Lennox Lewis - Convince Me

First topic message reminder :

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.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

two_tone wrote:Lordy, anybody else Bordy of Gordy?

I was but were it not for him we would have not got to enjoy your clever little word play, seems a small price to pay to me.

Do you remember my 'terrific triumvirate of tossers' effort?

Much better than Lordy, Bordy of Gordy. No offense two_tone, old buddy.

Yes I do remember it Tina, it was brilliant (so needy)

rowley wrote:(so needy)

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:Right firstly I don't consider the McCall stoppage premature, have seen some fighters be allowed to continue in that condition, however and more importantly have seen a damned sight more stopped so given that Lewis has no cause to complain.

Secondly to put my moderators hat on accusing a referee of taking a bribe without evidence is libel (if it is slander feel free not to point it out to me I am not a lawyer) and as such is illegal, so it stops and stops now. If you want to say the stoppage is premature feel free, anything more than that needs either supporting with proof or stops now.

Right first time Rowley. Slander is the spoken word, libel is the written word. Both are two syllabuls however therefore beyond Gordy's comprehension.

*syllables

Gordy, if Wigan beat Man City 1-0 early in the season and then Man City beat Wigan 2-0 later in the season, should Wigan's three points from earlier be wiped off?

88Chris05 wrote:I suspect a lot of people are, two_tone. Mind you, I have to admit that his "the first McCall fight should be recorded as a win for Lewis" line was a zinger.

Very True Chris, to some rehashing old ground about how Lewis is the best and most experty expert may be getting tired but I like to look on it as like watching Sugar Ray Robinson in his middleweight days, you know you are watching a pale imitation of him at his welterweight best and his early days but if you are willing to show some patience it will be rewarded, those who stuck with Ray got the Fulmer knockout we got McCall one should be recorded as a win.

88Chris05 wrote:I suspect a lot of people are, two_tone. Mind you, I have to admit that his "the first McCall fight should be recorded as a win for Lewis" line was a zinger.

I enjoyed that one I must admit, but you do have to trawl through a lot of tedious nonsense to find the odd gem. I didn't realise until today he is spreading his wisdom on the other boards now too, check out the Athletics/Olympics boards if you still enjoying his ramblings.

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Not really, saying I have my doubts the fight was on the level is perfectly acceptable, saying the ref probably took a bribe isn't , not particularly difficult.

Ok well the first fight with McCall "I have my doubts was on the level"!

Maybe if the ref didn't have to prop Lewis up he could have continued.

And no such thing as a lucky punch in boxing. Rahman went in with a plan to take him out, executed it well. Just because he was behind does not mean it was lucky. If that is the case then Lewis was also lucky against Vit.

I fear this may fall on deaf ears.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:Right firstly I don't consider the McCall stoppage premature, have seen some fighters be allowed to continue in that condition, however and more importantly have seen a damned sight more stopped so given that Lewis has no cause to complain.

Secondly to put my moderators hat on accusing a referee of taking a bribe without evidence is libel (if it is slander feel free not to point it out to me I am not a lawyer) and as such is illegal, so it stops and stops now. If you want to say the stoppage is premature feel free, anything more than that needs either supporting with proof or stops now.

Right first time Rowley. Slander is the spoken word, libel is the written word. Both are two syllabuls however therefore beyond Gordy's comprehension.

*syllables

Gordy, if Wigan beat Man City 1-0 early in the season and then Man City beat Wigan 2-0 later in the season, should Wigan's three points from earlier be wiped off?

Darn it. Wasn't sure and even ran it through spell-checker and it wasn't flagged! Humph

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Not really, saying I have my doubts the fight was on the level is perfectly acceptable, saying the ref probably took a bribe isn't , not particularly difficult.

Ok well the first fight with McCall "I have my doubts was on the level"!

Maybe if the ref didn't have to prop Lewis up he could have continued.

And no such thing as a lucky punch in boxing. Rahman went in with a plan to take him out, executed it well. Just because he was behind does not mean it was lucky. If that is the case then Lewis was also lucky against Vit.

I fear this may fall on deaf ears.

The ears are fine, it's the bit between them that Gordy's lacking.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:Right firstly I don't consider the McCall stoppage premature, have seen some fighters be allowed to continue in that condition, however and more importantly have seen a damned sight more stopped so given that Lewis has no cause to complain.

Secondly to put my moderators hat on accusing a referee of taking a bribe without evidence is libel (if it is slander feel free not to point it out to me I am not a lawyer) and as such is illegal, so it stops and stops now. If you want to say the stoppage is premature feel free, anything more than that needs either supporting with proof or stops now.

Right first time Rowley. Slander is the spoken word, libel is the written word. Both are two syllabuls however therefore beyond Gordy's comprehension.

*syllables

Gordy, if Wigan beat Man City 1-0 early in the season and then Man City beat Wigan 2-0 later in the season, should Wigan's three points from earlier be wiped off?

Only if Don King was involved.

rowley wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I suspect a lot of people are, two_tone. Mind you, I have to admit that his "the first McCall fight should be recorded as a win for Lewis" line was a zinger.

Very True Chris, to some rehashing old ground about how Lewis is the best and most experty expert may be getting tired but I like to look on it as like watching Sugar Ray Robinson in his middleweight days, you know you are watching a pale imitation of him at his welterweight best and his early days but if you are willing to show some patience it will be rewarded, those who stuck with Ray got the Fulmer knockout we got McCall one should be recorded as a win.

"If you want the rainbow, you've got to put up with the rain."

Dolly Parton.

88Chris05 wrote:

rowley wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I suspect a lot of people are, two_tone. Mind you, I have to admit that his "the first McCall fight should be recorded as a win for Lewis" line was a zinger.

Very True Chris, to some rehashing old ground about how Lewis is the best and most experty expert may be getting tired but I like to look on it as like watching Sugar Ray Robinson in his middleweight days, you know you are watching a pale imitation of him at his welterweight best and his early days but if you are willing to show some patience it will be rewarded, those who stuck with Ray got the Fulmer knockout we got McCall one should be recorded as a win.

"If you want the rainbow, you've got to put up with the rain."

Dolly Parton.

Chris, I'm willing to bet my life's savings that you learnt that from The Office!

Gialloblu, your life savings are very much safe!

88Chris05 wrote:Gialloblu, your life savings are very much safe!

You'd have only got my wages from last month anyway mate!

And people say she's just a big pair of t!ts.

I like Gordy's new method of recording victories. It's highly subjective and very creative.

Chris, as a fan of Bruno, you'll be pleased to note that no one can be in any doubt that the Lewis / Bruno fight should be recorded as a win for big Frank.

Lewis taking a bit of a beating before one lucky punch out of nowhere, followed by an outrageously premature stoppage! Frank was not even CLOSE to hitting the canvas!

TRUSS will also be pleased as it now means that Curry actually beat McCall, and I'm happy because Nunn beat Toney.

This is great!

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

two_tone wrote:Lordy, anybody else Bordy of Gordy?

I was but were it not for him we would have not got to enjoy your clever little word play, seems a small price to pay to me.

Do you remember my 'terrific triumvirate of tossers' effort?

Much better than Lordy, Bordy of Gordy. No offense two_tone, old buddy.

We could put it to a vote but I would rather spare your feelings Tina.

You're all heart.

alma wrote:Big frank spent his whole career propped up against the ropes didn't he?

All premature. Frank beat Tyson. Ask Don King.

Gentleman01 wrote:I like Gordy's new method of recording victories. It's highly subjective and very creative.

Chris, as a fan of Bruno, you'll be pleased to note that no one can be in any doubt that the Lewis / Bruno fight should be recorded as a win for big Frank.

Lewis taking a bit of a beating before one lucky punch out of nowhere, followed by an outrageously premature stoppage! Frank was not even CLOSE to hitting the canvas!

TRUSS will also be pleased as it now means that Curry actually beat McCall, and I'm happy because Nunn beat Toney.

This is great!

To be honest Gent once you get your head round the basic premises and turn the odd blind eye here and there to the odd glitch in the system there is a lot to love about it. As we all pretty much accept when it comes to experty experts Joe Louis is about the best of the lot because George Foreman is an experty expert and he said Joe Louis is the best so that must mean Joe Louis is probably the biggest experty expert and Joe Louis said Charley Burley was the best fighter in the world, given he is the worlds biggest experty expert this is obviously true, also his loss to Zivic can be changed to a win because it was a robbery. Am still fairly sure there will be a reason I can ignore the Charles losses if I think about it a bit more, given this Burley is pretty much the best fighter in the world and unbeaten

And Amir Khan beat Garcia. Was on his feet and ready to continue.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:One of his losses was just a licky punch which can happen in the heavy weight division, the other was another lucky punch and also him being over confident. The fact that he avenged both defeats in fine fashion as you also pointed out should prove it.

Yep, McCall and Rahman were extremely licky to land those right hands. I mean, imagine aiming a punch at another boxers chin and actually connecting. Amazing stuff.

And in he rematch they obviously did not want to be mean and do it again..

With your logic if a fighter under performs and looses then has another go and demolishes the fighter winning every round before knocking hem out and stopping them, then going on to beat better fighters, we still still judge them on the losses..

Did these two fighters discover blue print in beating Lewis? Yeah right, in the heavyweight game one punch can win a fight but not create a legacy ..tell me, if it was their boxing ability that beat Lewis, then what happened to it in the rematch? And why did they not go on to do as well as Lewis?, i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

This thread has brightened up my dreary day, thanks guys. Even Gordy.

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

rowley wrote:quote]To be honest Gent once you get your head round the basic premises and turn the odd blind eye here and there to the odd glitch in the system there is a lot to love about it. As we all pretty much accept when it comes to experty experts Joe Louis is about the best of the lot because George Foreman is an experty expert and he said Joe Louis is the best so that must mean Joe Louis is probably the biggest experty expert and Joe Louis said Charley Burley was the best fighter in the world, given he is the worlds biggest experty expert this is obviously true, also his loss to Zivic can be changed to a win because it was a robbery. Am still fairly sure there will be a reason I can ignore the Charles losses if I think about it a bit more, given this Burley is pretty much the best fighter in the world and unbeaten

That's the spirit Jeff

It's all about creativity. Using the criteria available (super experty experty expert opinions, Don King, lucky punches, premature stoppages, etc.) I am confident that you will be able to find many reasons why Burley's losses to Charles are actually victories.

A real challenge though, would be to take someone like Ike Quartey and, by applying the available criteria, construct an argument which makes him, unequivocally the greatest boxer of all time.

I am sure it can be done.

I never revisit Lewis's fights because I just found him a boring fighter to watch, just as I wouldn't want to watch a Klitschko fight again to be honest.

Wladimir and Lennox may be boring... not Vitali.

azania wrote:

superflyweight wrote:What adjectives, Az?

Same challenge to you as others - name a dozen fighters who deserve to be ahead of Lewis.

Come on Supes. Read all responses about Gordy. He was not even in the trhead yet he was being mentioned in a less than nice tones. He has been called a flat out idiot, fool and more. He has his opinion. I dont agree with him but do not insult hm in the manner many do. As I said, if others were getting the type of abuse he gets, they would be banned.

The idiotic (yes my insults) grammer police always come out and criticise his use of words. Big freaking deal. Too many closet Tories trying to be too clever and arrogant.

Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Holy
Foreman
Liston
Frazier
Johnsonm
Dempsey
Jeffo
Charles
Louis

Should I continue?

I'd put Lewis slightly ahead of Wlad.

What is the basis that they rank ahead?

Given its azania's list, Holyfield is very uncontroversial. Its more the names of Charles and Jeffries in particular that surprise me. Im curious as to why these two feature above Lewis and Wlad.

It is pretty obvious Lewis has a better record at heavy than Holy, but Az couldnt argue with people if he just agreed.

Blooming heck, nearly 200 comments for one of my threads, this is nose bleed territory for me, only one thing for it, the colour line greats series is coming back. I'll be back in single figures soon enough

tunes666 wrote:

With your logic if a fighter under performs and looses then has another go and demolishes the fighter winning every round before knocking hem out and stopping them, then going on to beat better fighters, we still still judge them on the losses..

Did these two fighters discover blue print in beating Lewis? Yeah right, in the heavyweight game one punch can win a fight but not create a legacy ..tell me, if it was their boxing ability that beat Lewis, then what happened to it in the rematch? And why did they not go on to do as well as Lewis?, i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Nope, I was just pointing out that they were not licky punches. McCall and Rahman accomplished what they set out to do. I think you'll actually find I have been pretty supportive of Lewis on this thread, I just took umbrage at your silly description of them as licky punches. But, don't let the truth get in the way of one of your superduper stories.

alma wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Given its azania's list, Holyfield is very uncontroversial. Its more the names of Charles and Jeffries in particular that surprise me. Im curious as to why these two feature above Lewis and Wlad.

well you'd know more about those guys than me manos, but from what I understand their achievements and longevity at heavyweight wouldn't stand up to Lewis's

Its just that on another thread azania established his basis for ranking fighters was essentially on how good he percieved them to be or how they would fare in head to heads which eliminates things like longetiviy or acheivement.

Using this criteria, I would be very much surprised if azania felt that Jeffries would beat either Wlad or Lewis head to head or have anything near the kind of technical ability they possess. Charles was easily a better fighter overall than both but at heavyweight he just wasnt the same force and his chances of beating either Wlad or Lewis given he was both past his best and conceding massive size would be unlikely I think.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

With your logic if a fighter under performs and looses then has another go and demolishes the fighter winning every round before knocking hem out and stopping them, then going on to beat better fighters, we still still judge them on the losses..

Did these two fighters discover blue print in beating Lewis? Yeah right, in the heavyweight game one punch can win a fight but not create a legacy ..tell me, if it was their boxing ability that beat Lewis, then what happened to it in the rematch? And why did they not go on to do as well as Lewis?, i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Nope, I was just pointing out that they were not licky punches. McCall and Rahman accomplished what they set out to do. I think you'll actually find I have been pretty supportive of Lewis on this thread, I just took umbrage at your silly description of them as licky punches. But, don't let the truth get in the way of one of your superduper stories.

i'd agree, they landed on the lips, but nothing licky about them.

rowley, is a man of your gifts not a little ashamed at resorting to wum baiting threads to court popularity? You might cut a lonely figure on your bmr threads, but you do so with your integrity intact

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

tunes666 wrote:

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

Did McCall have his "eyes on the road" in the rematch?

...more of a river than a road in the rematch jack. No excuse though, not like he used them to win the first fight.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

With your logic if a fighter under performs and looses then has another go and demolishes the fighter winning every round before knocking hem out and stopping them, then going on to beat better fighters, we still still judge them on the losses..

Did these two fighters discover blue print in beating Lewis? Yeah right, in the heavyweight game one punch can win a fight but not create a legacy ..tell me, if it was their boxing ability that beat Lewis, then what happened to it in the rematch? And why did they not go on to do as well as Lewis?, i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Nope, I was just pointing out that they were not licky punches. McCall and Rahman accomplished what they set out to do. I think you'll actually find I have been pretty supportive of Lewis on this thread, I just took umbrage at your silly description of them as licky punches. But, don't let the truth get in the way of one of your superduper stories.

I guess its a case of how you define a lucky punch. Ok i dont think they were trying to catch a fly and caught Lewis. They were trying to hit him as all boxers do.

For me what defines as lucky is not that one boxer puts a good game plan down finds openings and lands a good punches as thats good tactical boxing. There is a saying in boxing where a guy has "a punchers chance" and this means hey hit hard and if the other guy makes a mistake, slips or if you throw enough punches guessing and taking chances knowing you might get knocked out but might also get lucky, then its a lottery punch and people do this when they know its their best chance. This is also more likely if the other guy comes into the fight not fully focused.

They did not outbox lewis, he just looked sloppy and not his usual self, and then bang. Credit to the other guy for doing what he could. But it was not a blue print, it was relying on lewis not being on his game. This is why we see rematches. Why did they not land a punch in the second fights??

tunes666 wrote:

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe or even Douglas could all argue the same thing. The two stand out performances from the 1990 decade were probably Douglas over Tyson and Bowe over Holyfield.

Lewis has more than a good enough argument to say he was the best of his era but I dont think its clear cut due to the overlap between peaks of the big players involved. Tyson and Lewis were almost 15 years apart in peaks. The only point I could say for sure Lewis was the best heavyweight was around 1999 onwards.

tunes666 wrote:

For me what defines as lucky is not that one boxer puts a good game plan down finds openings and lands a good punches as thats good tactical boxing.

McCall pretty much explained how he was going to beat Lewis before the fight?

tunes666 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

With your logic if a fighter under performs and looses then has another go and demolishes the fighter winning every round before knocking hem out and stopping them, then going on to beat better fighters, we still still judge them on the losses..

Did these two fighters discover blue print in beating Lewis? Yeah right, in the heavyweight game one punch can win a fight but not create a legacy ..tell me, if it was their boxing ability that beat Lewis, then what happened to it in the rematch? And why did they not go on to do as well as Lewis?, i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Nope, I was just pointing out that they were not licky punches. McCall and Rahman accomplished what they set out to do. I think you'll actually find I have been pretty supportive of Lewis on this thread, I just took umbrage at your silly description of them as licky punches. But, don't let the truth get in the way of one of your superduper stories.

I guess its a case of how you define a lucky punch. Ok i dont think they were trying to catch a fly and caught Lewis. They were trying to hit him as all boxers do.

For me what defines as lucky is not that one boxer puts a good game plan down finds openings and lands a good punches as thats good tactical boxing. There is a saying in boxing where a guy has "a punchers chance" and this means hey hit hard and if the other guy makes a mistake, slips or if you throw enough punches guessing and taking chances knowing you might get knocked out but might also get lucky, then its a lottery punch and people do this when they know its their best chance. This is also more likely if the other guy comes into the fight not fully focused.

They did not outbox lewis, he just looked sloppy and not his usual self, and then bang. Credit to the other guy for doing what he could. But it was not a blue print, it was relying on lewis not being on his game. This is why we see rematches. Why did they not land a punch in the second fights??

McCall did outbox Lewis in my opinion. He saw exactly the vulnerability Lewis had and nailed him on it. He called it out perfectly to his corner in between rounds. The rematch was hardly decisive stuff either considering Lewis basically waited for the ref to stop a man having a nervous breakdown in the ring.

Rahman, fair enough, it was sloppy. But whats to stop Rahman from claiming he wasnt fully focused or prepared in the rematch? Certainly McCall would have more than a say in that regard. However underprepared or sloppy Lewis may have been I dont think its up there witht hte kind of mental state McCall was coming into the ring with.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

For me what defines as lucky is not that one boxer puts a good game plan down finds openings and lands a good punches as thats good tactical boxing.

McCall pretty much explained how he was going to beat Lewis before the fight?

Tino, I'm confused (again). Is that a question or a statement? Did he explain that he was going to knock out Lewis (or other euphemism thereof) or are you asking?

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

superflyweight wrote:What adjectives, Az?

Same challenge to you as others - name a dozen fighters who deserve to be ahead of Lewis.

Come on Supes. Read all responses about Gordy. He was not even in the trhead yet he was being mentioned in a less than nice tones. He has been called a flat out idiot, fool and more. He has his opinion. I dont agree with him but do not insult hm in the manner many do. As I said, if others were getting the type of abuse he gets, they would be banned.

The idiotic (yes my insults) grammer police always come out and criticise his use of words. Big freaking deal. Too many closet Tories trying to be too clever and arrogant.

Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Holy
Foreman
Liston
Frazier
Johnsonm
Dempsey
Jeffo
Charles
Louis

Should I continue?

I'd put Lewis slightly ahead of Wlad.

What is the basis that they rank ahead?

now watch Az completely contradict himself........

bhb001 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

For me what defines as lucky is not that one boxer puts a good game plan down finds openings and lands a good punches as thats good tactical boxing.

McCall pretty much explained how he was going to beat Lewis before the fight?

Tino, I'm confused (again). Is that a question or a statement? Did he explain that he was going to knock out Lewis (or other euphemism thereof) or are you asking?

Statement with a question mark on the end Mr bhb, Sir. He had alluded to Lewis being wide open when he threw his big right hand and then executed his plan to counter it.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

Did McCall have his "eyes on the road" in the rematch?

Maybe not but he lost the rematch and lewis won the rematch and went on to be UD champ. McCall got out pointed by Bruno..

Lewis beat better fighters than McCall and beat McCall, but we should focus on one punch by McCall?

Thanks for the clarification, Tino.

There is no doubting Lewis was a class act, but his career will always be tainged by the fact (honestly Gordy, I looked it up on bixing recs and everythin) that he lost to two ordinary boxers. You can excuse one, but two!! It's fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, then you're a politician (or something like that).

bhb001 wrote:Thanks for the clarification, Tino.

.

You're welcome. I have actually thought of a really good name for a statement with a question mark at the end.....a station.

You can thank me later.

tunes666 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

Did McCall have his "eyes on the road" in the rematch?

Maybe not but he lost the rematch and lewis won the rematch and went on to be UD champ. McCall got out pointed by Bruno..

Lewis beat better fighters than McCall and beat McCall, but we should focus on one punch by McCall?

I depends on where you are coming from. If the argument is who is better between Lewis/McCall/Rahman then Im sure everyone agrees that Lewis is clearly better notwithstanding the losses.

But the original post is where Lewis stands next to the best heavyweights of all time. The margins are quite fine at that level so the losses to McCall and Rahman carry quite a bit of emphasis for many in terms of where abouts he places in that kind of company. I, personally for example cant place Lewis in the top 5 heavies of all time in large part due to those losses.

I don't think anyone is focussing solely on one punch landed by McCall, or even one punch landed by Rahman. I think that most people tend to focus, not on one thing when assessing a fighters career, but rather take in to consideration all factors.

In Lewis's case, losing twice to fighters who have no business kayoing a HoF all-time great (you said yourself, McCall lost to Bruno) is definitely a factor to be considered when assessing his standing.

To my mind, whilst Lewis is still a clear top 10 man in my book, the losses hurt him pretty badly. Particularly the Rahman loss, as I really don't rate Hasim.

How do you rank the top 10 heavyweights of all time?
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Joe Frazier
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Evander Holyfield

The above listing is Dan Rafael's listing, currently on the EPSN website. Dan's a guy who can get the scoop, but can't say I have much respect for Dan's opinion in general, and his top 10 seems a bit off to me, unfortunatly it doesn't come with his reasoning. I am suprised he rates Lennox so high, thought he'd have have Tyson in there somewhere, maintaining his general US bias.

I actually wouldn't take too large an exception to Rafael's list, the odd quibble aside. Dempsey, as he often is, is too high for my liking (if I give him a top ten spot it's usually begrudgingly). Holyfield, too, is probably flattered by a top ten spot, fine fighter and champion though he was. Apart from that, I think he has most of the right names in a pretty sensible order.

I think Holyfield should be knocked out in favour of Tyson (Mike not Fury ... yet). Lewis is too high for me, as I have said previously, but understand why he is rated by lots of people whose opinion I generally respect, so wouldn't argue to move him too hard!!

I'd be happy with Dempsey 6 - 10, Can't see Holyfield in the top 10, I'd have Lewis knocking on the door outside of number 10, That would find me a home for Jeffries and Liston.