Where would you rank Lewis had he retired with an undefeated record?

Hey JT, what’s your current feel on Louis vs Lewis H2H and would Lewis never having lost, especially in the manner that he did lose, change your view in any way?

 

I can swing either way on that matchup.

The truth is both of these guys had losses that they needed to have to make them the fighters they became so the thread premise is extra hard to envisage.

Louis trained very poorly leading into the Schmeling fight and he also had some solid technical flaws.

Lewis too was a disaster waiting to happen (McCall) and one mag predicted his downfall well in advance. He was quite sloppy and amateurish and was over reliant on physical gifts and his huge right hand. His camps were also lacking. He had sizeable defensive holes and Manny took McCall right thru them. After this loss of course Lewis hired said Manny and changed not only technically and style wise but also size wise. Contrary to popular myth Lewis did not slacken off in training for McCall he was simply a flawed fighter that would have been exposed at some point down the track if not by McCall. Don't get me wrong he could still beat perhaps anyone if the chips fell his way but that wasn't always going to happen.

Yeah i don't feel strongly either way. If he didn't have that loss he probably would never have upped his game. It rocked him to the core and he showed what a smart dude he was.

 

I don't think so. I already see him as one of the greatest heavyweights in history - both head to head and legacywise. I think the McCall rematch has to be seen in the context of his breakdown and the drug issues that provoked it so am not sure it's that satisfactory a win. Having said that I do think Lewis would have beaten a healthy and focused McCall in a rematch anyway. Can't blame Lewis for that as he beat the man in front of him on the night and was willing to rematch him after the defeat. As for the loss it showed him some weaknesses and he went away and rectified that (as JohnThomas1 just said). For me the Rahman loss does a bit because it is, I think, more a case of his lack of focus, poor preparation and really complacency and a bit of arrogance that had developed. But the fact that he won it back and was willing to rematch him just months after wins him major credit from me. His defeat of Rahman does show what he was capable of first time round and more than likely would have happened if he had taken it seriously. If he had shown up focused and ready for the first fight that's an extra 'point' in his favour overall when considering his legacy. It must be difficult to stay focused when at the top (the Hagler comment springs to mind) so a fighter who manages to stay focused as well as consistently prepared and focused should get recognition for that.

I think the focus on undefeated that has developed to such an extent is not helpful as it's the context of a record that matters.

 

Are we seriously discussing RJJ fighting Lewis? I don't even know what to say. Roy gives up 10in in reach, 6in in height, has a questionable chin, and would be up against the hardest hitter he ever faced by far.

Even if we do some weird hypothetical version of RJJ where he's 200lbs but keeps his prime reflexes and speed, all that happens is that he looks great until he gets hit by a right hand.

Not to take anything away from the man. He was literally superman in his prime at SMW.

 

RJJ was a brilliant P4P fighter in his prime, but the first time Lewis landed with anything substantial, and it wouldn't have needed to have been a flush shot, RJJ's lights would have been out.

 

My current top 4:

1) Louis
2) Ali

3) Holmes
4) Lewis

Nothing separates 1 & 2 or 3 & 4, whilst there's a decent sized gap between 2 & 3.

If Lewis had beaten McCall & Rahman first time & the rest of his career had been identical, I'd probably have it

1) Louis
2) Ali
3) Lewis

4) Holmes

With nothing to chose between the top 3.

 

Your rankings chimes very much as I would have them, the only absolute I have in the pantheon of great heavy weights is the number 1 and 2 slot, I cannot see any other HWs above Ali and Louis, try as I might, I just can't, respect to the usual suspects, Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, my mind will not countenance putting them in front of Ali/Louis.
stay safe guys.

 

I actually have Lennox Lewis at #3 all time right now, and if he wins those fights he lost, his ranking does not move up because his resume would look pretty much the same. I think his h2h lore would be greatly increased though as his 'achilles heel' would not exist and we would run out of guys saying how Rocky Marciano would kick his ass.

 

He had to lose to prove how great he was!
That's actually what Lewis says and I agree.

 

I'd pretty much have him about the same ,around no 6.

 

I think that the manner in which he lost those fights, does give some people cause for pause.

They show that he was beatable.

Take those losses off his record and he looks darn near unbeatable.

People like me would argue that Louis, Ali, and to a lesser extend Holmes had deeper resumes.

We would cite the Mercer fight as evidence that he was theoretically beatable.

It probably doesn't make much difference whether we are turning his draw against Holyfield into a win, because almost everybody treats it as such anyway.

 

Thanks JT, nice analysis. Losses can either be mere hiccups (aberrations) and/or highlight substantive flaws that then allows for the opportunity to repair the identified problem(s).

I doubt that many thought that Louis had any overt flaw until Max Schmeling took full advantage of same - though I know Jack Johnson allegedly identified some flaws also.

Yes, a Louis vs Lewis match could take a few different paths which would lead to quite a variance in possible outcomes favouring either man.

 

I imagine that an undefeated Lennox Lewis would have made a lot of people’s top 3.

 

Two losses against unheralded opponents is what's hurting him...take those away and he is the GOAT