Best Heavyweight Resume Ever ?

It's between Ali and Lewis.

I'll favour Lennox. His first 'threat' was the old but still capable Mike Weaver. His last threat, Vitali, turned out to be a pretty damn good fighter. In between those he has quite an impressive collection of scalps, many of them live threats. So yeah, for me Lewis.

 

It doesn't depend on those names, but not objecting to them being listed as "live" opponents shows serious bias.

Rankings are a starting point, no more. You have to consider each particular case further to know their worth. You can't just count ranked opponents or IBHoF inductees and conclude that since fighter A had beaten 20 ranked opponents and 6 IBHoF members, his resume is better than fighter B's, who had beaten only 10 ranked opponents and 3 IBHoF members. It doesn't work that way.

I don't think so. Henry Cooper was a third-rater, much worse than either McCall or Rahman who had beaten Lewis.

Norton had become a top contender solely based on his victory over injured Ali. He hadn't beaten anyone else of notice to earn his supposed high ranking. Just as Foreman had earned his status based solely on a victory over past-prime Frazier. My chatter may have bored everyone already, but if this had taken place not at heavyweight but some other division, Foreman would have a hard time getting ranked in Top 50 based on a single win like that followed by two embarrassing losses to supposedly shot Ali and a second-rater Jimmy Young.

 

Maybe, but they were still threats. Not so much Mavrovic and Botha, but the rest were.
Tua was definitely a threat and it's only in hindsight that he is now seen as not a threat at the time.
Holyfield? Nobody could ever take him lightly. Always a threat.

 

Lewis has a fine resume. How bad do you feel his two defeats affect his career? Has any heavyweight great ever had worse defeats than these?

 

People are listing Ossie Ocasio and Glenn McCrory as "live" opponents of Lennox Lewis ... but Archie Moore and Cleveland Williams are jokes?

And you don't credit someone for fighting Joe Frazier for 15 rounds in the Fight of the Century? But beating Ossie Ocasio in a non-descript, long-forgotten bout counts for Lewis?

That's a joke.

"Live" opponents are fighters who have a reasonable chance of winning. Everyone I mentioned was considered a "live" opponent for Ali at the time he fought them. Against Moore, Cassius Clay was a loud-mouthed 20-year-old kid, with only 15 fights, who already had to get off the floor against Sonny Banks to win.

Ossie Ocasio and Glen McCrory were not live opponents for Lewis when they fought. And Phil Jackson, who is also listed as a "live" Lewis opponent, had as much of a chance against Lewis as Williams did against Ali - he was a ranked contender with a puncher's chance, and that's it.

 

Ocasio and McCrory had been commented on in post #32. Nobody objected to Moore or Williams.

 

I know we have nothing else to talk about.

 

janior
Like I said, you are showing serious bias by continual refusal to admit those two were not in any way live opponents for Ali (despite Moore supposedly being ranked in top 10 at the time, like I said, that doesn't always mean something).
I'm aware that you are showing the same attitude toward most old-timers, refusal to take even small step back or admit a tiny flaw. I'm perfectly willing and ready to accept my favorite fighters' flaws without thinking that would mean betrayal and disparagement of them. Of course, I'm expecting the same from my opponent, if he refuses to admit any flaws in whoever he is defending, shouldn't expect me to do that.

For the 1000th time, I repeat that beating 20 ranked opponents at heavyweight may have less worth than beating 10 ranked opponents at lightweight, for example. Simply because the lightweights have more class in general than heavyweights. Heavyweights also get a lot of attention when candidates for HoF induction are considered. Do you think Sid Terris, for example, who is not in IBHoF, was less deserving than a dozen or two of heavyweights who were inducted?

Henry Cooper was unranked both times, something you seem to care much about. I'm not quite sure what Ali called him prior to their bout, third or fourth-rater. And then he's getting nearly stopped by an opponent he was laughing at. Had it not been the end of the round, it's likely Ali would be stopped.

Norton was ranked highly during an extremely weak period, between two epochs changing each other.

Foreman didn't defeat a single ranked opponent (something you care about) before getting a title fight with Moorer and winning it by chance blow.

 

Yes, beating a top 10 heavyweight like Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Patterson, etc., is no better than beating a top 20 lightweight, like ROD SALKA.

Christ. All done. I thought this was a classic forum?

 

I'll rank one win vs prime Tony Canzoneri or Jimmy McLarnin over a dozen defeats of crippled Floyd Patterson.

 

It does have a fair amount of negative impact, especially since Lewis was at (or close to) the peak of his powers for both. There is no doubt that neither McCall nor Rahman were given much chance to beat Lewis, so they were unexpected and unnecessary losses.

Unlike some, I feel his loss to McCall was legitimate. A slightly premature stoppage (considering the magnitude of the event) but for some reason this loss has managed to be almost passed over as a robbery for some posters. I strongly disagree.

Offhand, only Frazier's loss to Foreman and Wlad's loss (if you are one to call Wlad great) to Sanders were more devastating. So yeah, these factors have to count heavily against Lewis.

Still though, all in all, a surprisingly deep list of quality names is in his W column. (I feel he edged out Mercer and beat Holy the second time by a close but clear score.)

 

The problem with that statement is you can find a guy walking down the street who could beat the best lightweight in the world. There were guys at the ESPYs who could kick Floyd Mayweather's ass.

The best heavyweight in the world is supposed to be able to beat every man in the world, not just grown men who weigh less than 135 pounds.

In REALITY, beating the best heavyweights in the world is ALWAYS A greater accomplishment than beating the best lightweight in the world because -- all fan boy crap aside - it is actually more difficult for a person to do that.

If Wlad Klitschko was standing in front of you, and little Manny Pacquiao was standing beside him, and you had to choose which one to FIGHT ... in the REAL WORLD you wouldn't pick Wlad ... no matter how much "style" Pacquiao had.

If we're rating which heavyweight has the actual best resume, Muhammad Ali does. Muhammad Ali beat other human beings who, at one time, could beat all the other grown men on the planet.

Jimmy McClarnin and Tony Canzoneri could never beat every man in the world - and never claimed that they could. Because it was ridiculous to even think that they could. If you weighed 20 pounds more than they did, you had a good chance of winning against them.

 

That was a truly shocking post Dubblechin. I think you've definitely added some nice posts to the forum, but this one is wretched.