True Or False?

There's no universal definition of what a fighter must or must not do to be an "all-time great".

 

Lennox is an ATG. The answer is false. Can he be considered an elite -say, top 2 or 3? I'd say no. Nor do you get knocked out by B-Level fighters in your prime.

All Time Great? Yes. Elite? Nah.

 

False..

 

False.

I would also say that the McCall loss was not during his prime. His prime years came after that and after teaming up with Manny Steward.

Regardless, both losses were avenged. For a heavyweight there is always a risk of a loss. Lewis proved himself by beating every man he fought.

Whether he is an ATG is another question in my opinion. I think it comes more down to resume rather than losses. In terms of skill set, I think Lewis was as accomplished as any other heavy with the exceptions of Ali and Louis (and maybe Tyson in his pomp). After that its all down to resume. Lewis beat everyone, but was that down to poor opposition? Well he had better opponents than possibly Larry Holmes and Tyson. So for me there is only really then Marciano and Liston that you can class above him (after Louis, Ali and possibly Tyson).

[I caveat this with the disclaimer that my pre-war knowledge isnt great so I know I'm missing out Dempsey, Johnson etc but I really dont have enough knowledge to compare them to a Lennox Lewis]

For me that puts Lewis in as an ATG. Personally I have him #4 behind Ali, Louis and Tyson

 

Although the Rahman and McCall losses came during Lewis's prime, I don't think either of them occurred during his absolute peak. Sure, he was 29 years old, undefeated in 25 fights, and a two time olympian when he fought oliver McCall, but i do think that training with Manny Steward made him better. As for the Rahman loss, one could say that he was still the best heavyweight in the world, but at the age of 35 and nearing the end of his career, I wouldn't call this a peak version either.

In my opinion, Lewis's prime stretched from about 1992-2000, with his peak years coming probably between 1996-1999.

 

I've never really differentiated between peak and prime, but this more accurately explains what I was trying to get at :good

 

True.

That chin will forever prevent his entry into the pantheon of the elite, but, other than that, Lewis was an awesome boxer and a handful for any elite fighter.

 

Agreed.

I know its kinda difficult to claim that Lewis wasn't in his prime against McCall. He was in his late 20's. He was unbeaten in 25 fights with wins over Ruddock, Tucker, Mason, Bruno and Jackson. He was a two time olympic medalist. To say that he wasn't prime is somewhat silly, however, as mentioned before, I do feel that he improved under the instruction of Steward.

On the otherhand, claiming that Lewis was peak against Rahman is somewhat on the ludicrous side. He was nearing the age of 36, and showing up to fights at career high weights. Frankly, i think a tad too much is made of the Rahman loss.

 

If you are going to exclude Lennox Lewis from all time great status on the basis of his chin then a good few other historic fighters will get their credentials called into question.

Tommy Hearns to name but one.

 

Lewis is an ATG champion who has flaws...

25 years ago Foreman was considered to be a greta fighter with flaws. he hardly ever did well in h2h match ups because the way to beat him was considered to be easy...simply get into the late rounds and his awful stamina would see him deflate fast... Any argument about Foreman always had this tilt to it. of course only Ali and Young (2 of the greatest boxer HWs) actually managed to do this.

Same with Lewis now. Close your eyes and throw a right hand and you'll probably knock him out. Okay the guys who did it weren't in Ali or Young's class but Lewis many top punchers over his career.

I think between 5-10 is a defendable position for Lennox

 

At HW losses come with the territory for me. He proved himself against everyone he fought. Was linear champion for a long stretch and nobody looked like interrupting his dominance. Even after his losses he was favourite to win the rematches which showed that at the time people thought of them as 'flukes'.

As for the prime/peak thing, as I say I've never really explained it like that (or even heard it put like that) before. It makes a lot more sense when you say it that way, otherwise I'm limiting Lewis's 'prime' to about a two year stretch which doesnt really do him justice. Thanks :good

 

I think he's definately top 10. On any given day, I can have him rated anywhere from #5-#8. The losses hurt him a tad, but I think people place way too much emphasis on them. The man defeated more ranked contenders than most champions did, and often did so in decisive fashion. He unified his title and beat a lot of big punchers in their primes, and plenty of guys with good records. He also left the sport on a winning note, and against a very good fighter.