This is the greatest heavyweight of all time

I can see the argument for Lewis at #1.

That said it's all pretty subjective and I think the guys at the very top could probably all beat each other on the right day. I personally don't have a cast-in-stone top 10 HW list because it really all comes down to what your criteria are. H2H? Legacy? Resume? What if you have a lot of wins but also a lot of losses? How important is longevity? How important is dominance?

*shrug*

Its a sticky wicket.

 

Bruno lacks stoppage wins over ranked opponents, the only guy he beat who may have been in the top 10 is a faded Coetzee.
Likewise Ruddock built his reputation stopping guys who were past their prime and who had faded from contention. They failed to really demonstrate their power against top notch opposition.

 

A) Ex NFL Rahman? Really?
B) Terry Norris benched 350 in the early 90's and everyone said "ooooh"...

 

Those replies are well said. I'm getting to where boxing is best. Discipline wise. Other sports have bigger distance in talent. I. E. Former kickboxing champ with 99 percent tomato cans. That said, no boxer really bench 300 to 500. This gets off topic but what the heck. Debates around Norris, Pryor, Hearns, and Arguello are similar to 170 and 200. Two adult body types. Small but bad is small but bad. And a side of beef is aside of beef. Quartey could be 200. Holyfield at 200 but supposedly hitting nearly 3 times that on the bench is like insect feat and or Bruce Lee. But does that make him bad? Again 240 no fat would need to be 6'5. Not training Vs training. And to finish what I've said I think none of those four non heavies I mentioned can stop a certain Floyd of yester year on his worst night. But off the topic.

 

That's not a clip of Larry Holmes. You got the wrong clip.

 

So Bruno and Ruddock are not top end punchers?Okay thanks for that.

 

They were considered punchers in their day but I don't think their power would necessarily be as effective in todays division.
You don't seem to feel Marciano or Satterfield's power would translate well to the 70s, how is this any different?

I think its inarguable that Lewis in his day didn't face many quality big men comparable to what we see in later eras. Michael Grant and Akinwande certainly don't seem to be in Joshua's league.

 

Marciano was typically 185lbs I don't think his power would translate effectively today because :
1.He was short
2.Had a tiny reach
3.Was not fast of foot
4.Did not have quick hands
5 .Was not defensively elusive
6.Was prone to cuts
7.He would be facing super heavies in their prime instead of old cruisers who were past theirs

It's inarguable that Lewis faced a very good collection of heavy duty hitters which Marciano did not.
Is Wilder a big puncher~ Yes or No?
How does his physical size compare to Bruno ,Ruddock,Morrison ,Lewis,Liston.Foreman?
I never mentioned Satterfield who typically weighed 180lbs and was not sturdy of chin.I dont see him being a major factor at heavyweight in the 70's where he would be competing with:
Foster220lbs
Foreman 224lbs
Norton220lbs
Lyle 220lbs
Shavers 212lbs

 

i like a young Larry Holmes on points over Lewis. Larry would just out land him and probably lay him out with that big right hand

Other heavyweights I favor: Big Daddy Bowe, Foreman, Young, Ali and a immaculately prepared Buster Douglas

 

I agree with your first two sentences entirely and I came really close to giving this a "like," but Ali and Foreman are the only other fighters on your list I'd favor over Lewis (and Foreman somewhat narrowly.) I think Bowe does just a little better than Ruddock and Jimmy Young winds up even bloodier than than when Cooney got through with him.

 

Lewis-Vitali 2?
Lewis-Wlad?
Lewis-Bowe?
Lewis-Sanders?
Lewis-Tyson (prime)?

Many fights fell of. We don't know.

 

We know enough to make a fair prediction, though.

 

You seem very "selective," about what you accept and what you discard.
Bruno was 6'3"his reach is 82" do you discard that too?
Greg Page was 6'2" reach 81"
Sam Langford 5'7.5" reach 74"
Jimmy Bivins 5'9" reach76"
Carl Williams 6'4" reach 85"

Are you saying there is an exact correlation between height and reach?

 

No, but I'm generally inclined to take the lower measurement when there are conflicting measurements.

For example Evander Holyfield was listed as 6'1 1/4 up until he moved to cruiserweight and then listed as 6'2 1/2
Bert Cooper has been listed as 5'11 1/2 and 5'10.
Corrie Sanders was listed as 6'3 in some fights and 6'4 in other fights.

 

Lewis is the most grossly overrated HW in my 37 years of following boxing, as the title and many posts demonstrate. He's borderline top10, at best,and not even the best HW of his era, let alone all time. Both Holyfield and, more arguably, Tyson, should be rated higher. Lewis is the only top level ATG HW that was taken out TWICE in the early rounds by second rate fighters like McCall and Rahman. The only one.