Why doesn't Lennox have universal approval ?

Why not counter it with your own pick for the Heavyweight Champ who faced the most dangerous punchers?

 

Interesting point. Perhaps, but Lewis lacked the stones for the re-match.

He talked and tried to fight someone else. Then the WBC order the re-match and Lewis knew better and retired.

 

Ya, I beat Lewis was just shaking in his boots as Vitali was making his way to the hospital to get over 60+ stitches.

You know how moronic that sounds?

 

And combined, Ellis and Norton went 2-10 for the remainder of their careers after Shavers. Hindsight, I know, but we might as well start talking about Morrison's wins over Tillis, Ruddock and Thomas.

If Morrison had had a better chin (and a better brain) he would have gone very far. But, yeah, he doesn't quite make the grade for me, even tho his victory over Foreman ranks higher than what Shavers achieved.

How many heavyweights fill the complete list of fighting assets... even among the great ones? Were Max Baer or George Foreman master boxers? Did Ali have a great body attack or overwhelming power? Was Liston light on his feet? Was Marciano... well, was he anything besides a wade-in attrition puncher with great stamina?

My point is that power, combined with decent whiskers, goes far in the HW ranks. A guy who can punch and knows how to get position for his punch (in itself a very important skill) and who can last a few rounds will ALWAYS be a problem to some degree.

 

I already named three.

Ali, Louis, and Holyfield.

 

I would put Lewis' resume above all three in terms of depth.

 

I wouldn't.

 

Well, you brought up Shavers. I think he was more proven than some of the names you mentioned, and I think it's a stretch to compare Morrison's wins over Thomas and Tillis to Shavers KO1 Norton but I think my criticism applies to Shavers too.

I'm not sure about that one either.
But, yes, Morrison's career highlight is on a par with Axel Schulz (who was decent).

They all beat highly ranked heavyweights, more than once.
That's the central point. That's why they are better overall than guys who only really beat washed-up has-beens and unranked tomato cans.
Their records are better than Briggs, Morrison, Grant etc.

But a lot of power punchers lose just about every time they step in with a solid contender. So, it only takes them as far as that.

 

If ever I want or need a lesson in stupidity, I'll look no further than you. These boards are full of morons, but never have I had the misfortune to read one as imbecilic as you with your Lewis was on PED's nonsense.

 

This was the question that was presented.

Name me the guy who has a deeper resume of powerpunching opponents in the history of the division.

I didn't just name a guy, I named three.

 

But you can't say he has a DEEPER resume than those three. At least to the extent that it should be universally accepted as some sort of indisputable truth.

It's kind of a shallow claim to begin with.