Sugar says Lewis is alltime great yet only top 12

Well, the Tyson-above-Lewis thing deserves a little asterisk. Tyson is one spot ahead of Lewis (#12), and that's by the hairs of his chinny-chin-chin. Tyson at least had only one such loss in his heyday, against an opponent who (in an inspired performance like that one especially) I consider significantly better than McCall or Rahman, Tyson's dominance at his peak was something special, although it was terribly brief, and I tend to favor Tyson over Lewis in a peak-for-peak match-up. But I can definitely see having Lewis ahead of Tyson as a highly reasonable position, as Lewis had far superior longevity, overall had more name wins and avenged both his losses.

Well, let us examine, here; I just explained about Tyson above (though that is a very bad loss as well and is also one of the central reasons Tyson doesn't make my top 10, either). As for Holyfield, what losses are you talking about, specifically? I don't see anything as ugly as being leveled by Rahman and McCall anywhere close to Holyfield's heyday. The worst he has is a very close, disputed decision to Moorer, which was avenged. And with regards to Liston... are you referring to the Marti Marshall loss? Because that was a very green Liston who was clearly not close to being the fighter he would later become. The main reason, for me, that the McCall and Rahman losses are greater blemishes to Lewis' resume than most of the other guys' (though Tyson has a similar loss) is that they happened during Lewis heyday, in the time period which encompassed the height of his career and saw all of his great wins and top performances.

Absolutely so, but to put a touch of an asterisk next to this, I don't think Lewis' opposition overall stacks up to that of most other great champions' in terms of quality. If Lewis had gone undefeated or had only lost to one of the genuine top opponents, like, say, Holyfield or Vitali, then I would have him in my top 10 nonetheless, but given that he still lost to two fairly run-of-the-mill contenders as is, I don't see what redeems him far enough to place ahead of most of the other guys in contention for the top 10 of all time. For the note, Gene Tunney also proved himself better than every opponent, but I don't consider him a top 10 all-time heavyweight either, and he's just outside my top 15.

 

:huh That wasn't Woddy's argument.

 

As I said to OLD FOGEY, Tyson and Lewis are more or less equal in my rankings. I generally put Tyson one space ahead of Lewis because I tend to think he would beat Lewis peak-for-peak. However, to make a brief defense against these points: Tyson at least has only one such loss, the loss was to a fighter (Douglas) who I consider significantly better, particularly on that night, than a McCall or Rahman, and his sheer dominance over a brief period of time does exceed Lewis', although Lewis has far superior longevity.

Now, what I said was not that he beat "20 ranked contenders," but that he had "20 wins against contenders," which includes instances in which he beat various contenders multiple times. To enumerate, they were (this is obviously very difficult to be certain of, since we don't have any solid rankings for the division at this time and it's hard to know just where some of these contenders would have stood relative to each other and the division as a whole): Gunboat Smith (twice), Homer Smith, Meehan (he may have been a "fringe-top-10" level guy. I think he was at least in league with some of the guys listed as "contenders" who Lewis beat), Carl Morris (twice), Bill Brennan (twice), Fred Fulton, Battling Levinsky, Billy Miske (twice), Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, and Sharkey. That makes 16; note that I said "around 20," and hadn't directly counted it out. For further note, I don't think Gunboat Smith would have been considered a contender by the time of the Dempsey rematch, and Homer Smith probably wasn't much of a contender either, so the total against guys who would really have been considered in contention for championship shots at the time is probably more like 13-14. However, several of Lewis' 20 listed "contender" opponents probably weren't legitimate contenders either, but were ranked by various Mickey-Mouse organizations. On the whole, Lewis has the advantage in quantity, but not by a lot.

Liston beat Mike DeJohn, Cleveland Williams (twice), Roy Harris, Zora Folley, Eddie Machen, Albert Westphal (why he was ranked, do not ask), and Patterson (twice). That makes nine wins over ranked opponents. Significantly fewer than Lewis', but the two against Patterson were better and more impressive than any of Lewis', in my opinion.

You really think losses against the greatest heavyweight of all time and while you're a shot fighter are as bad as losses to average contenders while in your prime?

I didn't claim Lewis beat 20 ranked contenders- I did say he had 17 fights against ranked contenders. Subtract four losses, and he has 13 wins over ranked opponents. The point is, his quantity isn't wildly below Lewis', and his quality is on another planet. For a note here on this whole overarching "Lewis beat more contenders than so-and-so" theme, I don't really consider wins over guys like Zelko Mavrovic and Francois Botha (of which Lewis has a lot to pad his total) too terribly significant. Frazier's fights against name opponents have a very strong concentration at the cream of the crop- in fact, as I say, he beat each of the three outstanding contenders of the late 60s through turn of the 70s twice, and, obviously, beat Ali. And again, he only lost to two of the greatest heavyweights ever.

Yes, but he also would be sans most of his best wins and would not even rank in the top 15.

Whoa, now- let's examine this. Holmes beat: Shavers (twice), Norton, Occasio (you don't think of him as a contender, but he was undefeated and had just beaten Young twice when Young was still thought of as a big name), Weaver, LeDoux, Berbick, Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Cobb, Witherspoon, Marvis Frazier (you don't think of him as a contender, but he was undefeated and had just beaten and unbeaten Broad and then soundly outpointed Bugner), Bey, Carl "the Truth" Williams, and Ray Mercer. That makes 16 wins over ranked opponents (some of these guys were fringe contenders and one-hit wonders, but they were ranked nonetheless, much like some of Lewis' opposition). I think Norton, Witherspoon, Shavers and Cooney stack up with Holyfield, Tua, Ruddock, Mercer and Vitali Klitschko as a "cream-of-the-crop" of each man's resume. And Holmes made it his first 48 pro fights unbeaten against his fairly weak crop of opposition, unlike Lewis, who (I hate to sound like a broken record player, but this is a determining factor here) was blasted by two average contenders well within such a space of time.

Yes, but some of them were good nonetheless, and he beat them all, twice apiece with the best ones, going undefeated through his first career.

WHAT??? Are we talking about the same George Foreman? The one who had his first pro fight in 1969 and his last over 28 years later at the end of 1997, who engaged in 81 professional fights?

Fewer, yes, but better by leaps and bounds. His demolitions of Frazier and Norton, the slugfest over Lyle, and the knockout over Moorer amount to a much better "cream-of-the-crop" resume than Lewis'. Still, if Foreman had stayed retired the first time, he would rank about alongside Lewis in my view; it's the comeback and his regaining the title over 20 years after winning it for the first time that makes Foreman a truly "special" champion in my mind and puts him in my top five.

To be slightly picky, Marciano was on top for five years, if one is using a definition of "on top" which doesn't require a fighter to have actually been champion at the time, like you apparently are. As I've said before, Marciano had a relatively short run at the top of the heavyweight division, but in that time, he defeated five of six men who were ranked in the top two, three of them twice. His cleaning out of the cream of the crop of his division, albeit for a shorter period of time, was more thorough than any other heavyweight champion's.

Perhaps, but it makes your little list comparisons look misleading by excluding the two fighters who exceed Lewis by the most.

Now, I was never arguing for using "single best win" as the criterium of choice here, but as one of several, and one in which Lewis comes up a touch short.

As you probably won't be surprised to learn, I think you're severely overrating Lewis' win over Holyfield, which I also certainly don't believe to have been a shut-out (116-112 through 118-110 would probably be appropriate). Granted, the status of the Holyfield win is a bit hard to quantify, as it's difficult to say how close to or far from his best Holyfield was at that point in his career. I consider his heavyweight peak to have been in 1990-93, but he clearly remained an elite heavyweight into the later 90s. He had put together some noteworthy wins during the last three years (Tyson twice, Moorer), but he had only fought once in the last 16 months going into the Lewis fight, and when you're 36-37 years old like he was, a little run of inactivity like that can be what it takes to finally start your body rusting up. Certainly, shortly after the Lewis fights, Holyfield was clearly way over-the-hill, going life and death with John Ruiz three times in a row- and since the Lewis fights were not brutal wars or somesuch, I tend to think this wasn't something which just came on suddenly. In other words, I do think Holyfield was past his best by a considerable margin when he fought Lewis.

 

***(continued from the previous post)***

This content is protected

 

I rate Lewis at 10... The cigar carcinogens are finally doing their number on Bert's brain :roll:

 

so the fighter who made louis look foolish for 26 rounds and marciano foolish for 13 rounds is not great?

the fighter who beat 5 hall of famers, and who beat 8 top 10 contenders in a 3 year span including the 1, 2, 3 ranked contenders is not great?

 

Nino valdez knockout was a good win. nino said so himself in an interview. nino was over the hill but still dangerous. nino had knocked out/beat 4 contenders months before harold carter, mike dejohn, wayne bethea, pat mcmurty, and would knock out brian london after the liston fight.

 

Marciano always looked foolish... watch the film

 

Not by the criteria that is demanded of the post-modern heavies. Not head-to-head, not even close. He would not last 3 rounds with a prime Lewis.

 

Marciano Frazier,

Everything you argued in this post, to the finest detail, is exactly how I see it. I was very interested in your assessment of the Holyfield fight, which resembles my own opinion to a tee.

Amazing how often these Lennox Lewis threads come up - he is truly an opinion divider.

 

Sorry. Those were meant to be two statements, i.e. #1 I can not statement my argument better than Woddy stated it. #2. My point on the supposed greatness of Walcott.

And please, I really want to hear the tired bendover-backwards arguments of how great Walcott was. He was a hot and cold fighter whose hot was very hot but much too infrequent for be considered great. However, many want to apply different standards of excellence to different fighters, dependant on said arguer's agenda.

 

I have been reading this thread. Good information has been provided by Marciano_Frazier, Woody and others.

My main disagreement is it seems that Lewis does not get any excuses for his losses. The Rhaman loss could be chalked up to old age, not taking Rhaman seriously, being concerned about acting in a movie, and fighting at a high altitude.

The McCall loss could be excused by a quick stoppage ( I think Lewis was out on his feet ), but for the context of this thread, one could argue that.

Both defeats were avenged by stoppage win for Lewis.

I really don't like to blame losses on non-injury related circumstances, but it seems your willing to give some fighters a little wiggle room on why they lost, while Lewis himself gets none.

 

Okay, here you gotta explain me the double standard. Tyson has one embarrassing loss at age 24 and there it ends? Watch Holyfield-Tyson II and see just how embarrassing that loss was. Sorry but quitting like that counts against your legacy no matter how you look at it, and he was only 29. You hold Lewis' loss against Rahman badly against him while Lewis was 35 at the time. Why does Tyson get a free age pass, because of his style? We're not ranking style-for-style or something.

One more thing, Holyfield gave Tyson a hideous beating when Tyson was 29, apparantly you don't really hold this against Tyson, but shouldn't this tell you that Holyfield was very good as he beat the guy you rank higher than Lewis, yet Lewis defeated Holyfield twice.

Did i mention yet that Lewis avenged both defeats whereas Tyson tried it once and disgraced the sport in his attempt? It seems you give Tyson a lot of free passes for these things while Lewis gets none.

Homer Smith? Meehan. Give me a break. Gunboat Smith was washed up and was compiling a record worse than Chuck Wepner when Dempsey fought him. Not including Botha, Mavrovic etc (by the way, Mavrovic record was still ahead of Meehan, Homer and gunboat Smith, etc) Lewis is still 17-2. You found 13-14 names for Dempsey including the weakest of the weakest.

Did you consider the fact that Dempsey ducked the best contender around for 6 years, Harry Wills? Did you consider that Dempsey was scared shitless of black fighters and never fought one? Did you consider that Tunney, a lightheavyweight, beat the living crap out of Dempsey in both the initial fight as well as the rematch, whereas Lewis avenged his loss to guys who were more proven at heavyweight than Tunney?

Even if we include Westphale, who was worse than Botha/Mavrovic, Lewis still has nearly twice the wins. Williams was ranked only once when they fought.

You think Patterson is so great, i think he isn't. Every time someone coughed loudly at ringside, the man was knocked down. His record against contenders (and i don't mean bums like McNeely whom he defended against) is pretty mediocre at best. He's a good contender who was at the right time and place to win the linear championship but other than that he's no more than a good contender. I don't think a glass chinned undersized heavyweight can make up for the gigantic gap in depth.

It's not just losses, it's the way he lost. Again the double standard. You hold Lewis' KO losses hard against him - fine. But there is more honor in getting a premature stoppage than in disgracing the championship and quitting on your stool.

Lewis fought and beat a lot of contenders past the age of 32, the only time Liston fought a contender past age 32 he got knocked out cold. Lewis was on top of the division for 11 years, Liston for 5 years (and i gave him the benefit of the doubt including 1958 despite only beating up bums in that year). Liston has the grand total of ONE title defense. Did you take longetivity into account?

I don't think Botha and Mavrovic are so significant either. Bruno, Klitschko, Tua, Briggs, Mason, Tyson, Holyfield twice, Golota, Akinwande, Ruddock, Mercer, Morrison, beating every man in front of you however is. Frazier will never get past a guy like Foreman; Lewis never showed that stylistic weakness and disability to avenge a loss.

Again this is not a fair comparison. You include a horrible fighter like Occasio but Mavrovic does not count?

Norton, Witherspoon and Shavers over Holyfield, Tua, Ruddock, Klitschko and Mercer? Give me a break. Norton was old and had a glass chin, Holmes was in his prime yet this fight was extremely close. Shavers had a glass chin too and couldn't get past 24-20 journeymen on several occasions. Witherspoon was a good fighter, but Holmes went pretty much even with him and avoided the rematch like the plague as he's done his entire career.

Again, the fact that Holmes avoided 3 rematches (Norton, Witherspoon, Williams) as well as missed 4 major contenders (Page, Dokes, Thomas, Coetzee) is something you should take into account.

 

Yeah well if you put Lewis in with 38 year old middleweights and 40 year old 180lbs inactive Corbetts i can guarantee you 100% that Lewis will defeat undefeated and unlike Jeffries, he won't take a shellacking in every fight despite enormous weight and age advantages.

Oh please. Foreman fought a string of bums from 1969-1973 until he stepped up against Frazier. Now i don't really hold this against him - but you make it sounds asif "81 professional fights" is something garguantic.
Foreman's record against contenders in his prime is a tiny 5-2.

In his second career it was even worse, something like 3-1. He got his ass handed to him by the good fighters Morrison and Holyfield and struggled badly against fringe contenders like Schulz, Stewart (his face after that fight could've been a commercial for what you can do with his grill) and Savarese. The jokes he defended against were so bad that he had to pay $250.000 to even be able to fight them.
The Moorer win was great, no doubt about it. But if you're gonna give him credit for the Moorer win, then you should also take into account the fact that he lost to and struggled big time with the former mentioned fighters. You can't have it both ways.

Altogether you have an unfocused, overweight Frazier, an i-freeze-everytime-against-punchers Norton, a good Lyle who nearly had him out despite never having scored a KO over top opposition with the exception of the glass chinned Shavers, Ali who embarrassed him, Young who embarrassed him, and i've already discussed his second career.

I may be a bit harsh here, but i'm simply using the same standard that you use on Lewis.

Foreman's resume was razor thin and his best wins came in great stylistic matchups of which Frazier was past his best and unfocused anyway. He never showed to be able to adapt to a skilled boxer style with his lack of defense and horrible balance. Lewis showed he could adept and avenged his defeats, again something Foreman never did although i do know that Ali avoided him.

I think we can all agree that Louis and Ali are a step above the rest; it is rather irrelevant to include them in the comparison when the outcome is already known.

Holyfield was past his prime, but i think he was a better fight in 1996 than in 1993. He had put on some extra weight and most important, he became a smart fighter instead of the insecure, i have to show that i can mix it up with big guys and get my ass beat-version of the early 90's. The 1996 Tyson would've probably beaten Holyfield because Holyfield would slug it out as he did with Bowe.

I don't think my picks were unreasonable. Frazier was also past his best and unlike Holyfield he was also unmotivated and out of shape, but i gave him the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Holyfield is rarely not ranked in the top12. Unless we're going by Revolvers rankings, Norton never makes the top12, so Holyfield is the greater fighter. You might say that Holyfield was old, but so was Norton; in fact he'd lose his very next fight by first round KAYO and drew with Cobb who knocked him down twice.

If you think a 38 year old supermiddleweight or a 36 year old Corbett is better than Holyfield, think again. Holyfield is easily more accomplished, bigger and did not have a 3 year lack of activity.

I'm still waiting to hear which of Johnson's wins are more impressive than Holyfield: was it a washed up, 5 year inactive version of Jeffries? A 158 pound Langford? A 10 fight Jeannette? A 10 fight McVey?

How is Tyson's win over Ruddock better than Holyfield?
Even if you think Ruddock is better than Holyfield, okay. Then we'll simply pick Lewis' win over Ruddock, which was by a 2 round demolishment whereas Tyson needed a premature stoppage and a decision win.

Liston's win over Patterson is a great, but Patterson is no where near as good as Holyfield. If Patterson had fought Holyfields opponents, his record would be full of LKO LTKO's, etc. As i've said before, Patterson was a good contender at the right place and the right time, but also an undersized one with no chin and a mediocre record vs the best contenders.

Again, tell me how this is unreasonable.