Sugar says Lewis is alltime great yet only top 12

It doesnt matter, his resume is too strong for him not to be top 10. IDK what you guys say, if you beat 20 ranked fighters, you're top 10.

 

I think 13 is far too low...

I have him at:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Marciano
4. Johnson
5. Holmes
6. Jeffries
7. Foreman
8. Tyson
9. Lewis
10. Frazier
11. Holyfield
12. Dempsey
13. Liston


I believe that 13 is far too low for Lewis. Based on ATG Status.

 

The question is not about age, it's about the relative stage of the fighter's career. Again, champions should be ranked mainly on fights which happened during their heydays. A champion's prime years, his heyday, however you want to say it, is the time period in which that fighter posts his best wins and peak performances and stands at his highest position in his division. Tyson was clearly far past his heyday when he fought Holyfield- and losing to Holyfield, no matter how ugly it is, is much better than losing to McCall or Rahman. Lewis was in his heyday for both of those fights- let me demonstrate: down below here, you list Lewis' best wins as having been against guys like Ruddock, Bruno, Tua, Briggs, Holyfield,

Again, these guys were not very good on a world scale, but they were at least comparable to the likes of Lionel Butler and Levi Billups, who are being used to pad Lewis' contender resume.

Not the first time.

You're no doubt aware that he signed to fight Wills, that he states in his autobiography that he was fine with fighting Wills, but that political problems stopped it. He did not refuse to fight Wills. This is still a downside to his legacy, because he lacks complete proof of his dominance over his era, but not too enormous.

Baloney. Emmanuel Campbell and John Lester Johnson, who Dempsey fought long before winning the title, were both black. I believe he also fought one or two others. He did self-admittedly duck the black dynamite during his early career, because he didn't think he belonged in the same ring with them at that stage.

It is a very questionable claim that McCall and Rahman were more proven at heavyweight than Tunney. They had more fights there, but for the most part, all they had proven more than Tunney in those fights was that they were mediocre by championship standards. As can be pointed out with a quick review of the era's ratings, Tunney actually beat a fair few top 10 heavyweights over the years, and he beat Greb several times, who was a scourge on the heavyweight division in spite of his small stature.

He was worse than Botha/Mavrovic, but may not have been worse than a Levi Billups or Lionel Butler.

Wow, now this is going way overboard. First, again, if McNeeley was a bum, some of the "contenders" Lewis fought were, too. Second, Patterson has a very solid resume- Moore, Johansson, Machen, Jackson, Chuvalo, Bonavena, even drawing with and arguably beating Quarry and Ellis while past his own peak years.

Yes, it is disgraceful to quit on one's stool, I admit, and it does weigh heavily against Liston. But the fact remains that this is against the greatest heavyweight of all time, which puts it in a whole nother category from losing to someone who isn't even in the top 50.

Jersey Joe Walcott performed a heck of a lot better at the age of 37-38 than Ali did, but I'm not about to rank him higher. Lewis doesn't receive some special credit for being a late bloomer, although he should receive some for his strong career longevity, ranking near the top of the division all the way from 1992-2003.

Yes, Lewis' longevity is better. Note, though, I think you ought to stop calling successful professional boxers "bums."

Eh, Akinwande and Mason are questionable, but the point on the whole is sound. That said, this is not an overly enormous or imposing list of foes compared with what many of the other champions in this conversation faced.

Lewis never fought anyone nearly as good as Foreman in the first place.

That isn't what I said. I'm saying, if guys like Mavrovic, Botha, Lionel Butler, etc. count as "contenders" Lewis beat, then so do guys like Ossie Occasio that Holmes beat.

Let me add Mercer to Holmes' list here. Yes, I think Norton, Witherspoon, Shavers, Cooney and Mercer stack up solidly against old Holyfield, Tua, Ruddock, Klitschko and Mercer.

Norton did not have a glass chin. Aside from an early loss against Jose Luis Garcia, which I believe was something of a gradual beatdown, he was only stopped by absolutely monstrous, top-flight power punchers (Foreman, Shavers, Cooney). He was old, but he was coming off some impressive performances (win over Young, crushing one-round knockout of 38-0 Bobick). Like Holyfield when he fought Lewis, it is difficult to quantify just where he stood at this stage of his career, because he was coming off impressive performances that would indicate he was near his best still, but shortly thereafter would perform in a manner dramatically short of his peak level. In this case, though, the Holmes-Norton fight was a genuine epic war, and may (possibly) have been the/one of the catalyst(s) for Norton's decline.

And Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson and got a gift draw with Marion Wilson.

The same can be said of Lewis with Mercer.

This is a criticism which applies equally to Lewis- Lewis never rematched Mercer, who gave him a close/debatable decision, or Bruno, who was well ahead before he caught him with a barrage, or Vitali, who had him in trouble early and was ahead on points before the cuts stoppage. He failed to face guys like Wlad Klitschko, who was outstanding #1 contender during his title reign, and Chris Byrd, who was #1 contender for a year and a half while Lewis was champion, during which time Lewis elected to fight a shot Mike Tyson, not fight for a year, and then fight an undeserving Vitali instead.


An interesting point of reference between Lewis and Holmes: Holmes, well into his 40s, took Oliver McCall to a split decision. McCall knocked a prime Lewis out in two rounds in his very next fight. He also, again well into his 40s, soundly outpointed Ray Mercer, who went on to take a prime Lewis to a close, debatable decision.

 

That's a very convenient position for someone who likes swarmers. Basically, Tyson had a great run from '86 to '92 and everything beyond that you ignore because it was past his heyday? You're starting to sound like SuzieQ who defines "primes" so that he can claim "this fighter never lost in those two prime years, so he was great and unbeatable during that time".

Let me put it this way: Do you think it's fair to count the losses at higher age for one fighter but choose to ignore them for the other? Whether or not it is caused by style is irrelevant to their ranking.

As i've said before, i didn't count Butler's or Billups's.

Look up his record before either of the Dempsey fights. He was losing all over the place.

Yes, that was a great publicity stunt. Wills was promised a shot if he got by Fulton, and after he did just that, he didn't get a shot. He was never going to get one.

And what do you think. He's gonna write a chapter "How i am responsible for the most embarrassing and longest ducking job in the history of boxing"?

Well, let me put it this way: no black fighters of note. Johnson broke his ribs and basically drew with him.

You know you have one **** weak heavyweight division when a 160 pound guy beats up multiple heavyweight contenders. Tunney's record at HW is razor thin. He had a total of 0 fights against 210+lbs heavyweights. The only 200+lb'er was a fat 5'6 Tom Heeney.

Again, i'm not counting Botha's, Mavrovic's, Billups's and Butlers. If that were the case then Lewis would have 25 or so.

McNeely was unranked and a fringe contender at best. His record was extremely padded just like his son's. He lost to some guy called Don Prout in his very next fight.

Patterson had a solid resume for sure, but nothing as good as Holyfield's.

Hindsight. At the time, Clay was a chinny fighter almost KO'd by Cooper and nearly beaten by Jones. 8 to 1 underdog. As i've said before, nearly all of Ali's opponents gave him a better fight. There is no better legacy-destroying way to lose than how Liston did.

I'm glad you see the point i was making, from that last sentence you wrote.

It's obviously subjective to a certain degree, but i'd take them over most of the other guys' opposition.

But the point is that Lewis has 18 or so contenders NOT including Botha et al.

He was basically stopped by every puncher of note. And not just stopped but within a round usually. Quarry was far past it when they fought. That constitutes a glass jaw to me.

There are three key differences here why the same cannot be said:
1. Holmes-Witherspoon was for the linear title, Mercer-Lewis was just for both to get a win to get inside the title picture. When a champion has a close fight with a contender, a rematch is expected to see who's REALLY the best. When it's to determine a contender position, it's just a win.

2. Witherspoon had a mere 14 fights. It was expected that he was going to improve after this learning experience. Mercer was already at the top of his game having developed his jab better.

3. Witherspoon went undefeated for a good period and was in the picture for a title shot (i.e. rematch) whereas Mercer went pretty inactive.

 

I've already adressed Mercer - this wasn't a championship fight and Mercer did nothing afterwards, unlike Witherspoon. Bruno gave Lewis a battle but was 4-2 after 6 rounds; hardly a domination. I guess you know what happened in the 7th. Bruno never fought better and well disciplined than he did that night in Cardiff. I don't think anyone gave him a chance in a rematch and there wasn't demand for it either. Vitali Klitschko definitely deserved a rematch but Lewis retired by then and had nothing left to prove. I don't think you can hold this against him.

You do have a point about Wladimir Klitschko, not many people know that he was the #1 ring mag contender for more than 2 years, 2001-2003 until the Sanders fight. Lewis wanted his legacy fight with Tyson and Rahman delayed matters so there are reasons, but i do think Lewis rather faced a big name, less risk than an unknown name, big risk fighter. Byrd wasn't given much chance by anyone seeing how one sided he lost to similar fighters in the Klitschko's. Probably the fact that he's a boring fighter also weighed significantly - remember that Lewis was seen as a boring fighter in the USA.


Now, if Lewis had not fought Holyfield, had not fought Ruddock, had not fought Golota (when he looked impressive still), not fought Briggs and had not fought Morrison then you might have a similar picture. Holmes' way of avoiding fights is not even close to Lewis, who was avoided himself by Bowe and Tyson. I think it's interesting that you try to take the undefendable position that Lewis can be equally blamed for ducking as Holmes.

Yes yes, and Foreman mashed Frazier dropping him 6 times, so he'd mash Ali too who Frazier had beaten right?
Cooper knocked Ali silly while Liston in his very next fight couldn't touch Ali, so Cooper is better than Liston. Tommy Hearns knocked Duran out in 2 while Duran went the distance with Hagler, so Hearns should beat Hagler. Etc etc. You know just as well that this doesn't mean anything.

 

Sonny Liston was arguebably 32-33 years old when he knocked out floyd patterson. we dont know his true birth age



you say he knocked out bums in 1958. wayne bethea was rated in the top 10 when liston demolished him in 1 round. Believe it or not, billy hunter was also rated in the top 10 when liston demolished him in 1958.

 

That still doesnt change the fact he knocked out/beat harold carter, pat mcmutry, mike dejohn, wayne bethea months before fighting liston.

you could say he lost 2 out of his last 3 fights coming into the liston bout, but ezzard charles also lost 2 out of his last 4 bouts coming into the marciano bout. look at valdez's past 10 fights you would see he won 7 out of his last 10 coming into the liston bout.

 

walcott beat ranked fighters 16 times

 

"Months before" is misleading. Only one of those fights was (barely) within a year of fighting Liston. He had lost two of three fights in the last 11 months, the win coming against a non-entity opponent on the world scale. He just can't be considered to have been a contender at that time.

 

Hunter was not rated in 1958. He moved into the ratings in 1959 when he beat a faded Bob Baker, slipping former lightheavy contender Tony Anthony, and Alex Miteff twice, once on cuts and once on a bizarre decision. I saw him several times in 1959. He was 6' 3" but thin with no power, relying on a busy jab. The second fight with Miteff was strange. Miteff came on strong during the second half of the fight, pounding Hunter into floundering helplessness, but Hunter was somehow deemed the winner on the round system which was used in those days. The fight ruined him, though. He was stopped four times in his next five fights and was retired for his own protection.

 

Boh Head to head, and by resume, I rank Lewis either 3 or 4.

 

cool stuff about billy hunter old fogey. I have a question for you, the boxing registers claims marty marshall was ranked top 10 when he fought sonny liston in lightheavweight division. is this true? I dont know how many heavyweight champions post 1950 fought a top 10 contender in their 7th pro fight but I dont think there was anyone but liston. It had marshall listed as still in the top 10 when liston knocked him out in 6 rounds in the return match. Have you ever seen marshall on film?

 

Walcott also was far more inconsistent than lennox lewis.