Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

You can talk down Morrison all you want he still trumps plenty of Tyson wins and has wins over Foreman who he schooled and Rudduck. He wasnt an easy fight either with murderous power, speed and good skills. The fact this win is 1 of the best critiscisms you can make of Lewis's resume speaks volumes of how good his resume was and your unadmitted bias

 

Well, one thing is for sure, I don't agree with the sentence below..

How the hell can Alex Stewart and Phil Jackson be placed in the same category as Ruddock, Tua, Briggs, Golata, and McCall..

 

Because like I said, they all possessed decent power, but were supremely lacking technically. Jackson probably shouldnt be in that group, but the rest were on the same level overall as far as their ability and accomplished somewhat the same accomplishments.

 

Stewart had neither the power, the skill nor the durability that the other guys had. His KO percentage was a reflection of facing club fighters, tomato cans and journeyman. He was also highly prone to getting cut, floored, stopped, etc.. Ruddock, Golata, Tua, Briggs, and McCall were better in all departments including skill.

 

Yeah and did Lewis run through Bruno as quickly? Thats why I said give or take a few rounds. For the most part the same when it came to that type of fighter.
Sorry forgot to mention Vitali, who he also struggled with:deal, (more reason to back up my claim). Tucker also a corpse when Lewis fought him but you're right those two should be on the list. Styles are irrevelant? :huh.
It has everything to do about their styles, and ability to box something you cant differentiate from the two eras clearly. :dead

 

Tell that Holyfield and Foreman (who you rank highly) who he gave tough fights to.

 

3 is very generous. I could say maybe 4 depending on the criteria. I currently have him at 5 just behind Marciano and Holmes. 6 and 7 is the lowest you can rank him in my opinion.

 

You could ask how many champions actualy beat the heir to their throne?

Joe Louis.

George Foreman

Larry Holmes (nearly)

Evander Holyfield (sort of).

 

Ali, Louis, Marciano, Johnson, Holmes and even Foreman (though I would strenously disagree) can arguably be ranked higher. Perhaps Liston. Then it stops.

 

You can nitpick the names here and there, but generally they're the same. The better brawlers, Ruddock, Golota, Briggs, etc, in my opinion can all be grouped about the same and Tyson was beating those level guys somewhat similar to the way Lewis was.
Sure a guy like Tua would have posed a stylistic problem for Tyson, but the same could be said for a fighter that Tyson fought and Lewis did not.

 

So two competitive losing efforts, one of which to a 45 year old fighter is supposed to sway my opinion on the subject? Let's talk about who he's beaten and compare that to the rest of the field...

 

Its not about just laying it out on paper. Thats why for instance Bowe is held in such high regard. Not that I rank Riddick Bowe higher, but beating a prime Evander Holyfield holds more merit in my book than beating the version of Tucker or Holyfield that Lewis beat.

 

No its not, but doesnt mean Stewart was any worse than Andrew Golota who basically lost all his fights he stepped up in, nor does it have a whole lot of relevance to my claim. On a skill level, these guys were not too far apart. I think the better boxers that I listed are capable of more times than not, defeating all the guys on the level of Golota, Grant, Briggs, Tua, Morrison and so on.
Briggs for instance was a dangerous puncher, but look what happened to him when he got in with a guy who had a little boxing ability. He was basically outboxed by Frans Botha and Jameel Mcline, two fighters at a power disadvantage, but still gave him fits, because technically they were better.
Having power and little ability will only get you so far and lewis resume is full of fighters like this in my opinon.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV-OplDwnZY[/ame]

 

I dont need to talk Morrison down. The facts of his mostly well-orchestrated career are clear.
Tommy Morrison was a weaker opponent than anyone Tyson faced in a title fight, except perhaps Bruce Seldon. Sure he trumps plenty of Tyson's non-title opposition, but not all of them either.
The only reason I'm even discussing Morrison is because Lennox fanatics bring him up as one of the dozens of significant names on Lewis's record.

I think your biased towards Lewis, only through an understandable admiration for his achievements, but talking about "unadmitted bias" is just silly. It's pointless making it a point of who's being "biased", and then accuse the other of disguising a bias. As if we're motivated by something other than our honest assessments of the fighters in question. I have no reason to disguise anything, I already honestly admit that I dont see the fuss about Lewis and I honestly dont think he's worthy of the top 5 all-time ratings he gets here. And I base my opinion on a well-considered and honest appraisal of his career achievements, opposition and quality of performance. You dont have to agree, but it's wise to accept that I'm just stating an opinion on a fighter, not motivated by some mysterious and irrational "bias".