I agree, by a small hair. Dempsey has a good, devastating title run ala the guy in your avatar though, which counts for a lot to me. I also like his 1RKO HW record as well. Demps is a lot like Tyson actually, unbeatable in the flame of his youth and then when he slowed down, was vulnerable and beatable. For the record, I think he would have beaten Wills and Greb (and most of the boxers of the time seem to think so as well), but it certainly hurts his resume. Peak Louis and Dempsey would both mop the floor with the Rock in my opinion. Both of them have a big speed edge over the rock and annihilate any fighter that comes to them. Dempsey, in a hitting match is proven to be nearly unbeatable. Being outboxed is a different story. A prime Louis with all his weapons intact(that right cross that had faded so much, and those uppercuts) would have picked the rock apart and put his lights out. Same. I think Tunney is greatly undersold as a fighter H2H and resume wise though, but thats just me, certainly i'd rate him higher than what he is on that list. Maybe above Charles, and you KNOW i love ezz.
I tend to agree with you.....But Archie was still very competitive in 55, have wins over Harold Johnson(1954), Bobo Olson(1955) , Nino Valdes (1955).....Ezzard was still competitive too....
Competitive, but was he this Charles? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56fBd7nfmUY[/ame] Or even this one? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQGryRCbLzU[/ame]
While I can see the flaws and blemishes on Foreman's record, Lennox Lewis was knocked out by a couple of second-raters while in his prime, so he's on unsound ground himself. I think Foreman has the best win on their combined ledgers too. Dempsey I would rate higher than Tyson. Better fighter, didn't get owned in his prime by a journeyman either. I guess I can agree with you on Johnson though.
Oh OK Swarmer, agreed.......Rocky is my number 10 HW anyway... Good list ! But.....How can you guys put Tyson above Holyfield ? I dont understand, but it's just me maybe, i dont now.....
Foreman defended the title twice in his first reign (if you count the amazing Jose Roman) and lost it to an old Ali, essentially being outguiled. The second time around, he got a sliver of the belt, and one defense which was a robbery against Shultz. Three title defenses which included one decent opponent. Lewis defended 14 times (?), beat every man he faced in the era of the biggest, strongest, hardest punching heavies bar none. Opponents defeated included huge punchers like Ruddock, Tyson, Tua, Briggs, Morrison, Golota, Tucker, Grant, Klitschko, Bruno, Mason, McCall... Has any champion in the history of the division ever dispatched that level of depth and quality of punchers?
1)foreman does have the best wins but he lacks longevity at the top and a solid reign. his advantage is that, at least on record, he only lost to the very solid fighters in ali, holyfield and even morrison and briggs. still, lewis cleaned out his division and dominated a decade, foreman didn't 2)dempsey him didn't get owned by journeyman but he repeatedly lost and drew with boxcar hobo fat willie meehan. yes, they were only 4 rounders but he was at his physical prime and you'd think a fighter renowned for his early round power would be able to beat someone as unheralded in 4 rounds.
I believe he was my #10 as well. I do think he deserves top 10 recognition, I just don't see him stacking up well at all H2H and I question his competition is all. He was great in his own way but not a top 5er imo. As for Dempsey, yeah he wasn't truly great shakes until he hooked up with Kearns who refined his style. He was in some tough bouts before then. But that's what happens when you're riding around as a hobo with no legitimate trainers or promoter trying to nab a title shot. Foreman's comeback shows how incredible of a fighter he is to me, and the depth of the division when he was in his prime. Lewis faced a division with a lot of strong and hard hitting guys, but where are the smaller, skilled, smarter guys? Lennox is missing tests against a good man in this vein.
ohhh, good questions seamus but liston, frazier, foreman, shavers, johannson (in sparring), moore (an old washed moore), quarry and norton beat lewis's puncher list by a hair (you omitted holyfield ). the first 4 of ali's are all top 20 heavyweight punchers
Most of Lewis's defences were for a "sliver" of the belt too. He won the WBC title in the boardroom first time around, and against the farcical McCall the second time around. Some of the names you mention were frankly unimpressive. Briggs' claim to fame was doing almost as well as Axel Schulz againt the crappy Foreman you're talking about. In fact, most people thought Foreman beat Briggs. Lots of heavyweights punch hard. Lewis's opposition wasn't as special as you make out. Holyfield was the best, by far. And past his prime. I think Foreman's win over Frazier is more impressive.
Lewis didn't dominate a decade. He lost to second-raters in 1994 and 2001, and didn't get around to fighting Holyfield until Holy was already past his best. I think Foreman's record has blemishes and weaknesses too - Jimmy Young for starters. I make allowances for his "second career" losses - Briggs was crap, but I think George was robbed. Morrison was crap too, and George definitely lost that. Foreman's overall quality of opposition is a bit weak, lots of padding on his record. Well, they were only 4-round fights, and some were even charity benefits, but, yes, he lost at least one to Meehan while he was the leading contender. Meehan wouldn't fight him in a longer fight, if I remember rightly. I don't consider 4-rounders to a decision a rightful test for contender-level pro fighters, and that goes for the ones Dempsey won too. But, yeah, it's a blemish. Still, Tyson losing to title in the manner he did to Douglas is a bigger blemish, IMO.
for lewis, you're right about his losses but he beat every viable contender during his time on top. he tried to fight tyson but it didn't work out. i wish he fought holyfield sooner but i don't see it going much different; as it is, holyfield has a loss against lewis and that's all we can use. lewis has a much deeper resume. foreman's first career resume is solid but unspectacular save for frazier (which counts for a LOT), foreman's second career was careful matchmaking with few notable wins against top contenders. i just can't see it for dempsey, it's almost cheap of me to bring up meehan but it should count. dempsey showed a vulnerability (repeatedly) to a fat spoiler; you'd think an all time great would be able to adapt. those fights aside, he got twice destroyed by a beautiful boxer in tunney and his most famous wins were against a limited willard and VERY limited firpo (who he should have lost to if rules were followed). i don't see the depths in dempsey's resume that others do