Lewis. Wins over Tyson, Holyfield, V Klitschko, Mercer, Morrison, Briggs, Ruddock, Tua, McCall, Bruno, Golota and Rahman beat the likes of Walcott, Charles, Baer, Schmeling et al. Maybe not in a historical sense, but in a H2H sense, given that a ton of Louis's opponents wouldn't even be heavyweights today. See above. Lewis. Better H2H, better jab, better power shots, better defense and footwork. Louis had faster hands, and was crisper as a puncher, but his feet were stuck in mud a lot of the time, and he was very hittable and hurtable. His jab was also very overrated, more of a push than a pure snapping shot a lot of the time. Lennox could bust you up from the inside or the outside, he could box your ears off or brawl with you. Louis was far more limited.
Yea in a mythical fight I'd favor Louis slightly. Lennox would be huge compared to Louis in terms of size. His jab would keep Louis at bay for jus so long until Louis got inside with nasty hooks body and head. He would clip Lennox late in the fight for my prediction
Resume, I'd pick Louis, wins over Charles and Walcott are impressive wins, more so than a old Holyfield and Vitali who despite being a head to head monster, never had the resume to back it up. Opposition, damn it's close I think the Vitali Lewis beat probably beats anyone Louis fought, old Holyfield might lose to Charles and Walcott though, he wasn't near his prime when he fought Lewis. I think it could go either way but as I think Vitali beats anyone Louis fought then I go with Lewis. Better boxer, I think Louis was a better combination puncher, better technique too, but Lewis' size, reach, jab and power would see him beat Louis head to head. So Lewis is 2-1 up, but in terms of who ranks higher? Has to be Louis he was just so dominant during his reign, while he had the surprising Schmeling loss, Lewis twice lost when he shouldn't have to McCall and Rahman and he didn't rack up 25 defences and over a decade of dominance, that's a very hard thing to do and that put's him over the top of Lewis in terms of greatness.
Cant even imagine someone like Galento going past one or two rounds with LL... let alone dropping him. LL a different level, imo.
Well, small journeyman Levi Billups went the full 10-rounds distance and he had 10 KO losses in his record. 5'9'' journeyman Justin Fortune went 4 against prime Lennox that was trained by Emanuel Steward. They hardly were better than Galento. I'm pretty sure they were far worse
Lewis all 3. People who thinks Louis beats probably the best SHW of all time is voting emotionally. Lewis is 6’5 240lbs vs a Louis who had his feet stuck on mud and barely weighed 200lbs, in truth he would have trimmed down to CW today.
Easily. That's no knock on Louis, who was and forever will be a great champion, but the level of opposition he faced in his time can't be compared to modern heavyweights in a H2H sense. Billy Conn was considered a viable HW opponent at 175lbs (some say 169lbs) and nearly knocked out Louis. How many SMWs and LHWs of recent decades have been able to successfully compete against the reigning HW champ without going up in weight?
Did Lennox get knocked down by Fortune and Billups? How many losses did Farr have and Godoy on their records when they went the distance with Louis?
Louis was great against small or evenly sized opponents who were happy to trade with him in close, and against big malcoordinated oafs that gave up their height or lacked the speed, sharpness or coordination to box at range. He had a lot more issue with fighters that opted to box with him on the outside, or who could match his handspeed and combination punching ability (Conn for instance). He's a great champ who I have a lot of respect for, but he continues to be horrendously overrated H2H. He had a ton of flaws that people never like to admit to which would see him get merced by any decent modern-day heavyweight.