Depending on when in 1999 this was made, I dont think Lennox Lewis's ranking is all that bad. Prior to the Holyfield fights, Lewis had done little to merit a top 10 or even top 20 ranking. It's a reasonable list. Of course we all have different opinions but nothing on that list strikes me as being completely unacceptable.
I could be wrong, buy my memory tells me this list was published some time in 1997 when Holyfield was on a sort of roll beating Tyson & Moorer. Lewis, at that point, hadn't really established himself yet.
What a piece of ****, yet just about everyone on this forum refers to the Ring's rankings when discussing fighters positions in the top ten for a corresponding year. atsch
Well he'd destroyed Ruddock,Morrison,Golota,Briggs and Bruno,avenged his defeat to McCall,beaten the awkward Akinwande and gutted out a close win over the teak tough Mercer. This is far better than Moore,Bowe,Williams,Norton,Baer,Tunney,Fitzsimmons or even Jeffries achieved at Heavyweight all of whom ranked higher than him. The list even in 1999 was ridiculous.
I have the yearbook from the year it was originally printed, and it was from 1998--thus Lewis had not yet defeated Holyfield. It shows how high some rated Holyfield.
1. I agree that it is hard to see how Machen did not make such a list. 2. Shavers is too high--I think that is a reasonable criticism also. 3. Lewis--This list was actually made in 1998, so I don't see his placement as that bad. 4. Williams--He also gets overrated on these type of lists. *the problem with this list is what is the criteria? It obviously isn't pure resume. Doesn't seem to be head to head either. My take would be it shows how mixed up a list looks when you don't use one measurement or the other and stick to it. If you want to measure both, make up two separate lists.
Where's Bonavena and Chuvalo? They could easily replace Moorer(definitely belongs on LHW list) and Weaver.