The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

I understand your basic reasoning, but I think you massively, grossly underestimate and misunderstand the quality of fighters we're talking about here. Put aside your interest and love for Lewis for a second and think about him objectively. For example, do you honestly in your heart of hearts think Lennox Lewis could beat Joe Louis SEVENTY PERCENT of the time?! Seriously? That's not happening on this planet, not even close. You think Joe Frazier wouldn't even beat Lewis A SINGLE TIME?! Not even ONE TIME? C'mon. Be real. I'll give you another example: I don't like Jack Dempsey. I was never a fan of his or his fights, but you have to recognize what a nasty fighter he was. If you even have a suspect chin -- and Lewis's chin is more than suspect -- you have to give even just a couple of fights to one of the great all-time punchers.

I can appreciate fandom, but there's no reason I should abide such a silly overestimation of a very, very good heavyweight. You simply can't say he'd win "all" or "very nearly all" of Best of Ten matches with most of the people above. In reality, it's much, much closer than that. Those are some ridiculously great fighters. Also, Moore's in there because of his amazing record of knockouts. Anyone who can knock out that many people can certainly knock out a heavyweight with a questionable chin ONE time.

I stand by my comments. Lewis is one of greats of his era. Greatest of All Time? Certainly not. There's quite a line ahead of him.

 

Surely you jest?

 

More than any other type of sportsfan, most boxing folk are at once torn between their inability to imagine the true reality of the past and the uncontrollable desire to compare boxers across eras. It's a nasty combination, one that tends to favor what is most recent.

It's that kind of historial relativism that makes me appreciate those historians who have taken the time to tell us just how bad, how strong, how good, and how talented the people who lived beyond our own days were.

Why would I jest? Dempsey is #7 all-time on Ring Mag's "100 Greatest Punchers of all Time." Lewis is #33. Dempsey could take a punch; Lewis was near glassy. Why WOULD'T I give an interesting historical edge to one of the all-time best punchers against one of the weaker chins in heavyweight history?!

While we're at it, Joe Louis is #1 on the puncher llist!

Dempsey was a puncher's puncher. I don't personally like him as a boxer, but I recognize what he was and what his talents were. He was a great puncher. Lennox has a poor chin. 6 might have been an overestimation, but I won't knock it down by much. I realize how good the greats were.

Nothing about being more recent than the greats from the past takes that reality away.

 

Do you think Dempsey would be 7 and Lewis 33 if Dempsey was British and Lewis American? No, me neither. Dempsey wouldn't stand a chance with a fighter that heavy and skilled who could punch their weight. As a pound-for-pund puncher he may rate ahead of Lewis, but head-to-head he'd be mashed.

 

I don't see how Dempsey beats Lewis on any day or in any century.

Dempsey spent most of his career fighting under the 200 pound mark, and likewise, defeated very few men who ever exceeded that same mark. He only defended his belt 6 times within a 7 year period, which is attrocious, and furthermore, only fought a total of 4 black men in his entire career, none of whom were rated. He also gets an obsurd amount of credit for having set the record for most first round KO's, when in fact, a lot of these wins came against winless or near winless opposition.

You can try making a case all you want in regards to Lewis's defeats against Mccall, but the reality of the situation is, Lewis lost but twice in his career and avenged both losses, while Dempsey lost 6 times and drew 11. What's more, is that I'm not even so sure that I'd pick Dempsey to beat Mccall or Rahman.

I'm not claiming that Dempsey doesn't deserve his dues for being great in his day, but there are very few contemporary champions that I'd pick to lose against him.

 

Here's an interesting sideways question: Do you think Earnie Shavers could beat Lewis one time out of 10?

 

He probably would. I rate Shavers as a harder puncher than Dempsey anyway, especially with one shot. Of course, Jack has a chance at his best if Lennox has a bit of an off night, but both at their very best- no contest. Get real. Lewis isn't that easy to hit, he's no Jess Willard.

 

A hard hitter of Earnie's status would always be deserving of a puncher's chance, but I'm not willing to give him the odds in a fantasy matchup on the basis of a lucky punch landing at the right time.

 

I dont want to burst your bubble, but I don't think the Ring rankings had anything to do with nationality. I understand, however, that many Brits constantly feel the need to defend Lewis, since he's one of the few heavyweights from UK to ever matter, and since only in America could he make the purses he made. Must be a Napoleon complex lol. If Lewis were American, he'd be #33. If Dempsey were from Ivory Coast, he'd be #7. And I don't reduce Lewis because of his nationality. It's only that he's MERELY so good, and that is that.

I also disagree with your relativistic view of pound-for-pound. Stanley Ketchel put Jack Johnson on his ass, not because he was a great pound-for-pound puncher, but because he could put anyone on his ass. You think a guy hovering around 200 pounds (at times above 200) is really significantly less a great puncher -- especially if he's one of history great punchers?

Get a grip. Now, I give your man respect, but you oughtta buck up and think about the history you're dissing with such flippancy. One fact you are totally missing here: Dempsey may have fought poor opponents, but he ALSO fought great opponents, and he is know for having fought a huge range of talent. You're missing the other end of the spectrum, bud.

 

You are right.

He didn't have Willards chin.

 

Are we talking about the same Ring Magazine who predicted Carl Williams to be Larry Holmes succesor?

 

He was the most feared non-titleholder of all time with all of the attributes of a Lewis-killer!!! COME ON!

I didnt say to give him the odds. I want to know your honest assessment: in ten bouts, how many do you give to whom?

 

I think that if any two guys met 10 times, the underdog would always have a chance of winning at least 1, but that's about all the benefit of the doubt that I'm willing to give Shavers against Lewis.

By the way, it takes more than just a powerful right hand to beat Lewis. Oliver Mccall had some decent boxing skills as well as one of the greatest chins of all time, yet it still took him 5 rounds to beat Lewis, and that was a controversial stoppage. I don't think Shavers has the chin or the right set of skills to last long enough against Lewis to make his own opportunities.

 

I don't see the point. The New York Times also reported that Rosie Ruiz won the Boston marathon in 1980. What's the point in denegrating an entire source for discrete items?

Did you write for Ring Magazine? Are you better than their writers? Are you a better historian than Gerald Early or Stanley Crouch? Have you written more on boxing than Oates? Tell me what your point is, exactly.