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

It has nothing to do with your ATG standing in professional ranks so again i don't understand your point, no one brings up Ali's Olympic gold when rating him as the number 1 or 2 Heavyweight. They rank him that high for his incredible opposition he beat in professional ranks, and for looking like H2H one of the best Heavyweights ever during 64-67 period his Amateur career has nothing to do with it.

Jorge Luis Gonzalez was a great Amateur and beat Bowe and Lewis in Amateurs but that does nothing for his professional ranking.

I don't know why your so dismissive of Snipes, Shavers. Snipes beat Berbick who was a former world champion, and was robbed of a decision vs Witherspoon who was 2 time world champion. He also beat Coetzee who was former world champion aswell although that was a total gift in all fairness.

Shavers was still a very dangerous contender 70 stoppages out of 76 wins.

So yes of course it's a form of greatness surviving a heavy knockdown and coming back to win, especially against one of the hardest hitting Heavyweights of all time.

Spinks was moving all round the ring for 30 rounds vs Holmes certainly nothing wrong with his knees in those fights, and i would gather that Spinks would probably have a good chance of beating Rahman, McCall.

You can't compare fighters of the same age they have different wear and tear in their respected careers, Lewis was a late bloomer who improved as a fighter. He was coming off 3 very good performances over Tua, Botha, Grant, when he lost to Rahman.

Holmes on the other hand looked lackluster in his previous fight to Spinks vs Carl Williams, and had been fading as a fighter since 1983.

I'm not admitting anything just to agree with you which i don't, for every point you've made i've made a good counter arguments myself. Holmes never lost in his prime like Lewis did, Holmes had more world title and lineal title defences, and beat more top 10 ranked fighters, aswell showing greatness of getting off the floor to win by stoppage which Lewis never did.

I'm not saying Lewis can't be rated above Holmes, all i'm saying is that Holmes has a good case aswell which you seem to be utterly dismissive of.

 

He wasn't? I think that's kinda all they talked about (Lennox's all-time ranking) before his fights with any number of guys, including folks like Tyson and Holyfield (and what their all-time rankings would be if they beat Lennox).

And, for the record, Muhammad Ali appeared in the bottom of the top 10 in a number of Ring all-time heavyweight ratings at the end of the 1960s and well into the 1970s. In fact, when he lost to Norton in 1973, after losing to Frazier, most thought his career was over.

And if it HAD ended with a broken jaw against Norton (who was a fringe guy at the time), Ali would've been lucky to stay in the all time heavyweight top 10 (even at the bottom of it).

It wasn't until 1974, 14 years into his career, after he beat Frazier in the rematch and Foreman, that he was actually considered one of the best ever.

So, don't base best-ever ratings on how very fickle fans view boxers when their careers are still taking place. Often, who was the best of an era isn't decided until that era is in the rearview mirror and time has passed.

 

There are some good points here. But I don’t think it applies to LL.

My whole thing is with Lewis, is how is it that a guy who wasn’t really that big a deal in his own era in the subsequent decades becomes a much bigger deal. It just doesn’t work like that.

What you say about Ali’s ranking in 73 is true. But equally Ali was always the biggest deal in the sport and had been involved in THE FOTC. Lewis just doesn’t have these credentials.

And it’s pure revisionism to suggest Lewis was by far and away the best of his era. You can make a case for any of Holyfield/Bowe/Lewis. But none will be convincing. Save for 99, I’m struggling to find 1 singular year in which Lewis can be ranked as the best heavyweight on the planet in the 90s. There was very very solid reasoning to rank any 3 of Bowe/Holyfield/Tyson above Lewis for #1 of any 90s year. And it wasn’t blatant American bias.

I don’t see this case for Lewis being better than Bowe and Holyfield prime for prime. I think the young Holyfield would’ve outhustled Lewis and Bowe would’ve knocked him out late with his awesome bodywork and stamina. But you’ll disagree. Which is fine. But the fact we cannot make a sure claim that Lewis was better than his era contemporaries suggest he was probably not in fact comfortably the best of his era.

 

No holyfield? Liston and fury but no holyfield? Ok bro...

 

I answered the poll question of "who is the 3rd greatest HW of all time" with Larry Holmes, as I rank him #3.

To answer the question in the thread title, I don't think there should be a consensus. Based on my criteria & interpretation of all the "contenders" careers, it's Holmes or Lewis, flip a coin.

However, based on even just slightly different criteria, I can see arguments for Marciano, Johnson, Wlad, Liston, Tyson, Foreman or Frazier.

Indeed, if your criteria is solely based on where the names from each fighter's top c.30 wins would be ranked on all time HW list, I suspect a good argument could be made for ranking Harry Wills @ no. #3 - i.e. Sam Langford x 13, Sam McVea x 3, Joe Jeanette, Fred Fulton, Jeff Clark x 7, Luis Firpo, Willie Meehan, Gunboat Smith, Kid Norfolk, Denver Ed Martin, Charley Weinert & Battling Jim Johnson. Whose 32nd best win is over a HW "greater" than any of those?

 

The top two should be locked down.

If you disagree, then you would at least need to make a detailed case.

Now I can think of eleven men who I could make a compelling argument for giving the #3 slot to.

 

You've claimed this before. Please provide a source.

 

I'm struggling to figure out what Lennox Lewis you're actually talking about. When was Lewis NOT a big deal? What does that even mean?

Was he not a big deal when he won the Gold Medal. Was a not a big deal when he wiped out Razor Ruddock in two rounds on Halloween night in 1992 and was proclaimed the next great heavyweight on HBO? Was he not a big deal when, a month or so later, Bowe vacated his title rather than fight the #1 contender Lewis? Was he not a big deal when he held the WBC Heavyweight Title three times? When he made 14 successful heavyweight title defenses? Was he not a big deal when he was one of the top heavyweights in the world for 12 years?

You don't see a case for Lewis being better than Bowe, Holyfield or Tyson? Lewis fought all of them. How many wins do those Hall of Famers have over Lennox Lewis?

Start with Bowe. Then go to Holyfield. Then go with Tyson. How many wins do they have over Lennox? Because, last I checked, Lewis has three wins over the three of them. How many wins do they have over him?

He beat Bowe for the gold medal. (Then Bowe threw his belt in garbage rather than fight Lewis as a pro.) He beat Evander Holyfield to unify the world heavyweight title for the first time since Bowe broke it up for refusing to fight, who was that again, oh yeah, Lennox Lewis. He knocked out Mike Tyson in the biggest selling PPV in history to that point. (And it remained there for 13 years until Mayweather-Pac outsold it). He tore the whole side of Vitali Klitschko's face off and stopped him in six.

All huge fights.

And Lewis could've fought Holyfield in 1993 and Bowe in 1993 and Mike Tyson in 1996, when they were all younger, but Evander lost to Bowe, Bowe dumped his belt rather than fight Lewis, and Mike Tyson vacated the WBC belt rather than fight his mandatory Lewis.

So, that doesn't exactly BOLSTER any of their cases that they'd have beaten Lewis, considering they all lost when they actually fought Lewis and were the reason they never fought when they were younger.

Between 1996 and 2004 ... eight years ... Lennox Lewis was either rated the #1 or #2 heavyweight in the World. And whoever was rated above him those years was someone Lewis actually beat when they actually got in the ring together.

So don't let flawed ratings get in the way.

Who had a better record than Lewis?

He began his career coming off an Olympic Gold Medal win beating a future hall of famer (Bowe), he finished his career stopping a future hall of famer (Vitali) in successful world heavyweight title defense, he beat every man he fought in between ... and he retired AT THE VERY TOP.

It's an amazing career ... better than everyone else's mentioned.

If the excuse against him is "people at the time didn't realize how good he was until his career was almost over" ... that isn't a reason to rate someone with a worse career above him.

They were wrong, clearly.

 

Marciano is my number 3.

 

People bash Lewis because they say so-and-so Hall of Famer he beat wasn't "prime."

Marciano never beat any Hall of Famer who was in his prime. Neither did Joe Louis, arguably. Or Holmes.

And except for Foreman, neither did Ali.

Vitali (who Lewis tore apart) was certainly closer to a prime Foreman than anyone the above faced. And Lennox beat him to close out his career.

 

But Walcott, Charles and Moore were not shot. They were still highly dangerous fighters.

 

Given how his stock has gone through the roof since Saturday, I half expected to see Terence Crawford get a few mentions.

IMO the correct answer is there shouldn't be a consensus no3. There just isn't a standout.

 

I wouldn't argue with anyone that had Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, Foreman, Johnson or Cleveland Williams.

Marciano's doing quite well actually.

 

I didn't say shot, I said "prime."

Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko were highly dangerous fighters, too. Andrew Golota didn't think Tyson was shot when he fled the ring after the second round with a broken face and neck. Michael Moorer didn't think Holyfield was shot when Evander dropped him five times.

Walcott wasn't prime, they were his last fights. Moore was in his 40s and the light heavyweight champ. Can you imagine if Lennox's last fight was against the reigning light heavyweight champ Roy Jones or Antonio Tarver instead of Vitali?

Moore never won anything at heavyweight. Vitali became the next Ring champ after Lewis and never lost again.

Nobody on that list beat a heavyweight as good as Vitali Klitschko in their last fight. Larry and Rocky certainly didn't.

A lot of them didn't even win their last fights ... Ali and Louis included.

 

I have Holmes & Marciano tied at 3rd.

All of Holmes' losses came after his prime. Larry is undefeated in his prime. And Rocky is just plain undefeated. I rate his victories over Walcott, Charles & Moore very highly.