Lennox Lewis Against Ali's Later Opponents?

They never proved it. Norton doesn't really have anything outside of the singular Ali win, a win over a past his best Quarry, and a close win against Young. Witherspoon has a bit more good wins but doesn't have great wins nor a particularly long title reign. There's nothing about either that would suggest they were better then Lewis.

 

I'm not saying they were better, just that they were in the same league and fought much better opponents... did Lewis fight anyone close to Ali '73 or Holmes '83?

And he lost to much worse opponents than Tim and Ken.

 

Don't think Garcia and Smith were definitively better than Rahman and McCall

 

Vitali and Holyfield. Beat both, Holyfield twice.

 

Do you really consider Vitali to be Ali's equal? Do you really consider that Holyfield from '99 whom Ruiz was just beating to be Ali's equal? Really???

 

Right. They're not definitely better. Norton, like Lewis, had a certain flaw—you know what it is. Holmes he didn't have it. And that's the difference.

 

Vitali is on the same level H2H as that version of Ali. Holyfield was still very good when Lewis beat him maybe not as good but still a great win who was on a good run when Lewis beat him.

 

I've read many times on this forum that he is, but only when he fights Lewis. If Lewis cut him and it wasn't a fluke, I assume Holmes and Ali would have done it without a problem. If the injury against Byrd wasn't a fluke, I assume Holmes and Ali would have done it too. Who was the great Vitali, who was on Holmes' level? Norton, Ali?

 

Call it the eye test if you want, but when you actually watch Vitali, his durability, control of distance, and ability to dictate pace are obvious. That’s why he was competitive with Lewis and why hypotheticals against guys like Holmes or Ali aren’t as simple as ‘they’d just beat him."

 

Lewis beats the crap out of them.
The only tough match is vsHolmes, where it's kinda even.

 

Ok. The eye test tells me Vitalis was better than Lewis, but in your previous post you wrote that good wins count. So who was as good as Ali that Klitschko beat?

 

Why does he need to beat someone to be considered "as good"?

 

The people saying he’d destroy them all are way off base. When you’re fighting over 30 ranked men many of which were prior champs or future you’re gonna drop a few. He would absolutely have trouble with Quarry, Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers, Holmes, Bonavena. Someone is gonna catch him inevitably like Rahman or Mcall.

 

It seems to me that you judged yourself based on good wins, being an ATG or not, and now you're judging based on the eye test. Honestly, I still don't see Vitali being better than Whitearspoon or Norton. Not based on being an ATG, not based on good wins, not based on the eye test, sorry. And getting back to the point – Holmes would never have been knocked out by McCall or Rahman.

 

And Lewis would never have struggled with Witherspoon and Norton, so what's your point?