To much credit is given to him for beating guys past their prime, such as holyfield and tyson. I think he is a all time great but not above holyfield I think if he would have beaten holyfield and tyson 5 years earlier he would get more credit. So to his fans its his own fault he did not fight them in their prime because he was getting ko'ed by a mentaly ill mccall. also how could he be someones favorate fighter he was the most boring heavyweight champ ever.
Lewis' opposition was weak? Ruddock, Mercer, Holyfield, Tua, Briggs, McCall, Rahman...what is your definition of strong opposition?? Just because many of Lewis' opponents didn't have great name recognition it does not mean they were weak fighters. Good PR is so overrated in boxing. Prime Ali fought one man, Liston, who was on par with the fighters mentioned above, all other Ali - opponents before 1970 would be smoked by them.
If LL's accomplishments dont make him an all time great, then I would like to know what the **** will.
Ali has one dominant win over another great fighter, Foreman. He had his hands full with Frazier and Norton and admitted he got lucky with the decision in the third Norton fight. Lewis dominated many pretty good fighters. Ali would probably have gone the distance with Ruddock, Grant, Golota. Dominance should count for something.
The reason why Douglas - Tyson puts a real dent into Tyson's status was that Tyson was never the same fighter again afterwards. Lewis suffered his losses and came back stronger both times.