Why is Lennox Lewis considered a dominant champion?

Interesting perspective, would you extend that logic to a journeyman who beats an ATG? Should they be considered better than a long-reigning champ who only beat good-but-not-great boxers?

 

I agree with so much of your post and find it admirably written. I only have problems with the above.

To me that Olympic fiasco was referee-incompetence personified. That fight wasn't over.

 

of course not. I am generally against such a boxing evaluation, such a binary one.. But would a journeyman be able to fight a fight like Bowe-Holyfield? at such a pace, at such a level? do you know any journeyman who did something similar? The fight with Bowe was Riddick's best performance, but was Bowe a journeyman? he murdered journeymen. Holyfield was simply his greatest trophy, but he had many others and he himself was never knocked out by a journeyman

 

He did get beat up by Golota who while not a journey man also wasn't exactly a great fighter

I was thinking more so fighters like Buster Douglas or Golota or even someone like Rahman or Corrie Sanders do you think they should be considered higher up for having one great win despite the rest of their careers being so so?

 

yes, Douglas should be ranked much higher because of Tyson than without Tyson. But does he have the ATG measure? he has too few big wins, nothing close to that..Bowe has Gonzales, Hide, Seldon, Ferguson...Douglas has Tyson and.. I don't know who else..Beating Tyson 90 was on the level of beating Holyfield 92 but Douglas has compromising defeats and his top 5 wins are far worse than Bowe's top 5 wins..Everything matters,.context matters, perspective matters but Douglas without Tyson would be much lower than with Tyson.
Rahman - Lewis 1? in my opinion Rahman wasn't as good as Bowe and Douglas, he didn't have such an impressive victory and Lewis wasn't as good as Tyson and Bowe.. but Rahman without Lewis would be lower than with Lewis..