Classic Forum Collective Top 10 All-Time Heavyweights--POLL CLOSED!

Lewis?? #13

Ruiz? The only all-time list he makes is the worst beltholders ever. #1 of course.:yep

 

There is no fighter in the history of HW boxing that gained belts like Ruiz did, by so blatantly flouting the basic rules of boxing (excessive holding), and even worse, faking low blows. You would be hard pressed to find a beltholder with less boxing ability. That Ruiz ever held a title is a disgrace to the sport - a testimony to the influence of powerful promoters in manuevering fighters to levels their ability didn't merit.

As far as Holyfield, he is grossly underrated by many boxing fans. People look, I think, at all the losses over the last decade and count this against him. He beat more top fighters in a good era than just about anybody, and never got taken out early by second rate fighters. He wins over a prime Bowe and a still-formidable Tyson are better than anything on Lewis's record.

 

Zak, how can you have Holyfeld so much farther ahead than Lewis?

 

I'm glad you asked, and in a polite manner no less (usually I get something along the lines of "how dare you"). The answer is this. I count Lewis getting taken out early by second rate fighters McCall and Rahman very heavily against him. Lewis is the only top level HW champion to have this happen to him twice while he held the title, an unusual distinction.

The other main aspect for this is that he never fought any of the three other best fighters of his era - Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe - when they were even near their primes. He also never faced another of the top guys, Michael Moorer, and arguably lost to another, Ray Mercer.

On all of these counts Holyfield rates better. Only stopped once in the heart of his career, and that after many rounds of punishment against Bowe. Beat a prime Bowe and a still dangerous Tyson. Beat both Moorer and Mercer convincingly. And otherwise fought at least the same quality of opposition, often the same guys.

Does this make my rationale a little clearer for you?

 

Perhaps. Lewis was also up and down (literally). He only held a fractional title in the early 90s, indeed for most of the 90s, and lost that against McCall. Some of his defenses (Butler, Fortune, Mavrovic) were against mediocre opposition.

Lewis's number of defenses - whatever the opposition - is the only point he has over Holyfield, so in that sense, I don't disagree. But the other factors I mentioned in my previous response, in my view, outweigh this.

 

Agreed. Lennox was never considered to be the Champ until 1999.

So Lewis's reign is really from 1999-2003 roughly 4 years.

Holmes was champ for 7 years and had 20 title defenses. Its hard to ignore that.

 

Haven't double checked, but I think that if you weigh the final voting on a 1st equals ten, and each spot one less, basis (so 10th equals one point), not much changes, except Langford eeeks ahead of Tunney, and we switch from 9. Tyson 10. Frazier 11. Liston to 9. Frazier 10. Liston 11. Tyson.

 

This content is protected

 

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Marciano
Lewis
Foreman
Johnson
Dempsey
Frazier
Holyfield

 

What were the final results?

 

Liston No. 3... Good God.. I hope times have changes your opinion buddy