Sugar says Lewis is alltime great yet only top 12

WBC, IBF and WBA rankings do not count. If we allowed that kind of thing in our discussion, we'd have to count the Fabio Moli knockout as a win over an elite contender for Wlad Klitschko. Lewis has about 20 wins over contenders. 25 is an exaggeration.

 

Believe it or not, Levi Billups was coming off a decision win over a washed up Boncrusher Smith, who oddly enough was ranked #9 by the WBC in 1991. This did not put Levi over the top, but I think he cracked the ratings briefly, and fought Lewis on HBO on the undercard of a bigger fight. Dereck Williams was nothing special, but he was 19-4, and fought Lewis for one of the Euro titles. Lewis fought Holyfield twice, and arguably one both of them despite the draw in the first fight.

 

Who's ratings are valid in your opinion?

 

you didnt mention rex layne and he was 10-12 against ranked fighters when they were RANKED.

 

Thank you Woddy and Drew101 for providing those names.

There are only a few names there who I'd say were ranked as contenders due to corruption or completely unjustifiably.
I'd say at least 16 were genuine contenders beyond any real objections.

 

Lewis was one of the few champions to hold a win over every man he fought. His record in title defenses is excellent, and his physical skills are outstanding. Head to head, or legacy wise, Lewis should be in the top 8.

 

You don't seem to understand my criteria here. The losses you're going after Dempsey and Johnson for here were, for the most part, in fights that happened while these guys were inexperienced street kids, hobos fighting for food and sleeping on park benches and the like, and not yet elite-level fighters. They were clearly not at or near their best yet at this time, and would not even have been in the top 10 in the division had there been official rankings. This is due to circumstance, not ability. In their primes, as in, during the time periods in which they posted all of their noteworthy wins, won championships, etc., they do not have losses as embarassing in nature as Lewis does.
Lewis' losses both came during his heyday, as in during the time period in which he posted his greatest wins and stood at his highest position in the division. They are not comparable with losses that happen five years before you win the title when you're dirt poor, fighting every two weeks and sleeping on park benches.

"Far fewer" quality fighters? Lewis had a little under 25 fights against ranked opponents in his career (not sure exactly how many of his 'good-record-with-no-substance' opponents on the fringes were officially ranked, but the total of fights against ranked opponents is somewhere around 22-24). Frazier had 17, in a shorter career in which he faced the MUCH better cream-of-the-crop opposition. If you examine the ratings from Ali's hiatus in the late '60s, you'll see that in the years Frazier rose to the top, the three contenders who most consistently hung near the top were Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena. Frazier not only beat all of these guys, but he went through them each twice.
Lewis does have an advantage in quantity over Frazier, but Frazier has an enormous advantage in quality. The FotC was arguably the greatest single victory ever posted in the history of the division. In addition, Frazier took on a very strong crop of top contenders in what was arguably the strongest era in heavyweight history and dominantly cleaned them out. He only lost to two of the greatest heavyweights ever to lace on gloves. His legacy clearly stands above Lewis', in my opinion.

Rahman and McCall were not bums, and I have never used that term to describe them. However, they were far substandard fighters for a legendary champion to be losing to in his heyday.

It isn't just one big win- it's the continuity of his career. I assume you were following the heavyweight title scene at this time. No one was saying, "Yeah, that Lewis is old and dried up." The Holyfield-Grant-Botha-Tua run of fights leading up to the Rahman loss was probably the single best run of consecutive wins Lewis ever had. There is not a hint of decline. The Rahman fight was just five months later. Afterwards, Lewis looked like his old self in the vintage performance he put on in the rematch. The argument that Lewis was past his prime when he fought Rahman is very weak.

Douglas easily beat McCall himself shortly before facing Tyson, and had notables against Trevor Berbick and Tex Cobb, as well. It is true that McCall was never knocked out, but he has just as many ugly losses.

How is it "strange" that I would think Johnson was not in his prime when he was consistently losing and drawing against relatively lower-level opposition and was not an elite-level fighter, but was in his prime later when he was beating the snot out of those same guys and was the top fighter in the division? Johnson was a scrawny young black fighter with no opportunities weighing 180-ish in the 1894-1901 time period. He cannot reasonably be considered even close to the fighter at that time that he would be a decade later. Johnson probably wasn't quite at his best in 1902, but I said he "could be considered" prime from 1902 onward, as that was the time at which he stopped losing regularly to lower-level opponents and became and elite fighter. You really don't seem to look at fighters' careers in perspective- guys like Jack Dempsey and Johnson were street kids who were dirt poor with no management or professional training and had to fight their way up from the very bottom of the pile. They learned their trade by fighting professional fights. They were not like Lewis, who turned professional already a well-schooled, financially-secure fighter with a massive amateur background and a professional trainer and management team.

1. The Finnegan and Munroe defenses were just a couple soft touches. What about the other six fights of Jeffries' title reign, in which he beat each of the top three contenders of the time period twice?
2. The Choynski and Ruhlin matches were within Jeffries' first 10 pro fights, and Jeffries had no amateur background and learned his trade as he went. The fact that he progressed as quickly as he did, going from turning pro in 1896 to being world champion just three years later, is absolutely remarkable.

You can hardly say he was "past his prime" because he arguably performed better in some other match, or else hardly anyone ever fought an opponent who was in his prime.

Moore was killing himself to make light heavyweight at the time. He was actually much more natural at heavyweight in the '50s. As to his old age, you're no doubt aware that Moore was on the biggest and most impressive (BY FAR) winning streak of his career when he fought Marciano and went on to continue reigning as light heavyweight champion for another six years afterwards, and was still a top 10 heavyweight in the early '60s all the way until the time he ran into a young Ali. Moore was square in the middle of his heyday when he fought Marciano.

Indeed, but he is the only one of Marciano's elite opponents who was far past his best.

Charles fought at middleweight when he was 19-21 years old. It wasn't his natural weight. He was a big light heavyweight and grew naturally into the heavyweight division (he's hard as nails in the 180s).

Not really "conditioning problems" so much as "tendency to overproduce fat." The man was still in shape. And it obviously didn't effect his performance in the ring, as he was on a 10-fight winning streak and had beaten several contenders over the last couple years.

Yes, absolutely, actually. In Marciano's six title defenses, he had five against current #1 contenders and one against a #2 contender. He failed to face only one top 2 contender during his entire active title reign. Lewis, on the other hand, made a large portion of his defenses against fringe contenders (Botha, Tyson, Rahman), and failed to face multiple guys who ranked among the top 2 challengers during his reign, like Wlad Klitschko and Chris Byrd.

This is painfully weak as a response to criticism of Lewis. Marciano went down for two tiny flash-counts against future Hall-of-Famers and won both fights by crushing knockout.

Again, compare this with the criticism which can obviously be leveled the other way. Every heavyweight champion has been "nearly beaten." There has only been one who never actually was.

None of those guys were "ascending from other weight classes," other than sort of Moore. They had once fought at other weights, mind you, but they were all well and fully settled into the heavyweight ranks and had been competing there for years and numerous noteworthy performances when they fought Marciano. This is not like Mike Spinks just hopping up from light heavyweight and receiving a title shot or somesuch. Do you not agree that having once fought at a lighter weight should not create some kind of an automatic "worthless" mark on a fighter's head? All of those guys had more than proven themselves to be elite heavyweights when they fought Rocky.

 

If you read the first post of mine which you quoted in context, you’ll see that I was responding to a post by Mendoza in which he argues that Lewis belongs in the top 7 or 8, pointing out that he was stopped twice in 44 fights and many other champions were stopped more often. Thus, in addressing that post, I stated where our opinions differ (my lower ranking of Lewis) and addressed the points Mendoza used to defend Lewis (pointed out that nearly all the men I ranked higher were stopped less often than Lewis and were not stopped in their primes by such relatively low-level opponents). If I had been responding to someone who claimed Lewis was a no-better-than-average champion and wasn’t even in the top 20, I would have pointed out all the positives in his career and explained how he showed himself to be a far above-average champion, and the post would come across as having a very positive slant towards Lewis. This is all relative.

 

Seriously, though, seeing your list--Why is Tyson ahead of Lewis? He also lost in his prime by ko and he did not avenge the losses. You seem to hold Lewis' defeats against him in a way you do not Tyson's, or Holyfield's or Liston's, for that matter.

It is an impressive feat to prove oneself better than every opponent.

 

I don't want to start multiple discussions going through one and other here, but a few quick comments:

1.Tyson, who you say should be ahead was not only KO'd but also ouclassed by Douglas in his prime. Certainly Douglas has no significantly better resume than McCall or Rahman. Tyson never revenged this whereas Lewis avenged all his losses. Lewis beat more top10 (ring rankings) contenders than Tyson.

2. Dempsey did not beat 20 ranked contenders. While it's hard to say because there were no rankings pre-24, there were no 20 fighters on his record that deserved top10. Liston only beat something like 6 ranked contenders. And although this is subjective, i think a premature-stoppage KO loss and a legit KO loss at 35, both avenged by stoppage, aren't worse than quitting on your stool against a seen at that time as easy opponent as well as getting knocked out cold at age 37, unavenged. Frazier didn't beat 20 ranked contenders either and would probably never get past a guy like Foreman while Lewis never had this stylistical problem. If Lewis retired when Dempsey/Frazier/Marciano did, he would've had only one (avenged) loss.

Holmes avoided many challengers and had few fights against top contenders - much less than Lewis. Jeffries fought tiny opponents and old ones at that. Foreman had a very short career and never showed to be able to beat a skilled boxer (Ali, Young) with about four times less wins against ranked contenders than Lewis did. Marciano dominated but was only on top of the division for 4 years - Lewis for 11. Marciano's resume to me, is most impressive of the guys you listed, with the exception of Ali/Louis.
I won't argue about Ali/Louis because they are indefinitely ahead.

3.Even if you want to go by "single best win", which i think is a silly criterium:

Tyson: Ruddock. Lewis' shutout over Holyfield is better.
Marciano: Walcott or Louis. In my opinion, the Holyfield win is better but i'm biased so let's call it even.
Dempsey: Sharkey. Holyfield win is better especially considering it didn't come in a controversial foul when behind on points.
Johnson: I wouldn't know for sure who his best win is. In terms of names, Jeffries, Langford, Mcvey and Jeannette stick out, but they were all very young or old when beaten. Holyfield is more impressive.
Jeffries: Fitzsimmons or Corbett. Both were old and small. Holyfield is better.
Holmes: Norton. Holyfield is as good a boxer but doesn't have a glass chin nor made it that close in two attempts.
Frazier: Ali. This is definitely a better win than Holyfield.
Foreman: Frazier. This is a better win than Holyfield.

So even by that criterium, only Frazier and Foreman are ahead of Lewis and Marciano is tied.

 

You made some good points, but it still sounds to me like you're still holding Lewis's losses against him more so than you are any other champion.

 

not true, where do you get ur garbage? all the men I listed were rated in the top 10 monthly ratings right around the time walcott fought them.

so walcott is 16-11 against top 10 contenders, not 10-12. 16 wins is impressive

 

Sure they do. In both fights, Lewis was not at his best, and he proved that in the rematches. Against both guys, I'll say it again, if he (Lewis) had gone in prepared and with his plan "A" fighting style, which is the style he actually went with Rahman in the rematch, he would have won both fights easily and wouls have ended his career undefeated. Against McCall in the rematch, Lewis used his plan "B" style, which is more cautious, and is the same style he used both times against Holyfield, he didn't clock Oliver when he went into his weeping spell. He could have, and would have been the first fighter to put McCall off his feet. It may have been sportsmanship, combined with that caution that prevented him from doing so. Lewis would have been more spectacular in his victories had he always fought with plan "A", but plan "B" would have served him well if he had ever fought Muhammad Ali, because he would have been a very hard guy to overcome with a boxer's style combined with his great size and reach.

 

Woddy's argument makes by far the most sense regarding the original intent of this very frayed thread. Arguing whether Walcott was 10-12 or 16-11 does little to add luster to his abilities. Despite his eccentric style, he was beaten more often than should be acceptable to appoint "greatness." And yes, I have heard all the excuses.