Wladimir Klitschko has a very good resume..where does it rate in history

You didn't catch the little sarcasm in my post. Maybe Mendoza would.

 

Liston didn't beat Ali and didn't show anything at all in the second fight.

My take would be that Vitali would be too big and too good for Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams and the like, and Lewis defeated him when 38.

 

"I might take Patterson over any version of Holyfield"

I wouldn't.

Rahman and McCall were "embarrassing" for certain.

Losing to Ali is far less "embarrassing" but performing so badly that many people assume Liston threw the fight is nothing to brag about.

That still leaves the losses to Marshall, a lightheavyweight, and Martin, each of whom was every bit as much of a B level fighter as McCall or Rahman. In fact, moreso.

You give Liston a pass for these two defeats. I don't.

 

Nah, if a win is great can be seen by the career the opponent had at the point they fought. That´s not guesswork, those are known facts.

 

Agreed. Bashing Liston for that (he may have even been 40+ at the time for all we know) is like saying "ha ha Tyson was **** he lost to McBride"

The real Sonny Liston didn't show up for that fight - in fact the real Sonny Liston died around 1965.

 

1. "When Liston fought Marshall: he was 7-0" and Lewis had many more amateur bouts.

On Liston as an amateur, he is not quite as inexperienced as you imply as he had many prison bouts. He was experienced enough to beat Ed Sanders, the Olympic champion.

Your point is that Liston was green. True. Liston lost to Marshall when he was green. Lewis lost to nobody when he was green. Edge-Lewis.

2. on Lewis and Rahman--I find it interesting that you rate Lewis as at or near his prime when he fought Rahman, but whenever Vitali Klitschko is brought up in a thread, Lewis has become old and washed up in only two years. In between were impressive performances against Rahman and Tyson. In fairness, if Lewis was prime against Rahman, he was near prime against Vitali.

As for Lewis, he was in fact overweight and poorly trained for Rahman, and this fight was probably something of a fluke with Lewis paying the price for taking an opponent lightly and not being in the best of shape. The defeat is still embarressing and lowers his historical rating.

3. on Liston against Martin--I don't agree that Liston was out of shape. He weighed 219, only four pounds more than he weighed against Patterson in 1963. He had clearly gone back as a fighter, though, and was utterly destroyed by the second-tier Martin.

4. Bottom line between Lewis and Liston---Lewis lost two times and was stopped twice. Liston lost four times and was stopped three times. The second Ali fight is the most embarressing loss either suffered and I don't give Liston a pass for it. If it was on the level, which I think it was, it was a debacle. If Liston dumped it, too bad. I don't give him dibs for not putting forth an honest effort.

 

1. "Jones, Toney, Maskaev, Ruiz, Wlad, Bryd, Valuev, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Peter, Liakhovic, Brewster, Briggs, Sanders" You should add Lewis.

You make a good point here. Vitali did NOT defeat the best men available, losing to Lewis and Byrd, with no big wins to compensate. I think his potential, or if you will, ability, far outreaches his achievement. I would not put him in my top 20 which is based on historical accomplishment for that reason.

2. That said I judge Vitali to be a handful for any of the old champs on a h2h basis. A skilled man nearly 6' 8" and 250 lbs with impressive whiskers will be a long night for anyone at all.

3. Just curiously, let's compare Vitali over the last ten years to Liston in the sixties on this issue.

Champs and alphabet champs of the sixties:

Johansson, Patterson, Ali, Terrell, Ellis, Frazier

Liston fought two and defeated one--Patterson.

Of the fifteen "champs" of the last ten years, Vitali fought four and defeated two, actually pretty close to Liston's performance. We have to remember that Liston had a relatively short stay at the top, fighting top rated fighters only from 1959 to 1965 and winning only from 1959 to 1963.

4. Vitali also defeated Juan Carlos Gomez, perhaps the best fighter p4p he defeated. Gomez was a champion in a lighter division, but was still a taller and bigger man than Patterson, Folley, or Machen.

 

Your math is wrong. Vitali defeated three alphabet champs. Hide ( who was not the worst alphabet guy in the 1990's...try Bennt, Shultz, or Botha ) Sanders, and Peter. It should hae been four as Donlad was robbed vs. Valuev. If you want to add in Gomez as Crusier champ, that is five.

Vitali started his career in November of 1996. As Champion he felt no need to pound on old man Holyfield. He was going to KO the shell of Mike Tyson, but Danny Williams changed the plans. Of course we all know Lewis did not want the re-match.

In modern times Valuev declined a match, and Haye also backed out of a match. A boxer can only meet those willing to meet him. Will either man sack up and take a payday to meet a 38 year old in the ring???

 

I really think H2H can be pointless because there's really no way to figure it out so I think Acomplishments is a much better way to rate a boxer.

If you people insist on arguing about these H2H matchups then you have to consider his losses and who he troubled with and his weaknesses and his strengths..
For example, I think pressure fighters would do exceptionally well against Ali, because then he can't use his jab and his footwork. See his losses to Frazier and Spinks. They mostly pressured him the whole fight. Wepner also gave him a very tough fight, when he pressured him and used dirty tactics. But if you try to box him, you'll get beaten. That's obvious.

 

I've enjoyed reading this thread, arguments from both sides are being debated well, but the above is the only time I've felt the need to interrupt.

Lewis was not prime for Rahman, nowhere near infact. Sure his wins leading upto the Rahman fight may lead us to that conclusion but how can a fighter who trained 2 weeks for a fight at 5,200 feet proven by coming in at a career high weight be considered 'prime'. If memory serves me right Steward only joined Lewis for those 2 weeks due to obligations Training another fighter (don't recall who).

I'd also chip in the McCall loss was pre Manny.

 

You're right. Evander Holyfield was past his prime. As a matter of fact... Lennox Lewis failed to fight any of the other top 4 fighters from his own era during their prime. That would obviously be Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, and Moorer. Lewis only fought two of them, and that was after those two had burnt out. Yeah, Lewis lost less... he also fought less. I don't see what's impressive about that. He also ended up dropping his WBC, WBA, and IBF titles to avoid his #1 contenders. Lewis sure does not look better and more complete on film. Wlad has a better jab, better left hook, better straight right, better defense, and much better footwork. I will give an advantage to Lewis in overhand, looping right, and uppercut.

Lewis wasn't even considered a true champ until he beat Holyfield. After that... his reign as Champ was extremely weak. Including his "win" over Vitali Klitschko which sure isn't a win to brag about. Being handily beaten and winning via doctor stoppage due to cut from a grazing punch, then ducking a rematch isn't exactly something to build your legacy around.

Considering that the two best real wins on Lewis' resume are against a past prime Holyfield, who gave him everything he could handle... and a completely washed up Tyson.... I don't see how his competition is so much greater. I think that it was clearly worse. Especially looking at Wlad at 33 years of age vs Lewis at 33 years of age.

Rudduck? Turned out to be nothing special. Golota? We all know that to be true for him as well. Grant? C'mon... biggest overhyped bust in recent memory. Lewis' wins were just not that impressive if we look at the reality of the situation. He was a great fighter, but he failed to fight the best fighters of his own era while they were still shinning bright, and once he became the true Champ, he was inactive, was knocked out, fought a few subpar contenders (Grant, Botha), had a good win against Tua which he was highly criticized for (much like Wlad vs Ibragimov).... beat a shell of Mike Tyson in a meaningless fight... and we all know what happened with Vitali. Sorry, that just isn't very impressive.

How about other things which measure a Champion? You act like getting knocked down less is a huge deal. Well... when you consider the fact that Lewis had never got BACK UP after a knockdown to continue fighting, being knocked down less doesn't seem too appealing. So, not only has Lewis never pulled himself off the canvas to win a fight, he has never even pulled himself off the canvas in good enough shape to continue with the fight. Just because Wlad has a couple of fights where he was knocked down multiple times... doesn't make it any worse. He could have stayed down from the first knockdown against Sanders... rather than being knocked down 4 times. He could have stayed down against Peter... even though most were bull**** knockdowns... instead he pulled himself back up and dominated the fight.