Lewis is the greatest of all time

Lewis fought in an era where big dangerous hard hitting heavyweights were common. He beat myriads of them. Not many have had to deal with what he had to fight in fight out.

The big thing is he came back and avenged both losses, Rahman oh so savagely. If he didn't i would have to slip him down a place or two but the thing is he did.

At the stage Lewis was losing to Rahman then avenging Holmes had lost to Spinks, Tyson had shot his best bolt, Holyfield had multiple losses to Moorer and Bowe, Liston was on the down, Foreman had lost to Young etc etc etc. None of them are flawless. Ali and Louis sit on the top shelf and then there's the rest. Where they sit will depend on one's own personal criteria and bias. When unbiased sages such as McGrain and Flea rate Lewis inside the top 5 you know he's got it going on.

 

Rahman wasn't any "Tom ,D!ck ,or Harry," he was a top ten ranked fighter.

 

Good Post JT - You ring a few true bells here.

I think it is a mistake to consider losses in isolation, as if they are independent of the whole body of work and, as you correctly point out, almost all of the Greats have lemons on their resumes to address. In terms of Greatness, how a boxer moves on and handles a bad defeat, can cast either credit or shadows on their wider career. I think Lewis more than adequately addressed his losses, combined with a solid resume, overall.

Ali and Louis separate themselves from the rest, for sure. Lewis is up there, in the mix, with Holmes, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, et al.

 

WTF with this thread lasting 17 pages and my similar Tyson thread barely reached just 3rd page ))

Is Lennox more controversial than Mike?

 

I guess Iron Mike doesn't make your top 30!

 

I am not a Lewis fan, but he is taking a lot of heat for losing to Rahman.

Rahman was rated top 10 in 00 and 01. #4? In 01.

Lewis was at the very least at the tail end of his peak, and no where near his physical prime.

Rahman is training in South Africa for anout a month as the fight approaches. Lewis not until 10 days before the fight.

Lewis is going Hollywood with his appearances in Oceans 11, and comes into the fight looking out of shape. Fighting over 250 his heaviest to this point.

I am not excusing it justifying the loss, but I don’t find it a blemish that erases his accomplishments especially when I use the filter that he reversed this outcome shortly afterwards.

I don’t think Rahman is great but not the chump he is being cast as either.

To me the McCall fight is a bigger detriment than this one.

Still top 4 on my list and see no argument here to make me reconsider his all time rating.

 

Inventing your own grading system is fine, but it's not foolproof, because the system itself amounts to no more than personal interpretation anyway and it doesn't appear, in your case, to account for other variables.

Meaning: I'd imagine that a 'grading' system applied to losses needs to be appropriately balanced with a consistently similar system, accounting for wins (and whatever other criteria you use). How does the grading of the losses stack up against your grading system for wins? Because, from where I am looking, it seems you put an inexplicable amount of weight behind this one loss of Lewis'.

 

Rahman was ranked in the Ring's Annual Top Ten 6 times between 98 and 05. I know that is not as sophisticated or respected by the boxing public as certain anonymous interboard poster's personal ranking systems but I thought I would throw it in there for context.

 

I'm curious, for context, which is more egregious...

A champion getting KO'd and returning to KO his conqueror for the title...

or a fighter who ducks his best challenger for nigh on 6 years.

or a fighter who gets KO'd by a 40-1 underdog and never reverses the score.

 

Who is that champion and that challenger

 

Your "Who the **** did he ever beat ?" arguments won´t work, and you know this yourself. In comparison to Holmes, with the five best punchers he beat:

Tyson, Shavers 2x, Cooney, Bonecrusher and Mike Weaver was mentioned.

Who the **** did Shavers, Cooney, a 14-1 James Smith or a 19-8 Weaver beat when they faced Holmes?

What these fighters have in common with Morrison and Briggs is knockout power on film and a significant higher KO/Win-ratio than "punchers" like Mike Weaver, who indeed wasn´t on the others level.

I´d ask you again: Which HW got a better resume in therms of dangerous punchers? Attention: You probably won´t find more than one.

 

LOL@you

I takes two to Tango.......and Douglas refused a immediate rematch with the Don King not respecting my long count excuse and milked the Mirage out of 30 mil to lay his obese body down with zero effort..............and a decade later when he needed money again he had another chance but got derailed in 10 sec by journeyman Savereasy and nobody wanted to give him another milk no train pay day again.

BTW, not Lemmies fault but McCracken should not have anywhere near a ring in the re match, a rehab center would be more suited and still Lemmie played it safe and was afraid to get countered and his glass shattered again.

 

Rahman sucked, you know it, I know it.

Without the Lewis KO nobody would have ever heard of that guy, whats his best win besides that, wrestling with Obed Sullivan, going life and death with the flash in the pan Golfer or it must be the stone cold killer Kali Meehan.....

 

At least Rahman seems to have been a legit top 10 heavyweight who deserved his ranking.

 

While a Champion getting KO'd and returning to KO his conqueror for the title seems to be the most attractive option, a fighter getting KO'd by a 40-1 underdog and never reversing the score is somewhat incomplete; did the fighter get a chance to reverse the score and failed a second time?

Also the fighter who ducked his best challenger for 6 years? More context please because its never that black and white.