Who is greater, Wlad or Lewis?

I guess he was but he's still the guy who went 0-2 with Oleg Maskaev.

To be fair to Lewis and Wlad, they both have very few losses compared to the number of wins they had, so it seems a bit pointless to split hairs over who lost to the "worthier" opposition, since neither of them can be excused by losses only to "GREAT" fighters.
Neither of them lost to literal "bums" either. The weakest name being Ross Purrity who was still a tough cookie.

 

Wlad's 11-year unbeaten run 2004 to 2015 (Williamson to Jennings) was 21 straight wins, against generally decent opposition, most of whom were thoroughly dominated. He defended world title 18 times on that run.

Historically it stacks up well.

Lewis had a very good run from 1995 to 2000 (Butler to Tua), 14 fights unbeaten, against generally decent opposition too. He defended world title 9 times on that run.

Lewis closes the gap a bit with his rebound wins against Rahman, Tyson and Vitali and retiring undefeated, and had a few good wins in his pre-1997 days. But Wlad had a decent body of wins prior to 2006 too, despite his losses in those first 10 years.

Anyone who thinks Lewis is miles ahead is deluded or biased. Fair enough to put him ahead if you prefer, but it has to be mighty close either way.

 

Shot Byrd was numero uno in 2006.

Prime Byrd wasn't top 10 ranked in 2000.

 

Joe Mesi ended Williamson in round one
Otriz ended Jennings in round 6.
Wlad struggled with both those guys. Mesi and Ortiz dominated them in easier and in more impressive fashion. Plenty more ham and eggers dealt with Wlads comp easier then he did himself.

 

I'm not sure what planet people live on when they point to Wlad's vulnerability and shrug off Lewis'. Wlad actually had a longer stretch of not showing much vulnerability once he ultimately got his act together. They had the same issue though.

Lewis beat better opposition and avenged his loses. Wlad had a longer, more dominant reign. Lewis is on top for me, but if Wlad beats Joshua and defends a couple times he'd probably overtake him.

 

Lewis.Avenged his defeats Dominant champ.

 

If it wasn't for Vitali's scalp I would rate Wlad better.

 

Lewis. He is a better fighter, who had a better career, in a better era.

Longevity is worthy of remark but, a couple of reasonable wins and dominance over relative mediocrity, does not trump definitive victories and a consistently higher level of opposition.

Even if Wlad beats Joshua, the situation doesn't change.


For example - no sensible-minded person would dream of rating Felix Trinidad above Ray Leonard in the ATG Welterweight rankings, based on Tito's long reign as a 147 champ.

Even if Trinidad had lost to say, Thomas Damgaard, taken a year or so out and then came back to beat an unbeaten Forrest, he still wouldn't be greater than Sugar Ray Leonard.

 

wlad shouldnt be compared with lewis. lennox minces him both h2h and resume wise.

vitali brought more to the table h2h vs lennox, thats a more realistic debate vs prime lewis.

 

Lewis fought significantly better fighters, that is not necessarily Wlad's fault, his era was not blessed with too many greats when he was in his prime. I would rate Lewis higher, all time, probably about 5 - 10 places higher than Wlad, there was a post that had Lewis at 3, and Wlad at 10, I could live with that.
One point I want to make though, h2h, I think Wlad could given Lennox a tough time. He would be very cautious, and he carries a lot more power than his big brother, so he could really hurt Lennox if he caught him clean with a big shot. Of course, he would not have fared to well if he had eaten that uppercut that Lennox landed on Vitali. Lewis or Wlad could each conceivably knock each other out, whereas as I would pick Vitali over Wlad, all day everyday, even though I pick Lennox over Vitali (what a messy pile of sentences I put together here).

 

I think the difference in opposition is being overstated.

Lewis has Vitali and Holyfield to hang his hat on and because of those two has a better resume. Beyond that, they both have a long list of beaten opponents varying from pretty good to mediocre, Wlad's list being longer. I disagree with any belief that Ruddock, Bruno, Mercer, etc. were clearly better than the guys Wlad beat.

 

When people mention the names Ruddock and Mercer, to make comparisons between Lewis' and Wlad's opposition, I have to laugh.
Both Ruddock and Mercer were opponents Lewis needed to get past, just to get a title shot.

Compare those names to the likes of Barrett and Nicholson.

On top of that, why do people conveniently forget that Mercer was a Wlad opponent, six years later, at the prime age of 41.

These are just a few examples of a significant contrast in level.

 

Some say Lewis lost to Mercer. Wlad completely destroyed Mercer in a clinical execution, it wasn't even a fight.

 

If Wlad wins hes greater than Lewis for sure....Joshua is BETTER than ANYONE or at any time Lewis defeated...Wlad is and will come to beat Joshua at his best ,even without Steward...Wlad will have defeated a great fighter with not just skills but size to add...

I personally dont think anyone can defeat Joshua at this point .....H2H Joshua defeats Lewis. He has better speed inside and long range distance the way HE was trained and is a destroyer...Lewis ....??? In my top 3 but...Go watch his fights ANY of them and tell me where he defeats a Joshua NOW, is Joshua jumping in the deep water to soon???Well hes a shark...maybe a MEGALODON!

Point being IF Wlad wins hes over Lewis for sure! Right now Lewis and he has beating better roster ,by a slim or large margin....

 

One thing I am pretty certain of ... Galvatron really, really likes AJ