Sugar says Lewis is alltime great yet only top 12

You can't just simply sum up his whole career based on two performances though. How many other champions in the history of the division defeated around 25 ranked opponents? I can only think of Joe Louis and perhaps Muhammad Ali. Thats it. Also, the McCall and Rahman losses were his ONLY defeats, and he avendged them both. Not every all time great can claim having only two defeats nor avenging them both. One of those losses came when he was nearly 36 years old, an age when Ali lost to Spinks who was arguably worse than Rahman and an age when Holmes, Dempsey, Liston, Marciano, Louis, Tyson, Johnson, Jeffries, Frazier, and a number of others were no longer champions.

Also for your information, Rahman and McCall were not exactly the tomato cans that you often describe them as. Rahman was 28 years old, had a record of 34-2-0-28, and 6'3", 238 LBS. McCall was 29 years old, 6'2", 231 Lbs, had one of the best chins of all time and was coming off some wins over decent opponents. Both guys could have upset a lot of all time greats, and Lewis again avenged both losses.

Lewis won silver and gold medals at the 84' and 88' olympics, something that a lot of champions can't claim. Throughout his career, he defeated many modern day super heavyweights in their primes, and with good records. He possibly beat more big punchers in one career than anyone else did.

You have Sonny Liston ranked in your top 3, but Lewis at 13, and only do so on the basis of two bad performances but don't look at any other criteria to make your comparison. This is somewhat of a one sided view in my opinion.

 

I disagree. The 12 men I have above Lewis are, again, Ali, Louis, Foreman, Marciano, Frazier, Holmes, Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson, Holyfield, Liston and Tyson. Out of that group, only Frazier, Johnson and Tyson were stopped as often as Lewis, and that's because they were stopped by legendary fighters while on the slide (Frazier) or stopped numerous times while far outside their primes (Johnson and Tyson). All 12 fighters I list ahead of Lewis have resumes at least on the same level as Lewis' and championship accomplishments to match, and none of them suffered multiple losses to Rahman/McCall level fighters while in their primes. Please explain how Lewis belongs above those fighters.

 

you have film of valdez vs liston? :shock: i didnt know that existed, i will buy it off of you. can you upload it for me? are u sure ur not confusing valdez with a different opponent

 

I wont go into detail because I have a final paper to write.......

walcott was not in his prime when he fought abe simon, al ettore, tiger jack fox, billy ketchal for your information.



lee q murray 1-0
joe louis 1-1
hatchetman sheppard 2-0
elmer ray 2-1
maxim 2-1
charles 2-2
H johnson 1-0
R marciano 0-2
Willie Reddish 1-0
Tiger Jack Fox 0-2
Joe Baksi 1-0
Lee Oma 1-0
Tommy Gomez 1-0
Jimmy Bivins 1-0
abe simon 0-1

walcott is 16-10 against top 10 contenders

 

Walcott defeating ranked contenders 16 times is impressive

 

For one thing, almost none of the fighters that you listed except Ali and Louis defeated more world class opponents than Lennox lewis did. For another, Lewis avenged both of his defeats while some other champions did not. You also mentioned that nobody lost to fighters like McCall and rahman in their prime. Was Lewis really in his prime against Rahman? I think Tyson was much closer to being in his prime when he lost to Douglas, as was Johnson when he lost to Marvin Hart and several others. Jeffries fought a total of 20 pro fights, and only 6 or 7 title fights. Dempsey sat on the title for most of his reign, and never gave a title shot to Harry Wills or any other ranked black fighter for that matter. Marciano was great, but beat mainly past prime fighters and again didn't beat as many ranked fighters as Lewis.

You can't just look at the low points of one fighter's career, while emphasizing the high points of other's. This is not doing an analytical comparison, but cheerleading rather.

 

I really like how when you respond to a post, you delete the points of the other poster that don't suit your argument, then emphasize the statements that you feel support it. I listed multiple reasons why Lewis shouldn't be critiqued soley on the basis of those defeats and you chose to ignore them. Biased propaganda and sensationalism might begin to describe your tactics.

I stand by that bold faced line about McCall and Rahman being potential spoilers for other greats.

 

But losing 18 fights as opposed to Lewis's 2, and only beating 16 ranked fighters as verses Lewis's 25, makes Walcott worthy of being ranked higher.atsch

 

I, also, would stand by that. Both are shot now, so don't judge them at this point. But McCall is almost impossible to KO and carries a world class punch. And Rahman, though underskilled (albeit more skilled than most 1900-1930 heavies), was still powerful as all get out during his prime.

 

I agree. Although neither McCall or Rahman were particularly talented fighters, they could punch as well as most, and were large athletic modern day boxers. McCall's chin is arguably better than any other that the sport has ever seen. For anyone to think that Liston, Louis, Tyson or Foreman would just walk right over him is ludicrous.

 

Can someone please name the TWENTY FIVE RANKED CONTENDERS who Lewis beat in his professional career ?

 

Not all of these guys were ranked by the Ring magazine necessarily, but I'm pretty sure they were all ranked by either the WBC, WBA, IBF or all of them when fought them. Some were barely on the fringes of the top 10, because of coming off of one big win. I counted roughly 23 opponents.

1. Vital Klitschko
2. Mike Tyson
3. Hasim Rahman
4. David Tua
5. Frans Botha
6. Michael Grant
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Zelijko Mavrovic
9. Shannon Briggs
10.Andrew Golata
11. Henry Akinwande
12. Oliver McCall
13.Tommy Morrison
14. Lionel Butler
15. Phil Jackson
16. Frank Bruno
17. Tony Tucker
18. Razor Ruddock
19. Gary Mason
20. Derek Williams
21. Ray Mercer
22. Evander Holyfield ( rematch)
23. Levi Billups

 

I can only come up with 20 who were rated at the time they met Lewis.
Not sure if Biggs, Weaver, McCrory et al were rated when they met LL.

1.Gary Mason
2.Mike Tyson
3.Evander Holyfield
4.Ray Mercer
5.Micheal Grant
6.Hasim Rahman
7.David Tua
8.Zelico Mavrovic
9.Shannon Briggs
10.Andrew Golota
11.Oliver McCall
12.Lionel Butler
13.Frank Bruno
14.Phil Jackson
15.Tony Tucker
16.Vitali Klitschko
17.Razor Ruddock
18.Henry Akinwande
19.Tommy Morrison
20.Frans Botha

Still...an impressive resume, methinks.

 

As you say, Ali and Louis beat more contenders than Lewis did; in addition, Johnson, Dempsey and Holmes all had around the same number of wins against contenders as Lewis did (I'm not certain of the ranking status of every single man each of these four champions fought, but a quick scan of their records indicates they all had around 20 wins against contender-level opposition). Lewis has an impressive quantity of noteworthy wins, above-average for an all-time great, but it's far from unmatched. Very importantly, here, nearly all the other champions I've mentioned had better best wins than Lewis did. Lewis' single best win is debatable, but I would say the very best opposition he beat was fringe-top-30 all-time level. Ali, Louis, Foreman, Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey, Holyfield, and Liston all have wins over opponents at or near their best who I consider to rank in the top 20.

Many of these other champions didn't avenge all of their losses, but again, none of them lost in their primes to Rahman-and-McCall level opponents in the first place.

Yes, absolutely. He was coming off one of his absolute career-best performances and wins in the Tua fight just five months earlier, and would go on to put on another of his most impressive performances in the Rahman rematch.

Tyson was in his prime when he lost to Douglas, but Douglas (particularly that Douglas) was better than McCall and Rahman anyway, and that is only one embarrassing loss, as opposed to two. What "several others" are you referring to with Johnson? Johnson can be reasonably considered to have been close to his prime from 1902-1914, with the fringes on either end probably being a little outside it. In those 13 years and 45+ fights, Johnson has one loss to Hart (by a very controversial decision) and one DQ to Jeanette (again, by a DQ, and against a better opponent than a McCall or Rahman). And no, a 37-year-old 20-pounds-overweight Johnson was not near his prime, nor was a skinny young turn-of-the-century light heavyweight Johnson.

No, actually, Jeffries has 20 fights listed on boxrec, but likely had a half-dozen or so more than are listed right now, and he had eight title fights in his first career, nine total. His career was short, but he was facing elite opposition within his first 10 pro fights, and he had a very complete title reign nonetheless.

True, but he actually beat as many ranked contenders as Lewis did and often in extremely impressive fashion, beat a peak Jack Sharkey while past his own prime, and did not have multiple knockout losses to Rahman/McCall-level opponents while in his prime.

1. Marciano's opponents being "mainly past-prime" is not really true.
2. Marciano didn't beat as many ranked fighters as Lewis, but he beat the absolute cream of the crop of his era more thoroughly than Lewis or just about anyone else did.
3. Marciano never lost a professional fight, which is an enormous advantage over a guy with two embarrassing losses in his prime like Lewis has.

Explain to me how I'm "just looking at the low points" of Lewis' career while "emphasizing the high points" of the other champions' careers. It is a simple fact that they all have, at the least, a similar accomplishment level to Lewis, and none of them have such embarassing losses in their primes as he does. It's only fair to rank them ahead of him. What would be cheerleading would be to take Lewis' impressive aspects, gloss over his shortcomings, and place him above champions who are more deserving of a given position than he is.