Lennox Lewis; Greatest Heavyweight of all time?

h2h....Possibly.

In terms of resume AND talent....no, Ali or Joe Louis IMO.

I have Lennox at no.5 at the moment.

 

Legally binding courtroom testimony under oath was taken to this effect during Jack's draft evasion trial in 1920, that $500 was accepted by Dempsey's camp to lose to Flynn. Dempsey's former wife Maxine testified to this. (Dempsey himself always referred to this as "the Flynn affair.")

My admittedly subjective belief is that Lennox would have been down for the count in those situations, as he was against Rahman.

In the specific cases of Toledo Dempsey and FOTC Frazier, this is indeed true. That Dempsey also dominated Tommy Gibbons over a full 15 rounds is critical in my esteem. Of course Lennox never had the opportunity to demonstrate he could do this. (I also believe that the Louis of the Godoy rematch probably would have ripped apart any version of Marciano.)

Good to see you, by the way.

 

To be honest, I have a hell of a time rating fighters. The heavyweight list is a difficult one. Sometimes I have guys sharing the same spots. One poster named Marciano-Frazier wrote some pretty good stuff on Ezzard Charles one day that persuaded me to think that he was top 10. I don't have anything against Walcott but I have developed a real appreciation for Ezzard Charles in recent months.

 

I do have to agree with some that in a head to head sense, Lewis may very well be the best fighter of all time, regardless of the two ugly losses. We have to remember that he improved significantly after the McCall defeat of '94 upon working with Manny Steward. And the Rahman loss didn't happen until 2001 when Lennox was near 36 or something. If we study the 7 year time frame inbetween, he was really dismantling some powerful heavyweights who were looking rather menacing.. I never would have picked him ( or anyone else ), to dust Andrew Golata in a single round the way that he did. Especially after what Golata had just done to Bowe. Michael Grant was a giant among heavyweights and coming off a very respectable streak of quality wins.. Look at what happened to him when stepped in the ring with Lewis. Briggs was another monster who was top rated and easily feasted on. Tua was handely outboxed, etc...

Head to head, there are some fighters that I might favor slightly over him. I tend to think that a peak Tyson would at least have a chance, but I wouldn't bet money on it. Ali might have beaten him too by edging him in a decision, but again I'm not going to bet my life on it. At one point I would have picked a number of heavyweights to beat him, but after seriously thinking it through, I think he beats most of them, and certainly does better against the division as a whole than any other single man could.

 

The problem lately with Charles is that people make him to be a top HW mostly based on his success at lower wieghts and the fact that he went up and had some relative success in the heavies. What he did as an heavy is what has to be considered here. He did much better than Moore or Spinks but still, I place rank him 10-15 all time.

 

10-15 is a reasonable ranking. I myself have him sitting right around 10. I guess the reason I like him so much is because his record is almost completely void of any padding whatsoever. He fought quality fighters back to back, months apart for years at a time. He reigned the heavyweight division through some 9 world title fights. He continued to be a top 3 heavyweight for like 3 years after losing the title. He was matched up with just about every profile of fighter, ie, punchers, swarmers, boxers, slicksters, boxer-punchers, etc... Now granted he had a lot of defeats, but frankly I can't think of anyone who had his career schedule, and if they had, it would have been interesting to see what their final record would have looked like.

 

Powerpuncher.

"McCall beat 5 champions and 2 ATG top 10ers."

"He's 2-1 against ATG, better than Frazier."

You don't really believe this do you?

Frazier beat a 29 year old Ali in what was called "The Fight of the Century".

McCall beat a unmotivated Lewis (who at the time was not talked in the same breath as Ali) who made him cry in the rematch.

McCall beat a 45 year old Larry Holmes.

Those are the two ATG you have mentioned that McCall beat.

Beating a 29 year old Muhammad Ali (who is number 1 in my book) in a fight that was seen around the world and called "Fight of the Century" is better than anything McCall accomplised in beating pre-Manny Lewis and a 45 year old Holmes.

 

McCall is only known for three fights, he lost two of them, guess who he beat? Lewis.

McCall is known for beating Lewis, Losing to Bruno and crying in the Lewis rematch.

I don't think he would have ever been world champ had he not faced Lewis, like i don't think Bruno would have become world champ if he hadn't fought McCall.

I would rather have Frazier's career than McCall's Powerpuncher.

"2-1 against ATG top 10ers."?

I would rather be known for beating a unbeaten Muhammad Ali than beating a pre-Manny Lewis or an old Larry.

 

No I was having a laugh but statistically it is true. Frazier is ofcourse league's better and has perhaps the best win ever

But McCall has his fair share of quality wins against champions/ranked fighters, Lennox, Maskeev, Akiwande, Sinal Sam, Seldon, Damiani. McCall is basic but his power, chin, strength are top draw

 

I have no problem putting Lewis as high as number 3 on a very generous day. He certainly is top 5 in my book. The fighters he beat makes the pelts of Liston, Johnson, Foreman and Holmes look pretty tame.

 

Dempsey and his wife, objective observers like those should put the nail in the coffin of this dive-myth? Or should we just go by the primary reports who were independent and did not think it was a fix?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what i stated, in that Holmes would have two TKO losses to fighters worse than McCall, had he had the same King referee.

Mmm, Lewis never had the opportunity to show what? Beating the great Tommy Gibbons on points?

Or are you referring again to the 15 rounds? I did punch stat count a while ago, and Dempsey averaged something between 23 and 25 punches a round against Gibbons. Hardly a high workrate nor something of which i'd think Lewis would be incapable of doing, considering he threw double that (literally) over 12 rounds when he was 34 against someone who has 40 pounds on Gibbons.

The pleasure is all mine. Maybe it won't surprise you if i told you i laughed when i read your opening post going on a serious tone "How would Lewis have fared under 15 round rules..?" I knew you couldn't let that one slip! :yep

 

Nah, never fought the best in their respective primes. Not sure he would have accomplished all he did had he started fighting the better fighters in lets say the late 80's. Guys like Bruno Mercer and Mcall were able to get to him easy early on. Regardless of what happened in the olympics, a completely different "pro" Bowe would have probably killed him. Tyson forcing him to brawl would have left him defenseless. He was not a complete fighter. He had no clue how to fight inside. Until Steward was able to teach him how to hold without getting Dq'd, that was a huge flaw in his game.

 

What, you mean the 80's greats like Berbick, Weaver, Tucker and Tubbs would've beaten him?

Bruno won a few rounds and at best was ONE POINT ahead after 6 rounds, got stopped in the 7th. Since when are fights scored on a six-round basis? Ali was even with Folley after the 6th.

You think he would've "probably killed him", but Bowe himself obviously didn't, or he would've just kept his word like a man and respected the contract that he signed - that is, he got his title shot against Holyfield because he promised to fight the winner of Lewis-Ruddock.

In 40 fights, 20 of which against top opposition, how often was Lewis defenseless? Exactly, never. As for not having a clue how to fight on the inside, i take it you've not seen his fights in a while, or you would've known that he tore Grant, Tyson, McCall (rematch), Klitschko, Mavrovic and others apart with the right uppercutl.

The holding thing is bull**** as well. Outside of the Tyson fight, where Cotton did the most biased referee job in the entire history of big boxing matches, Lewis was never even had a point taken for holding. Want to compare that to Tyson's elbowing, low blows, biting, Ali's holding behind the head, Holmes' thumbing, or Holyfield's constant headbutting? You're a hypocrite if you think this is a negative on Lewis' career.

 

I have to speak truthfully here. Lennox two one punch knockout losses to mediocre fighters in hasim rahman and oliver mccall while lewis was champion, leave a very bitter taste in my mouth. All the scope in the world just can't seem to get that taste out of my mouth.

 

While the man had two very bad losses, he avenged both of them leaving him with the claim of being one of the few fighters to have beaten every man he ever faced. Additionally, he clobbered more supersized heavys that were in the primes of their careers, and with fairly impressive records than just about any champion ever did. Lastly, he arguably beat more rated fighters than just about anyone except for Ali and Louis. As another tid bit of interest, McCall and Rahman were ranked contenders. Its a common falacy on ESB for posters to refer to them as either journeyman or trial hoarses, and this is simply not the case.........