , have totally left the 90s out.

 

It's like after Holmes, they refuse to give any more modern Heavyweights credit for their greatness.