Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

I don't mean to butt in on your debate, but Lewis' fights with Mercer and Holyfield hardly qualify as wars. It could also be argued that Lennox endured less damage being knocked out by single shots, than Riddick Bowe who did go through at least two wars with Holyfield. Lewis was not shot because he was able to minimize the combined amount of punishment he took. He was, however, unmotivated, overweight, and past his best by the time he battled Vitali.

 

Lewis's record would be tarnished by losing to McCall and Rahman if he never gained revenge on them. Those loses can't binned and ignored but he turned the tables after those defeats, and that counts for something. I guess those loses would be extra damaging on his record if he never turned them around in rematches.

 

Based on the fights Holyfield did have with Lewis, it would be very close either way against a better version. I wouldn't be surprised if Holyfield wars his way to a unanimous decision on workrate. I think the world of Holyfield, though, and tentatively suspect he used more performance-enhancers than just steroids. I mean, he seemed the fittest heavyweight since Marciano, and perhaps even moreso, and how could you with all that extra bulk?

 

Bowe wasnt hurt easily against Golota, it was a sustained beating

I thought Akiwande was actually pretty promising, quick hands, 6'7, 86 inch reach, tricky and he was winning a 1 sided fight until McCall caught him and on a good comeback. That ended it for him, but he still only had 2 defeats until 2006 and fought numerous contenders/fringe contenders. He was a very difficult 1 to fight and I think he would have been a titlist today if he got shots at Ruiz/Chagaev/Byrd etc

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE9Pt5jA_-M&feature=related[/ame]

 

All Tyson's title opponents were better than Tommy Morrison and will go down as better historically, except Bruce Seldon.
If we cant even agree on that then it's pointless debating.

I dont have even a fraction of the bias or prejudice you attribute to me. But then again I suspect you are a full-blown Lennox Lewis fanatic, bordering on the extreme.

A great fighter, but outside the top 10 for me. :good

 

Bowe was in very poor condition coming into the first Golota fight. In fact he made a joke with the HBO staff before the fight saying why do I have to train hard for bum like Golota. After three rounds, Bowe became more of a stationary target. On top of that Golota was consistently hitting him low which took even more out of him. Bowe was hurt badly in the fourth round and rallied in the fifth before getting nailed low again.
I dont think you can compare this fight to the Holyfield fights, they were far more grueling and sustained.
In the second fight Bowe was just a shell of his former self, and was hurt very badly in the second round.

 

I certainly think he took a worse beating against Golota. I'd agree prime for prime Bowe beats Golota, he wasnt in his best shape, but he wasnt shot either for my liking

 

Akiwande froze against Lewis, but he was a pretty decent fighter ,and would have been compettive with what's around today.imo

 

Every champ has people that they don't fight, but they're not as blatant as Holmes. Dokes, Thomas, Coatzee, Page etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Really, most of the best guys that Holmes fought he fought when they were young, inexperienced, and not regarded that highly i.e Weaver, Spoon. And he didn't rematch them.

It's not like I just hold Holmes to this as well, Dempsey isn't in my top ten either where he may have been had he fought Harry Wills. I still rank Holmes at 6, but there's NO denying that he handpicked his opponents during his title reign worse than almost every HW champion ever.

 

I have Wills around 10 as well, McGrain isn't alone in that regard. Wills had a very good stretch.

The entire "lack of title fights" argument for Liston is downright ******ed. I'm sorry, but there's a good chance that no one in history would of had more than one title defense had they been forced to fight a 64 Clay like poor Liston was.
That's just bad luck, not somehow a sign that he's not a great heavyweight because he failed to beat the consensus number 1 heavy of all time when he himself was starting to fade.

 

International Boxing Research Org. Agrees with lefthook31...

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Larry Holmes
7. James J. Jeffries
8. George Foreman
9. Sonny Liston
10. Joe Frazier
11. Gene Tunney
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Sam Langford
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Harry Wills
19. James J. Corbett
20. Bob Fitzsimmons

I think that might be where he got his # :bbb

 

Anyone care to explain how Tunney, Jeffries and Dempseys resumes trump Lennoxs

 

Joe Frazier can't be ranked higher?


I swear, Frazier has become embarrassingly underrated on here. Frazier's run as a champion from 1968-73 is at least as impressive as Lewis' run. Lewis had more longevity, but comparing what they did in their prime years and comparing their best wins (and worst losses), it can be convincingly argued that Frazier should rank higher than Lewis.

 

Haven't you heard? If you apply to either of the following criteria:

a) you duck your nr.1 contender for 7 years and get a first round KO loss revisioned to a "fix" as well as not beating either the best heavyweights OR lightheavyweights of your era, or;
b) Your entire resume at heavyweight consists of beating an inactive, old version of the fighter meeting criteria a) over the the joke of a "championship" distance of 10 rounds while still nearly getting KO'd, or;
c) only fight 170lbs opponents who are in their late 30's, during an era in which boxers generally are shot after their 30's

Then you're clearly ranking ahead of Lennox Lewis.

Hey, these guys are boxing historians. They know!

 

Its impossible to compile a list that everyone would agree on. Thats why I try to stay away from the mythical P4P lists and historical rankings. It should only be based on who a fighter fought how good they were at the time they fought them, how they performed in the fights, and their run on the championship level. That in itself is so subjective its just impossible and thats why there is a million different variations of this list.
Bert Sugar is a boxing historian who makes a good living at it, but in my opinion the guy doesnt know what hes talking about half the time.
It would take a person to watch all of a fighters fights, their competitions fights, and then compare them. Then its still based on an opinion of someone like Sugar who doesnt even know what hes looking at.