Deeper Resume -Lennox Lewis Or Joe Louis?

I don’t believe it.

 

Louis beat 6 lineal HW champions and defended the title 25 times.

 

Joe Louis and it's not particularly close.

Louis beat approximately twice as many fighters ranked in teh top ten.

You could argue that Lewis beat better fighters, and you would probably be right, but when it comes to depth Louis has got it locked down.

 

25 defenses. Wins again Baer, Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Sharkey, Bradock, Carnera, JH Lewis, Bivins...

 

This is why it’s so interesting.

Because you say that it’s not close, but then say that you could argue that Lennox beat better fighters.


I respect the official stats.

But then we have to apply context.


Joe’s opposition were ranked top 10 in his era.

And that’s all Joe could do.

Beat the guys in his era.


But it goes without saying, that they might not have had the same ranking in other eras.

Especially stronger ones.


This is like the Burt Sugar debate.

Burt had Louis over Ali, as he was more dominant in his era.


The counter to that, is that Joe had lesser, easier opposition to fight.

 

But were they a better group of fighters than the ones who Lennox fought?


The number of defences isn’t greatly impressive to me.

Joe certainly is.


But not specifically his defences.


Whilst you have to respect the consistency etc, we have to look at the quality.


I’m not overly impressed by Wlad’s defences.

And in other eras and divisions, I’m not overly impressed by the title reigns of: Bernard Hopkins, Sven Ottke, Dariusz M, Joe Calzaghe and GGG.


I can’t put Joe’s resume ahead of Lennox, just on the number of official defences made.


I actually rank Joe higher than Lennox.

I think that he should rank higher overall.

But I couldn’t say that Joe has a better resume/group of wins, and that’s it’s not even close.


He’s even spoken himself of his ‘bum of the month’ club.

(I don’t like that term, as it’s disrespectful)

 

I would just point out the fact that we have taken the opposite opinion on quality vs quantify in our discussions of Louis and Holmes!

Seriously, these were champs at a time before there were three belts to choose from, and most of these guys were closer to their best than Tyson.

I have Louis 2 and Lewis 3, so it is not like I am sensing a wide gulf, here.

 

That’s why it’s such an interesting debate.

Larry doesn’t have a great list of wins. But he ranks so highly due to many other important factors.


I have no issue with Joe ranking higher than Lennox.

But I can’t see how it’s not close in terms of their wins/resume.


Despite the official stats, I don’t see how Joe beat a much better group of overall fighters.

 

The operative word here is deeper, not better.

I think that Lewis beat better fighters, albeit that is an assumption on my part, as much as it is on the part of Team Lewis.

However when you debate which of two ATG's beat better fighters, it tends to come down to a very small number of fighters.

That is not a depth argument in my opinion.

 

If Joe ran Lennox's gauntlet he would have been KO'd a dozen times.

 

Prove it.

 

If Tony Galento puts you on the canvas, Lionel Butler puts you through it.

Work your way up from there.

 

Louis fought everybody in his era. At that time there was only one list of the top 10 fighters, and they had to fight one another to climb higher on that list, so i am sure some guys got eliminated without getting a title shot.
Lewis fought everybody in his era, except Bowe, and that doesn't seem to have been of his doing. During his time, there were four world champions and 4 top ten lists.
Neither one of them had any choice as to when they were born, how boxing worked at the time, and neither of them was a time traveler to fight guys that didn't exist when they fought. it seems to me that they both fought everybody that they could in their time.
Who fought better fighters? Lennox fought bigger fighters. Were they better, skill-wise, than the guys Louis fought? Personally, i have never thought that the heavyweight division was populated with particularly skillful fighters; if you want skill watch the lower divisions. During the time when Louis fought, the road to the top 10 was more trying; you had to fight often and you had to fight other top guys. For two reasons. First you made your living off the live gate and people want to see good fights. Second, there was only one top 10 list to climb. When Lewis fought, you could fight a whole career on set up fights and still be top 10 in some organization. And the champion only fought once or twice per year. Louis was defending monthly.
Lewis is bigger than Louis; Louis is a better fighter than Lewis. If i was teaching somebody to fight, I would have him watch Louis, not Lewis.

 

Nathan Mann>>>>Hasim Rehman

 

I believe Louis’s wins over max schmeling and Jersey Joe Walcott are better than Lennox’s wins over Holyfield and Tyson.