A peak joe louis vs a peak lennox lewis

Yeah, this is exactly as I see it.

 

...how on earth does great fighters sharpening their tools on multiple occasions against other great fighters in any way undermine the notion that these fighters are better? Doing fighting is how you get good at fighting...Burley had more fights with ATG's than modern hall of famers have title defenses...and this is supposed to support your argument?

Then you haven't watched Walcott properly, and cannot possibly rank Louis as an ATG head to head. Louis went life and death with Walcott. Walcott is the rarest of things above 175, a master boxer.

Hell yes! Look, the forties included Louis, Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Billy Conn, Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Ike Williams...of these, I think Ike Williams is the weakest of the bunch. He has a very, very good chance of beating Duran in my opinion. There are people on this board who would say I should be lynched for saying Williams is the weakest of this bunch. They might point at Marshall. Maybe Jones could beat Marshall at LHW, but he couldn't beat Charles, Moore and Marshall....40's is deeper, better, not really that close.

:huh No, based on the first Louis fight? This was Walcott's best performance? You seem to think Walcott was done by the time he fought Louis, he was far, far more "done" when he met Simon. Yes, he would crush Mercer - it would be an embarrassment.

Jesus. What world class slicksters has Mercer beaten? He couldn't even beat Larry Holmes in ****ing 1993 or whatever it was...

Yes. In determining the overall quality of the opponent.

Louis utterly destroyed the bigger men he faced. Now you will say those guys weren't as good as the Klitschko's. I agree. But they are about as good, if not better, than Rahman, Mercer ****ing Snowsnoski, (that one was a joke!). This crop of title challangers is horrible, awful, regardles of size. They promised, but did not deliver. I don't see any real reason why Peter, Chagaev (of whom i'm a big fan) or Bruno would do anything for Louis other than be ignored by modern detractors, and it's unlikely any of them hit harder than Max Baer anyway, who got absolutely destroyed by Joe.

I have no idea why you keep comparing boxing to spriniting, and I think that i f you dropped Burley into the 140lb division in 1990 he cleans up all the way up to 168 depending upon if he crosses swords with one Roy Jones.

I think Louis dukes it out with Lewis for dominance, and likely comes up on the better end of a 2/3 given that Lewis peaked late in that decade.

I think that Walcott makes waves at 200 before moving up to do better than Adamek, Byrd, or anyone else before him other than Holyfield.

 

I think the 1990's HW's were better than the 1940's HW's in terms of that very top tier. It think that top 20 is a much bigger and tougher call to make. Racial prejudice seems to have made the top 20 in the 1940's a dangerous place. Guys who would arguably have worked their up to a higher ranking were they white could be found lurking at 9 or 12 I bet.

Very difficult call to make, I would be hesitant. Someone really needs to do the legwork on this one. If I was laying money, blind, I'd lay it on the 90's, but do you know what the quality is between 15 and 20 for HW's of the forties? I don't. I'm not even sure I feel qualified to comment on that level of depth for the HW division in the 90's.

I do know that Jimmy Bivins is probably better than anyone Mike Tyson beat in the 90's