Top 5 every division

Now this may take a lot of effort for anyone who wishes to partake

In short there are now 17 recognized weight divisions with differing levels of history and some are considered more prestigious than others with the so called original 8 being the most obvious case of this. For many their knowledge of each division varies markably with Captain being well know for his knowledge of the Light Heavyweight division. In short I want to see what peoples top 5 rankings are of all 17 divisions with a little twist at the end, who are the greatest 5 who don't feature in the top 5 of any division.

I'll Give a few of mine just to kick things off

Heavyweight

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Dempsey
5. Lewis

Light Heavyweight

1. Charles
2. Tunney
3. Moore
4. Spinks
5. Foster

Middleweight

1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Greb
4. Robinson
5. Ketchel

Light Middleweight

1. McCallum
2. Hearns
3. Wright
4. Norris
5. Jackson

Welterweight

1. Robinson
2. Leonard
3. Armstrong
4. Ross
5. Gavilan

Light Welterweight

1. Pryor
2. Locche
3. Cervantez
4. Canzoneri
5. Berg

Lightweight

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Gans
4. Whitaker
5. Williams

Featherweight

1. Pep
2. Saddler
3. Arguello
4. Attell
5. Sanchez

My Top 5 not included

1. Fitzsimmons
2. Langford
3. Pacquiao
4. Burley
5. Griffith

Good article. I wont comment on who should be top but rather juggle positions around and remove some names/include others.

Heavy - I'd put holmes at 2 and remove lewis altogether. He wouldn't get into my top 10. I'd replace Lewis with either Frazier or Foreman.

LHW - No RJJ? Also Foster ahead of Spinks for me.

Mid SRR top followed by Hagler above Monzon

Agreed with LMW - it seems that division has always been the bast**d child of boxing. No clear stand out ATGs there although McCallum gives a decent shout. A transitional division.

WW - Agreed

LWW - No Chavez there or at lightweight?

LW - No Floyd? imo that was his best weight.

FW - Sandler ahead of Pep on the account that be beat Pep and Ko'd him. Sanchez could have been No1 but for hs tragic death robbing us of an ATG

HEAVYWEIGHT: 1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Johnson 4) Holmes 5) Lewis CRUISERWEIGHT: 1) Holyfield 2) De Leon 3) Qawi 4) Haye 5) Mormeck LIGHT-HEAVYWEIGHT: 1) Charles 2) Moore 3) Tunney 4) Loughran 5) Spinks SUPER-MIDDLEWEIGHT: 1) Calzaghe 2) Jones Jr 3) Toney 4) Benn 5) Kessler MIDDLEWEIGHT: 1) Greb 2) Monzon 3) Hagler 4) Robinson 5) Ketchel LIGHT-MIDDLEWEIGHT: 1) McCallum 2) Hearns 3) Norris 4) Wright 5) Rosi WELTERWEIGHT: 1) Robinson 2) Armstrong 3) R. Leonard 4) 'Barbados' Walcott 5) Gavilan LIGHT-WELTERWEIGHT: 1) Ross 2) Chavez 3) Canzoneri 4) Pryor 5) Berg LIGHTWEIGHT: 1) Duran 2) B. Leonard 3) Gans 4) Canzoneri 5) Williams SUPER-FEATHERWEIGHT: 1) Arguello 2) Mayweather Jr 3) Chavez 4) Elorde 5) Mitchell FEATHERWEIGHT: 1) Pep 2) Saddler 3) Sanchez 4) Dixon 5) Attell SUPER-BANTAMWEIGHT: 1) Gomez 2) Morales 3) Barrera 4) Vasquez 5) Bungu BANTAMWEIGHT: 1) Jofre 2) McGovern 3) M. Ortiz 4) Zarate 5) Brown SUPER-FLYWEIGHT: 1) Galaxy 2) Watanabe 3) Tapia 4) Kawashima 5) Darchinyan FLYWEIGHT: 1) Wilde 2) Villa 3) Perez 4) Canto 5) Genaro LIGHT-FLYWEIGHT: 1) Carbajal 2) Gonzalez 3) Calderon 4) Gushiken 5) Zapata STRAWWEIGHT: 1) Lopez 2) Calderon 3) Sorvoraphin 4) Porpaoin 5) Aguirre

Best five not to make any of the lists: 1) Langford 2) Fitzsimmons 3) Walker 4) Whitaker 5) Burley / McLarnin

Calzaghe ahead of RJJ? Seriously? Benn ahead of Eubank?

Interesting points but all things i've considered many times in the past

For me Louis and Ali are miles ahead of anyone at Heavyweight, they dominated in ways no other Heavyweights have. Foreman and Frazier were very very good my 6 and 8 but never dominated their era which marks them down in comparison to the others.

RJJ never really beat anyone of note at 175lbs and isn't even in my top ten let alone top 5. If he had the balls to face Micahlewski then he'd be a consideration but as it is not for me.

Robinson was the greatest of all time but didn't have the invincibility at Middleweight that Greb, Hagler and Monzon all had during their reigns so comes a very contentious 4th, many would argue he should also be behind Ketchel. The 5 of them are very very close I should add

Light Middleweight is a clear toss up between two genuine greats in McCallum, not a lot in it but have always favoured the Bodysnatcher

Chavez is an interesting one, a definite top 20 of all time but felt his best weight was always Super Featherweight where he really did destroy everything in his path. Many would have him in the top 5 or even top but comes in at 6 for at 140lbs, narrowly makes the top 20 at lightweight with his demolition job of Rosario

Floyds best weight was Super Featherweight where he is top 5 but a pair of wins over Castillo aren't worthy of a lofty standing in the talent stacked lightweight division, would struggle to place him in the top 20

The age old debate of Saddler or Pep but Pep simply did more at the weight. You can't judge rankings on head to heads primarily as far as i'm concerned but wouldn't argue too hard with Saddler being one, the guy punched like a mule and for excitement far exceeds Pep

Can't argue too much with that Chris, not too knowledgable of the lower divisions so left them out

We're talking exclusively Super Middleweight here Azania, what happens at the other weights is irrelevant and you'd be hard pushed to find many who don't have Calzaghe number one. Benns win over Mclellan regardless of the circumstances would push him ahead of Eubank.

Will give it a go but traditional weights only because it has already made my head hurt!
Heavy
1.Louis
2.Ali
3.Dempsey
4.Marciano
5.Johnson

Light heavy
Charles
Moore
Tunney
Spinks
Foster

Middle
Greb
Robinson
Hagler
Ketchell
Monzon

Welter
Robinson
Leonard
Burley
Armstrong
Griffith

Light
Leonard
Duran
Armstrong
Gans
Williams

Feather
Pep
Saddler
Sanchez
Attel
Arguello

Best 5 not there
Lewis,Canzoneri,Ross,Chavez,Gavilan
The Bantamweight list is still changing

azania wrote:Calzaghe ahead of RJJ? Seriously? Benn ahead of Eubank?

Azania, I'm a firm believer in taking in to account only what happened in a specific weight class when we evaluate all-time standings in that division. Obviously Jones would be ahead of Calzaghe in a pound for pound sense, but at 168 lb his logevity at the weight, the amount of belt holders he beat and his dominance against his opponents mean that he belongs ahead of Jones, whose Super-Middleweight career consisted of a brilliant win against Toney, but not all that much else before he stepped up to 175 lb.

As for Benn and Eubank, it's tough to decide who belongs higher when taking their whole careers in to account, but as far as I'm concerned when it comes to purely Super-Middleweight, it's Benn every day of the week. His win over McClellan (arguably the hardest pound for pound puncher in the sport at that time) is significantly better than anything on Eubank's 168 lb resume, and I believe that Benn edged their 1993 fight, too. Also, Benn won his title on the road and defended against the better names - some of the fighters Eubank defended against were, to put it mildly, of a very poor quality.

Heavyweight:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Holmes
5. Foreman

Lightheavy:

1. Tunney
2. Charles
3. Moore
4. Fitzsimmons
5. Foster

Middleweight:

1. Greb
2. Ketchel
3. Monzon
4. Langford
5. Tiger

Light Middleweight:

1. Hearns
2. McCallum
3. Benvenuti
4. Wright
5. Norris

Welterweight:

1. Robinson
2. Leonard
3. Ross
4. Napoles
5. Griffith

Light Welterweight:

1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Canzoneri
3. Cervantez
4. Berg
5. Pryor

Lightweight:

1. Gans
2. Armstrong
3. Leonard
4. Duran
5. Whitaker

Featherweight:

1. Pep
2. Sanchez
3. Jofre
4. Arguello
5. Sandler

On the basis of my own list which I did there, I think aside from a few placings we would have a high similarity of names.

My main quibble would be alot of these lists having Lewis as a top five heavyweight. Really? Biggest wins over aged rivals, two losses to very mediocre fighters in a decade of overrated heavyweights for me. Also a fragilty about him that meant any big hitting heavy could exploit. r I would struggle to find room for him in my top ten let alone top five.

Whoever reckons Joe Louis is better that Ali better stop smoking that stuff.

Chris and Windy I see your point re: Benn/EUbank. Eubank beat Benn at Middleweight anyway. But for the Watson fight, I think Eubank would have been placed higher. He lost his mojo.

But for me, RJJ was the best SMW. Yes JC has the better record, but RJJ beats all JC's victims and with more style. His win over Toney alone should place him ahead JC seeing as JC didn't beat anyone with the calibre of Toney.

Maybe JT was on the wrong diet and training regime

[quote="azania"]Whoever reckons Joe Louis is better that Ali better stop smoking that stuff.

I will continue to hold that view and would point out that it is a nutritional aid from way back in the day and not some modern Ped
Your view is shared by many including my Dad.He is now in his seventies,a former professinal fighter himself and at a guess has seen more fights and fighters than most of us put together.(taking jimmy and windy out of the equation obviously!)
My take is that Louis would get the nod head to head by ko and was a greater champion.Thats hugely subjective and I can see the other view
Might be a decent article though??

I believe Joe Louis to be the greatest heavyweight ever and I would favour him to outpoint any version of Ali. He was a genuine all rounder heavy with fantastic pedigree who would have been a nightmare for Ali to deal with as he was well capable for boxing Ali for all 15 rounds.

In lasting legacy, Ali can give him an argument but it isnt one based on Ali having superior diets, jump ropes and modern trainers. Its based on wins and performances and talent.

[quote="skidd1"]

azania wrote:Whoever reckons Joe Louis is better that Ali better stop smoking that stuff.

I will continue to hold that view and would point out that it is a nutritional aid from way back in the day and not some modern Ped
Your view is shared by many including my Dad.He is now in his seventies,a former professinal fighter himself and at a guess has seen more fights and fighters than most of us put together.(taking jimmy and windy out of the equation obviously!)
My take is that Louis would get the nod head to head by ko and was a greater champion.Thats hugely subjective and I can see the other view
Might be a decent article though??

Put the rizla back please. Jimmy and windy are as old as the hills and have seen all boxers since Greb fight live (although they'll disagree with me about the benefits of modern nutrition and techniques ). They are still sane enough to realise that ALi would beat Louis by a country mile. You should be a good chap and listen to your Dad.

Colonial Lion wrote:I believe Joe Louis to be the greatest heavyweight ever and I would favour him to outpoint any version of Ali. He was a genuine all rounder heavy with fantastic pedigree who would have been a nightmare for Ali to deal with as he was well capable for boxing Ali for all 15 rounds.

In lasting legacy, Ali can give him an argument but it isnt one based on Ali having superior diets, jump ropes and modern trainers. Its based on wins and performances and talent.

Looool. Ali was the better athlete. Faster hands and more importantly faster feet and reflexes (better dets came later).

[quote="azania"]

skidd1 wrote:

azania wrote:Whoever reckons Joe Louis is better that Ali better stop smoking that stuff.

I will continue to hold that view and would point out that it is a nutritional aid from way back in the day and not some modern Ped
Your view is shared by many including my Dad.He is now in his seventies,a former professinal fighter himself and at a guess has seen more fights and fighters than most of us put together.(taking jimmy and windy out of the equation obviously!)
My take is that Louis would get the nod head to head by ko and was a greater champion.Thats hugely subjective and I can see the other view
Might be a decent article though??

Put the rizla back please. Jimmy and windy are as old as the hills and have seen all boxers since Greb fight live (although they'll disagree with me about the benefits of modern nutrition and techniques ). They are still sane enough to realise that ALi would beat Louis by a country mile. You should be a good chap and listen to your Dad.

I listen to him and have had to for many years but I still dont agree with him
Joe was a special fighter..No better Heavy for me..
Ali.. great memories..best Heavy I have seen for sure .
Just opinions though

[quote="skidd1"]

azania wrote:

skidd1 wrote:

azania wrote:Whoever reckons Joe Louis is better that Ali better stop smoking that stuff.

I will continue to hold that view and would point out that it is a nutritional aid from way back in the day and not some modern Ped
Your view is shared by many including my Dad.He is now in his seventies,a former professinal fighter himself and at a guess has seen more fights and fighters than most of us put together.(taking jimmy and windy out of the equation obviously!)
My take is that Louis would get the nod head to head by ko and was a greater champion.Thats hugely subjective and I can see the other view
Might be a decent article though??

Put the rizla back please. Jimmy and windy are as old as the hills and have seen all boxers since Greb fight live (although they'll disagree with me about the benefits of modern nutrition and techniques ). They are still sane enough to realise that ALi would beat Louis by a country mile. You should be a good chap and listen to your Dad.

I listen to him and have had to for many years but I still dont agree with him
Joe was a special fighter..No better Heavy for me..
Ali.. great memories..best Heavy I have seen for sure .
Just opinions though

I'll just have to agree with more knowledgable people such as your Dad.

Better train.......oooops.

Better Nutri..

skidd1 wrote:Better Nutri..

Its those cereal bars.

azania wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Better Nutri..

Its those cereal bars.

Ask Holly.Better than than Big George's grill?
Well one is more"natural"

skidd1 wrote:

azania wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Better Nutri..

Its those cereal bars.

Ask Holly.Better than than Big George's grill?
Well one is more"natural"

You mean Mr E Field?

Could we please not let this descend into a new vs old debate again

Colonial you may not like Lewis but with the exception of Marciano, Louis and Ali, no one has dominated an era quite like he did. Yes he lost to a couple of mediocre boxers but so did almost all of the old timers but that gets conveniently forgotten nowadays.

imperialghosty wrote:Could we please not let this descend into a new vs old debate again

Colonial you may not like Lewis but with the exception of Marciano, Louis and Ali, no one has dominated an era quite like he did. Yes he lost to a couple of mediocre boxers but so did almost all of the old timers but that gets conveniently forgotten nowadays.

And Holmes and Tyson. For 8 years Holmes dominated the heavies and Tyson did the same for 4 years. Neither had the vulnerability that I felt Lewis had. Until that is Tyson got it handed to him by Douglas.

Tyson plain and simple isn't a great Heavyweight champion, exciting for that short period but got shown up for what he really is fairly quickly. That would be the main reason I have Holmes above Lewis albeit in a weaker era. Lewis beat every man he faced and was undoubtably the best in the division, not many can say that in the past 20 years

imperialghosty wrote:Tyson plain and simple isn't a great Heavyweight champion, exciting for that short period but got shown up for what he really is fairly quickly. That would be the main reason I have Holmes above Lewis albeit in a weaker era. Lewis beat every man he faced and was undoubtably the best in the division, not many can say that in the past 20 years

You cant pass opinion as fact. IMO Tyson beats most heavies and is a shoe in top 10. He certainly beats Rock, Louis , Frazier and more.

Lewis's era was pretty weak also. Unfortunately for him he didn't have a defining fight. Holy and Tyson were past it and Bowe ran the other way. It now seems his best wins were Vit and Ruddock although god knows how much the two fights with Tyson took out of Ruddock.

imperialghosty wrote:Could we please not let this descend into a new vs old debate again

Colonial you may not like Lewis but with the exception of Marciano, Louis and Ali, no one has dominated an era quite like he did. Yes he lost to a couple of mediocre boxers but so did almost all of the old timers but that gets conveniently forgotten nowadays.

Dominated = Myth

The great myth of Lewis dominating stems from wins over his would be rivals who were well past their best when he fought then.

How inappropriate to consider his title reign alongside that of the likes of Louis, Marciano or Ali.

His could only call himself the best heavyweight in the division at the tail end of the 90s when he beat a faded Holyfield. Thats when he became unified champion. 2 years later he was knocked out by Rahman. Not exactly dominating a division.

Pre to mid nineties he was stopped by McCall, never beat Bowe, Moorer or even Foreman who held titles.

Lewis only came into his own when all the other main rivals in the division had faded out. He recorded wins over past it versions of Holyfield and Tyson and then employed some photoshopping to make it seem like he was the man in the 90s when in fact it was virtually the 2000s before he beat them. Wrong century, wrong decade Im afraid.

There was no Lewis domination Im afraid.

Well Tyson did beat nobody of note to be considered a top ten in my opinion and stylistically isn't a nightmare for anyone who can take a punch while dishing it out. The Foreman fights cloud peoples opinions of Frazier but he had one hell of a chin and don't see him being taken out early by Tyson and once your past 3/4 rounds any top heavyweight would hold an advantage over him. The Lewis era wasn't weak at all, hardly his fault his biggest rivals were too scared to face him, that in itself shows how highly thought of he was.

Colonial we all know you don't rate anyone pre 1910 we don't need to hear about it on every thread, it gets fairly tiresome. Lewis dominated his era because he beat everyone, can't be blamed that Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer etc. wanted nothing to do with him. I can compare it to Louis and Marciano because those eras didn't have the same level of competition. I'll give you Ali's era where the top 15 would all be deserving of a title nowadays. As i've mentioned this isn't about new or old being better, it's meant to be a subjective debate.

imperialghosty wrote:Colonial we all know you don't rate anyone pre 1910 we don't need to hear about it on every thread, it gets fairly tiresome. Lewis dominated his era because he beat everyone, can't be blamed that Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer etc. wanted nothing to do with him. I can compare it to Louis and Marciano because those eras didn't have the same level of competition. I'll give you Ali's era where the top 15 would all be deserving of a title nowadays. As i've mentioned this isn't about new or old being better, it's meant to be a subjective debate.

Of ocurse you can compare the Bum of the month and Rock fighting old mean and lightheavies to Lewis' reign. The fact is lewis fought nobody of note. Neither did Tyson or Holmes for that matter, But they beat whoever they had in front of them convincingly until they faded. Lewis got sparked at his peak by McCall and Rahman. Floored by Akinwande, staggered by Bruno, hurt by a croat (forget his name) and losing to Klit until Lewis shredded him. Lewis was just not that good. Nice chap and always wanted him to destroy Bruno and win all his fights. But I believe I'm a realist. He was clumsy and improved ot be less clumsy under Steward.

imperialghosty wrote:Well Tyson did beat nobody of note to be considered a top ten in my opinion and stylistically isn't a nightmare for anyone who can take a punch while dishing it out. The Foreman fights cloud peoples opinions of Frazier but he had one hell of a chin and don't see him being taken out early by Tyson and once your past 3/4 rounds any top heavyweight would hold an advantage over him. The Lewis era wasn't weak at all, hardly his fault his biggest rivals were too scared to face him, that in itself shows how highly thought of he was.

Frazier got decked twice by Bonavena. All this talk about chins etc. If you are hot right, you fall regardless of who you are. What is important are your recuperative powers. Guys like Frazier and tyson who are considered to have good chins rarely get up when hit as it takes a huge and well placed punch to deck them.

If your hit right by someone with enough power you will fall. In the case of La Motta, Chuvalo, Hagler, Pryor etc. you could hit them with the perfect punch and they would still be standing.

Strange how Lewis was only ever floored twice by Rahman and McCall so don't know where your getting this Akinwande thing from, despite having all these apparent weaknesses he cleared up a fairly strong division, beat everyone who would face him yet he's still accused of being not that good and clumsy. Ali wasn't that good when he was getting floored by the sub mediocre Wepner and Cooper.

Frazier was never knocked clean out, he always got up when he went down so can't be compared to the Tyson in any shape or form in that regard.

imperialghosty wrote:Colonial we all know you don't rate anyone pre 1910 we don't need to hear about it on every thread, it gets fairly tiresome. Lewis dominated his era because he beat everyone, can't be blamed that Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer etc. wanted nothing to do with him. I can compare it to Louis and Marciano because those eras didn't have the same level of competition. I'll give you Ali's era where the top 15 would all be deserving of a title nowadays. As i've mentioned this isn't about new or old being better, it's meant to be a subjective debate.

What has old versus new got to do with a discussion on Lewis dominating his era?

He was more or less handed a WBC title in the early 90s, hung onto it for barely two fights before he was knocked out by Oliver McCall.

Again he was gien a shot at the vacant title, this time beating McCall. It was only at the very end of 1999 that he beat Holyfield who was 38 years old to become unified champion. ears later he added what was left of Tyson aswell as being knocked out by Rahman.

Now by virtue of these two wins over a completely finished Tyson and a faded Holyfield you are trying to claim he dominated an era. In which he also lost to two mediocre fighters and never faced the likes of Bowe, Moorer and Foreman.

I dont see where you are getting anything to do with old/modern here. It simply an argument to show Lewis did not in fact dominate his era and the myth that he id is based upon wins over Tyson and Holyfield when they were past their best.

Now by all means continue to say old/modern or that Lewis was ducked by all an sundry, or that Holyfield was at his peak or whatever makes Lewis out to be this dominant fighter but the reality is he was knocked twice by mediocre opposition and failed to establish himself as the best in the division until all the other names - Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman, Moorer, Bowe had either reired or declined.

The fact he didnt beat any of these fighters until basically 2000 says it all about his dominance of the 90s.

imperialghosty wrote:If your hit right by someone with enough power you will fall. In the case of La Motta, Chuvalo, Hagler, Pryor etc. you could hit them with the perfect punch and they would still be standing.

Strange how Lewis was only ever floored twice by Rahman and McCall so don't know where your getting this Akinwande thing from, despite having all these apparent weaknesses he cleared up a fairly strong division, beat everyone who would face him yet he's still accused of being not that good and clumsy. Ali wasn't that good when he was getting floored by the sub mediocre Wepner and Cooper.

Frazier was never knocked clean out, he always got up when he went down so can't be compared to the Tyson in any shape or form in that regard.

A strong division? Who would you say was good during the Lewis reign? Look at the akin fight again. He got decked but was not scored as a kd.

Frazier was sent elsewhere by Foreman twice, Saved by the bell against Bonavena. Yes he had a good chin. So did Tyson for taking Bruno's punches and Smiths.

Frazier was never stopped on the floor I believe

Lion he beat everyone who would face him, he was due to face the WBC title holder in Bowe but can't be blamed that his opponent ran scared and ditched the belt rather than face him. You bang on about fights with Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson etc. but none of them wanted to get in the ring with him, what more is he supposed to have done?

The Heavyweight division has in general been a very weak division throughout history, with the exception of the Ali, Frazier, Foreman era the depth has always been weak so in comparison to past eras the 90's was fairly strong.

Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield amongst others, it transpired that Lewis never faced any of them whilst in their primes but that is not his fault and thusly we can't use it against him. If they chased him and he refused to fight then fair enough he's to blame but that's not the case. He established himself as number one and what is often overlooked is the fact Lewis himself was past his best by the time he fought Holyfield and Tyson, so was a far more level playing field than is made out.

imperialghosty wrote:Frazier was never stopped on the floor I believe

Lion he beat everyone who would face him, he was due to face the WBC title holder in Bowe but can't be blamed that his opponent ran scared and ditched the belt rather than face him. You bang on about fights with Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson etc. but none of them wanted to get in the ring with him, what more is he supposed to have done?

The Heavyweight division has in general been a very weak division throughout history, with the exception of the Ali, Frazier, Foreman era the depth has always been weak so in comparison to past eras the 90's was fairly strong.

Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield amongst others, it transpired that Lewis never faced any of them whilst in their primes but that is not his fault and thusly we can't use it against him. If they chased him and he refused to fight then fair enough he's to blame but that's not the case. He established himself as number one and what is often overlooked is the fact Lewis himself was past his best by the time he fought Holyfield and Tyson, so was a far more level playing field than is made out.

Good grief. Your gymnastics are on par with a certain poster who I wont mention. The fact remains, Lewis got sparked by two average fighters. No excuses. He fought a shell of Tyson and a badly faded Holy. Vit and Ruddock are his standout wins. Vit was ahead and debateable whether Ruddock was finished after tyson. The 1990s era was slightly stronger than today and certainly wealer that the 1980s.

I'll grant him Tua as a good win.

Frazier was on his feet or stool when stopped. Brave and good fighter.

I have no particular bias towards Lewis and acknowledge his shortcomings, it's unforgivable losing to Rahman and McCall but he cannot be blamed for the fact fights with Holyfield and Tyson didn't happen sooner.

imperialghosty wrote:I have no particular bias towards Lewis and acknowledge his shortcomings, it's unforgivable losing to Rahman and McCall but he cannot be blamed for the fact fights with Holyfield and Tyson didn't happen sooner.

I am not blaming him for that. But you base his legacy on what he did and not what he might have done. Too often people base Tyson's llegacy in a series of what ifs.

In no other division would someone with lets called it a less than stellar resume like Lewis even be considered for a top 5 or 10 spot but the quality in the Heavyweight division is very low.

imperialghosty wrote:Frazier was never stopped on the floor I believe

Lion he beat everyone who would face him, he was due to face the WBC title holder in Bowe but can't be blamed that his opponent ran scared and ditched the belt rather than face him. You bang on about fights with Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson etc. but none of them wanted to get in the ring with him, what more is he supposed to have done?

The Heavyweight division has in general been a very weak division throughout history, with the exception of the Ali, Frazier, Foreman era the depth has always been weak so in comparison to past eras the 90's was fairly strong.

Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield amongst others, it transpired that Lewis never faced any of them whilst in their primes but that is not his fault and thusly we can't use it against him. If they chased him and he refused to fight then fair enough he's to blame but that's not the case. He established himself as number one and what is often overlooked is the fact Lewis himself was past his best by the time he fought Holyfield and Tyson, so was a far more level playing field than is made out.

Bowe, yes, has to to take full blame. The rest, Im not sure considering their options at the time. Again I feel this "everyone avoided me" argument from Lewis is kind of photoshopping much like his biggest wins.

Bowe should have fought him, but wanted an easy defence with a view to a much more lucrative rematch with Holyfield at the time. It doesnt excuse him but at the time Lewis was some way short of the lucrative fights that could be made with guys like Foreman and Holyfield.

The rest is a similar story. When Tyson made his comeback Lewis had not long lost his title and been knocked out by McCall. He wasnt nearly the money make fights with Holyfield would be. Money talks especially with King and Lewis simply wasnt on that level then. I find it hard to believe that at the time when Lewis had already been stopped by Moorer and struggled to beat the likes of Ray Mercer that Tyson was atually afraid of him. Likewise any other top heavyweight at the time. Lewis was paid to step aside to set up a bigger fight and not as he claims to be avoided. Lewis had lost his title when Foreman/Moorer had it.

The whole history of Lewis in the division has deviated from reality and things like he was avoided like the plague and dominated the divison and beat all his rivals just neglect both the circumstances and realities of the time. In short its something of a myth. And given what actually happened in the division of the time and the substance of Lewis career I think its good enough reason to have him outside the top 5. Even you did actually believe that he was avoided like the plague and genuinely dominated his era the nature of his wins/losses would still be good enough reason to exclude him in my view.

I dont, for the record have anything aginst Lewis. I just think his career has been given something of a directors cut and ranks outside the top 5.

I find it hard to believe that at the time when Lewis had already been stopped by Moorer and struggled to beat the likes of Ray Mercer that Tyson was atually afraid of him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That should, of course, read McCall

For by no means the first time I find myself agreeing with just about every word which Colonial Lion has written.

Lewis belongs to that breed of heavyweight who tends to polarize opinion, and in analysing such fighters objectivity is often the first casualty. Some will point to Lewis' size, his strength, his solid fundamentals, his tremendous overhand right and will say that on a given night he could have knocked out just about anybody. Of itself, that's probably true enough - boxing is like that. However, it is equally true that any fighter brave enough to engage Jim Jeffries in a close quarters slugfest would probably find himself getting knocked out in fairly short order ; anybody trying to potshot Jack Johnson with single punches and not employing high workrate would find himself picked off for a pastime and utterly befuddled ; anybody taking on Dempsey on the inside would soon find out that a 190lb. man with fire in his belly and granite in his fists could hit plenty hard enough to spoil his evening, etc., etc.

The flipside of the coin would be the view that no decent heavyweight is careless enough to offer his chin for target practice and find himself pole axed by run - of - the - mill contenders. This is also, essentially, true. However, history abounds with fighters who have suffered lapses of concentration and have been unceremoniously dumped on the canvas as a result.

In other words, Lewis could win handsomely or lose ignominiously on any given night and we must, therefore, have a look at the middle ground.

Objective analysis, ( in my opinion, anyway, ) requires that we look for patterns in a fighter's career. If we take Joe Louis as an example, we can readily counter the accusations of the naysayers who claim he was knocked down by nobodies by pointing to the pattern of his almost always climbing off the canvas to win. If they point to the close calls against Conn, Godoy and Walcott we can point to the pattern which shows that he annihilated them in rematches. If they say he was too small we can point to the pattern which demonstrates that he twice chopped down the enormous - and thoroughly capable - Buddy Baer, as well as Carnera, Abe Simon and one or two other big fighters.

Colonial Lion has already covered the merits of Lewis' opposition, so I won't address that issue. What I will say is that Lewis, just like everybody else, found certain styles easier to deal with than he did others. Against large and powerful men such as Ruddock, Golota and Grant he was in his element - he deserves a pass for the Klitschko fight, in my opinion - but the busier fighters, such as Mercer and Holyfield, gave him plenty to think about. I thought Mercer beat him, and I also thought that the second Holyfield fight, during which Holyfield often beat him to the punch and unsettled him, was closer than the first. On that basis, Lewis would very likely do far better against, let's say, George Foreman, than he would do against Jack Dempsey or even Marciano, and especially when we remember that Dempsey was actually BIGGER in most tale of the tape statistics than was Holyfield before Evander bulked up to heavyweight.

If we take Colonial Lion's excellent analysis of Lewis' opposition together with the patterns he exhibited in dealing with that opposition, I believe that Lewis is scrapping it out for tenth place alongside men such as Tyson, Holyfield and Sonny Liston.

Just my opinions, of course.

I also agree with Lewis being a fringe top 10 heavyweight (along with Tyson and Holyfield) but I would always rank Tyson higher.

Certain critisisms that have been thrown at Lewis on this thread (his defeats to sub-standard opposition, struggles against certain styles and the fact that some of his biggest fights didn't materialize until his opponents were perceived to be past their sell by date) are understandable, however I'm quite frankly stunned at how so many are happy to chuck these critisisms around while pretending that they don't apply to most of the names they happily place above Lewis on an all-time Heavyweight list.

I usually don't subscribe to this argument, but I honestly do feel that Lewis is a case of a fighter suffering simply due to the era they boxed in. If he'd have produced exactly the same career back in the thirties, I doubt anyone would ever place him outside a top ten and most would be pushing him on to a top five spot, which is where I believe he should reside (fifth).

I literally almost shudder when I see the likes of Tyson, Liston or Frazier placed ahead of him.

I'm quite frankly stunned at how so many are happy to chuck these critisisms around while pretending that they don't apply to most of the names they happily place above Lewis on an all-time Heavyweight list.

But this is not true Chris - Lewis's losses prove that he can be beaten by a single punch from a fringe contender. They look bad an they ruin his legacy. No other top 10 fighter as 2 banana skins like this on their resume.

Bamber, I disagree strongly. Johnson was beaten by Hart (arguably the worst lineal champion of all time) and was knocked out by one or two other non-entities in his early career. Jack Dempsey was hammered by Jim Flynn; I'm not interested in all the 'Oh, but some say it was a fix' stuff. Dempsey went to his grave insisting that the fight was legitimate, so that's good enough for me.

There are simply not ten Heavyweights who beat more quality opponents than Lewis did. Nor are there ten Heavyweights who had greater longevity at or near the top of the division than he did. Nor are there ten Heavyweights who avenged every blotch of their record, usually in emphatic style.

As for this degrading of Lewis' wins; most of it smacks of double standards. I've heard that 'Ruddock was finished after the two tough fights with Tyson' while the same people eulogise Holmes' win over Norton or Ali's over Frazier. I've heard that 'Holyfield was over the hill' while the same people talk up the way in which Marciano knocked out Charles or how Holyfield fended off the 'still game' Holmes. I've heard that Lewis' win over Klitschko should have an asterisk next to it as he was behind on the cards at the time, from the same people who say that Louis beating Conn from behind on the cards or Ali beating Lyle from behind on the cards, on the other hand, actually shows what great champions they were.

I'll move on from this debate now as it's starting to look like one of those never ending affairs, but I'll summarize that Lewis simply doesn't get the credit he deserves for his career, and that I find some people's ranking of him almost unreal at times.

Cheers.

88Chris05 wrote:Bamber, I disagree strongly. Johnson was beaten by Hart (arguably the worst lineal champion of all time) and was knocked out by one or two other non-entities in his early career. Jack Dempsey was hammered by Jim Flynn; I'm not interested in all the 'Oh, but some say it was a fix' stuff. Dempsey went to his grave insisting that the fight was legitimate, so that's good enough for me.

To be fair though, Chris, Dempsey's stock would fall immeasurably had he been knocked out - fix or no fix - by Flynn while he was champion. Once a fighter scales the heights and becomes ' the man, ' different standards are, quite rightly, applied to him.

Johnson was royally shafted in the Hart fight. Just about every newspaper which covered the fight agreed that a draw would have been a gift for Hart.

As you can see by my earlier post, I'm no Lennox basher, but a top five heavies group is a pretty exclusive club, and while I see why you would include Lewis among them I don't think it's a travesty to push him a little lower down the order, either.

Do we then discount their victories before they become Champion? Don't think it can work both ways Windy

imperialghosty wrote:Do we then discount their victories before they become Champion? Don't think it can work both ways Windy

Unless those victories include HOFers or genuine contenders I believe that we do, Ghosty.

Would anybody take any notice of Clay's win over Cooper had it not been for the famous knockdown ? How many of Joe Louis' pre championship opponents do we remember outside of Carnera, Sharkey, Baer and Schmeling ? How important is Sandy Ferguson when we assess Jack Johnson ? Or Freddie Beshore when we consider Marciano ?

Lewis' defeats cost him more because he was champion when they happened, whether we like it or not. I like Lewis, and I don't think he always gets his dues, but it's an inescapable fact that he loses Brownie points in many quarters because his aberrations occurred at a time when he was supposed to be numero uno.

If we're counting wins over HOFers or genuine contenders, we must also count losses to those same people but that's just my view

I'll be totally honest I didn't rank Lewis in my top 10 until I spent time on 606 and listened to Chris,Scott,Dave and others and he is one fighter I rate higher now due to the posts from the lads on the 606.

The problem is as Windy/Bamber have identified those two defeats are shockers, as a sidestep if we place Lennox in the top 5 where does that put your George Foreman. Foreman arguably has the two best wins in the history of the heavyweight division, but the depth of his resume is very poor. Lewis is very strong on depth, but lacks high quality wins by comparison, and has some bad losses.