ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Foreman or Lewis?

Definitely Foreman for me.

 

Not an easy choice to make. On one hand we can try and simplify things by saying that Lewis never defeated a great like Frazier while Foreman never lost to anyone as bad as McCall or Rahman, but that's a lazy man's argument if we're honest. Foreman never completely cleaned out an entire division of prime contenders in an era of super heavyweights. Therefore, Lewis has some amunition to work with as well.

I chose Foreman on the poll, due to the fact that he has a very complete resume from a lot of different standpoints. He was a two time lineal champion who acheived this feat by convincingly knocking out two undefeated lineal champions. He made history by becoming the division's oldest champ with his phenomenal comeback, which not only rocked the boxing world, but changed how most of us think about old age. He still holds the best win/Ko ratio of any lineal heavyweight champion. I will also ad that while he defeated a significantly smaller list of rated opponents than Lennox Lewis, his best victories over Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle and Michael Moorer are arguably better than that of Lewis's wins over Holyfield, Ruddock, Tua, Golata, Klitschko, etc. Of course, this is all subject to opinion, but still. Lastly, Foreman was only Ko'd once in some 80 pro fights and that came against the concencus greatest of all time. Lewis was Ko'd twice in just over 40 fights, and won't go into who did it, given that its a sore subject around here.

CONCLUSION: I often go back and forth on who I think should be rated higher between these two, but for the moment, I'll go with Foreman by a hairline margin. Lewis may well be the better fighter in a lot of head to head matchups due to his more complete package of skills, but if we're talking legacy, I think George may have an inch on him or two.

 

Lewis a clear winner for me. A better boxer and a better career all-round.

 

Very close call, but I went with Lewis, but I go back and forth and it's close either way.

 

Congratulations Asero.... you have a 100% success rate in picking the opposite fighters from me.

I rank Foreman higher than Lewis.

 

Lewis is the better fighter, but Foreman competed in the superior era and came back and reclaimed the title past is best....close call but i'll go with lewis.

 

Lewis, clearly. I have Lewis at #4 and Foreman around #13 or so.

 

Lewis, easily. Foreman has some great accomplishments, but his record against top fighters is quite terrible by ATG standards. Lewis, on the other hand, has the rare distinction of having beat veryone he faced as a pro.

 

Lewis is just much more proven. Foreman's first career was a very short one, with only four significant wins (Chuvalo, Frazier, Norton and Lyle), of which one guy was tailor made for him and unfocused on boxing (Frazier), another one who lost to any decent puncher (Norton), a good win over Chuvalo and a life-and-death struggle against Lyle, who incidentally is the only puncher that landed on him and nearly had him out. Then there's humiliating losses against Ali and Young that were no fluke; he was always horribly flawed technically.

The comeback enhances his legacy and winning the title at 44 is incredible. However, let's not forget that he lost one-sidedly to Morrison, Holyfield, should've lost to Schulz and basically went even with Stewart and Savarese. You can't take only the good without the bad.

What bothers me most about Foreman is that his wins only come against people made for him. Norton, glass chin. Moorer, dito. Frazier comes forward walking right in his offense without offering much in return, early on. Lyle didn't and nearly beat him. Young didn't and shut him out. Ali didn't and humiliated him.



This translates itself back into the statistics. His record against contenders during the 70's was 4-2. If you include the 90's then it's something like 6-5. Hardly compares to Lewis' very proven 18-2, who was on top of the mountain for a continuous 12 years. Foreman was on the top for 5 years in the 70's and officially the man for a few years during the 90's, but everyone knew he avoided the top guys... hell, he even admitted that much himself. To the contrary, Lewis fought everyone who he could fight, was ducked himself and took the high risk-low reward fights like Golota, Briggs, Grant and Klitschko. To me he's more proven the way a champion should. Yes, he suffered embarrassing losses, but the body of his work more than compensates for it.

 

Is this a joke? Both on resume and on head-to-head ability Lewis is ahead of Foreman, very clearly.