..... sounds about right ..... 15. Ezzard Charles 16. Lennox Lewis 17. Wladimir Klitschko .... something like that.
The fact is Lewis lost two fights in his entire life. Both were rectified. This was over 14 or so years and 40+ fights. This for me is a pretty handy career. More handy, for me, than almost every other Heavyweight. You can arrange an excellent top 10 with huge room for movement on about 8 of the names. It all boils down to personal criteria, personal perception and in many cases personal favoritism.
Your post comes across as you knowing better than anyone putting Lewis well above Wlad. It's just your opinion, your opinion on opponents and the like. You are also still very keen on bracketing people who rank Lewis high with those who, in your eyes, unfairly put Wlad noticably lower. If people don't overly rate Wlad (top 10, top 5 or close to Lewis) they don't overly rate him. You are free to take them on and show them the errors of their ways. Instead of attempting to bracket Lewis fans for criticism in this matter (and if are unable to accept that people can make their own minds up and come to the conclusion that Wlad is outside the top 10 or noticably behind Lewis via their own criteria) perhaps you should be asking a poentially more pertinent question. Is Wlad's rating affected by where he comes from, and/or where he doesn't come from?
Overall no but it makes the gap a bit bigger between he and Louis. It also makes the gap between he and Holmes very small. If Lewis came back and got stopped again in top nick it would have had sizable repercussions even if it was at the end of his career. Holmes losing to Spinks late career doesn't affect his placement either. He came back and should have got the decision in the rematch. Ali's matches with Norton (many have it 2-1 to Norton some even more) didn't affect his placement either. Ali's absolute best was pre-exile and the Norton fights were close. Louis' loss to Charles also did not affect my placement of him. It's not like i single Lewis out for preferential treatment. Yes the Walcott fight doesn't not affect his placement. He came back bigtime. I have Louis ahead of Lewis. Holmes loss to Spinks was pretty ugly but both he and Lewis were at late career stages. Both were overconfident and not 100% prepared, Lewis more so. Just because Lewis was stopped doesn't mean it was the end of the world. At the end of the day a loss is a loss. Many great fighters have been stopped. Lewis coming back from a stoppage loss shows great resiliency, heart and self belief. Joe Louis did the same. Patterson too. Some high ranking Heavies did not. No doubt you do, but i don't. Lewis' win over Vitali eclipses any win of Holmes for mine and his win over a still handy Holyfield would be as good as any of Holmes too. I said Holmes proved a lot to new generation fans, from memory. But he certainly showed he was one helluva fighter still being able to beat a Mercer. His close fight with McCall too was impressive. How they put Lewis to shame i have no idea. Not like he was beating Lewis. Do you recall Lewis being beaten by a Light Heavyweight who had never even fought at Heavyweight? He was soundly beaten and a loss is a loss. You are looking at the cup half empty. Holmes had also avoided the top contenders for a few years by this time which you yourself have formerly acknowledged. Being busy against lesser opponents and lengthening ones reign this way as well is dubious to say the least. If Holmes would have been rematching Witherspoon and fighting the likes of Page and Thomas his title may well have been long gone. Lewis went out completely on top, beating a heir apparent. Both greats have their pluses and minuses and they can be twisted around to form all sorts of stances. Only for you. For me not so much. I have Lewis a bee's prong ahead. I've looked long and hard at it. I (and just about anyone else) can take apart any of the top 12 Heavies. A very assured negative slant can be put on any and all of them if we want to try hard enough. At the end of the day individuals have to make up their own minds. Barring ridiculous assertions, like say Holyfield or Tyson at number one or someone like Norton at number 5 there's really not much wrong or right. Ali and louis probably pick themselves as the top 2 and then it's just open slather.
Yes, it's just my opinion. And yours is just yours. My point about Lewis and Wlad is ranking criteria. Wlad ticks almost all the same boxes as Lewis. If you don't think so, that's fine. But I'm questioning those who do that. As for me coming across as knowing better than them, well, I only know what I think I know. I'm only trying to explain my position and my questions. When Seamus writes : "Lennox is a lock for Top 5. If you have him outside that, your opinion should not be counted in the understanding of "universal"... " How does that come across to you ? I've explained my criteria in ranking fighters. I've explained that I grade some losses as worse than others, and count losses and well as wins. I wouldn't ever claim to be infallible or completely consistent in this though, and I'm sure if i drew up a final list I'd have problems to answer for to. So I'm not pretending to know better. BUT THE WAY I SEE IT Lewis is definitely outside the top 5, under my criteria. His bad losses, esp. to Rahman, impact his standing dramatically for me. And I understanding other criteria can have him higher, but I haven't quite worked out how it would be done and yet still keep Wladimir far below him. That's all I'm saying really. It's no big deal. I'm not on some sort of fanatical jihad or crusade with it. I'm not out to IMPOSE my views on others. Just expressing them and posing some questions for discussion.
I think your statement "a loss is a loss" basically sums up a fundamental difference in opinion. For me, Ali losing a 15 round epic to Frazier isn't as bad as .... Holyfield losing a very close 12 rounder to Moorer, which isn't as bad as .... Holmes losing a close 15 round decision to Spinks .... which isn't as bad as Lewis loafing into a punch and being sparked out in 5 rounds by Rahman. I look at the performance as well as the result. And factor in the opponent.
Fair enough mate. I'd agree he doesn't absolutely have to be in the top 5 for reasons i've outlined per personal criteria and opinion. As i said at one point you can make some almighty shuffles in the 10 behind Ali and Louis and defend them quite soundly. In essence you can make almost any order fit. Marciano's difficult as he never lost and took on all comers. You could very easily make a case for him at three, or you could take apart his opposition and era and whack him closer to 10'ish. At the end of the day he did everything asked of him i guess? What is your own take on rating him? I'm pretty sure when i liaised in here years ago and did multiple threads helping me find my ten i ended up with him somewhere around 5-7.
I factor in opponents too and the type of loss but obviously don't sit on it being the be all and end all. I accept the mitigating circumstances for the Lewis losses and embrace how he put things right. I also take into account other things too. If Lewis didn't come back and legitimise the circumstances of the first loss i would not be able to place him so highly. I don't put such a gulf between the Holmes and Lewis loss because at the end of the day Spinks was a light heavy who had never fought at heavy. As you say when two big men fight there's always the chance someone could get taken out. It happened, due in no small part to Lewis arrogance and lack of professionalism at that time for that fight. Holmes was outhustled throughout. I fully accept he should have won the rematch. I'm pretty much going around in circles now and repeating things. We've both got our points of view across i would think.
Marciano has to be rated high, I think. Clearly inside the top 10, probably top 5. His opposition was much better than his harshest critics make out. Anthony Joshua recently gained a lot of kudos struggling to beat a 41year-old coming off a loss and a long lay-off. Marciano fought some guys who were a bit past it but active and coming off wins and gets criticized for it. Walcott was reigning champion. Moore had earned his number 1 contender spot. For an example. Larry Holmes losing to Spinks is a bad loss but I think the fight was competitive and Spinks was an all time great light heavy fighting a superb game plan. I accept that Holmes was probably lucky to be champion at that point anyway. I think Williams arguably beat him. I have Lewis's loss to Rahman as a bit worse. And, using hypotheticals for comparison, I'd expect Spinks to beat Rahman too. I wonder whether a gassed in South Africa Lewis last the distance Spinks? 15 rounds ? The way I see it, Lewis would have 3 or 4 rounds to get the job done or suffer a worse loss than Holmes did. South Africa Lewis, that is. But I don't know. Lewis never faced the small tricky crafty ones like Spinks.
Precisely. Lewis was definitely one of the best heavies ever and number one SUPER heavy in my opinion.
If nothing else, watching people try to do the mental gymnastics required to rate Lewis outside the top 5 is entertaining.
