Who Should the #3 Consensus Heavyweight of All Time Be?

What's worse?

Losing by stoppage twice (in title fights) and winning both rematches (in title fights) ... so you have a win over everyone you faced? (Lewis)

Or losing six times (once by stoppage) in both title and non-title fights and never winning any rematches? So you lost to six people and just don't have any wins over them. (Holmes)

I say losing six times (with no wins in rematches) is worse.

 

Some good pro-Larry / pro-Lennox points here,

 

I agree. I get the argument for Holmes. I used to have Holmes #3.

Then I started to look closer and I'd much rather have had Lennox's career than Larry's, because it was the better career.

 

I don't see any argument for Holyfield being number 3. He simply doesn't have the dominance for it and lost the trilogy to Bowe. He also didn't clean out his era obviously.

Lewis also wasn't as dominant as some people seem to be suggesting and choosing to leave at the right time shouldn't impact his legacy I would think.

 

Well that's speculation the fact is Holmes took a big right hand from Snipes was floored and hurt. And cameback in the very same round and had Snipes on the retreat and went on to stop him, that is a form of greatness coming back from the edges of defeat.

Lewis on the other hand never cameback from getting floored, and was stopped twice in his prime so that is a mark against him whether you like it or not.

As for being lesser fighters ? yeah McCall and Rahman probably did have better careers although Shavers is a bigger puncher, and noted as one of the hardest hitting Heavyweights of all time. Which makes it more impressive than Holmes was able to comeback from a very heavy knockdown from a puncher like Shavers, which as i stated is a form of greatness which Lewis didn't show.

Not really sure what an Amateur career has anything to do with ATG ratings in professional ranks, Jorge Luis Gonzalez beat both Bowe and Lewis as an Amateur yet he wouldn't even be a top 50 rated Heavyweight of all time in pro ranks.

Well Holmes did school Mercer at age 42 who came very close to beating a prime Lewis, and also run a prime Holyfield very close. I wonder how Lewis would fare against Mercer and a prime Holyfield at age 42, Lewis in his prime had enough trouble with a 37 year old Holyfield.

So were bringing up Holmes's 6th pro fight vs Kevin Isaac to discredit him ? even though Holmes cameback and stopped him in the 3rd round anyway. As for Tyson ? Holmes 38 years old coming off 2 losses and inactivity vs a prime Mike Tyson, is a bit different to being stopped twice in your prime to McCall and Rahman.

When was Botha ever a world champion ? he was stripped of the title after his win vs Schulz for taking steroids which was resulted in a no contest. The result was voided which in my books doesn't make Botha a world champion.

I'll counter your argument by saying Holmes won more world title fights than Lewis 20 to 15 in favour of Holmes, Holmes won 12 lineal fights compared to 8 for Lewis, Holmes had 15 wins against top 10 ranked Heavyweights compared to 13 for Lewis.

There are arguments for both fighters Lewis had the better opposition overall, but Holmes never lost in his prime like Lewis and was more consistent.

 

Holmes never lost in his prime. Lennox did.

Holmes never won the gold against a future world heavyweight champ, Lennox did.

Holmes never beat a future world heavyweight champion in his last fight, Lennox did.

Holmes didn't beat as many champs as Lennox did.

Holmes didn't have as good of a career as Lennox did.

Holmes lost six times and never beat anyone who beat him.

Some guys (I was one for a while) get really REALLY, REALLY stuck on the fact that Lennox lost twice by stoppage ... yet won't admit beating someone you lost to is BETTER than LOSING six times and never avenging ANY of the six.

Lennox had a better career - amateur and pro. And Lennox beat everyone he fought as a pro.

Is losing to two-time champ Rahman (and then knocking his head off and leaving Rahman twitching on the floor in the return) really worse than losing to a light heavyweight champ? Really?



If Lewis would've lost a decision to Joe Calzaghe TWICE, would that have been better than losing to Rahman and then destroying him in the rematch? Of course not.

Larry losing to Michael Spinks was BAD. It was WORSE than losing to Rahman. Rahman was a top heavyweight. Spinks was coming up two divisions and he had bad knees.

 

All your points have already been addressed in the post above, again I don't why your bringing up Amateur careers, for me that has no barring on how your rated in professional ranks.

Lewis fought better opposition and beat every man he faced as I stated above, but Holmes won more world title fights, had more Lineal title defences, and beat more top 10 ranked opponents, and as I said never lost in his prime like Lewis did twice by stoppage.

Both fighters have arguments and I don't disagree with anyone who would have Lewis above Holmes or vice a versa.

But my point to you is that Lewis being brutally KO'ed twice in his prime, and never getting off the floor to win a fight. Is a bit of mark against him, and as I said Holmes coming back from two heavy knockdowns, one of them being vs one of the hardest hitting Heavyweights of all time. Is a form of greatness that Lewis didn't show and Holmes did, which is another argument you can use in favour of Holmes.

Finally as for the 6 losses ? Well again all of them when Holmes was past his prime, and 3 of them where when he was over the age of 40 your not really putting that into context.

 

It's such a tough call, that I voted for my 5th choice.

That's why I'm enjoying the debate.

 

Amateur careers are mentioned when discussing the "best" in divisions all the time. It seems especially important when you win the Gold Medal against the Future Hall of Famer World Heavyweight Champion. Because nobody really did that, except Lennox Lewis.

That's certainly more impressive than losing to Duane Bobick in your last amateur fight.

Also, "Form" of greatness? Holmes got off the floor against Renaldo Snipes, for God's sake. Snipes never won anything. Neither did Shavers.

Is "form of greatness" being the first heavyweight champ in history to lose to a light heavyweight champ with bad knees?

Also, you keep saying Lewis was in his prime when he got stopped twice. Lennox and Larry were BOTH 35 when Lewis lost to Rahman and Larry lost to Michael Spinks.

Was Larry in his prime when he lost to the light heavyweight Spinks? Of course not.

In fact, Lennox Lewis was one of the OLDEST men to win the World Heavyweight Title when he knocked out Rahman at age 36 in their rematch. I believe, only George Foreman (at 45), Jersey Joe Walcott (37) and Muhammad Ali (also 36) were older at that time when they won the World Title.

In fact, when Lewis went to court to try to get Rahman to defend against him first, one of the arguments they presented was Lewis was at the end of his career and probably only had two or three fights left.

AND LEWIS DID only have that many fights left.

So you can drop the "prime" stuff with regard to the Rahman fight.

And, again, losing to Rahman and then practically beheading him in the rematch is MILES better than losing to a light heavyweight with bad knees TWICE.

MILES better. I'd rather finish my career having beaten everyone I ever fought (like Lewis) than lose to six guys and scoring zero wins over them.

I'm sure you would, too. You can admit it. Lewis had a better career. He did.

Who wouldn't want to start their career coming off an Olympic Gold Medal win beating a future hall of famer (Bowe) and finish their career stopping a future hall of famer (Vitali) in successful world heavyweight title defense ... and beating everyone you faced in between?

That's better than starting a career coming off a loss to Bobick in the amateurs and ending it with a fight against Butterbean, and losing six times in between.

 

I picked Marciano but I’m fine with some of the other selections too. Number three is a hard placement to discern and in truth it could be interchangeable with a handful of people

 

who the hell knows with a 150 years of Boxing and literally hundreds of Great Heavyweights.

I'd argue that Joe Louis is the Best, but I would also say a JJW isn't far behind him, if he even is at all.

too many to possibly list 'accurately'

 

1. Ali
2. Lewis
3. Tyson
4. Louis
5. Foreman

 

Quite simply, I feel like all the greats of the sport have a certain X-Factor that Lewis lacked.

They apply themselves with a grit and intensity that Lewis just never had.

I maintain that Lewis was either a ginormous underachiever for the perfect ‘skill’ and size mix his fans claim he possessed, or just wasn’t all that talented anyway.

I lean towards the latter in truth. I was rewatching Bowe-Lewis Olympic final today and some of Lewis’ early career and I’m just not impressed. The supreme talent just is not there.

Conversely the talent very much was there with Tyson/Holyfield and even Bowe. IMO, LL should consider himself lucky that 2 of them self destructed badly and the one he did face was washed. The thought of a green Correa trained Lewis fighting a Futch Bowe ready to kill him… Lewis’ legacy is suspect missing out these prime top guys. Credit is due to Lewis for having excellent longevity though.

I think he improved with Steward undeniably, but there were still plenty of holes to his game and weak showings. When a fighter is in his prime at 33, it’s hard to pick him over a primed 25 year old. Speed kills.

Lewis was not seen as a great of the sport at the time and I do not see why that should’ve changed 20 years later.

 

I rate in tiers and have Holmes/Lewis on my 3/4 tier. Forced to choose I go Holmes, but either one is fine by me. I’m not sure their is a consensus between 3-10-15ish, 1-2 seem fairly agreeable but there is a lot of flexibility between the next tiers IMO