Why doesn't Lennox have universal approval ?

I've been entertained by the mental gymnastics required to rate Lewis inside the top 5.
Your contribution has a little lacking in entertainment value, to be frank, but your welcome to your dusty old seat on the sidelines.

 

A top 10 is pretty darn difficult. How much weight do you place on H2H? If you're a resume guy then guys like Tunney, Marciano et al are probably in up high. If you're a H2H guy then Liston and Vitali might be in there somewhere.

But I feel that if you balance H2H and resume, both Lewis and Wlad ought to be pretty darn high.

My 2c.

 

I know I am asking a lot but you've really delved into this with heart and soul, so I'll go ahead... Have you provided us with your vaunted top ten that doesn't include Lennox? I'll heat up the popcorn.

 

No, I haven't provided a top ten, nevermind a vaunted one. Enjoy your popcorn.

 

I am just wondering who displaces Lewis. It's kind of an empty assertion to say he is outside the top 5 or top 10 when you one doesn't say who is inside these rankings.

 

Neither was Iran Barkley and Tommy lost to him not once but twice. An unavenged loss. How do you rate those losses?

 

You've already more or less declared you won't possibly consider any opinion that he's outside the top 5 to be valid.

I can easily name 5 I'd put above Lewis.
Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Louis, Marciano. I'm not saying that's my top 5. But those 5 I'd comfortably put above Lewis.

 

It's not (I don't think) a legitimate list.
I was just responding to JohnThomas's claim that I might have Lewis at #16. (He was in turn responding to mine that he was edging Lewis towards the #1 spot)

In fact, I'd probably have Lewis a bit higher than that.
I could probably argue Ezzard Charles above Lennox Lewis but that would just be an exercise. Charles is possibly underrated on heavyweight lists, I don't know. He's always been a bit overlooked.
I don't think his shocking upset KO loss to Walcott was quite as bad as Lewis's against Rahman, but it's very similar and close. I think that's what made me think of him !

 

I know that's not addressed to me, but I think they pretty much do a lot towards excluding Hearns being regarded as an ATG in the 160 and 175 weight classes anyway.

 

Do you have him above Schmeling ? Patterson ?

 

Yeah, that's pretty surprising.

I'd probably have Schmeling ahead of him at heavyweight. I'd have probably have Patterson slightly below him.

I do put some stock in "number of ranked contenders beaten", though clearly not as much as many here do. It's definitely important or meaningful but I feel a small number of wins of supreme quality (or arguably a few good wins plus the weight of one VERY GREAT win, in case of someone like Schmeling) will very often trump quantity.