A bit too high, you honestly would pick Lewis over guys like Marciano/Dempsey/Holmes/Foreman and many others deserving that spot? :huh
Sure. Why are the men you've named more deserving? I try to build composite lists, so this is taking into account h2h, skillset, resume, achievment, I'm absolutley confident that Lewis can be said to belong there. I've already outlined why at the bottom of page one of this thread.
So you are saying that in the last 40 years boxers have got faster? I disagree that Tyson was more skilled. There was very little in it, Liston is certainly technically superior, though Tyson is the better composite puncher. He isn't more skilled. I think you've only seen Liston fight Ali, that's what I think. Liston is better balanced, has a better jab, has a better chin, has better stamina. For starters. :huh How else should greatness be measured? Do you think there were more or less proffesional fighters in the United States in 1940 or 2008? Uh-huh. I agree with all of this.
He rarely gave an opponent a chance that they didn't all ready have. He had an arsenal of punches and a great tactical brain. Most importantly, he had the desire to prove that he was the best, not just to others, but to himself; he didn't just want to be popularly thought of as the best, by way of being in the right place at the right time; he wanted to completely undermine any credible argument against his status.
What made lennox lewis so great? Beating every fighter he fought in a 40 plus fight career. That goes a long way to help.
He had it all size speed power, skills, inteligence some one added that he could fight backing up under pressure. Lewis may have beaten every heavyweight in history, does that make him the best?
id like to hear the argument that puts Dempsey ahead of Lennox... Lewis was a tremendous heavyweight, truly an ATG, he had great jab, uppercut and over hand right, one of the biggest hitters in the divisions history, and could follow a game plan perfect. He wasnt one dimensional like many other good heavys, for example his performances against the likes of Golota and Grant were different to his displays against Tua and Holyfield. he was Champion of a good era aswel, Ruddock, Bruno, Morrison, Mercer, Briggs, Holyfield, Golota, Grant, ol' Mike, even Rahman and McCall are world class heavyweights, if the haters admit it or not. he also got the win against Vitali Klitschko. He avenged his losses, so beat every man they put in front of him and retired undisputed champion. Legend. The only name really missing on Lennox's record is Riddick Bowe, but that was no fault of Lewis'.
1) Not all of them but I do think the training methods and such have improved (I think around the 60s there was a general improvement that started in boxers) Really big fighters have definitely gotten faster. Bowe and Lewis were the first 6'5 ish fighters to be truly top notch (not slow and clumsy like Carnera) and now we are seeing fighters who are 6'6-6'8, like the Klitschkos becoming top notch. Hell Valuev is even pretty decent and he´s 7 foot. 2-3) I disagree although I´ll try to watch more Liston fights to get a better perspective. 4) It should not be measured any differently but you´re spinning the topic. The topic was who would win a H2H fight. That is not measured by greatness but by your pure ability to beat your opponent. 5) I would have to guess there are more full time professional fighters, who have optimal training facilities now than back then. As for the number of professional fighters period, I would also guess there are more of the now than then.
Lewis makes my top 10 heavyweights and ranks very highly H2H because of his physical stature, powerful right hand, jab and boxing ability.