Who is greater, Wlad or Lewis?

In know what you're saying - but, really? I honestly don't care.

My original pick-up was on Thompson having been, for whatever reason, rematched. In fact, in respect to the first bout my comment was: "This isn’t so bad but, after being KO’d in round 11 by Wlad, I neither see why a rematch was necessary nor why it needed to happen 4 years later when Thompson was rapidly approaching his 41st birthday".

In essence, I think Thompson getting two shots at the title; once when he was 40, is indicative of a weak division. That Thompson, at both the age of 36 and aged 40, was a Mandatory defense (WBO and IBF) I think supports this. It gets worse when you realize that the IBF installed Thompson, when already vanquished Eddie Chambers declined an eliminator.

The argument over who was or was not more deserving is pointless. Jackson got his shot by chance; not on the basis of a stellar record and star power - no more than Thompson did. You have fervently defended Thompson, on the basis of him being a superior opponent, and I actually find it mildly amusing that you believe there is such a significant difference in level, between the opponents in question, that you would argue so strongly for your side of the argument.

So, based on Jackson getting his lucky break, I suppose the same element of fortuity might have brought Thompson a title shot in the Lewis era - but, I seriously doubt it...

Mavrovic was a Mandatory, who Lewis handled, whilst negotiations for a Holyfield unification bout were in progress. Again. I still maintain that, as an undefeated European Champion, in his prime, he was a legitimate contender.

You may disagree, such is your opinion of those credentials. It doesn't matter. It was never my point in the first place and your arguments make little if any dent in Lewis' supremacy over Wlad.

 

H2H Lewis would beat Wladimir Klitschko in a competitive fight.

Lewis is rated higher than Klitschko on most all time great lists and has a better resume , but if Wlad
can beat AJ , he would be greater than Lewis , it depends all on his fight with AJ.

 

Thompson got the second shot at Wlad because he was a mandatory. He was supposed to beat Eddie Chambers in an eliminator but Eddie withdrew with an injury. It was boxing politics and had nothing to do with Wlad seeking a soft touch or Tony being the best contender.

 

On what basis?

 

Wladimir Klitschko would be unified champion at the age of 41 and Anthony Joshua can be compared to
Lennox Lewis biggest win prime Vitali Klitschko in terms of quality. If Wlad can beat a guy like AJ at 41 years old , he would be greater in my opinion.

 

It would indeed be a great win given Wlad's age and inactivity. But Joshua hasn't accrued enough of a legacy yet for such a victory to bolster someone's all time rating who beats him. Now if the rematch between Wlad and Fury had gone through and Klit won it, then that would be a different story.

 

I know what you mean and i agree with you but i make an exception of that rule with AJ , because i think that he
is something special , even if he doesn't have that great legacy or resume , he is undoubtedly the boogeyman
in the heavyweight division.
I don't think that anyone can beat him in the heavyweight division and even if he loses against Wlad , he will be heavyweight champion again and he will dominate the division for years.

 

This could very well be Wlad's "Vitali" fight. If he beats AJ, and AJ does indeed become WC and dominate, then I would rate Wlad as "greater" than Lewis. Certainly AJ has the tools physically to do this.

Wlad could possibly put the issue beyond all doubt if he cleaned up all the titles at this age, it has to be said. AJ, Parker and Wilder's scalps hanging from his belt would look pretty darn impressive.

 

Well, that to me would put question marks over Joshua.
Lennox's win over Vitali being his biggest, is a matter of opinion.

 

Agreed, especially if Wlad turns up having clearly not trained, weighing in at about 257 and then puts a savage beating on Joshua.

I also agree on the question mark over Vitali being Lewis' best win. I do not consider it as such.

 

For me, Holyfield is clearly Lewis's best win.

 

The thing is, there are loads of things in Lewis's era that could be said to be indicative of a weak era too.

Henry Akinwande became mandatory for the WBA title a few years AFTER his disgraceful showing against Lewis. Fortunately circumstances and common sense on Lewis's part prevented that fight from happening. He did end up dropping the belt though.
Surely Akinwande's case is no different to Thompson being thrown up as a mandatory.

I think you're misrepresenting the argument.
You choose to pull Tony Thompson up to make some sort of point about the weakness of the era, while ignoring the fact that mediocre fighters get title shots and mandatory positions in every era. It happened in Lewis's era too, and in fact poor fighters picked up belts back then too.

Being "European champion in his prime" has never been been a measure to be a legitmate world contender. There have been some very weak Euro champs well below world level, and every fighter has a prime.

To be any sort of legitimate contender requires WINS over legit contenders or at least wins over fringe contenders, or guys perhaps somewhere in a reasonable world top 20.

Mavrovic certainly had no wins over genuine top 10 contenders.
The degree to which he has wins over "fringe" or "top 20" types is up to you to decide. I don't think he has anything clear cut there either, and I certainly don't think he had anything more than what Thompson had.

The fact that Mavrovic was mandatory should suggest to you that it was a weak era, if you follow the same standards you held Wlad's era to.

Of course, you've made up you mind long ago that Lewis needs to be portrayed as HUGELY superior to Wlad. You can't accept that it could be in any way even close. That's clear. You haven't attempted or needed to back that up at all.
The whole argument from your side boils down to "He just is".

Wlad could come back and reign for another 10 years and he'd still be considered nowhere near to Lewis by several people here on this thread. No one who holds that opinion wants to look at the cold facts, the results, the records of the opposition, the relative primes of the opposition etc. ..... because if they did that the whole thing collapses. Here in 2017 no one reasonable can possibly truly believe that Lewis has an overwhelming degree of supremacy over Wlad.
And the insistence that he has only belies the bias and insecurities in those who are making that claim.

 

No ways, imho. Leaving aside for a moment who you think is better between prime Holyfield and prime Vitali (I think it's Vitali, easily, btw) consider this:

Holy was on the slide when Lewis fought him, and Lewis was prime.

Vits was prime (or not far off it) and Lewis was on the slide when he beat him.

Lewis did extremely well to defeat Vitali who went on to be a H2H monster, whereas I expected him to beat Holyfield. If I didn't rate Vitali that highly, then I would argue Wlad's resume is slightly, but clearly, ahead of Lewis' resume.

 

Super post ^

Some guys simply don't want to be reasonable.

 

I think Vitali did not have enough top flight experience in 2003 to put him above even the 1999 version of Holyfield. Also, Vitali was offered the fight at late notice.

Holyfield was way past his best and had been past it for several years already but he was a smart campaigner and a proven great and still rated #1 heavyweight on the planet (alongside Lewis himself).