Stonehands' (~Objective) Top 10 HW Champions.

Seems very reasonable.

 

I can't. But I feel you make no allowance for the fact that arguably, the losses on Lewis's record were as a result of what Lewis didn't do rather than what his opponents did. And the fact that said stoppages were the only 2 black marks on his record, minus that silly draw of course. I can't think of a single fighter that Lewis wasn't able to figure out. Even the Mercer fight would have been much easier had Lewis used his jab and move game. You can't say that about too many other fighters.

Anyway, enough about Lewis, it's Foreman I want to discuss. It's clear (to me at least) that ole George is overrated; his record doesn't warrant close scrutiny to the very highest standards and mythical, supernatural status is attributed to his power. Here's your rating attached for ease of viewing:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

his effectiveness was due to his size and strength more than his ring generalship" surely this was the case (and far more) so with Foreman? Foreman had no tempo change or '2 speeds' such as Lewis had. He wasn't able to use his jab to dictate the distance and tempo of fights as Lewis was able to. To have just a point difference between Foreman and Lewis for RG seems a bit silly to me. The icing on the cake was his stupid tactics against Ali. Rope-a-Dope said it all. I might even be inclined to give George a 5 for this but again 6 (because of his physical strength and power) is fine.

I also feel that 7 for A is too high. Obviously George showed great heart in the Lyle fight but I struggle to think of too many other fights where Foreman had to come back from true adversity. The older version had tougher fights and again Foreman demonstrated great heart against Alex Stewart. But that's two fights and for the majority of his career Foreman had it pretty easy. I think a 6 is a more sensible score.

 

That seems fair, it's at least within an acceptable range. Thank you.

This is one of the more interesting threads.

And one of the reasons Lewis has so many fans, is because those who are objective see others impose biases against him that aren't applied to other fighters and come to his defense. That's not the only reason, he of course was a great fighter in his own right, but that's certainly part of it.

This of course is a general comment and certainly isn't directed at you.

 

You begin the post with a concession and it's a great rebuttal anyway. Impressive.

Okay -Foreman is at a 7 for RG. That is less than another physical champ with basic skills that were a bit better than Foreman's -Lewis. It is the same as Frazier and Holyfield. Foreman was very hard to beat for most styles. He is one of the top 1 or 2 supreme strong men of the division in history. The category is "Ring Generalship and Formidability of Style". The reason I called it that is because some guys aren't necessarily well-rounded or technically great, but what they brought was more than enough... so there is no need to be a fundamentals snob. That said, I'd have a hard time putting him below Frazier and Holyfield. If he's a 6, he'd be the lowest man there... is that right?

He is at a 7 for A. Lyle, Stewart, and Moorer put him through holy hell. He's there with Frazier and Holmes. I'm thinking that he probably should be a bit higher because he had to have suffered and then got the win to score well here. Holmes had Norton and Shavers. Frazier had Ali... I may have to drop Frazier if not both... or raise Foreman... tough call.

Part of the difficulty with this or any ranking system is relativity. We can't just assign numbers. We have to make comparisons and sensible groupings too.

What you have succeeded in doing is something you never even meant... I have to reconsider his Dominance. An 8 is simply too high. He didn't reign long as champ or as a champ in his 40s.

 

Subjective input into an objective formula.

In during objectivity is impossible.

 

Don't worry about it! I'm not that sensitive.

I would add that another fairly common reason out here as to why Lennox is so defended is that he is British and British HW champions are a rarity. I understand nationalism.

-that in no way means that I'd write off the arguments on his behalf posted on this thread by my British friends. Some have even forced me to raise him as you have seen.

 

This "~" as you see in "~objective" means "approximately", or "well kinda", or "loosely considered". If you read earlier posts you'll see that I'm under no illusions, but sought to organize thought and argument better than has been traditionally attempted by boxing pundits.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

It's impossible to be 100% truly objective when you control the inputs.

It's a noble effort at least to try and quantify the ratings of fighters.

 

If you're referring to me, I'm from Ingo-land. I'm not really warm towards Lewis, but the guy had some undoubted qualities.

His most impressive asset was probably his ice-cold attitude. It's him, Ali, Frazier, Marciano and Louis. You just couldn't faze these guys. And that's one thing wen you're playing golf or cycling, but another when the guy in front of you tries to cave your face and ribs in.

 

Absolutely. Although I am trying to duly consider dissents and weigh them to perhaps come up with a top 10 that most participating in the thread would find appealing -or at least fair.

Finally quanitifying these numbers will at least partly be the product of persuasive argument.

 

I'm not referring to you... in fact, no one in particular. It's just something I've sensed in the past out here.

And I heartily agree that his mentality was second to none. Except maybe Marciano's... who was from down the street from me... but that ain't swaying me!

 

How do you get to be like that? All that will and determination. As Norman Mailer said, "pro boxers are tough, tough guys". But then there are some who "shows men of will, what will is really about" (not a Mailer quote).

 

I often wonder if the true heros of boxing aren't the Ali's and the Lewis's but the poor smucks who step into the ring knowing they're going to get their ass kicked and kicked badly, and step in anyway. The journeymen, the fighter who doesn't have the pop to hurt his opponent. The guy who doesn't have the skills to win, but can take a punch like few others. In short the professional opponent. Those guys are highly under-rated.

 

Wepner comes to mind. His guts/skills ratio is off the charts. No wonder he inspired the Rocky franchise.

 

Good post. I'd say their unsung before saying their underrated. I'm thinking of the guys who fight at local clubs like Sons of Italy or gyms and get smacked around for coins for years. Then again, it's all about doing what you love to do... and many love it.