Where do you rate Lennox Lewis on your ATG HW-list

#4

 

Well, I'm not the one who's advocating it but I can see it is an arguable case.

I think Charles made as many defences as Tyson did. And after he lost the title he was arguably more successful in challenging the new undefeated champ.

 

4-7, sounds like a reasonable rating to me.

 

I agree with your points about Charles being a truly exceptional all time great, but you said that Tyson never beat an all time great except for Holmes. Couldn't the same be said for Charles to a lesser extent. At least at heavyweight? While he certainly beat some great lightheavyweight champions in their primes, Charles defeated an aging Louis at heavyweight. His wins over Walcott were great, but I'm not sure if I'd rate them above Tyson's destruction of Spinks. You also have to look at more than just wins over hall of famers. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in history and for a brief period was possibly the most dominant. In all fairness, Charles never really established an ora of dominance no matter where he fought.

 

Interesting. I have:

11. Foreman
12. Dempsey
13. Jeffries
14. Bowe
15. Patterson
16. Tunney
17. Walcott
18. Wills
19. Schmeling
20. Langford

 

Charles suffered the fate of following Joe Louis though.

His 8 defences were dominance.
His first win over Walcott was mostly one-sided.
Challengers Pat Valentino, Lee Oma, Nick Barone, Joey Maxim were all dominated.
A comebacking Joe Louis was outclassed. And this isn't counting the heavyweight contenders he beat before (and after) holding the championship.

8 defences is respectable.

 

Those are fair observations.

 

but instead of taking on top young challengers out their like rocky marciano, bob baker, rex layne, Tiger Jones, roland lastarza, clarence henry, Archie Moore.........Charles chose too take on 5 unranked IBC Controlled C level fighters that were a joke of his title reign. the only legit title defenses charles had were walcott and louis. charles reign is flawed.

tyson took out every single top ranked contender, champion/former champion in his 9 title defenses

 

Top three: Dempsey, Ali, Holmes. (Having read Dempsey's manuals and studied his real speed movie footage frame by frame, the peak Dempsey is an easy top three selection for me. Presumably, no explanation for Ali is required. Regardless of his competition, the law of averages never caught up to Holmes in the way it did Chinnox. Larry's longevity also completely blows the doors off of everybody else. Only peak Tyson and peak Holyfield were ever able to beat him cleanly. If Larry were to somehow manage to get himself back into top condition today, then even at his current age, he might actually be able to avenge those two defeats against the present shells of those two former adversaries.)

Top five: Dempsey, Louis, Marciano/Frazier (tie), Ali, Holmes. (Athough I do not consider Louis the greatest heavyweight to ever hold the championship, I do consider him the greatest defending champion that division has ever had. Even had Ali never returned from exile, Smoke would be considered an ATG. By the time Marciano was finished, Rocky had left the division utterly destitute.)

Top heavyweights post Holmes:
1) Holyfield
2) Tyson (Picking Holy over Tyson is a very close call for me, but a past prime Holy produced superior performances than Iron Bite was able to. Still, Mike did clean up the post Holmes title morass, making this a more difficult choice.)

3) Chinnox (As I've previously stated, I don't believe that a true ATG should lose twice in the prime of his career on a single early punch from two different mediocre challengers. Lewis would have been floored for the count by Snipes and Shavers, while a peak Holmes would have gotten up against McCall and Rachman, won the remainder of those knockdown rounds, and soundly beaten both at the end of those bouts. Also, a 42 year old Holmes was far more impressive against McCall than the peak Lewis who had gotten starched by Oliver in McCall's previous match. Still, LL did avenge his loss to Rahman in reciprocal fashion, something no heavyweight champion had done since Patterson/Johansson II.)

 

walcott beat him twice. I dont think charles should be ranked over walcott at heavyweight.

 

all these 4 heavyweights ranked below tunney have far better heavyweight win resumes than tunney. its not even close.

 

Some fair comments but Charles did beat all the heavyweights who were considered genuine rivals in 1948-50.
Walcott, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Joe Louis

You mention Archie Moore but Charles beat him 3 times at 175, it would not have been different at heavy. IMO.

If Charles had stayed champ he would have defended against Marciano.

It's right to point out the promoters selected some mediocre challengers, but the same is true of Holmes, Louis and others too.

I rate Tyson higher anyway, but Charles does have a decent run at heavyweight including wins over top fighters, and that deserves respect.