Lewis and Marciano both get a bit of hammer in this month's Boxing Monthly

Very true but most dont look as deep as they do with Marciano because it does not make sense

Marciano had 6 title defenses ( 5 VS THE # 1 CONTENDER 1 VS # 2

( Marciano was white in a black dominated era)

Marciano was only 5"11. Marciano weighed only 188lbs

but Marciano was also one of the hardest trained and well conditioned fighters ever

Marciano ran 6-8 miles a day then increased it to 10 miles a day when he started training. Then went to 15 miles ( reason for stamina and weight )

Marciano hit a 275lb Bag to keep his power strong______

Marciano retired unbeaten with at least 3-5 fights left in him

His Record was 49-0 with 43 KO's
____________________________________________________________
For Lewis and size....How many 6"5 Heavys before him were Champ, Willard and Primo, the tallest before that was 6"1 Ali and the Tallest after that was Ali 6"2 and Foreman, 6"3, I think Holmes was 6"2 1/2.....I used to think Ali was 6"3 but then I heard Angelo Dundee say he was 6"2 no more but Dundee made him fight tall. Lewia had more than size
_________________________________________________________

 

Problem is, size suddenly becomes an excuse. It's almost viewed like cheating. "He only won because he was big."

Being big, and properly knowing how to use that size...because it comes with its own set of difficulties as well such as co-ordination and conditioning and being able to shorten your punches correctly...are two different things.

Otherwise Mike White, Marcellus Brown and Julius Long would've held belts by now.

 

I can imagine a fair few good strong heavyweights perhaps having the beating of Lennox Lewis ON THEIR BEST NIGHT, with him at or near his best too. But most of the guys I'm thinking of were rarely at their best, whereas Lewis usually was at his best or close to it. And often he looked ugly or less than spectacular in winning, like many heavyweights do, esp. against those who could stand up to his power, but he was WINNING, and winning against genuine world contenders. His greatness is built on that consistency, and the longevity it equated to.

Lennox Lewis was big, immensely strong and a terrific puncher. And while he might not have looked exquisite when demonstrating the "sweet science", he was enough of a thinking fighter, he had that awareness, to do what he needed to do to win.
And although I can imagine a fair few non-greats perhaps beating him head-to-head, I cannot imagine any of the greats having an easy time fighting him. Some of them Lewis would just destroy, in all likelihood.

I'm not sure if he's top 10 of all-time, but he's a great fighter without a doubt.

 

Atlas is a chump. Lewis avenged both those losses easily, never ducked anybody, and beat all the competition out there. Definitely top ten in my mind. Only him and Holmes from the last 30 years make my top ten

 

I've been saying this stuff for months (years?) on this forum and many still don't acknowlege it. Bravo.

 

I agree. Penalizing or criticizing a fighter for making use of his greater size to win is moronic.

But I also think the argument "There's no way he could compete, he's only 185 pounds" just as bad.

The two statements are two sides of the same shabby coin.

 

Totally agree with that.