Who should be higher on the ATG Heavyweight list. Lewis or Foreman?

He also said Lennox was the GOAT, so did Ali

 

There is no way Foreman is remotely close to Lewis, let alone above him, if you use any kind of reasonable yardstick for rating boxers.

On size, power, strength, skills, maybe even head to head ability, they are reasonably similar overall, and I can understand going either way. But on accomplishments, longevity, championship victories, and record vs quality opposition Lewis is way, way out in front. Foreman isn't even close.

The only way you can possibly have Foreman even near Lewis is if you think number of title victories, length of champsionship reign, and quality of opposition are all *completely meaningless*. And who thinks that? The people rating Foreman first are just not thinking straight about how you rate a boxer.

 

Classic example of trying to make your opinion sound like the truth, instead of trying to find the truth.

 

Lennox Lewis is greater.

 

I vote Lewis. I think George is very overrated. Lewis cannot match the couple of stellar names on Foreman's record, but overall he wins on overall resume, dominance, and ability.

 

i rate foreman higher because i take into account that they were around in different times. it was foreman's bad luck that he faced muhammad ali early into his reign. if it wasn't fore muhammad ali, foreman would have ruled more several years until he faced larry holmes. if foreman were around in early 90s like lewis, he'd clean out everyone except for a 1993 holyfield who'd outwork and outpoint both foreman and lewis. foreman would have destroyed the guys lewis defended his title against.

foreman's win over joe frazier is more impressive than lewis' best win over a more faded evander holyfield. head to head, foreman would have defeated lennox.

foreman would never lose to oliver mccall and haseem rahman. i won't make excuses for the young fight although there i good ones. i still see it as a lesser loss than getting starched in the early rounds.

i rate foreman higher, easily. lennox did not have the boxing skills to beat foreman. lennox had awesome power (w/ size) that would make things interesting but i see foreman ko'ing him. maybe not as early as 2 rounds (as foreman claimed before being the chamelion that he is) but eventually.

lennox was great but foreman was greater.

1. ali
2. louis
3. liston
4. foreman
5. marciano
6. frazier
7. holmes
8. holyfield
9. lewis
10. tyson
11. dempsey

edit: if someone thinks i have liston too high - i can understand the grief.

 

no, i'm afraid he spoke the truth there.

 

If, if, if. You can't judge boxing on ifs. What if Lewis had dodged those two bombs from McCall and Rahman, what if Tyson didn't duck him and Lennox knocked him out in the early 90s? THen we'd be ranking him above Ali.

You can only judge fighters on what they achieved. If you're using the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" approach, you have to give that benefit to Lewis as well as Foreman.

 

If it was the truth he'd have mentioned the loss to Young, the life or death struggle with Lyle, Foreman's lack of heart during his prime, and the FIVE unavenged defeats in Foreman's career, versus Lewis defeating every opponent he ever faced, and being ducked by Bowe and Tyson.

He didn't mention them because he is prejudiced and biased against Lewis.

 

and i did consider that and hate hypotheticals...

but you can't always ignore it...you have to use "discretion"

if you remember the rahman fight there was clear reason why lewis lost...we could see it coming since round 3 when lewis kept dropping his hands ridiculously low

you can't completely disregard the different barriers that these two fighters faced...

i'm sorry...losing the title to muhammad ali is a big deal to me that can't be ignored...it deserves more consideration than lewis' losses (just an example you gave) which have clear explanations to them - lewis' own shortcoming.

i don't know how a '97 lewis would have faired against the tyson owned by holy. but i don't hold it against tyson for looking for the seemingly easier defense just as i don't hold it against lewis for accepting the step aside money

 

the "life and death" struggle against lyle was a GREAT WIN for foreman! it showed his chin and heart. i don't hold the lyle fight against foreman at all. call me biased, but here, using my "discretion" , i follow your advice and forget the coulda shoulda woulda and say that foreman got up to win the fight (something lennox or tyson never did). that speaks volumes. holding the lyle fight against foreman is as silly as holding against ali for having a life and death fight with joe frazier in manila.

i don't know about foreman's lack of heart during his prime. ali soundly beat him with right hand after right hand..foreman got up at 9 in ziare but they counted him out (good thing - he wouldn't have done better). i agree foreman doesn't seem methodical in his prime but that's because ali was just such a great technician with awesome handspeed.

yep, i won't make excuses for the young fight - a legitimate loss for foreman. still better than mccall or rahman imo.

yep, lewis was ducked by tyson and especially bowe.

foreman's losses? hmmm...ali, young...............................?????????

briggs, holy, morrison???

c'mon, you can't hold the last three against big george. he was 85 years old. ali ducked foreman after the fight (wise decision + he didn't owe george a rematch due to his advancing age).

 

:rofl:rofl

But at least he isn't feather-fisted like Tyson, right??

 

an older foreman punched harder than a lot of people. i believe holy. but i don't think it matters to try to nitpick and say who hit harder. the bottom line is they all hit like a mack truck and could change things around with a single punch

 

i do too but i try not to generalize because there are exceptions. tyson showed awesome, brute power with his one punch ko of a durable frans botha.