The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

I am mindfull that a lot of much smaller fighters have been verry efective in getting their way in the clinches against much larger fighters.

I don't think that Joe Louis was stronger than Primo Carnera in a literal sense but he still had his way in the clinches. Jess Willard was strong enough to shove Jack Dempsey around the ring but it did not do much good.

 

For several reasons he didn't bulk up:

1. You can't take an option that isn't there. Conn simply could not bulk up because back then, the knowlegde, know-how, nutrition, etc simply was not there yet.

2. He did not have to make an as big leap in weight as modern lightheavyweights or middleweights need to.

3. This is not relevant for Conn's case, but i'll make the point anyway because it is revelant for the bigger picture:
Not every fighter can bulk up succesfully. Only two men have been able to do it with consistent success in the last 30 years of the sport. And even they have mediocre records against skilled superheavies of their time: 1-4 (Holyfield) and 3-3 (Byrd). Not every frame can take the extra bulk and retain flexibility, speed and stamina.

4. What you say isn't entirely true. While Conn didn't, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran, to name a few, did bulk up even if it was only 10lbs.

 

So why did he come in significantly lighter against Louis than in his previous and subsequent fights where he weighed over 180lbs ?

Do you not think there was perhaps some strategy to reduce weight to maximize speed?

I would also add that it would have been possible to bulk up to some extent heven then. All it really takes is pasta. People just didn't.

 

I guess indeed he choose the strategy that you described. Maybe he just couldn't carry the weight good enough but could afford to do so against lesser opposition. Still he got knocked out though.

 

Not in eras when big men were larger in numbers and able to defeat their smaller counterparts.

 

You might be surprized how many big men there were in some earlier eras. It is by no meabs a lineal progresion towards more bigger men. There are ups and downs.

Tommy Loughran for example defeated two ranked heavyweights who were over 6' 7'' and 250 lbs to get his shot at Carnera.

 

Perhaps, but skilled big men like Lewis and Wlad have definately changed the landscape with respect to there now being skilled superheavies.

In reference to the subject of the post. I certainly think Lewis could be the GOAT in a H2H sense (range would be anywhere from 1-4) , not in terms of career accomplishments though (4-7) . Put them together and he cracks in the top 5 in my book.

 

Can they not ban clowns like that thad spencer

 

All that survives of him is this record and a rather impresive clip of him sparring with Dempsey.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=26752&cat=boxer

On boxrec his win loss ratio is unimpresive but either most of his record is missing or he was fighting the black dynamite crew from his pro debut. Which ever is the case he did split series with the best of the black dynamite crew.

The opening scene of this clip is Dempsey sparring with Tate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmaPxa-eZss

 

It's threads like this that demonstrate just how absurdly overrated Lewis is by some boxing fans.

You can't be the GOAT when you get taken out in the early rounds twice by ordinary fighters in championship fights, or when you only fought the other great fighters of the era when they were past their best (and in Tyson's case, done).

Lewis isn't even the best fighter of the era, let alone of all time!