Why doesn't Lennox have universal approval ?

No, I haven't implied that. He improved under Steward, for the most part.

But the McCall loss happened AFTER Lewis was an established fighter. After his win over Ruddock, after wins over Mason, Tucker and Bruno, after Bowe's ducking of him. So if you're trying to write it off as a meaningless novice loss, that won't wash.

Anyway, the point is: Losses count. The McCall loss and the Rahman loss count against Lewis.
Those were losses while he was champ or pseudo-champ. Bad loss.
Losses count as well as wins. Are you implying Lewis's losses shouldn't knock him down a few pegs in the all time rankings ?

Yes, I'm well aware of this. It should raise the question where was the great Manny Steward standard of preparation for this fight then?

Apart from that, so what ? Lewis was badly prepared and was knocked out. We both agree. Knocked out badly and embarrassingly badly by "top 5 Atg" standards, in my opinion.

We agree on the facts, JT.

My question is why should any of that be held up as some EXCUSE for a loss at the championship level ?

Boxing is full of guys who are NEVER prepared well enough. Would you suggest those C-level types should be given higher ratings because we can perceive "they wouldn't have lost if they were better prepared" ?
Of course not. Wasted potential and wasted opportunity is a fact of life.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter but why should that entitle him to get a pass for his wasted opportunities and mistakes?
We'll all in the same boat. We will be judged on what we did.

Lewis did so well in his career he deserves to be put up against the best ever, AND JUDGED. Win for win, loss for loss.
And he'll do fine if you follow that reasoning.
It's absolutely wrong to try to brush the losses under the carpet though, as you do.

Yes, we agree on the facts, JT.

What we don't agree on is the way you're using the facts in an attempt to erase the impact the loss has on his all time standing.

He was champion of the world. He was iced by Hasim Rahman, with one punch virtually.

The very fact that you're evoking "most super heavyweights" kind of highlights what an average/poor performance and bad loss it is.
How many "top 5 atg heavyweights" got done over like that in a title defence against a fighter of Rahman's level ?
How many top 10 ?

We both agree that Lewis's win over Rahman was s great comeback.

I agree that Lewis has a good KO win over Rahman and it was a great performance.

I give credit for wins. Full credit.
Unlike yourself who gives Rahman only tainted token credit, declaring he got lucky. He didn't get lucky. You said it yourself, he trained hard, prepared well, and in my opinion totally earned the championship and full credit.

And the loss to Lewis counts against Rahman too.
Wins and losses count, in top level fights. That's what it is all about. Wind count, losses count. For everyone.

I know such fairness isn't popular around here, where legends and favourites are fanatically protected against the achievements of "lessers" over them.

 

Well, the longevity argument is fine but Wladimir had superior longevity to Lewis so it always is a bit puzzling when I see people hold Lewis among the top 3 or 4 all time yet oppose the idea of wlad even in the top 10. I'm not saying that's you, but it's a common theme with some Lewis fans.

Frazier was a ranked fighter for 9 or 10 years anyway. Make of that what you will. I'd say that's respectable longevity. Obviously styles determined that he wasn't going to stay at his peak for long.

Ali in 1971 was great still.
I have that as a more impressive win than Lewis's over Holyfield.

I think Quarry, Ellis and bonavena were about as good as Rahman, McCall, Bruno at least.

It's pure speculation to get into how Frazier would do against Lewis's opposition, and vice versa.
It's easier to just assess what they did. Compare performances, wins, losses and opposition.
Frazier has the best win. Lewis has the worst losses. In my opinion. You might be able to interpret the rest to tip slight towards Lewis, maybe counting 'ranked' wins, a few years extra longevity, whatever. But I don't see it being enough.

 

Excellent breakdown!!!

 

Lewis is there because of the quality of his opposition,and that's why Wlad AIN'T!

 

What are Lewis's best wins anyway ?

Holyfield stands out as the marquee name. A few years past his best but still hanging in at the top.

Lewis fought about a dozen others I'd rate as pretty good contenders and they are probably interchangeable.
Guys like Tua, Golota, Bruno, Ruddock, Mercer, Rahman, Vitali, Grant, McCall, Tucker. Not all prime but still reasonable contenders.
I don't hold that bunch or that era in the highest esteem as others do here though.

 

Yes. But his opposition is inflated in value.
The likes of Peter, Byrd, Chagaev, Povetkin, Ibragimov, Chambers, Thompson, Pulev, Brock etc. are not actually much less than the likes of Bruno, Rahman, Golota, Mercer, Tua, Tucker, Akinwande etc.
There are maybe two opponents on Lewis's whole ledger you could honestly say are better. Namely an ageing Holyfield and Wlad's brother. That's it.

 

More relevant what are Wlad's? How about Frazier's? One great win, and a prime that lasted what 2 years?

 

Which two years were Frazier's prime?

How long was Lewis's prime?
I'm told he was past prime for Rahman and McCall was "pre peak". So his true prime must be somewhere between Lionel Butler in May 1995 and Rahman in April 2001, somewhere in that six year window.
Was that all his prime?

I've even heard "he was still learning with Steward" in 1996 Mercer fight, so his prime was what 5 years ?

I'd say Frazier's prime was shorter, yes. But not by much. He was ranked for about 9 years anyway. Lewis for what, 12?

 

Frazier had "one great win", okay.
How many GREAT wins did Lewis have?

 

Frazier's fans will tell you he was washed up after FOTC!

 

Lewis improved with Steward so did Wlad that is undeniable imo.

 

Yes, the FOTC was a case of the mountain coming to Muhammad (Ali) and it was all downhill from then on. >

 

It's quite well documented that Frazier was physically impaired after 1971 but I wouldn't hold that as an excuse for losing. I'm not into that. Frazier was champion so the Foreman loss counts a lot against his standing.
No excuses. I'll leave the excuse-making for the others here.

Lewis improved under Steward , I agree. Sp how long was Lewis's proiime? How long was Frazier's?

How long was Wlad's?

 

Ken Norton and Eddie Futch were very clear and consistent in agreeing Frazier was way off form going in to the Foreman fight and claimed they'd discussed it quite a bit pre-fight.
I'm definitely not putting that forward as sn excuse but it's remarkable how some here will make the excuses for Lewis and Tyson but scoff at the stories of Frazier's decline in 1973, much of what actually points to some physical depletion (not surprising).

It's no excuse for s heavyweight champion though, defending the title. He's judged on those moments, absolutely and rightly.

 

I suppose my question to the "Lewis is solid lock for top 5" advocates would be where would you rank him if he didn't have those 2 losses ?
How many places in your list has he lost due to those losses ?

Say you rank him #3 or #4, what exactly has the impact been on his ranking ?

I just don't see enough in his win column to keep him SO high and above SO many who likely don't have meaningful losses quite as bad as his.