Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

I factor in skillset, but it's probably one of the more underwhelming weighted categories. Yes and no in terms of overlapping. H2H deals with examination matchups/styles. You can look at skills without doing so. Examining his pros/cons, weakness, strengths, ability, etc. Of course, it's all related I guess.

My criteria probably doesn't either. But my opinion on how to decipher the factors on my criteria does (The big losses, to whom, what fashion, etc). For whatever it's worth, I think the criteria of the list is far more important than the list itself. Otherwise, I can decide Mike Tyson is the greatest Heavyweight ever and be completely justified, within my accord of what determines 'the greatest.'

That's fair enough. But I don't really rate performances all that much. It's really about defining wins when determining legacies. Cleveland Williams is such a pretty fight to watch for Ali. It's breathtaking, says a lot about his ability, skills, etc (I guess it says something in terms of H2H) but it doesn't do much at all for Ali's greatness/legacy though.

I can accept #5. I think other fighters did enough to be ahead of him. You say tiny scrap, but I say McCall and Rahman. For whatever it's worth, it doesn't happen to the other "great ones" and didn't for them. For me, I can feel fine arguing that they almost have to a few boxers ahead of Lennox after Ali and Louis. That's just how I feel. #5 is my way of giving leeway on the subject.

 

When you couple this with each fighter's personal character: Tyson was extremely aggressive with killer instinct--Lennox was naturally cautious, I think a strong case is made for a prime Tyson. Lewis was overly cautious with a shot Tyson in their actual meeting. Steward had to scream at him "This is not the same fighter! Get him out of here!" So think about how he would be with a prime Tyson--a fighter who would bring it round after round on a much higher level both offensively and defensively. And Lewis was not only KO'd, but sparked twice, which is a notable distinction. Tyson knocked out several top flight fighters who had never been knocked out before in their careers. So it's very plausible that Tyson would be able to sniff this out with Lewis.

But as you say, we'll never know.

 

He doesn't, but that was his end of being champion and real end for greatness. What he did prior to that isn't enough for him to be ranked #3. Unless you over-weigh H2H, which is what you have to do.

And losses. And Mcvea and Langford are both older than Willis. Personally, I think I rate Langford ahead of Willis. There are also succeeding boxing champions that make it difficult for him to be ranked above.

 

Retired during exile? Well if people ranked him #2, I would have a problem with that too. That would have to only happen on a criteria that I had some serious problems with. How could Ali be #2 at that rate with that comp (Even as impressive as he was). You would really have to over-factor H2H, which is the main point/problem I have with Liston being ranked #3.

 

Exactly, i can whole heartedly understand if people take the opinion that Tyson just doesn't have the character though. But yeah you can use the 'on paper' argument to side with Tyson all day also.

It's so debatable.

 

11.

 

Yes, I understand this point. I shouldn't have jumped on the Liston having 1 title defense reason. That's not why I wouldn't rank him that high specifically.

Fair enough.

It does. But how does he rank (Not bearing H2H for a second) above the likes of Foreman, Marciano, or Frazier? He has some good wins on his resume. Valdes, Folley, Williams X2, Patterson X2, Harris, but anything groundbreaking enough to be ahead of Foreman, Marciano, Holmes, etc. I have enough trouble having Liston ahead of Tyson! Because Tyson is like Liston, except with a longer title reign. Besides the Douglas loss, the rest of his losses with any meaning were against at least top 15 HW of all time (One of whom some argue is being in the #3-5 range).

Foreman specifically, doesn't having some of the names on his run up but a few decent ones. While then having Frazier twice (One being at least a feasible foe Frazier) and Norton who's a top 20-25 HW for a lot. Then you have title comeback, performances that were solid even in losses and the record for oldest HW in history. Oh, and I forgot being a gold medal winner.

So you rank Holyfield ahead of Tyson?

Willis was also much more natural a HW. He practically dwarfs Langford. Langford being older did a lot more fighting early on, not only as a HW but in other divisions too. Langford on a P4P list ranks higher for me - Willis may have been better in the terms when they were both HW and both fighting each other. But Langford had over 100 more fights than him. I don't know...

 

Yeah, I re-thought it. It might not be as crazy as I originally had thought, though I would be a proponent against it. Domination over opposition counts, so does skillset, but achievement/accomplishment and comp/resume are very important. Ali had less than 30 fights, and his best wins came against a somewhat aging and clearly troubled man. Although that's enough to make a top 5 in and of itself 2 would be a bit high I'd think. I'd also imagine other fighters would have so much more success with him being gone which makes this imagining even more confusing and harder to factor accurately. Foreman with just the Frazier, Norton, and comeback would have more to be ahead of him. Marciano is more impressive at 49-0 with 43 KO's against more/better HOF names and fighters like Louis, Walcott X2, Charles, and Moore. Holmes and Johnson might be too good and too consistent to have him pass up. Yes, I'd struggle with him being #2.

That's the beauty with the greatness of Ali. He did so much after his best days and carried himself with such great wins. He's undoubtedly the #1 GOAT in terms of Heavyweights for me. Which reminds me, I think in a P4P sense Heavyweights get the shaft. A lot of posters here have zero of them. I was going to make a thread on the subject. Heavyweights are big guys that have big punches that do big damage. They can't fight as much and as many times coming out unscathed. And the fact that 1 punch can change a fight should make judging their wins/losses more delicately in my honest opinion. I see many times people don't have Ali/Louis in their top 10 P4P list. Someone like Pep makes it, but not Ali. That doesn't seem right. I think Ali should make the edge of the end of the list.

 

Based on achievement and Hd 2 Hd.

The lowest that Lewis can be ranked in my opinion is 10.

 

Top8 at worst, i guess.


The negatives are obviously the McCall and Rahman fights, but his gigantic number of wins over and record against ranked opponents, the amount of punchers beaten, his longetivity, the fact that Bowe and Tyson ducked him, the fact he beat every man he faced and his awful good form even on the dark side of 30 makes him a lock for the top10.

 

He's gotta be somewhere in the top 10 IMO.