Lewis is the greatest of all time

The problem is what rating system is best today? It’s still Ring Magazine. I used to like Fight News rankings, as they were quicker to move down declining fighter, and reward younger talent on the rise.

As for the ratings themselves in the 1990's, okay you might see Phil Jackson, rated #8 in 1993 but he was quickly out. If you have 10 spots open each year for a decade, that 100's rated men. 4-5 bad picks for the decade, all of whom appears at the tail end of their top ten, and are quickly replaced the next year is acceptable.

 

I have a problem with you pulling statements out of the air and presenting them as facts.ie The Ring ratings were not held in high regard in the 90's Jackson probably got his rating because he was a prospective challenger.
You don't KNOW any of this it's just conjecture on your part .Similar to Cojimar with his" seems,probablys ,and possiblys and maybe's "which is totally worthless as an argument to the contrary.

 

I agree that rings ratings are not perfect as has been mentioned above, but it is the closest thing we have to a level playing field of determining strength of opposition.

So while not perfect it seems more sound to me than 10,000 of us arbitrarily determining who the best of the eras contenders are.

It is hard enough to fairly evaluate fighters and eras, but to use them as a general guide (not necessarily an absolute) seems to give us a vastly more credible method than subjectively inserting and removing names.

Just my $0.02

 

I'm not castigating him for avenging losses, I'm pointing out he didn't any re-matches when he won and had some trouble.

Lewis' parents were Jamaican by birth ( I think ) and Lennox fought for Canada in the Olympics. Perhaps the limey's didn't like either.

I don't know, but I felt Lewis was one of the greats long before most in the USA did. Here in the USA, the hope was for Bowe, Tyson, or Holyfield to take him out. Believe it our not, many felt ( not me ) that Tommy Morrison would do it.

That never happened, instead upsets by lesser USA heavies like McCall and Rhaman did the job.

 

QUOTE="PhillyPhan69, post: 19503989, member: 13634"]I agree that rings ratings are not perfect as has been mentioned above, but it is the closest thing we have to a level playing field of determining strength of opposition.

So while not perfect it seems more sound to me than 10,000 of us arbitrarily determining who the best of the eras contenders are.

It is hard enough to fairly evaluate fighters and eras, but to use them as a general guide (not necessarily an absolute) seems to give us a vastly more credible method than subjectively inserting and removing names.

Just my $0.02[/QUOTE]
Yes of course you are right ,otherwise we would have pure anarchy.We have enough muddle and BS from the various alphabet organizations doing their best to devalue titles and promoting senior citizens such as 45 years old Fres Oquendo ,[ who hasnt fought for 4 and a half years ,]being manouvered into some spurious title shot. The Ring isn't perfect, but its a damn sight better than the WBO IBO and some of the other BS self appointed clowns .
Should we all have input into the rankings? How would you feel abiding by Ras Al Ghuhl's top ten selections?lol

 

Nope, I've a problem with this blanket statement presented as a fact.

"The Ring ratings for the 1990s being used is especially strange considering no one in boxing in that era was put much importance in the magazine at all."
Where is the proof of this?

 

[QUOTE="mcvey, post: 19504027, member: 7828"/QUOTE]
How would you feel abiding by Ras Al Ghuhl's top ten selections?lol[/QUOTE]

Please NOooooooooo

 

In early '94, after it became clear that the more desirable bout between Lewis/Holyfield was not going to happen, Dan Duva selected Phil Jackson as a filler bout for Lewis. Jackson was ranked No. 4 by the WBC (with McCall at No. 1) and the bout was sanctioned after arbitration between Duva and the WBC.

No - it wasn't what the public wanted to see, but a fortuitous state of affairs for Jackson (rooted in the seemingly never-ending issues between King and Duva) gave him his opportunity for a title.

It's one fight, which always seems to find its way into the Lewis detractors' arguments. But, it has little to no significance on Lewis' overall body of work. Jackson was a WBC Contender, available and willing. That's all there is to it.

 

Thanks for the info MM!

 

Ring Magazine was never a Lennox Lewis fan. I was a reader in the 1990's.

To illustrate my point, Ring Magazine had a special issue worth buying in 1999, titled their 50 greatest heavyweights. The bio's and photos were worth the price. I had two major issues and some minor issues with their ratings.

Major issues:

1 ) Holyfield was #3
2 ) Lewis, #32

Utter BS on both calls.

Minor issues, they love Ali and Louis, and over rated some of their opponents.

From the 1999 Holiday edition:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis

This content is protected

4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. James J. Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette
26. Jimmy Bivins
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Jack Sharkey
29. Archie Moore
30. Sam McVey
31. Cleveland Williams

This content is protected

33. Earnie Shavers
34. Jim Corbett
35. Ernie Terrell
36. Michael Spinks
37. Jimmy Young
38. Zora Folley
39. Ingemar Johansson
40. Ron Lyle
41. Tim Witherspoon
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Mike Weaver
44. Michael Moorer
45. James J. Braddock
46. Tommy Farr
47. Tommy Burns
48. Tommy Gibbons
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. Michael Dokes

 

Minor correction.

Jackson was rated #5 by the WBC. And that was a bit of a gift ranking. Lewis won easily. Jackson who was miscast went 8 rounds. Detractors can point to Lewis losing a point for hitting after the bell. If there are archives for WBC rankings, I've never seen them.

Lewis vs Holyfield in 1994 would have been hard to call. Lennox got a lot better under Steward's watchful eye in 1995. Earlier in his career, Lewis didn't have good balance, and had defensive issues. Steward fixed these issues, and coached Lewis on what to watch out for for each opponent.

Holyfield with his counting ability, and iron chin might have pulled this one off in 1994. Stewart in my opinion is the reason Holyfield barely edged Bowe in the 2nd fight. Pretty amazing when you think about it. A trainer had a big impact on the decade.

 

I think they should be a default, unless somebody specifically disputes the ranking of a particular fighter.

The alternative is to fight out how good everybody from the era was, every time we want to discuss resumes. And there isn't a clear consensus on this forum -- or anywhere else -- about the less famous guys from particular eras. Look at the divergence of opinion on this thread alone about *famous* contenders like Morrison.

The Ring is a rough gauge. Often wrong on individual things, but consistent enough to save us time when we don't want to spend 5 pages arguing about whether Mac Foster was a good scalp for Ali in an "Ali vs Marciano" thread.

EDIT: But I think the major alphabet bodies' rankings would be fine to cite as well. Also imperfect, but legitimate.

 

But if, for example, you and I determine who the best and most viable candidates or during our lives- well I might be able to fairly do that, although I doubt it. But how do I do that for the 60’s or 20’s etc. unless I can create a level playing field that spans the generations. I would need to have an equal knowledge and unbiased opinion across all eras of boxing . If not the age periods suffer in comparison because I can’t rank them through the same filter. So while I really don’t love rings ratings, that give me a level platform by which all eras are studied through the lens of. To allow revisionism of individual perception we could not rate others by the same standard.

 

The difficulty here is that the Ring isn't an immortal boxing fan who's consistent across eras. It's an organization whose employees change over time. Those employees may not use the same criteria to rank fighters in the 80s that their predecessors did in the 20s.

 

Oh I agree. I am just off the mind that it is the closest thing we have to a level playing field. Not that it is infallible or perfect or even good. I just don’t see another method that is close. But I am always open to learning my friend lol