Did Lewis have a better resume than Ali? (Breakdown)

Cooper was ranked, 6th I think.

In this thread there's a breakdown of Ali's and other greats win over top 10 opp. Lewis might well be in it.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ime-or-another-featured-in-the-top-10.337590/

 

Ali, but Lewis is a top 5 ATG for sure.

 

No and this shouldn't even be a question. Ali's resume > anyone who only fought in a single division.

Lewis faced a dozen less contenders (34 vs 22), 7 less top 3 rated contenders (18 vs 11) and 5 less HoF's (8 vs 3). Ali faced 4 arguable top ten heavyweights of all time, all of which were in good condition and capable of reclaiming the hw title. Lewis faced two arguable top ten heavyweights of all time, one of which was in a good condition and capable of reclaiming the hw title. While Lewis' did face more champions, that is completely due to the fact that he fought in an era with more belts. That's like saying Floyd's resume > Robinson's resume because Floyd beat more champions (and yes, I have seen this ridiculous argument plenty of times).

While you can maybe put a bit of blame on Ali for not getting into proper shape and being much lazier in training (mainly for his Norton loss), there is no universe in which a reasonable argument can be made that the Ali that lost to Frazier and Norton was in his prime as he looked significantly different than the one who beat the likes of Williams, Terrell, or Folley. The word "dominated" is also disingenuous. Ali clearly lost the fights to Frazier and Norton, I'm not disputing that, but when you say a fighter dominated another, I envision a fight incredibly one sided where the fighter being dominated had no moments to shine through. More like Ali vs Liston 1 or Ali vs Williams, Frazier and Norton did not dominate Ali. I just don't see how Ali losing two fights that he later avenged twice somehow makes his resume worse than Lewis' resume. In fact, how can you even begin to make the argument that Ali losing to the nightmare the was Joe Frazier on the night of the FOTC or the great Ken Norton was MORE damning to his legacy that Lewis losing to McCall or Rahman, two fighters that are not at the level of the other two.


Turning away from the OP's comment, I guess we should just completely class Ali as a bum because any fight that he left no doubt in the eyes of the crowd is automatically a robbery that he didn't deserve to win. At least that is how it seems with how often that word is thrown around. In fact, Ali cheated against Frazier by his repeated clinching and so he shouldn't have won that second fight even though I'm going to turn around and say that Jimmy Young, a man who cheated against Ali, was robbed. Ali thought about quitting against Frazier before Futch stopped the fight, he didn't actually beat Frazier, ignore the fact that he was the clear winner of the past 14 rounds. Same actually goes for the first Liston fight when he was blinded, that quitter would be done if it wasn't for Angelo pushing him out when he wanted his gloves cut. Pretty soon these ridiculous arguments are going to be saying that Ali had no heart because he didn't fight the full distance with Holmes.

Just a little rant I had to go on, I'm just irritated from seeing people constantly throwing around ridiculous ideas with no merit or the word robbery. It's not just with Ali, but he is certainly the biggest victim of it.

 

Damn, that gives it some context.

I am sure that is a unique feat in the history of the division!

 

The irony is that Ali thought Liston was intentionally trying to blind him. He said to Angie , "Cut off the gloves. I want to prove to the world, evils afoot."

 

I love both of them and you can only beat the man in front of you.

 

That's overselling it. I never liked such hyperbole. If anything, the McCall one was controversial as Lewis was standing in front of the referee, wanting to continue. Against Rahman, he was out of it alright - but even then he wasn't knocked out cold.

So if Lewis was brutally KOd, what would you say to Helenius against Wilder? He was lying there like he was in a catatonic state, absolutely out cold in the shadow realm. So if Lewis' KO losses are the "brutal category", Helenius suffered an extra-mega-giga-super-duper KO?

 

Lewis would've gotten stopped that same round. His legs were jelly in both fights. Getting splattered by the same punch twice indicates a fatal flaw, not a coincidence.

My wording was just fine. Both KO losses were brutal. Wilder's KO of Helenius was particularly brutal if you're getting caught up in the language. Either way, the point is Ali never suffered a loss like that even once and they can't be glossed over if we're comparing resumes.

 

The same punch? Rahman caught him with a straight right hand, McCall caught him with a combination of a left hook and a right. How is that the same? In any case, you are just assuming here. In the McCall fight, Lewis was up and his guard was up. He was rocked but not out completely of it. That's not a brutal KO - you just caught up in the usual online boxing hyperboles. It's risible to word it how Lewis was "brutally" knocked out by McCall when we there were KOs like the one Pacquaio suffered from Márquez. It's not just semantics - you are simply overstating Lewis' losses to big Ali up in comparison.

You say Ali was never beaten as badly as Lewis. At the same time, Lewis was never given gifts (and so many) as Lewis. There were at least half a dozen fights Ali was gifted under controversial circumstances and I'm yet to meet anyone who is not a biased Ali fan who thinks that Ali's tactics were legal against Frazier in 1974 or that Ali beat Norton (whenever) or that he beat Jimmy Young etc. These things can't be glossed over either if we're comparing resumes.

 

Both punches were extremely brutal. Me saying his legs were jelly isn't an assumption, it's an observable fact. Bringing up even worse KOs such as Helenius and Pacquiao doesn't change this fact. Lewis was in horrible shape and might not be able to defend himself, which is why the ref stopped it. I cannot overstate anything when Lewis had 2 brutal KO losses while Ali had none.

The only gift Ali received was the 3rd Norton fight when he was old as hell. Jimmy Young did not beat Ali, not even remotely. If you want to talk about controversial decisions, Lewis has some against Mercer and the 2nd Hoylfield fight. You are going out of your way to just overlook the black marks on Lewis resume and making a huge deal out of everything on Ali's. Typical. I am not biased, I have taken other fighters sides against Ali before such as when he avoided a rematch with Foreman or the aforementioned 3rd Norton match.

 

Nonsense. The Mercer and the second Holyfield fight were very competitive, close fights - but not robberies. It's generally accepted that these two were the closest fights of Lewis' career - however, nobody claims they were gifts/robberies. Not even Mercer thinks it was a robbery. He insists he won a close fight, sure - what else would he say? But even he doesn't think it was a gift for Lewis.

Young did not beat Ali? Are you serious, mate?

"When the decision was made, the crowd loudly booed. Ali won by decision with the three judges voting for him.

In the stats department, Young landed 222 punches to Ali's 113. Young outlanded Ali 65-27 in jabs and 187-86 in power punches. The punch disparity highlighted the booing at the judges decisions. Compubox points out that Young landed 41.1 percent while Ali only 18.9 percent of the shots. Ali's 113 punches we're the lowest Ali ever had in a 15-round bout."

 

It's a shame some posters can't make a case for their favorite fighter without denigrating other fighters. Although it is tempting I won't play those reindeer games.

 

Partial

Lewis has an impressive resume for sure. IMHO, Ali's is better. I believe a better case vs. Ali's resume could be made for the guy whose last name sounds the same, but is spelled differently. (Yes. I stole that from the Green Mile.)

 

He was banished from boxing in his prime which were the ages of 27, 28, and 29. He was never the same fighter.