Who is greater, Wlad or Lewis?

Lewis had less fights and retired earlier than most of his contemporaries. He's rated highly because he beat a number of good/great opponents, avenged all his losses and retired at the top.

 

Does Wlad have a better scalp than prime Vits?

 

Lewis retired on top.
Lewis is ranked highly on longevity. He was a world class contender since 1991, and retired as champion in 2004. His contemporaries were guys like Bowe, Mercer, Moorer, Morrison, who were mostly totally finished long before 2003.

 

Lewis only had 44 career pro fights and retired at 37. This is before most of his contemporaries.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.
"Longevity" for me means lasting long and retaining your abilities, not just carrying on fighting years past prime. That's not longevity, that's just stupidity.
Lewis at 37 was not drastically past his prime, whereas others at 37 were so.

 

For example, Lewis was 36 against Rahman in the rematch and that's one of his very best career performances.
None of his contemporaries pulled out such a "prime" performance at 36.

 

I not even thought about this comparison to be honest. Lewis was the last great champ. Wald always had a vulnerability to him when he fought anyone that posed a threat. The lack of aggression counts against him for me, Lewis could be like that but he also blasted them out when he wanted to. Wald could be frustrating to watch when he had a fight clearly won but would still be very cautious. it seemed like a decent pressure fighter would blast him out, maybe that's an illusion but he seemed fragile when under attack. I think if Haye attacked him more he could have had wald in trouble, he wobbled him the few times he did try to land something. I still respect wald and like the man but don't rank him at the higher end of the top 20.

 

I think that you have to look at what the guys who beat them did outside of beating them.

Ramhan went on to win the WBC tile years later.

McCall was still a factor in the division ten years later.

Purity and Sanders were basically fighters with one good win.

Brewster had other good wins, but he was a bit of a flash in the pan.

Neither of them should have been losing to any of these guys, but it is more excusable in Lewis's case.

 

Rahman holding the WBC title 2005 - 2006 was about as meaningless as any "alphabet" title reign in history. A win over his friend Monte Barrett in a "interim title fight" and a draw with James Toney, then getting blasted out of the ring by Oleg Maskaev (for the second time in his career). Let's not elevate that reign as anything.

 

Wlad turned pro in 1996 and wasn't good enough to face top 5 level opposition until the year 2006 .. By that time the division had fell into its weakest state in its entire existence.

Mayweather also turned pro in 1996 and two years later he was lineal champion.

Tells you all you need to know.

 

The overrating of Lewis's opposition is very evident when it comes to comparing him against others.
His best win is an already well-worn Evander Holyfield or, some would say, a desperate struggle with Vitali Klitschko which many think warranted a rematch. Outside of those two wins he beat the same average-level contenders, some very mediocre ones, often over-the-hill ones, and very few of them with any real reputation for being skilled boxers.

The idea that Lewis's wins over Tua, Golota, Ruddock, Mercer, Rahman, Bruno etc. are also superior to Wlad's wins over Byrd, Povetkin, Pulev, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Thompson, Peter etc. just wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
There's just no substaance to it. It's just nostalgia and obvious favouritism towards the 1990s when American broadcasters hyped the whole heavyweight division. As soon as the decline of American heavyweights became clear, post-Lewis, and so many European/former Soviet nationalities came along the heavyweight contenders became dismissed en masse.

 

Who did he face in 2006 ?

 

Burd. Probably the best win of his career.

 

But he beat Byrd in 2000 too.

 

James Toney was highly regarded at the time, and was widely expected to defeat Rahman.

It was seen as being a worthy fight to settle the ownership of the WBC title.

I would add that most people on this forum thought that Rahman deserved the decision.

So yes I do see Rahman as a legitimate belt holder in that period.

Either way he was certainly a significant contender at the time.