Stonehands' (~Objective) Top 10 HW Champions.

Did you pick him over Razor Ruddock in '92?

 

Good post!

 

Lewis had many good spots of aggression in the ring, but he was never the destroyer he had the potential to be.

Ted Spoon can still see him pawing at a vulnerable Holyfield in the 5th. C'mon man, put your foot on the gas!

 

Sure it's broad, but it made for such a great soundbite. I left it that because we all know that Lewis beat some bad boys, and even if he has no classics like Marciano-Charles he did come out on top in some tough fights. That, together with him overcoming everyone he faced, should get him a pretty good grade.

 

Stonehands--

I give you a commendation. This is a certainly a very justifiable listing, in my view.

One question I want to ask. What exactly is experience/level of competition? Is this fighting the best of your time or do you judge subjectively whether the level of competition of one time is better than the competition of another time?

 

Agreed, however Holy's ear getting bit off resulted in a DQ. Had nothing to do with overcoming adversity, though he did prove that he could deal with adversity in many of his other fights. I would reference the Bowe triliogy as well as his meeting with Michael Dokes.

 

Holyfiled fought on with out a ear. I count that as over comeing adversity. Any sane ref would have DQ after the first bite, and it was the first bite that rip off Holyfiled's ear.

 

I would certainly argue that Lewis overcame adversity against V.K. who had him on ***** street in the second round and was clearly dominating the fight, and Vitali was a big, strong, determined, young, skilled heavyweight. Marciano may have had his nose split up, but that's an external injury, certainly in boxing many, if not most, injuries are in fact internal, be they concussions, or severe body punches to the kidneys or liver.

Btw, good attempt to add some objectivity into what is often a set of criteria that differs among various posters.

 

I don't think this is fair criticism. Lewis fought everyone that was willing to fight him and fought nearly literally exclusively top-10 ranked opponents during the 12 years he spent at the top of the division. Despite that he beat every man he faced. That in itself is worth a bonus point if you ask me. He faced better competition that Tyson yet Tyson couldnt repeat the feat. Holyfield, dito. I think Bokaj made a good point; you dont every top guy without being able to overcome adversity.

Well, you defined this category to be synonymous to heart or heroism. So, a lack of score in this category is akin to a lack of heart.

As for Lewis not being outmatched, maybe you thought so (and i will applaud you for recognizing his ability without hindsight knowledge), but certainly the boxing community didn't think so. Watch the original broadcasts. Golota was picked over Lewis. Grant, dito. Tyson was equal as was Klitschko. The majority had Holyfield winning (before the fight).

Why does it? It's nothing against Americans, it's a simple fact about human psychology. Mexicans root for the Mexican fighter, Brits root for the Brit, Germans root for the German (based) boxer, Australians root for their Aussies, etc etc. Foreman himself said that having the entire country of Zaire chanting to get him killed worked against him big time, and he adopted a friendly approach during his comeback so that the crowd could give him new energy. This is certainly true in a mental sense, and you know damn well that Lewis did not have much backing, because he was neither charismatic nor had any clear roots, with that Canadian/Brittish/Jamaican thing.

I'm not holding Ali to a different standard, but even if i did, he scored 10 points so certainly he should hold up to a higher standard, no? And Norton was (and in my opinion still is) every bit as "second-rater" as McCall or Rahman. Like them, he is famous for beating a great, but having mediocre performances otherwise.

You call his losses to Norton and Frazier heroic, i call them failing to overcome adversity. What's the difference?


As for the "Lewis losing in his prime, against second raters", he was 35 against Rahman, at which age Ali was getting gift decisions and about to lose to 6-0 Neon Leon, talk about losing to third raters and not overcoming adversity. And Lewis lost to McCall at only one year younger than when Ali lost to Norton.

 

Thanks, Stone, for this valuable contribution!

Even though circular reasoning rears its ugly head in this and any other proposal-- "This guy's level of competition is high because he fought Ali; this other's is low because I happen to look down on his era." --till something better (if at all possible) is brought forth, I suggest these could become official running Classic ratings, to be debated and modified by general consensus.

I did Norton and came up with 34: 9; 5; 7; 7; 6.

Ali got 48. We view Ali pretty similarly.

This has been my all-time head-to-head list for some time:

Ali
Johnson
Tyson
Dempsey
Louis
Foreman
Frazier
Holmes
Lewis
Marciano

I'm gonna rate them per your system and see what happens.