don't get all defensive and sarcastic, i'm just trying to understand where your coming from and find out what is your criteria for judging the greatest heavyweights of all time. so why do you think that joe frazier is the 5th greatest heavyweight of all time and don't think lennox lewis is in the top 10? on what criteria do you make that judgement?
1. Never saw the rule that says that if you've been koed, you can't be an ATG. 2. Lewis struggled against an ATG (and still beat him) so he can't be an ATG...wow funny. Is that all you got?
The level of opposition, the era in which they boxed, their skill, their will, their willingness to put on a show. There are a lot of things. Resume is a gigantic part of how I judge boxers. As evidence in my hatred of floyd mayweather and my apathy towards guys like Jones jr.
this thread is ridiculous. Lewis was more than an exceptional HW and beat all comers. His fight with Mercer was a close one, but Lewis won that one. He could box and go toe to toe. He was past his prime and no he didn't look that great vs. Vitali, but you can also say why didn't Vitali put him away then? Some of Lennox's wins were impressive, others not, but point is he beat them all and he beat the best of his era. You can't say that about too many fighters nowadays.
6 best victories? Well, you're talking to a guy who thinks the thrilla in manila is the greatest HW fight in history, so he gets points for even losing that one. Ali Quarry Foster Ellis (I) Quarry Mathis
The thread starter has no idea of what he's talking about. Holyfield was a great champion, much greater than either Klitscho sister. Lennox Lewis was a good champion and never ducked anyone. His defense wasn't the best and he paid the price for his lapse a couple of times, but to his credit he bounced back and avenged both losses. Compared to the Klitscho sisters, Lewis faced much stiffer opposition, two to three times the quality of the bums the Klit girls are facing. If Lewis is not considered as a candidate for AT greatness, that makes the Klit girls merely contenders who in the face of no meaningful opposition, are just lucky to be champions.
i'd list an order of this top 20 from lewis' career, though i obviously understand that the holyfield draw was not a win, although we all know lewis dominated holyfield convincingly in that fight. 1 holyfield draw 2 holyfield win 3 galota 4 klitchsko 5 tyson 6 mercer 7 tua 8 grant 9 rahman 2 10 tucker 11 ruddock 12 mavrovic 13 bruno 14 morrison 15 mccall 16 briggs 17 gary mason 18 akinwande 19 botha 20 jackson although it can't be counted, i think one of lewis' best wins was against riddick bowe in the olympic final.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Lewis had an era in heavyweight division. current-Klitschkos Lewis Holyfield Tyson Holmes Ali etc. He has to be in the top ten in terms of accomplishments especially unifiying the belts. So what if he struggled with Holyfield. There is no shame in that, he still won one of those fights. Further what does it matter whether you get knocked out by one punch or a dozen? If anything getting starched by one punch could be a sign of a minor defensive lapse whereas getting beat on and worn down shows that a fighter is getting out classed.
That;s true. He's greater than Lewis too. You never saw Holyfield taken out early by second rate fighters when he held the title. What the thread starter said about Lewis's advantages in his fights over Holyfield is right on, though. Holyfield was old, and considerably smaller. And yet, he still arguably should have gotten the decision in the second fight. In fact, quite a few ringside journalists scored for him.
Okay, half of those wins are guys who aren't even names in their own house. -Bruno is a good win, but tyson killed him twice. -Mccall is a good win because he stopped lennox, and that shouldn't have happened. -Holyfield are both legit good wins, even if the draw robbery was claimed. -Mercer beat him. -Rahman was never elite. Lewis should have never lost the first fight. -Tua was never elite, and was nowhere capable of dealing with Lewis' size and reach, let alone boxing skills. -Tyson was way past it. -Briggs is a joke who got a gift vs 46 year old george foreman. -He was losing the vitali fight, was in horrible shape for it, and lucked out that the cut was so bad. -Golota win was excellent. All that considered, he is still a very talented, excellent heavyweight. But I hold him in less regards than the likes of holmes/frazier/foreman/Ali. You take a good amateur career, back it up with a massive 6'4" frame and 80+" of reach, and you have a HW champion capable of beating anyone. He was very good, just not in my top 10. I know a lot of people think he is top 10 material, but I don't think he should have lost any fight he was matched in. You don't have to agree with me, I'm skeptical of a lot of claims to greatness.
Be interested to see how you rate Foreman, Tyson, Frazier. If you look at their resume..well the record books say beyond doubt that Lennox Lewis IS AN ATG Heavyweight champion.
I've never known Luke to be sarcastic, I think he's doing it strictly out of malice toward you and insecurity of his own position.
ali - fantastic win and 2 other close defeats quarry - fought very good competition but was a very limited fighter imo, lost 9, drew 6 foster - great light heavy but gave frazier 21 lbs and never beat anyone worthy of note at heavyweight ellis - again fought good competition but already had 5 losses before frazier beat him mathis - mathis beat no one of note before frazier then lost to every decent heavyweight he fought after i know my assessment is a little bias to prove a point but i just don't see how any would could rate frazier above lennox lewis. frazier has the best single win and fought the odds with his small size but lewis' resume is way deeper. i don't believe in making excuses for fighters just because they were small, you are what you are and lewis was a better heavyweight than frazier imo.