Lennox Lewis - Convince Me

There has been a lot written and said about Lewis on here recently and given this and the fact he is a guy I have always found myself at best lukewarm on and at worst thoroughly unconvinced by I thought I would revisit an old thread from the BBC to see where other people stand or if my eyes can be made to see what others see in him that has thus far alluded me.

Appreciate this is one of those can of worms type of subjects on here but Lennox Lewis is one of those guys along with Frazier who I really struggle with when ranking the heavyweights, so would like to get some kind of opinions as to whether guys think he deserves to be considered a top ten heavyweight or just generally where folk stand on him

In his defence he only lost two times and both losess were avenged in decent fashion. Also at his best he could be a devastating guy, in fights such as Grant, Ruddock and Briggs and a guy who showed an ability to vary his tactics for the opponent such as in the Tua victory and finishing his career with a win over a guy who is widely accepted as the best of the next generation in Vitali at an age when most fighters are reaching for the pipe and slippers is IMO very impressive and probably doesn't get the credit it deserves.

Against Lewis is his level of opposition isn't great, but as has been argued reasonably countless times that is probably true of many a heavyweight we consider great. Another rap which I feel is a bit harsh is that Lennox never fought a lot his natural rivals in their prime, although he can't be blamed Bowe chucked the belt in the bin or that Tyson went to prison and he did beat a version of Holyfield who was still had a little left in the tank, although even how much can be questioned given Holy followed these fights by going life and death with John Ruiz, but whichever way you look at it his record is perhaps missing one of those blue chip wins that can be the difference between good and great.

Guess for me though the thing that really counts against Lennox is the two guys he lost against are really not from the top drawer, could probably forgive one loss to such a guy as we all know one punch can turn a heavyweight fight round at any time but to make the same mistake twice is sloppy in the extreme and whilst his cheerleaders will argue one punch can turn any heavyweight bout Lewis is the only “great” who is guilty of getting sparked twice by second tier guys so surely it has to count against him

I may be being a little negative about the guy but think at the minute what sticks in my craw the most about him is the way he is portrayed as Mr Excitement or his era was some golden age for the heavies because as someone who lived through his era I certainly don’t remember it being perceived as such at the time and if I think back now I struggle to think of too many Lewis fights I would be in any kind of haste to revisit, but like I say I am here to be convinced.

I think you summed it up pretty well and the two defeats are obstacles that I can't get past. I do think he was the best in his day and have a lot of respect for him as a boxer and a man, but he falls just inside the top 20 for me.

Top 5, and better than Larry Holmes. That's my view in short form.

Something tells me Gordy will be on this thread before long...

Nice article, Jeff.

The more time that passes, the more I find myself feeling that Lewis did do enough to be considered a great Heavyweight, but also that he should be remembered as an underachiever or someone who didn't quite convert their full potential in to fruition. Part of that was down to bad luck, the rest of it down to complacency and a lack of discipline.

He's a man often acclaimed as the greatest Heavyweight of the nineties - and yet, he didn't fight Holyfield until 1999, and bouts with Tyson, Bowe, Moorer and even Foreman never materialized at all in that decade. Appreciate that in some cases this was beyond his control, but it does seriously challenge the idea that he was a truly dominant Heavyweight within his own era.

A nasty tendancy to fight to the level of his opponent is another problem. When he was faced with a more fancied and reputable foe, he could be excellent. When the challenge appeared smaller, his performances often shrunk in stature, too; brilliant against Ruddock, Golota and Tua, shocking against McCall (I), Rahman (I) and, for a few rounds, Vitali.

Despite all of that, I think his opposition stands up fairly well to that of many other Heavyweight champions. There aren't enough meritorious victories or notable performances to challenge the likes of Ali, Louis etc, and perhaps Holmes as well, but outside of those very select few he holds his own, certainly better than the Dempseys, Marcianos and Listons of this world.

And so we're left with those horrific losses. Lewis certainly isn't the only Heavyweight champion to have suffered such ignominious setbacks to run of the mill fighters by any means. However, he is pretty much the only one who has experienced such lows while pretty much right in the middle of his prime, championship years, and certainly the only one to have dipped to such depths twice in that period. Yes, he avenged them both inside schedule. Yes he probably underestimated his opponent each time, and certainly didn't appear in top shop when Rahman toppled him. But I've always been more or less of the opinion that, once you step through the ropes, excuses should be left behind - particularly when they're excuses which are all of your own doing (not training properly, considering an opponent to carry no threat atc).

You can throw all the excuses in the world around, but the fact remains that these episodes just didn't happen to the other men with whom Lewis fights for a place amongst the Heavyweight greats.

By hook or crook, Lewis did just about show that he was the best Heavyweight to have competed in the years he spent as a professional, 1989-2003. However, he did not do this by as great a margin as I used to think, upon further reflection. He deserves his place in history, but as you allude to Rowley, this retrospective beautification of his career, his era and his fighting style has perhaps resulted in a few people being a little too kind to him.

I'd still have him within the top ten Heavyweights of all time, but I believe that the factors outlined above prevent him from being any higher than, say, eighth. Had he reached his full potential, he could well have been contending that 'bronze medal' position with Holmes and the like.

I think you summed it up pretty well and the two defeats are obstacles that I can't get past. I do think he was the best in his day and have a lot of respect for him as a boxer and a man, but he falls just inside the top 20 for me.

I can understand him not quite making anyone's top 10 list (personally usually have him about 9 or 10) but I really can't see how anyone could justify having him out of the top 15.

Like all heavyweights outside of Ali and Louis, Lennox has a record that can be downplayed after a certain amount of scrutiny. The two defeats cost him quite badly and without those he would have genuine claims to be considered much higher than he is - possibly even top 5. I have Holmes at number three and it would be very hard to split a Lewis who was a dominant champ without defeats to Rahman and McCall to a Holmes who dominated a better era but ultimately lost twice to Spinks.

What goes in his favour is the aforementioned dominating reign as champ together with victories over almost anyone of note who fought in his era (Bowe excepted but that's for another thread) and over a man who would go on to dominate the next era.

When I think about his ranking I always have him in a group with Tyson, Holyfield, Frazier, Liston and Marciano fighting it out for the last two or three places in the top 10. As with Lewis, there are question marks over their respective careers but when measured against fellow heavyweights, all are deserving of consideration for the top 10.

bhb001 wrote:I think you summed it up pretty well and the two defeats are obstacles that I can't get past. I do think he was the best in his day and have a lot of respect for him as a boxer and a man, but he falls just inside the top 20 for me.

Jeez, bhb that is harsh. Just inside the top 20? Where do you rank the Klitschko brothers then, just inside the top 30? Top 40?

Lewis is just inside the top 10 for me, by whatever criteria you want to apply. Two bad losses mean he is towards the lower end of the top 10, but it is easy to pull apart most heavyweights records. He beat a decent standard of opposition and matches up well in a head to head with an awful lot of the other 9 guys I would place in a top 10. He has longevity, multiple title reigns, a unified reign, a defining fight against a good version of Holyfield in their second match and pretty transferable skills. The defeats are bad ones, but not enough to clean him out of a top 10.

Jeff, I haven't seen anyone claim his era as a 'golden age'? There has only been one such era in the heavyweight division, but Lewis' was a better era than the one that came before and after and certainly better than a lot of others. He wasn't Mr Excitement either, but neither is Floyd Mayweather and we don't detract from his greatness because of it.

He has lovely hair.

On a more serious note, when McCall tagged him, was he any more hurt than Ali when tagged by Cooper? I still have misgivings about that first stoppage? Rahman one furry muff.

Yes, I do seem to have downer on Lewis, though I do have serious respect for him. I am happy to be argued up from just inside the top 20, but wouldn't find enough positives to get him into the top 10. That isn't to say he wouldn't beat a Dempsey, Marciano or even a Louis, but we have had the dabte about different fighters different eras before, so do not wish to resurrect that.

alma wrote:I couldn't remember Sean, so i watched it the other day and Len was all over the place. I thought it was a fair stoppage. He was still wobbling when he was helped back to the corner. One more punch from McCall would have flattened him Hatton/Pacquiao stylee

He was obviously caught with a peach. My point was meant to be that when holding those losses against him you have to remember that in the old days fighters were given much more of a chance to recover. Obviously that had negative health impacts but you can't dispute that some of the great fights in the past would possibly have stopped much sooner thus possibly effecting a few results / legacies

I don't think Lewis was that great to be honest. He had 5 or 6 really dominant performances:

Ruddock, Golota, Tyson, Botha, Grant, Tua etc. but there was a lot of lukewarm displays too not always against top fighters.

He wasn't able to really dominate an aging and much smaller Holifield over two fights and struggled against the likes of VK, Bruno, the american bloke with the dreads(?) before winning by KO. He was KO'd twice by not great fighters and had a couple of farces in there like Akinwande and McCall 2.

He was definitely the best HW of the late 90's, and had fantastic ability but I really can't understand why Lewis is rated so highly. Better than K2 but not by as much as people make out imo. Sorry.

American bloke with dreads was Shannon Briggs if you were wondering...

Good man. Mind went blank there. Cheers.

Agree with Rodders... He is a good fighter but was always prone to the odd mistake. Getting ko'd by average fighters like Rahman and McCall doesnt happen to top level fighters. People bang on about him being lazy, not something I buy in to if i'm honest. He turned up for a fight and lost, end of.

Top15/20.

rodders wrote:I don't think Lewis was that great to be honest. He had 5 or 6 really dominant performances:

Ruddock, Golota, Tyson, Botha, Grant, Tua etc. but there was a lot of lukewarm displays too not always against top fighters.

He wasn't able to really dominate an aging and much smaller Holifield over two fights and struggled against the likes of VK, Bruno, the american bloke with the dreads(?) before winning by KO. He was KO'd twice by not great fighters and had a couple of farces in there like Akinwande and McCall 2.

He was definitely the best HW of the late 90's, and had fantastic ability but I really can't understand why Lewis is rated so highly. Better than K2 but not by as much as people make out imo. Sorry.

Not sure how you can hold McCall 2 against him. He came into the ring, slapped the bloke all around who ended up bursting into tears and having a mental flip-out. Not Lewis's fault (though a bit more killer instinct could've been interesting, can't see Tyson being that compassionate).

TopHat24/7 wrote: (though a bit more killer instinct could've been interesting, can't see Tyson being that compassionate).

You have a cruel streak, although have to admit would have been funny to see McCall pull something like that against Tyson, Dempsey or Liston, you have to suspect it does not end well

It would be interesting to see the list of anyone placing Lewis outside the top dozen or so heavyweights. I genuinely can't see how it is possible to do so if you apply the same levels of scrutiny equally.

superflyweight wrote:It would be interesting to see the list of anyone placing Lewis outside the top dozen or so heavyweights. I genuinely can't see how it is possible to do so if you apply the same levels of scrutiny equally.

Be careful what you wish for superfly, we had Patterson above Wlad yesterday. (and Baer)

At least it wasn't Buddy Baer, jeff.

superflyweight wrote:At least it wasn't Buddy Baer, jeff.

The sad thing is Superfly that was not the low point think we were close to having Marvin Hart above him at one point, but that was kind of late so I am hoping it was just a bad dream.

Agreed, Superfly. I think you hit the nail nicely on the head you said that Lewis falls in to that groupe - along with Marciano, Liston, Dempsey et al - of great, without being truly elite in the proper sense of the word.

As odd as it seems, I think Lewis is one of the slightly easier Heavyweights to place, because he scores steadily across all areas (opposition beaten, physical gifts in comparison to his rivals, dominance of his peers etc). Someone like Marciano, for instance, scores very, very heavily in terms of consistency, dominating his field (at least in terms of statistics) and so on, but would return a pretty rotten ledger against the rest of the Heavyweight greats in head to head match ups, I fear, and his opposition quality wouldn't match those first two factors, either.

Lewis, on the other hand, scores pretty consistently in most areas; in all the criteria mentioned, he's generally on the 'good' side, without being exceptional in any area. There's usually a small handful you can put ahead of him, but no more than that.

As I said earlier, I think there are factors which prevent Lewis going any higher than something like eighth or so, but let's be reasonable, fellas - surely he has to be top baker's dozen?

88Chris05 wrote:

As I said earlier, I think there are factors which prevent Lewis going any higher than something like eighth or so, but let's be reasonable, fellas - surely he has to be top baker's dozen?

Aye, this is right on the nail. I would love to see a list that has him outside a top 15. I can guarantee that any such list would be pretty easy to pull to pieces with the exception of a very few fighters. Any objective critique of his career compared to the rest of the heavyweight division would make him a shoe in for the top 15 at the very least.

Well Gordy's list did have Lennox Lewis in it but otherwise the last time I saw anything like his list, it was written in excrement on the wall in a serial killer's flat.

where is this list???!

Should be on the Audley/BBC thread.

There you go tophat, this was in response to me asking for 20 heavies who deserve to rank above Wlad:

Muhammad Ali.
Jack Johnson.
Joe Louis.
George Foreman.
Larry Holmes.
Sonny Liston.
Mike Tyson.
Lennox Lewis.
Rocky Marciano.
Joe Frazier.
Evander Holyfield.
Jack Dempsey.
Ridddik Bowe.
Ezzard Charles.
Jersey Joe Walcott.
Gene Tunney.
Max Baer.
Floyd Patterson.
Max Schmeling.
James J Corbett

Yeh, just found it Jeff. Must say the thread was good fun reading simply to see you gradually implode. Did have a little chuckle to myself with the lists of crisps

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rodders wrote:I don't think Lewis was that great to be honest. He had 5 or 6 really dominant performances:

Ruddock, Golota, Tyson, Botha, Grant, Tua etc. but there was a lot of lukewarm displays too not always against top fighters.

He wasn't able to really dominate an aging and much smaller Holifield over two fights and struggled against the likes of VK, Bruno, the american bloke with the dreads(?) before winning by KO. He was KO'd twice by not great fighters and had a couple of farces in there like Akinwande and McCall 2.

He was definitely the best HW of the late 90's, and had fantastic ability but I really can't understand why Lewis is rated so highly. Better than K2 but not by as much as people make out imo. Sorry.

Not sure how you can hold McCall 2 against him. He came into the ring, slapped the bloke all around who ended up bursting into tears and having a mental flip-out. Not Lewis's fault (though a bit more killer instinct could've been interesting, can't see Tyson being that compassionate).

I'm not holding it against him, I'm just pointing out that despite his impressive record and the fact he was undisputed champion, when you actually look at his fights and performances they weren't always that impressive.

He had a really dominant spell at the end of his career, where he was undoubtedly the best heavyweight out there but for much of career he was dogged by the same criticism that K2 get now... that he was boring, too cautious, lacked agression and that up until he fought Holifield he didn't fight anyone that impressive. It seems his status has risen over the years probably down to the lack of quality we see now in the HW division.

He was far better than anyone we see now but I think sometime people look at his career with rose tinted glasses and ignore the poor/average displays and the fact that he never really had a major heavyweight rival who he met in their prime.

He was definitely better than Tyson Fury though....

I'm really surprised by to see Lewis just scraping into the top ten of so many people's lists.

If you'd be so kind, what is everyone's top ten for heavyweights? For context. Seeing a number is one thing, but who's ahead of him would clear things up.

Although mine is ever changing, today it is:

Ali
Louis
Foreman
Dempsey
Liston
Lewis
Frazier
Jeffries
Marciano
Holmes

I usually rank Dempsey and Liston far higher than most, and Jack Johnson far lower so I don't expect it to be a popular one.

Mine at the moment would be something like this (in order) but it changes all the time apart from the top 2.

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Foreman
Dempsey
Jeffries
Marciano
Lewis
Tyson

I'd rank Lennox Lewis 3 or 4 in the ATG Heavyweights. He was very dominant in his era. Beat every top fighter of his era excluding Riddick Bowe, who didn't want to fight him.

lewis is underrated by many. i dont think he was as boring as hes made out to be. grant, vitali, briggs, ruddock, bruno and rahman 2, were all pretty exciting fights. he was in awful shape towards the end and still manged to beat vitali, and we know how good hes turned out to be.

As most people's does, mine gets tweaked now and then, but something roughly along these lines.

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Johnson
4) Holmes
5) Jeffries
6) Foreman
7) Marciano
8) Lewis
9) Tyson
10) Dempsey

I'm fairly happy with my top six, certainly in the sense that I'm one hundred percent confident that they all belong ahead of Lennox. I think there's a mini league of three after that (Marciano, Lewis and Tyson) who are all basically interchangeable, and could all be seventh, eighth or ninth on any given day. Then a little bit of daylight separating them and the chasing pack of Dempsey, Frazier, Liston and so on.

the chasing pack of Dempsey

If Jimmystuart was around , chris, I fear you would be heading for a bit of a telling off.

Duty281 wrote:I'd rank Lennox Lewis 3 or 4 in the ATG Heavyweights. He was very dominant in his era.

Duty, I really must take exception to this idea that Lewis was "dominant" in the context of his era. He was primarily a 90s fighter, but of the leading 90s Heavyweights (Holyfield, Moorer, Foreman, Tyson, Bowe etc), he only fought one of them within that timespan, and that was in 1999. While I rate his victory over Holyfield as a significant one, it's worth noting that there wasn't really anything "dominant" about his performances against him, and this was a Holyfield who was surely a lesser force than he'd have been a few years earlier.

Bruno, Tucker, Golota, Tua etc were all fine fighters, but none of them were really considered to be amongst the top two or three Heavyweights in the world when Lewis beat them, or at any stage to be honest. I appreciate that he's not to blame for some of those names missing from his record (although he only has himself to blame for blowing a unification with Moorer / Foreman by managing to get himself stopped by McCall in 1994), but the fact remains that Lewis never really squared off against the very best Heavyweights of his era, certainly not with any regularity. Truly dominant fighters don't tend to have their reigns interrupted twice by journeymen, either.

I understand that ranking fighters is a subjective exercise, and I am a fan of Lewis for what it's worth. I'd say that he just about established himself as the best of his era by a small margin, or at least the best in the winter of his career. But I'd have to draw the line long before calling him "dominant" in such a context. To me, he just wasn't.

superflyweight wrote:

the chasing pack of Dempsey

If Jimmystuart was around , chris, I fear you would be heading for a bit of a telling off.

He did not have Marciano in the top three Jimmy would tear him a new one

However my top ten at the minute is along the lines of

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Jeffries
Dempsey
Marciano
Foreman
Lewis
Frazier

Haha, too right Superfly! My (cyber) ears are still ringing from the dressing down Jimmy gave me back on the old 606 when I politely pointed out, in slightly more diplomatic terms, that Dempsey only really beat the fat, the old and the little throughout his reign before losing two wide decisions to Tunney, who somehow has been far less revered throughout history than Jack.

Not to worry I'm sure there are a couple of others who'll give me a good kicking for it!

rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

the chasing pack of Dempsey

If Jimmystuart was around , chris, I fear you would be heading for a bit of a telling off.

He did not have Marciano in the top three Jimmy would tear him a new one

However my top ten at the minute is along the lines of

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Jeffries
Dempsey
Marciano
Foreman
Lewis
Frazier

Would swap Jeffries and Foreman and that'd probably be mine.

Come within a whisker of putting Jeffries third to be honest tophat, but if I'm honest suspect that is because I don't like Johnson

Jeffries remains a bit of a puzzlement to me, if I'm honest. I've ranked him fifth, but I nee to give him another proper evaluation soon.

From the outset, he has a hell of a lot going for him; never beaten in or around his best years, around a third of his opponents were Hall of Famers (even if it is only the IBHOF version, which is nothing more than a pale imitation of ours!) and his reign, in terms of regular title defences and the like, was certainly one of the better ones for the time.

However, when a genuine, 220 lb Heavyweight is getting outboxed for round after round by a pushing-forty, career Middleweight who is 56 lb lighter than him before wearing him down, alarm bells naturally ring. Fitzsimmons, unquestionably, remains one of the greatest pound for pounders of them all, but he was no great Heavyweight.

Was Jeffries really a great Heavyweight, or was he just a decent one who had the advantage of fighting Middles and Light-Heavies who were getting on in years?

Essentially, a fighter can do no more than beat whoever is available at the time. Jeffries did this to a pretty high standard, without any slip ups as suffered by Lewis, Dempsey (admittedly pre-title) and Tyson. I can forgive him, to an extent, for not accommodating Johnson, though it does leave a scope of uncertainty. But I don't think we can really say that it was a great Heavyweight division which he presided over, and if a Middleweight, albeit an outstanding one, is cutting is face to ribbons, then I'd have to question whether or not Jeffries really warrants his status as an 'outstading' Heavyweight in return.

My own view on Jeffries Chris is that the criticism he held significant size advantages over his adversaries is akin to criticizing Tyson for using his speed. Boxing to me is about developing a style that best utilizes the assets you have be them size, speed, power or resilience and Jeff did this, and whilst it is undoubtedly true Fitz was a natural middle, given he had won the heavyweight title fair and square he was the best the era had to offer, as indeed was Corbett and as you have said both are genuine hall of famers and probably guys who will find themselves safely ensconced in our own less forgiving version.

Also think you have to contextualize any fighter in the era they fought in and assess them against that eras rules and scoring and as given Jeffries fought in the era of 20 or 25 round fights that were still scored very much on the perception of who would have won had the fight gone to the finish you would have been hard pushed to create a fighter more perfect for his time. Had an almost superhuman to soak up and recover from punishment, seemingly limitless stamina and not inconsiderable power all enviable assets under such conditions

However as we have said before once you get beyond Louis and Ali there is an argument to be made for anyone occupying pretty much any place in the rankings within reason, but will say I do tend to like Jeffries for deserving to be a good few places higher than many have him because having read plenty about many a heavyweight there are few ever regarded quite so far in front of the chasing pack as the boiler maker was.

I think to criticise Lewis for not fighting the so-called top fighters in the division in the 90s is a bit unfair when you consider most of the fighters were managed by Don King.

It was well-known that Bowe had issues with Lennox (be it he was scared/unsure/manipulated by Newman - it doesn't really matter), but whenever there was a title fight not involving Lewis where King was involved, he always seemed to champion the other fighters in the division without mentioning Lewis. King often went out of his way to deny Lennox the opportunity to fight, ESPECIALLY after the McCall loss.

He had his demons - mainly being motivated enough for fighters he would usually beat in his sleep, but overall was extremely accomplished. As for him being boring, I found his fights were generally exciting compared to some of the heavyweight dross today. His fight with Tua was a masterclass in how to pick apart a hungry swinging brawler whilst avoiding a big punch. His interviews were dull as beige paint though.

For Lewis being exciting (granted he was no Tyson in the KO stakes), try the following: Weaver; Ruddock; Botha; Grant; Golota; Rahman II; Briggs; Mason. Every fighter has stinkers, but I think the general consensus that he was dull is misplaced. You can only fight what's in front of you, and in Lennox's case a few were poor fighters eager to spoil (Akinwande for example).

I don't do top 10s as I have very little boxing knowledge prior to the 60s. That said, from my era I would certainly have him as top 4 behind Ali, Frazier, and Holmes.

Good points, Jeff. As I said above, I do have him inside my top five as it stands, so I'm not wishing to disparage his achievements or anything. I think that, whatever the results of a closer look at him may be, he'd remain at least in my top ten, as he did have a lengthy reign in terms of defences and took on more or less whoever was available.

However, I do maintain that the huge size advantages he held over his rivals should be considered and examined, and I'm not sure that it's entirely valid to compare it's simply akin to Tyson having a speed advantage, Foreman a power advantage, Ali a footwork advantage and so on. Boxing isn't governed in to separate divisions on the basis of these factors, whereas it is for weight / bulk, and rightly so. This isn't a case of a big Heavyweight fighting smaller ones, ala Wladimir Klitschko. This is a genuine Heavyweight fighting career Middleweights and / or Light-Heavies.

But more worryingly to me is the fact that a career Middleweight could take him in to a life and death struggle in the first place. Regardless of how great the Middleweight is, I just can't shake the feeling that if the Heavyweight they were facing was truly great, they'd do away with the smaller man without too much trouble, particularly when there are huge differences in height, weight, reach etc. Jeffries has some very, very good names on his record, but my issue is that the best / biggest ones he has were the smaller men he boxed. THe genuine Heavies he fought, such as Ruhlin and Sharkey, were good operators, but I don't really see a genuinely great Heavyweight, or even a historically 'excellent' one, on his ledger, save for an old and inactive Jackson.

Certainly a fine, fine Heavyweight champion, but I do think that my top five placing for him may be a little generous.

Guess the only defence that could be put forward for the Fitz performance Chris is Jeff challenged the for the title in something like his 13th fight so was very much a work in progress, given Fitz was about as fine a boxer as was around in the era we can perhaps forgive him spending a few rounds chasing shadows. There is plenty to suggest that Jeff learned and learned quick to the extent that the round by round reports have him outboxing Corbett for large periods second time round.

Good points again, Jeff. Will certainly be interesting when I get round to taking a proper look at him again to see where he should stand. Lots of small issues to consider!

some decent debate on here.

I think the deal with lewis is that he saw himself as a strategist (all that chess rubbish he'd talk), he'd pick a way to beat a fighter and stick to his plan, sometimes that meant bombing them out in exciting fashion, sometimes that meant boringly plodding to a points decision.

I'm not convinced he had that real fighting instinct, and he was certainly guilty of underpreparing at times and losing concentration. When focussed and committed he was some fighter though. To not have him in your top 15 is frankly ludicrous and to me he's nailed on top 10.

Also i'm not sure how many of his fellow top 10, i'd pick to beat him head to head.

i'm a little suspicious of claims that fighters fight down to their opponents from time to time... i'm not sure that's

Chasing pack for me:

1 Ali
2 Louis
3== Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Dempsey
7== Tyson, Marciano, Jeffries, Liston, Frazier, Lewis

Head to head I think Lewis would be very vulnerable to Foreman, Tyson and Dempsey early and think Ali and Holmes would outpoint him on close but clear UDs. Unsure about rest (except Marciano who I cannot truthfully see him losing to).

Cannot see how he is below top 15 by any measure.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Agree with Rodders... He is a good fighter but was always prone to the odd mistake. Getting ko'd by average fighters like Rahman and McCall doesnt happen to top level fighters. People bang on about him being lazy, not something I buy in to if i'm honest. He turned up for a fight and lost, end of.

Top15/20.

Henry cooper was domestic. He was a second away from ko'ing the greatest. No good having one argument for one.......

There have been a couple of mentions of Ali Cooper thus far and do think a couple of key differences need pointing out re this and Lewis’ unfortunate losses. The first and most obvious is Cooper only came close to knocking Ali out or stopping him, world of difference between coming close to doing something and actually achieving it. The second thing is Ali’s near miss came in his pre title days when he was still a work in progress and errors are a little more inevitable and forgivable. Lewis was in both occasions a reigning world champion and certainly in the case of Rahman was slap bang in the middle of what most everyone would consider his prime.

Realise I am not telling anyone anything they do not already know here but do feel they need pointing out as the comparison is only valid to a point when one considers these factors to my thinking.