The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

Wladimir Klitschko comes close, but he's much more fragile than Lewis, overall speaking. He lacks the great uppercut that Lewis had, but has a much better (consistent) left hook to make up for it, offensive-wise.

 

Also if the guy before think lewis, a guy with a solid to good chin is glass jawed what the hell is wlad .lol

 

As great as some of the old time champs were, I have a hard time seeing them dominate a dreadnought like Lewis. Win a few here and there yes. Dominate? Absolutely not. Lewis had the size,strength,skill and intelligence to beat any HW champ from any era. He is light years ahead of men like Willard,Carnera, Max and Buddy Baer or Cooney for that matter and probably too big for Marciano and Frazier who were'nt even six feet tall for chrissakes! Does anyone really think Marciano could even get close enough to do any damage to Lewis being 5'10" with a 69" reach! Even if he did Lewis would simply lean his 6'5" 240lb body on Marciano's 184lb frame and smother him. Likewise with Frazier. His size and ability would also give fellow boxers Ali and Holmes fits. Two men who did not like to be jabbed back at by fighters like Norton,Bugner,Witherspoon,Williams etc.. At his best Lewis would probably break even or hold a slight edge in a series of head to head contests against fellow great HW champs, men who never competed against the combination of size, power and ability that Lennox possesed.

 

No I believe you misunderstood,

I clearly said that I prefer to use multiple sources and not just the testimony of one source, which believe it or not, can be just as biased as anything else. From what you're describing, it seems as though you view the Ring Magazine to be the end all be all of boxing knowledge.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more in depth search yourself.

 

Boy, you sure as hell have a way of taking quotes out of context. By stating that I would give any underdog a chance in a 10 fight series, I wasn't reducing Shavers to being just any guy, and besides if that's the kind of spin you want to put on it, Lewis isn't just any champion either.

I've never heard anyone claim that Shavers had a great left. In fact, I don't even know if Shavers had a ****in' left attached to his body. And good defense? Christ on a crutch man, are we even talking about the same guy? I respect Shavers for his overhand right, and the testimonies of Ali and Holmes as being one of history's hardest hitters. Let's not forget however, that this is the same guy who was beaten in a single round by Jerry Quarry, knocked out in 5 by Ron Stander, and outboxed by journeyman Bob Stallings. If your trying to make a case that Shavers would beat Lewis however the hell many times out of 10 ( a bull**** hypothetical by the way ), just because Mccall did, then I suggest you make yourself some pop corn, grab a box of raisinettes and watch some footage of these guys. Mccall and Shavers had nothing in common with one another.

 

I never said any such thing, or any such thing like it. Using ridiculous statements as a distraction is a poor technique of argument. Stick to the facts about your original statement:

"and not to mention who gives a **** about what a magazine says. I prefer to do my own research by looking at multiple articles, fight footage, records, statistics, etc. rather than to take to heart the testimony of a periodical who's author is just as biased as the next guy. I used to go see movies based on the critic's ratings. I soon found that I was a lot happier by using my own judgement."

You said you read multiple articles. I presume those come from multiple places, one or more of which can be a magazine. I take away from this that you actually DO care about written sources.

Snap out of it. Don't defend the indefensible, just be a lot more precise with your words. Same as before, when you said that Shavers was "any other fighter". If that's not what you mean, DONT sit there and F'in type it out! Type what you mean! Christ.

 

There's nothing "bull****" about the hypothetical. The idea is that a statistical sample of one is not interesting, or, that it is not as interesting as making more of the match. With one, you acknowledge that anything can happen, and that for the sake of hypotheticals is useless. So, the purpose of a logarithm is to demonstrate an exponent's ratio to a base; in this case, that whatever qualities give someone an edge can be magnified ten times to bring proof to the argument. It's very important to be able to bring something finite like that to a projection.

You're starting to come off like a boorish dullard. Apologies, but true.

 

Funny how he would rather argue and bull**** about over what arguements he and another guy are having, rather than try and have a decent debate which was happening until now.

 

God,

would someone ban this cocksucking dip**** already. All he's done since his arrival is taken people's quotes out of context and responds with condescending remarks to hide his ineptitude.

 

i didn't think you could ban people on this site, i have seen stupid amounts of insults and fighter bashing so i think he is more likely to be given great accolades than banned.

 

And you could be an artless twat.

 

I'm usually offended by people I respect or by those who at least possess some kind of basic grasp of English. You're harmless.