Sugar says Lewis is alltime great yet only top 12

Just because he only lost twice doesnt mean anything. Tunney only lost once, Jeffries only lost once. Does that mean they automatically should be higher than Muhammad Ali since he lost 6 times. I base my rankings on 45% H2h/45% accomplishments/10% small percentage on historical signifigance. Now I can see why someone would rate lennox over Walcott, But I have them both Neck in Neck. On a Lewis vs Walcott prime for prime I think that would be a 50/50 type matchup. It would not be onesided IMO. then again just my opinion. what does that matter?



Rahman/Mccall were not great fighters. they were ordinary fighters who stood no chance against other ATG's outside of a very unlikely punchers chance.

 

Sugar can be a good storyteller at times, but his lists and opinion of some fighters continues to baffle me.

He ranks Dempsey way ahead of Lewis for example. By what criteria? Number of Title defences, surely not? :huh :dead

 

I'm a bit surprised, Sugar has actually improved his opinion and ranking about Lewis.

Give him just a few more years, and he might finally have Lewis in his top ten, where he belongs. After all, the further ago in history it is, the better Sugar will think of it

 

I don't think that a lot of these guys deserve to be ahead of Lewis, but for right now I'm just going to pick one name out of your list.

Jim Jeffries had his nose broken by a 165 pound fighter who fought him to a controversial draw. Needless to say, that fighter never got a rematch. Jeffries was a giant among midgets for his era, and never beat a guy who was over 200 Lbs, and in fact only fought maybe 2 guys who were right around that weight. His best wins were likely against Corbett and Fitz who were well past there prime, and mind you Fits gave him quite a pounding before going down. Overall, Jeffries had a total of 7 title defenses, and ultimately retired with only 20 recorded pro fights to his credit that we at least know of. No way does Jeffries deserve a rating higher than Lewis.

 

Jeffries beat 6'3 210lb black contender bob armstrong didnt he? wasnt gus ruhlin 6'2 200lb?

 

No, Bob Armstrong was 6'0" tall, and 187 Lbs when he fought Jeffries. The only fighters that Jeffries ever fought who were right around 200 were Jack Johnson who beat him, and Jack Munroe who drew with him in their first fight.

 

ooo ur right, wow cyberboxing is way off with bob armstrong.

 

As someone who enjoys boxing but is far from an expert, I have to say that this is an excellent thread, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. Personally I'm a huge Lewis fan, but intangibles, which is what much of this is, can be spun in a variety of ways to get a desired outcome. Regardless the detailed knowledge many of you have is very impressive. :good

 

To expand on my position in this thread a little more, I'm not trying to argue that it's ridiculous to have Lewis in the top 10. Certainly he was a dominant champion in his own era with a lot of excellent credentials, and he had a collection of physical assets which would make him a serious threat to anyone in a head-to-head sense. I consider most of the fighters in my little "greatness list" to be pretty closely sandwiched together. Right now, I'd say I consider Ali, Louis, Foreman, Marciano, Frazier and Holmes to have been clearly greater than Lewis, with everyone after that being arguably interchangable with him. By my estimation, although I list him at 13th, he could reasonably be ranked as high as seventh. However, again, while I don't consider it unreasonable to have Lewis in the top 10, I also don't think Sugar is being unreasonable in having him at 12th.

 

Although I'm very impressed with your agruments so far, I find some of these comments confusing. If Lewis is a "serious threat to anyone in a head-to-head sense." I would assume that means he's in the top 5-6, if so then to rate him 13th over all, you must less than impressed with his career accomplishments, is that a fair interpretation of what this means?

 

No, I don't think he's in the top 5-6 head-to-head. You can be a "threat to anyone" without actually being the best. There are guys I would make favorites over Lewis, but with his combination of size, skill and power, he would certainly still be at least a threat to all of them, and I can see a reasonable argument for him beating most of the all-time greats (although I tend not to agree with it). He also clearly had stylistic deficiencies/vulnerabilities which would make him vulnerable to defeat by a lot of guys (although I would still favor him over most of them, as he showed the ability to adapt and compensate). Being a threat to anyone does not necessarily entail being as good as anyone, or in the top 5-6.

 

was no first Monroe fight. It was a sparring session where Munroe claimed, which there is no evidence of, that he knocked Jeffries down.

It is possible that Hank Griffin weighed close to 200lbs.
Jack Monroe
Peter Jackson
Bob Armstrong
Jim Corbett
Gus Ruhlin
Pete Everett
Joe Goddard

all weighed around 190lbs or more. They are not much different in weight than the majority of opponents of Louis.

 

I edited my own post over a year ago. Cool.

 

Well that's about as nebulous as it gets. But that's fine, I was just asking for clarification of what your remarks meant. But unfortunately this response doesn't provide much insite into your earlier comments. But it does seem to me, there aren't many fighters who would posses a valid threat to those considered ATG's, I guess that's why I made the inference that I did.

 

Louis fought four different ranked opponents who weighed over 230 pounds. I don't believe Jeffries ever beat anyone who weighed over 200 pounds- literally. That's quite a gap. Even Marciano's average title opponent was nearly 10 pounds heavier than Jeffries'. I think this is a quite valid criticism of Jeffries' reign. Not that it overrules his sound cleaning out of the elite ranks in his heyday, going unbeaten in his first career and going 6-0 against the three chief rivals of the time period.