@Classics. If Lennox Lewis never losted. Can he be considered top 3 ATG HW?

Top 15, maybe 13.

Lewis had little skill, just great size and punch. The way he winded vs. Klitschko, the two of them exhausted and leaning on each other after 4 rounds, is inexcusable in an "all-time great." He is FAR from the elites.

His resume is simply weak. Everyone he beat was never any good (most) or way past their primes (Holyfield, Tyson) and/or way outsized (Holyfield, Tyson, others).

Lewis benefited from a dearth of talent in the division his entire career, pure and simple. His list of title defenses--none of those guys when in their primes make anybody's top 50 except for Holy and Klit.

Then, viewing Lewis (and imagining him in with a live body who can actually fight), he is too slow, too lumbering, too awkward, too tentative, and not too adroit at the finer points of boxing; I could go on.

He just came along at the right time, in an era of lousy heavyweights.

 

I have him 6 or 7...It doesnt matter to me he lost considering his biggest lost in his career he made good on...And gettin his belt back...I may even rank him higher

 

We can't rule out that it's both !

 

Please, name twelve heavyweights that are better. Even if it's trolling, we might as well get our two pence worth!

 

I look at arguments for making Lennox Lewis as a top 3 fighter with such bemusement when you consider how his actual reign. His resume is deep, though his marquee wins have asterisks next to them simply because he beat fighters once they were past their best. I personally have him on the bottom half on the top 10.

As for the OP, if Lennox Lewis never lost, the trajectory of his career would have been remarkably different. Under this new path where he'd likely fight Riddick Bowe in 1994, not to mention Holyfield, Moorer, Tyson all before 1999, assuming that he won those fights on his "new path" then an argument for No. 1 would be pretty obvious.

 

Not trolling, just been in and around boxing for enough decades to have seen great heavyweights.

Since you take the name Felix Trinidad, can we assume you're under 30 and never saw Ali, Frazier, or Foreman in their primes, much less the prior generations from them? because Trinidad was plain **** compared with Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and even Benitez.

Sorry that I don't think like Brits who worship Lewis or anything British; I saw what I saw, and it was disgraceful that he was a champion.

If you think he was a great, skilled fighter, then I wonder who is ******ed.

 

That's a pretty major assumption. I cannot see Lewis beating any of them at that time.

I agree with your entire post except for the "assumption," which you don't seem to argue would be a certainty, either.

 

No shame in losing. I think the fact he avenged his defeats enhances his legacy.
You find out more about a man/fighter after a defeat.

 

I believe Lennox Lewis is overated. It does bother me to read some of these comments saying he should be in the top 3 and possibly 1 with his resume if he didnt lose. I dont know too many old timers who would agree with that kind of talk.