LEWIS /FOREMAN, Different perceptions of 2 defeats whilst at their peak.

It is odd logic, to me, to say a loss doesnt count for as much because the stoppage was debatable - & it was debatable. But the fact that it was, means it should fully count against the loser. If he was blatantly robbed by a terrible call (& Lewis wasn’t), then I get it. But as it stands, it was fair both to let that fight go on, and to halt it. So why should the loss be diminished?

Hell, if we’re going to play that game, a good number of people argue Foreman was up at nine vs Ali, so…

 

It's not a game.

It's called taking the context of results into consideration, which everyone does when making a subjective appraisal of a boxer's ledger.

It is not odd logic to do so. It's just common sense.

 

If you consider it a blatant robbery. Do you?

 

I think I've made myself clear on that point, but that is not the point, is it?

 

Ali was 32 and would go on to rule almost 4 more years. Ali didn't show marked signs of decline until after the 3rd Frazier fight.

If Foremans 2nd career didn't happen Lennox Lewis would be the consensus HW GOAT. Foreman did not just save his legacy with his 2nd career he saved his whole eras.

How much deeper is Lennox Lewis's CV REALLY? Lennox Lewis has 19 wins over HW title contenders, Foremans got 14 not counting Briggs. If we count LHW contenders he beat they are tied. Lennoxs overall career was shorter so Lennox on average fought better fighters but if we cut away the fluff theres not much difference.

Louis has 38, Alis got 36 but any modern fighter is really in a glass house on the issue of top wins.

 

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose, but you're probably talking up Young to the wrong poster here. And, we do have the benefit of hindsight, which is difficult to put aside.

While Young was placed amongst the top-5 Heavies for a few years - and deservedly so - he had a somewhat negative style (one I find unpalatable) and his overall attitude was not all that endearing either. I think his approach ultimately worked against him.

 

Yes Foreman was favored to beat Ali, but Ali's resume was 10x better than Rahman or McCall before he beat Foreman. So even though Ali was older and won the upset, losing to him isn't as bad as losing to Rahman or McCall in the first place.

Ali would go on to win more good fights such as Manilla and was regarded as the best of all time, while the men who beat Lewis didn't win any other notable fights. So while Lewis had the advantage of avenging his losses, his losses were objectively worse. It's also worth noting Ali would wouldn't give Foreman a rematch even though he was the #1 contender and was also the NABF belt holder which made him top priority as a challenger.