My list is accomplishment, era/era and h2h, as well as impact in the sport at the time. So I think I have a pretty good list with all of those factors that isn't too biased. I do recognise Lennox as an ATG, that's not disputed one bit, I just feel he's a lower end ATG.
Those were the days...Christ it seems like three years ago. I know you have your opinions on old time fighters. Here's my case for Johnson. He could beat almost anyone in a one of fight. He is impossible to spar for, adaptable in the ring, has a top gear that he rarely gets into (think about that in terms of tactical deployment...a nightmare), is the best in fighter in heavyweight history and one of the strongest. The only guy i think mashes him is Ali. I think Tyson, Liston and Lewis have a really good shot at him. Other than that, I see guys dropping a points loss. And I stand by the Louis thing...he is made for Johsnon (though any rematch would be touch and go).
Let's up something here for pure discussion sake then my friend, and I do recognise Williams as a shaky chinned fighter, but no worse than a Golota, Rahman, Morrison type and I consider Williams maybe a little better than those guys all around. But here, let's pull this up for discussion sake, because H2H has plenty to do with my rankings.... Put Sonny Liston in Lewis' general career path, where he'd stay fresher and would be well regarded by the public. Say he starts at age 23, how does he do? I personally don't see him losing a single fight at the championship level, he was too good all around.
There's not as much between 5 and 13 as people like to make out. Though I do see my top four as an elite.
I've got nothing against Johnson, and as you can see I included him in my top 15. I am always skeptical of the abilities of a fighter from that era, but if we're talking era/era, then Johnson is a skillful menace just like Liston. Johnson was also one bad mother ****er.... but that's for non-ranking discussion. I saw a video where Ali was telling it how it was for Johnson... incredible really how much sway he pulled as a black man in that time.
If any of these guys above him underestimated him they would get beaten. I also feel only a select few could afford to rest for even a minute - Johson through genius and Lewis with size maybe. I'd pick Ali to stop him early on cuts and possibly Tyson or Jeffries with big punches, everyone else is in for a serious night of work.
That's a huge maybe, it's a bit like a Lewis fan using the "what if he was always motivated" argument Maybe Liston would be more complacent and less hungry with Lewis' career path, who knows :huh
One other thing I would like to mention is their records in title fights. Holyfield was 10-5-2, although it should really be 11-6 if you count the bogus draw against Lewis that went for him and the bogus draw against Ruiz that went against him. I realize he was going downhill fast for the losses against Ruiz and Byrd but let's look at Lewis Lewis was 15-2-1 in title fights and should've been 16-2. Now a lot of Holyfield backers like to say how Lewis's first WBC title was meaningless after Bowe refused to face him. Using that logic, the man who beat the man logic, then here's Lewis and Holyfield's records Lewis in fights for the lineal/undisputed championship was 9-1-1, rightfully 10-1. Holyfield in fights for the lineal/undisputed championship was only 5-3-1, rightfully 5-4. The media and general public liked to think of Holyfield as "undisputed" after he beat Tyson but he wasn't. George Foreman was still the real champ at that point. The lineal title went Tyson-Douglas-Holyfield-Bowe-Holyfield-Moorer-Foreman-Briggs-Lewis. Despite some controversy, such as Foreman-Schulz and Foreman-Briggs, the fact is Lewis had a much better record in fights for the "real" title than Holyfield. When Lewis and Holyfield met, Lewis actually had a more rightful a claim to being the "real" champ as Holyfield did even though the general public and the American boxing press acted otherwise. In other words Holyfield fans who say that Lewis's title fight record was inflated should think twice before making that argument :yep
Spit and splutter all you want but Lennox Lewis is the best HW champ since Ali Pay homage to Lennox Lewis CBE!!!!!!!!! Hopefully will soon be !!!!!!!!!!!!! ARISE SIR LENNOX !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy
That's bound to happen, some fights he'd take less serious, but do you see him getting KOed, or hitting the deck and coming back to KO a Rahman type in those affairs? Personally, i think Liston gets Rahman in 2-3 rounds, he has the perfect jab and powershot style to get Rahman. Then the others... Tua, Briggs, Ruddock, Golota etc... Does he lose?
As challenger Liston KO's all of these guys I think. As champ, you just don't know. Liston let it go as champ. I think unfocused Liston could have dropped a fight to one of these guys, yes.
As hard as Liston was he quit against Ali in the first fight, and if he didn't take a dive against Ali in the rematch, he was by his own admission intimidated by Ali. Perhaps a softer Liston would be weaker mentally, fold under pressure more easliy, and choose to quit in a tough fight where he was being punished. Like against a Tua or Mercer for example, when they're running hot.
A couple of points on this. First of all, Holyfield's resume is top notch, one of othe best in HW history, frankly - it's littered with great fighters. Foreman and Holmes were past their primes, sure - but they weren't as easy competition as people like to make out. Foreman, after all, went on to win the title several years later, and Holmes upset top contender Ray Mercer. These guys were formitable fighters, even at this age. People need to remember that these are top ten ATG competiting at an advanced age, not guys like Oliver McCall. Simply noting that Holyfield lost to glass jawed Moorer ignored the fact that what he lost was a competitive - and at the time, highly disputed - decision. And Moorer was a top contender, not a tune-up, like McCall. You imply, as others have, that Tyson was way past his prime in '96 - that's simply overstating it. Yes, he was not the fighter he had been in the late 80s, but he was still a formidable opponent. People forget that, at the time, Tyson was expected to blow right through Evander. There are people who thought he would do so even after he lost the first time. Context is important here. Tyson had won two title belts and was still considered if not THE "most dangerous man" on the planet, still among them. And whatever people may say about the CAREER of Riddick Bowe, in his prime in the early 90s, he was a great fighter. People forget again, that at the time most "experts" thought that Bowe would have a better career than either Lewis or Holyfield. People thought he might even rival his Brooklyn "neighbor" Tyson. To look back now, and say because Bowe petered out so quickly that he was not a serious opponent is to completely ignore the context of the time. And Holyfield beat him IN SPITE of having every disadvantage physically - that's impressive. Finally, this canard about Holyfield's supposed "inconsistency" - this is the one that his critics love to repeat as if it is revealed fact. Yes, Holyfield won and lost titles. So did Lewis. But Holyfield was at or near the top of the division for over ten years, which is at least equal to Lewis' run. And he faced all three of the other top guys of the era, and beat two of them. There were even some journalists who suggested he nicked the second fight against Lewis - and past his prime, at that! Imagine what he would have done to Lewis if they'd met when Holyfield was at his best!!