GUILALAH: My Current AT Heavy Rankings

Why is Lennox Lewis at #13, behind Tyson and Holy?

 

Yes, I suppose the Lewis ranking may be the most notable point where I'm at odds with current consensus. To briefly summarize why I don't regard him as highly as many, Lewis' two prime knockout losses to run-of-the-mill contenders, coupled with the lack a truly "great" win or even an uninterrupted run of a couple or more years at a time where he thoroughly cleaned out the best opposition without blemish, leave me feeling that he just doesn't quite merit a top 10 spot, although his depth of resume, longevity, and peak performances are all very impressive.

On the guys you mention specifically:
I don't view any of Holyfield's losses as being nearly so damaging to his legacy as the McCall or Rahman fights are to Lewis', and I believe Holyfield has a couple of what I would consider genuinely "great" wins, of the caliber Lewis lacks. Bowe was a legitimate elite and great fighter at his best who narrowly edged out a trilogy against Holyfield, and the Moorer fight was an emphatically-avenged disputed MD, far less embarrassing than an early-round knockout. I would put Holyfield's wins over Bowe and Tyson (who was younger and better and still had much of his aura of invincibility when Holyfield beat him, also at a point at which Holyfield was probably past his own best) a level above any of Lewis' wins. And although his numerical record has ended up splotchy, I don't view Holyfield's post-37 exploits as ultimately all that damaging. On the whole, I think he boasts a better legacy.

As for Tyson, I think that one is more a matter of tastes. Both had embarrassing losses while in their primes (Tyson to Douglas, Lewis to McCall and Rahman), and both have deep resumes with emphatic wins over quality opposition, but lack "great" wins by my reckoning. The main difference is that Tyson was "short but sweet"- eg., he was only at or near his best for a few years, but in that time, his pure, concentrated dominance and consistent top-drawer performance was something to behold- while Lewis never had that kind of mercurial tear through the division, but stayed at or near the top for a far longer time span. What Tyson did up through '89 was something special, particularly considering its context within the last 30 years; for three or four years, he actually consistently fought the elites of his division, scarcely leaving a stone unturned, and wiped them out in dominant, emphatic fashion on a consistent basis without even one blemish or roadblock on his path. Lewis, on the other hand, never really cleaned out the division at any one time- there were a few guys he overlooked (Wlad Klitschko, notably, was #1 contender for a substantial span during Lewis' reign and was never given a shot, for example), he wasn't terribly active and he didn't consistently fight top-tier opponents when he did fight. A notable measure here would be the way that Tyson unified the major belts, which had been split up for the last decade, and actually held them together throughout his peak run up until the Douglas loss without any strippings by sanctioning bodies- not that I put a lot of stock in the ABC belts' value in and of themselves, but the fact that he was able to keep them together like that demonstrates the thoroughness and dominance of his run- whereas Lewis let belts fall by the wayside in fighting only once or twice a year and sometimes against relatively unqualified challengers. That said, Lewis does overall have the deeper resume and superior longevity, and I believe either one could very reasonably be ranked ahead of the other- as noted in my last post, I am, in fact, currently considering swapping their ratings.

 

I do not think you can use Bowe as an example here, as he got the better of Holyfield in the three fight series, by really whipping him in the first fight, and knocking him out in the third fight. Holfyfield only won a razor thin decision in the second fight, but it was controversial due to a 17-minute break after round six.

Lewis KO'd Bowe in the most important amateur match. While it was an amateur match, the one thing that sticks in my mind is how easily Lewis hurt Bowe.


Lewis was 3-0 vs Holyfield, and Tyson, and 1-0 vs Bowe in a significant Amateur match. This is pretty close to cleaning out an era. In addition, Lewis never picked on older names, such as the 90’s version of Holmes or Foreman. Holyfield did that.

A peak Holyfield received a long count and was in real danger of being upset vs Bert Cooper.

Moorer to me is not much better than McCall was. Rhaman at his best was not a run in the mill guy either. If you penalize guys for losing to run in the mill types, then Jack Johnson, and Mike Tyson should fall down a few spots.

In the end, Lewis beat everyman he faced, fought in a very talented era of heavywieght boxing, and probably had to face more punchers than just about anyone on your list. So he was Ko'd twice in 44 fights. That's pretty good by champions standards. If you look on the list, you see quite a few guys who were stopped more than that…and in some cases by lesser punchers than McCall or Rhaman. I think Lewis should be top ten for sure, and perhaps top five after careful examination. For whatever reason, Lewis never gets the " he was past his prime " play in the first Rhaman fight.

 

Here's another I object to being rated so highly.

He was the best for his time, no doubt about that (then again, Langford supporters could object to that) and for his era he had excellent technical ability, but if H2H is your thing (and it plays no part for me, but still) he probably gets beaten by most if not all dominant heavyweights post 1930.

Perhaps politics did play a part in him not fighting other noted black fighters of the period, but he did fight Jim Johnson in Paris, so why could Langford not get a shot at the official title?

In addition, his title opposition wasn't great. Beating Tommy Burns was no great feat since Burns stood only 5'7" and was a super middleweight by today's standards. Ditto Jack O' Brien. Ketchell was only a middleweight.
I'm sorry, but viewed objectively his title opposition simply wasn't good.

I'll admit straight up I'm not an expert on Johnson, so I'd like you to tell me how he can be ranked ahead of guys who fought big, strong heavyweights regularly. (Or at least guys their own size, like Marciano did.)

 

The first fight was a classic war in which Bowe had to go through hell to win and was on ***** street himself once or twice along the way- not what I'd call a "whipping." The 17-minute break shouldn't be used to discredit Holyfield's win in the rematch; it was an equal break for both men, and there is no particular evidence that it benefited Holyfield more than Bowe. Perhaps- I'm not making this out to be "the" truth, but it's as reasonable as speculation about the break aiding him- it prevented Holyfield, who had had a good first half to the match and probably had the overall momentum on his side, from stopping Bowe.

As I recall, Bowe was never even down in this fight, and it was very much an "amateur" stoppage. By the way, I believe Razor Ruddock knocked out Lewis in the amateurs. Either way, not really important.

If I'm not mistaken, you have emphatically argued in the past that Tyson was shot against Lewis. I also believe Holyfield was substantially past his best, particularly given his showings against John Ruiz over the next couple of years (and, since the Lewis fights were not savage beatings or something of the sort, I do not believe this was a drastically different version from the one Lewis had just fought).

You don't think Holyfield and Tyson were older names?? Beating "older names" is perfectly fine and shouldn't be a disservice to anyone's legacy, particularly if those older names were still capable world-class guys. In fact, based on what they showed shortly before and after their fights with Holyfield, I would say the '90s Holmes and Foreman were more capable and live than the Tyson Lewis fought, and possibly even the Holyfield as well.

It wasn't a "long count"- it was a technical knockdown when Holyfield was saved by the ropes and given a standing-eight. This is a bit of an embarrassment, but not nearly as embarrassing as actually being knocked out, particularly considering that Holyfield promptly rallied to stop Cooper.

After the first Lewis fight, Rahman's career-best win is probably the come-off-the-floor stoppage of Corrie Sanders, who was himself basically a one-hit wonder. He was knocked out in both his meetings with top 10 guys prior to the Lewis fight, and has only gotten one win over a flash-in-the-pan top-10 guy in Barrett since then. I'll concede he's been unlucky not to get the win in two or three of his major fights, but the facts nevertheless stand that his record against actual world-class opposition consists far more in failure than in success. The Lewis win is the only reason one would think of Rahman as more than a run-of-the-mill contender.

Have you looked at where they are right now? Aside from the disputed decision to Hart, Johnson didn't lose to any run-of-the-mill opposition while anywhere seriously close to his prime. Tyson's loss to Douglas is very ugly, but he's at #12 on my list- it isn't as though I give him a free pass and put him in the top five while inconsistently slagging on Lewis. All else being equal or near to it, I give substantial preference to guys who don't have seriously embarrassing losses while in or near their heydays over guys who do.

True, but it doesn't change the previously-made points which keep him out of my top 10/put other guys ahead of him.

On my list, none of the guys ranked ahead of Lewis were stopped as often as he was while in or seriously close to their heydays, and only four of the guys ranked ahead of Lewis were stopped more often on the whole than he was, those being Frazier, who was stopped by legends rather than average contenders, Johnson, because he was stopped four times while over 45 years old, Liston, who was stopped by Ali, and Tyson. I'd say Lewis is substantially worse than anyone above him in terms of losses while in his heyday to undistinguished opponents.

The reason is that he wasn't past his prime. Lewis was on the best run of his career when he was knocked out by Rahman. Over the last two years, he had just put forth the Holyfield win(s), the Grant destruction, and the clinic against Tua. These were widely considered to have been some of, if not the very, best performances of Lewis' career, and he was stringing them together better than he ever had. Moreover, after this loss, Lewis immeduately rebounded with the emphatic win in the rematch, also considered one of his career-best performances. It's somewhat hard to say how good the performance against Tyson was, given that Mike was near the end, but at the least Lewis even then didn't show any terribly obvious signs of slipping. It wasn't until the Vitali fight, with the layoff, extra weight, sloppiness and poor stamina, that we saw any clear indications of decline on Lewis' part. The first Rahman fight just plain was during Lewis' prime.

 

My criticism would be that you try to compress the timeline of Sullivans reign into an afternoon.

It was a period of nearly a decade in which the heavyweight landscape changed beyond recognition. In the first half which coprresponds to Sullivans prime you have a weak era with fighters like Goss, McCaffrey Dalton etc. In the rear half you have fighters like Jackson, Slavin, Goddard and ultimately Corbett coming on. A strong era emerging when the old champion is a shell of his former self. In a way his not having met them is a bit like if Louis had never met Marciano or Ali had never fought Holmes.

I would say that in Sullivans prime he was as dominant a heavyweight champion as there has ever been. Who for example could have given him a competitive fight in the period from 1881-1886?

 

How can we say for sure that he was dominant when he did not fight Jackson, Or Slavin? Both fights could have been made before Sullivan meet Corbett.

If you want to use the 1886 date as a cut off when Sullivan for Sullivan's prime, then you are saying John L was past it after age 28!

Still, given the date of 1886, fights with Fitzsimmons, Goddard, Maher, Dooley and Jackson could have been made. All of these people would rate as Sullivan’s best glove win.. Check the reocrds, you'll see they were the best out there.

I think Sullivan cleaned up on a weak era in the early 1880's, then was not tested much outside of the Kilrain fight, and the Mitchell fight

 

Bowe messed Holyfield up in the first fight. It was a clear win for Bowe, who had Holyfield hurt and in trouble. While Holy showed heart, it was pretty much a whipping by Bowe. He won by at least an 8-4 margin. Two judges had Bowe up by 7 points.

Holy was known to gas. Bowe in shape did not. I feel the break in the second match helped Holy more than Bowe, but there is no way to know for sure.

The films show Bowe was hurt. It did not take much for Lewis to produce a big effect on Bowe. Ruddock KO'd Lewis as an amateur? Never heard of that.

Tyson was shot vs Lewis. My point was Lewis is 3-0 vs Tyson and Holy, and 1-0 vs Bowe in a high stakes amateur match. I do not think Holy was shot for the first fight, which Lewis clearly won. The draw was bogus.

Yes, they were older names, but Foreman and Holmes in the 1990's were MUCH older than Tyson and Holyfield were. Hence Holy picked on older name fighters.

The ref gave Holy extra time to recover, so it was not a clean 8 count.

I think it was the best version of Rhaman, and he caught Lewis who did not train or focus enough for the match. One Ko loss is not that bad. Frazier was KO'd three times, yet he rates much higher than Lewis, chiefly on going 1-2 vs Ali.

Johnson lost to the likes of Klondike Haines, Griffin, and Choysnki. He had a very weak title run vs older men, or 2nd raters, and struggled to win or draw in some matches. Johnson's historical significance cannot be understated but his results in fights vs lesser men raise plenty of eyebrows if you ask me.

Lewis fought the following punchers, Tyson, Morrison, Tua, Grant, Rhaman 2x, McCall 2x, Klitschko, Bruno, Briggs,and Ruddock. This is plenty of punchers. Some of these guys landed hard stuff. Lewis chin was not great, but it did take some hard shots. Pretty much anyone on your list fighting this many punchers are likely to be clipped once or twice.

Mercer was a solid puncher. Maybe not in the above names class, but he could crack too.

Head to head, legacy wise, or record wise, I just feel Lewis should be in the top ten. In my view, some historians are staring to " get it" while others don't want to move old time favorites down the list.

 

I don't consider a fight with the kind of grueling, two-way action that sees both guys hurt and battered that this fight had a "whipping," even if the winner has a comfortable points margin. Bowe looks pretty well on ***** street in the second half of round 10 himself, if you ask me or most folk who saw this match.

The films show Bowe was hurt. It did not take much for Lewis to produce a big effect on Bowe. Ruddock KO'd Lewis as an amateur? Never heard of that.

Strictly speaking, you're correct, but you yourself have often decried "legacy name-dropping" when it lacks valuable substance- for example, if someone says Vitali Klitschko never beat a champion, you point out that he could surely have beaten some over-the-hill ex-champions had they fought and that the lack of such names, if they would represent shot fighters anyway, is not overly important. Frankly, a win over Wlad Klitschko or Chris Byrd, both of whom had fairly sizable runs at #1 during Lewis' reign and were not granted shots, would do far more for Lewis' legacy and claim to having "cleaned out" his era than the Tyson win, in my opinion.

There weren't any champions active during Lewis' title reign who were as old as Foreman and Holmes were during Holyfield's. You make it sound as though those guys were just off driving to the old folks' home and Holyfield pulled them over and dragged them into the ring. Holmes was on a seven-fight winning streak (I believe) and had just beaten undefeated Olympic medalist Mercer, and Foreman was 24-0 (23 KO's) since coming back, although he didn't have any big wins and did get his shot mainly on name value. Regardless of age, they were more credible and probably more capable opponents than the 2001 Tyson, and were at least comparable to the '98 Holyfield, I'd say.

Okay. I doubt an extra second or two would've enabled Cooper to finish Holyfield off- even though he was hurt, I don't think he was in that bad a state. This is a quibble.

Frazier was stopped by ALI AND FOREMAN. If Lewis' stoppages had come to Ali and Foreman, I wouldn't be especially bothered. Conversely, if a prime or near-prime Frazier had been knocked out by McCall and Rahman or their '60s-70s equivalents- say, Bonavena and Chuvalo- Frazier would absolutely not be in my top 10. In this paragraph, you're taking one small element of my position and speaking as though it represents the entirety of my argument; the point is not "Lewis was knocked out twice" (not once, as you seem to indicate in the quoted text here), but rather, "Lewis was knocked out in his prime by undistinguished contenders who no prime top 10 all-time heavyweight has any business losing to."

I've specified many times, "while in or near to his prime." Frankly, I don't care what happened to Johnson when he was a 170-pound stick, like he was in 1899-1901. If Lewis had fought in such a state, I wouldn't hold any losses he suffered in that time against him, either. During the approximately 13-year and 60-fight period in which Johnson could be considered in or near his prime, his only losses were the DQ to Jeanette and controversial decision to Hart. If, say, Johnson had been flattened by Al Kaufman in 1909, THAT would be comparable to Lewis' losses and would be an enormous blow against his legacy, and he would not appear in my top 10.

Lewis is the only top 10 fighter Rahman has ever even been close to stopping. In his nine total fights against other top-10-ranked opponents- Maskaev, Tua, Holyfield, Barrett, Toney and Ruiz- Rahman has never scored a knockdown. I don't see why he should be viewed as a big puncher, unless one is judging him thus entirely on the basis of the Lewis fight, in which case this is a circular argument- "Lewis was knocked out by Rahman." "Yeah, but Rahman was a big puncher." "What makes you think that?" "He knocked out Lewis."
McCall has more of a claim to being a big puncher than Rahman does, with his stoppages over Seldon and Akinwande, but I don't think his power is the stuff of legend, and his credentials certainly wouldn't suggest as much.

Ali, Louis, Holmes and Holyfield all fought comparable sets of power-punching opposition without suffering embarrassing knockouts like Lewis', with the arguable exception of Louis' loss to Schmeling, but Schmeling was at least an elite and former champion.

And he took Lewis to a very close decision, by the way.

Head-to-head, maybe. As I've explained, Lewis has more-damaging losses and less-extraordinary wins than pretty well all of the guys ranked ahead of him in my estimation, and he doesn't have some other particularly unique accomplishment (eg. Louis' 25 title defenses/12-year reign, Foreman's regaining of the championship at 45 and 20 years after winning it the first time, Marciano's all-winning career, 49 consecutive wins and highest KO average in linear champions, etc.) that could still qualify him to outrank those fighters.

 

I think #13 is way too low for Lewis. Even Bert "******" Sugar has him higher.

I love Walcott and Charles' style and skill, but i think they are clearly a level below Lewis both in terms of accomplishments (they lost way more) and bring less to the table than him in a head-to-head sense. Lewis' record against ranked contenders of 19-2 is behind only Ali and Joe Louis, and both defeats were avenged in emphatic fashion.

Someone like Dempsey disgracefully ducked the #1 contender for 7 years and was inactive for 3 years as champion, then completely got humiliated twice over 10 rounds and barely got by the other best fighters he faced by fouling, plus a one round knockout loss to a 37 year old lightheavyweight; yet he ranks #6 on your list. I'll take two convincingly avenged knockouts losses (one of which came at age 35, when Dempsey was already 4 years into retirement) plus a much better record against contenders over that any time of the day.

 

This is definitely something that happens, and it all too understandable a reaction. Few people are going to move a fighter they saw throughout their whole careers and came to greatly admire, out of the way to make way for a 'newcomer.'
Most people - causal fans, harcore fans and historians alike - are guilty of that.

 

Lewis' winning percentage, quality of opposition, # of title defenses, longevity, and pretty much cleaning out an era all rate favorably within the top ten. If we compare the achievements, Lewis is most certainly in the top ten.

In addition, Lewis avenged both losses by scoring a KO win, and regained the title. Historically these are tough feats

A fan can say what he wants, but I think historians or writers need to stick some sort of criteria and more of less let the chips fall within certain parameters. It seems Lewis doesn’t get the same treatment.

 

All true in my book, but I guess not everyone is going to view things the same way, or attach the same weight to it. That's what makes this sort of thing fun. If all lists looked exactly the same, what would we find to talk about?