Most overrated HW of all time.

[Lostmykeys]

For me I would have to say Jack Johnson.

All film I have seen of him has been terrible, lacked offense and defense consisted of holding excessively.

His competition wasn't great, fighting middleweights. And he had many losses near the end of his career.

Despite this i've seen people rate him as high as third on top HW lists.

[Muchmoore]

For me it's clearly Marciano.

How so? I'm guessing that you think Marciano fought mostly over the hill bums. Manassa wrote an article about Marciano that is great and he mostly writes about how under rated Marcianos oppontants are. I dont know where to find it though.

[Lostmykeys]

The rules back then were different, alot of it had to do with clinching and things of that nature. He was great for his time, obviously he wasn't as skilled as the guys of the modern era. Don't be a fool.

For me it's clearly Marciano.
That's what i'm saying though. His skills wouldn't allow him to hang head to head with the top heavies. And his legacy was lacking but you still see people ranking him highly as an ATG HW.

[Muchmoore]

For me, both of the Klitschkos. They are decent fighters but in head to head matchups they get WAY too much over rated.

[McGrain]

For me I would have to say Jack Johnson.

Perhaps you meant to call this thread "underated"?!

All film I have seen of him has been terrible, lacked offense and defense consisted of holding excessively.

I'd say his defencive infighing is the greatest ever. He attacked of his defence (generally speaking) which made him a deceptivley dangerous fighter. He was also a very strong one.

The holding you're refering to was very much a part of the mindset of the day.

His competition wasn't great, fighting middleweights. And he had many losses near the end of his career.

His competition as linear champ wasn't great. His competition as black champ and challenger is up there - most fighters had losses near the end of their careers, Johnsons went on much longer than mosts.

Despite this i've seen people rate him as high as third on top HW lists.

I have him at four.

I agree with Sweet Pea, Marciano. Just on the numbers. A great fighter, I have him at 13, many guys have him top three, some at one.

[McGrain]

That's what i'm saying though. His skills wouldn't allow him to hang head to head with the top heavies. And his legacy was lacking but you still see people ranking him highly as an ATG HW.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Here's what I think Johnson has going fo him in the head to head department.

Best ring general of all time at heavyweight - only Ali competes in this area.

Great reactions. There are videos of him on youtube, you should look them up, he's openly compared to Ali in this department.

Very strong. As much as most of the others I would suggest.

Mentally strong. Never flustered.

For some of the above reasons he would need to be solved "in the ring". Sparring would be no use - that hamstrings some from the get go, the great Joe Louis included. I'd pick Jack to beat Joe head to head.

[McGrain]

For me, both of the Klitschkos. They are decent fighters but in head to head matchups they get WAY too much over rated.


Good call!

[hopkinsfan07]

For me it's clearly Marciano.

so beating Archie Moore ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Jersey Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Harry 'Kid' Matthews ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Joe Louis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) and Roland LaStarza ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) are not good fighters Rocky fought some of the best in his era

[hopkinsfan07]

Perhaps you meant to call this thread "underated"?!



I'd say his defencive infighing is the greatest ever. He attacked of his defence (generally speaking) which made him a deceptivley dangerous fighter. He was also a very strong one.

The holding you're refering to was very much a part of the mindset of the day.



His competition as linear champ wasn't great. His competition as black champ and challenger is up there - most fighters had losses near the end of their careers, Johnsons went on much longer than mosts.



I have him at four.

I agree with Sweet Pea, Marciano. Just on the numbers. A great fighter, I have him at 13, many guys have him top three, some at one.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Here's what I think Johnson has going fo him in the head to head department.

Best ring general of all time at heavyweight - only Ali competes in this area.

Great reactions. There are videos of him on youtube, you should look them up, he's openly compared to Ali in this department.

Very strong. As much as most of the others I would suggest.

Mentally strong. Never flustered.

For some of the above reasons he would need to be solved "in the ring". Sparring would be no use - that hamstrings some from the get go, the great Joe Louis included. I'd pick Jack to beat Joe head to head.

i very much agree with you accept the bit at the end i would pick joe louis but that just my personal opinion

[McGrain]

Any fighter can be torn down or overrated with the right spin.

However, the most overrated fighter of all time and i know this will hurt many people on here was Mike Tyson.

Here is a brave and righteous man!

[hopkinsfan07]

Any fighter can be torn down or overrated with the right spin.

However, the most overrated fighter of all time and i know this will hurt many people on here was Mike Tyson.


Not in the sense that he was a shitty mediocare fighter cause he wasnt.

Tyson had alot of great accomplishments as a pro (Spinks, Holmes, Berbick, just off the top of my head. All terrific wins) however the problem is since he was so popular people got it into their heads that he was invincible.

So much so that they made him think that and made this media machine out of him and forgot about the sport.

That shit ruined him.

Case in point: As good as Tyson was he could never dance at all.
A guy with that much good foot movement should have rightly been taught to
be a better defensive fighter.

This is why any time he got downed he stayed down.

i agree he is overated not the most overated but still i think hes isent a top ten heavyweight

[TBooze]

The most underrated/overrated heavy of all time is Tyson.

#2 overated is Mr President...

[Marnoff]

The most underrated/overrated heavy of all time is Tyson.

I think that is a good way to put it.

[Muchmoore]

I'm thinking he fought some good fighters, a few(Charles, Moore, Louis) were great at one point but not when they fought each other, and a few other decent fighters, not really the stuff of a top HW, but due to his record and achievements he gains a spot in the top 10. No significant problem with that, but when people start talking top5 and Greatest is where it gets ridiculous.

You have him in the top ten, and very few people rank Marciano in the top 2 of all time and say hes the greatest. People ranking him top 5 isnt much different than you having him top ten. Its not over rating Marciano that much.

[robert ungurean]

Lennox Lewis without question!!!

[Muchmoore]

Lennox Lewis without question!!!

Lewis was a 3 time champion who had 14 title defenses. He beat names like Tua, Holyfield, Mercer, Rahman, Klitschko, McCall, Briggs, Tyson. He is a lock for the top ten of all time, and most people dont think he is the best ever or anything.

[McGrain]

Lewis was a 3 time champion who had 14 title defenses. He beat names like Tua, Holyfield, Mercer, Rahman, Klitschko, McCall, Briggs, Tyson. He is a lock for the top ten of all time, and most people dont think he is the best ever or anything.

Lewis would be a handful for everyone who every put gloves on.

[TBooze]

Lewis was a 3 time champion.

Leiws was three time title holder, two time Champion as Mr Ali will point out as the only three time champ, there is a big, big difference!

[Muchmoore]

Leiws was three time title holder, two time Champion as Mr Ali will point out as the only three time champ, there is a big, big difference!

Ok 2 time champion :lol:

[TBooze]

Ok 2 time champion :lol:

Thank you;)

[Duodenum]

Lennox Lewis without question!!!Agreed. A true ATG HW champion does not lose his title in the prime of his career to a single punch early in a title defense from a mediocre challenger. It didn't happen to Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali, or any other prominent champion in the division's history, except Lennox Lewis, and it happened to Lewis not once, but twice. (Where Floyd Patterson is concerned, Ingo and Liston both needed considerably more than one punch to dethrone him. Rachman and McCall are not in the same class as Ingo and Sonny.) Yes, Lennox may have been the best of his day, but an ATG? He invites comparisons to Big John Tate, moreso than the HW division's true elite. (Except that it took Weaver and Berbick several more rounds to eliminate Tate than it took McCall and Rachman to take out Lewis.)

[Muchmoore]

[quote=Duodenum](Where Floyd Patterson is concerned, Ingo and Liston both needed considerably more than one punch to dethrone him. Rachman and McCall are not in the same class as Ingo and Sonny.) quote]

It's better to be taken out with fluke punches when you are young or out of shape, then get beat down while in your prime and bringing a disguise to fights so when you lose no one will recognize you.

[Muchmoore]

Agreed. A true ATG HW champion does not lose his title in the prime of his career to a single punch early in a title defense from a mediocre challenger. It didn't happen to Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali, or any other prominent champion in the division's history, except Lennox Lewis, and it happened to Lewis not once, but twice. (Where Floyd Patterson is concerned, Ingo and Liston both needed considerably more than one punch to dethrone him. Rachman and McCall are not in the same class as Ingo and Sonny.) Yes, Lennox may have been the best of his day, but an ATG? He invites comparisons to Big John Tate, moreso than the HW division's true elite. (Except that it took Weaver and Berbick several more rounds to eliminate Tate than it took McCall and Rachman to take out Lewis.)

Also, does Tate have anywhere CLOSE to the resume that Lewis has?

You are taking Lewis' worst fights and saying that he isnt great just because of them. Do you ignore the rest of his career?

[Zakman]

Lennox Lewis - only top level ATG HW to get starched in the early rounds by second-rate HWs when he held the title. THe ONLY one.

[robert ungurean]

I really dont care what L.Lewis stats are, I just think he's overrated and doesnt belong in the all time greats when it comes to HW Champions.
Just my oppinion.

[Zakman]

Agreed. A true ATG HW champion does not lose his title in the prime of his career to a single punch early in a title defense from a mediocre challenger. It didn't happen to Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali, or any other prominent champion in the division's history, except Lennox Lewis, and it happened to Lewis not once, but twice. (Where Floyd Patterson is concerned, Ingo and Liston both needed considerably more than one punch to dethrone him. Rachman and McCall are not in the same class as Ingo and Sonny.) Yes, Lennox may have been the best of his day, but an ATG? He invites comparisons to Big John Tate, moreso than the HW division's true elite. (Except that it took Weaver and Berbick several more rounds to eliminate Tate than it took McCall and Rachman to take out Lewis.)

Subperb post. You have really captured just how overrated Lewis is. I love the john Tate comparison, btw - kind of what Rahman did to him. And Rahman was no Mike Weaver either.

[Duodenum]

SO what? He avenged both losses by stoppage and and had a great resume, and when he was at his best was among the top HW's head to head of all time. It was clear against Rahman in the first fight that he wasn't at his best, and he got up from the McCall knockdown, the ref decided to call it off. He avenged the losses, proving they were nothing but flukes. You have never even come close to convincing anyone that he is overrated or that those losses prove anything, at all.Once is a fluke. Twice is a pattern. Lennox would have lost Larry Holmes's title defenses to Weaver, Shavers, Snipes and Witherspoon. Larry would have gotten off the deck against Rachman and McCall, won the remainder of those rounds, and then taken them out. (And in McCall's first match after starching Lennox, old fat Larry Holmes very nearly did dethrone McCall. Old fat Larry Holmes was also far better against undefeated Ray Mercer than Lennox was later.)

[McGrain]

Lennox would have lost Larry Holmes's title defenses to Weaver, Shavers, Snipes and Witherspoon.


That's a pretty hefty claim friend.

[Muchmoore]

Once is a fluke. Twice is a pattern. Lennox would have lost Larry Holmes's title defenses to Weaver, Shavers, Snipes and Witherspoon. Larry would have gotten off the deck against Rachman and McCall, won the remainder of those rounds, and then taken them out. (And in McCall's first match after starching Lennox, old fat Larry Holmes very nearly did dethrone McCall. Old fat Larry Holmes was also far better against undefeated Ray Mercer than Lennox was later.)

Mercer completely overlooked Holmes and thought he would steamroll him. He wasnt in good shape, while when he fought Lewis, he was in great shape and it was his peak performance.

[Duodenum]

VERY! And I bet you Lewis wouldn't be losing twice to Spinks either.Nor did Holmes, except in the very questionable minds of the judges. (I won't discuss Holyfield/Lewis.)

[Zakman]

SO what? He avenged both losses by stoppage and and had a great resume, and when he was at his best was among the top HW's head to head of all time. It was clear against Rahman in the first fight that he wasn't at his best, and he got up from the McCall knockdown, the ref decided to call it off. He avenged the losses, proving they were nothing but flukes. You have never even come close to convincing anyone that he is overrated or that those losses prove anything, at all.

Excuses, excuses. Why is it that SO many excuses have to made to justify his "greatness??" He wasn't prepared. He wasn't at his best! The ref called it off to quick. He "avenged" the losses (big deal, the greats don't get starched in the first place by second raters TWICE). And his victory over mental cripple McCall isn't all that impressive anyway. C'mon. This guy is the most overrated top line champ ever. The greats don't get laid out TWICE by B-level fighters. Period.

[Russell]

Lewis really didn't avenge his loss to McCall, sadly. He "beat" a drug addled ffight who had been dragged out of drug rehab.

I like Lewis, just saying.

[Greg T Loepp]

Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes,
Both products of a a very weak division (and still lost)

[Robbi]

Joe Frazier. He was great, but his record doesn't impress me that much. Apart from beating a close to his prime Ali, he never had much longetivity, and proved nothing after Foreman handed him a lesson.

Frazier's legacy lives off his trilogy with Ali. While Ali has other impressive wins apart beating Frazier twice. Liston, Foreman, Norton, and beating Spinks at the age of 36 when past his prime. Its all about coming back and proving the doubters wrong, and Frazier does not impress me in that regard.

[McGrain]

Excuses, excuses. Why is it that SO many excuses have to made to justify his "greatness??" He wasn't prepared. He wasn't at his best! The ref called it off to quick. He "avenged" the losses (big deal, the greats don't get starched in the first place by second raters TWICE). And his victory over mental cripple McCall isn't all that impressive anyway. C'mon. This guy is the most overrated top line champ ever. The greats don't get laid out TWICE by B-level fighters. Period.


No excuses are neccesary. Lewis had a couple of serious weaknesses that were exploited by good opposition. Those very good fighters he took on were not able to beat him.

He beat every fighter he ever faced.

There is no heavyweight, ever, who would have an easy evening with him. At all.

If that isn't your cup of tea, that's OK, but to answer a few of your points:

The ref didn't stop the McCall fight to quickly. But many of the fighters he's compared to (i'd say Jeffreis through to Holmes) would have been allowed to continue under similair circumstances in their own eras.

Lewis' weakenss SPECIFICALLY allows for lesser fighters to beat him. That is his specific problem, make of that what you will.

Lewis' vitory of "mental cripple" McCall IS impressive to me because it demonstrates that Lewis doesn't share in McCall's weakness. The dog that bit you and all that there.

Many people seek to denegrate Lewis because of these losses - I'm not one of them principally because i'm always interested in fighters at their very best.

[Robbi]

No excuses are neccesary. Lewis had a couple of serious weaknesses that were exploited by good opposition. Those very good fighters he took on were not able to beat him.

He beat every fighter he ever faced.

There is no heavyweight, ever, who would have an easy evening with him. At all.

If that isn't your cup of tea, that's OK, but to answer a few of your points:

The ref didn't stop the McCall fight to quickly. But many of the fighters he's compared to (i'd say Jeffreis through to Holmes) would have been allowed to continue under similair circumstances in their own eras.

Lewis' weakenss SPECIFICALLY allows for lesser fighters to beat him. That is his specific problem, make of that what you will.

Lewis' vitory of "mental cripple" McCall IS impressive to me because it demonstrates that Lewis doesn't share in McCall's weakness. The dog that bit you and all that there.

Many people seek to denegrate Lewis because of these losses - I'm not one of them principally because i'm always interested in fighters at their very best.

Lewis also has an underated chin. He was TKO'd by McCall, but got up from the booming right hand that floored him to be stopped on his feet. And we all know what Rahman's right done to him. So he was defeated twice from more or less single punches. But he showed a dynamite chin against Mercer, Holyfield II, and Klitschko. Two of those fights were wars where he took many punches.

Your right, "Lewis' weakness allows specifically for lesser fighters to beat him". McCall and Rahman. But in that weakness he also gained a strength. The ability to come back and win against fighters who had previously defeated him. He beat them both in rematches. Which in my opinion is one of the main ingredients of greatness.

[Zakman]

He is a lock for the top ten of all time, and most people dont think he is the best ever or anything.
Statements like that are EXACTLY why Lewis is so overrated. He's not a "lock" for the top ten at all. Hell, he's not even the best HW of his own era!!

[robert ungurean]

Just cuz you don't like him? This is a forum for debate, not saying you don't think someone doesn't belong with the greats because they're a "dumby-head" and you don't like them.
Where & when did I say I didnt like him?

[NickHudson]

Spot on duodenum. In this post you have captured nicely what gets debated on this forum all the time.

Agreed. A true ATG HW champion does not lose his title in the prime of his career to a single punch early in a title defense from a mediocre challenger. It didn't happen to Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali, or any other prominent champion in the division's history, except Lennox Lewis, and it happened to Lewis not once, but twice. (Where Floyd Patterson is concerned, Ingo and Liston both needed considerably more than one punch to dethrone him. Rachman and McCall are not in the same class as Ingo and Sonny.) Yes, Lennox may have been the best of his day, but an ATG? He invites comparisons to Big John Tate, moreso than the HW division's true elite. (Except that it took Weaver and Berbick several more rounds to eliminate Tate than it took McCall and Rachman to take out Lewis.)

[NickHudson]

Hey Muchmoore,

The Mercer fight is key and worth dwelling on for a moment.

You should take another look at it. Mercer is grossly out of shape, he looks like a guy in the local pub, not a trained pro boxer. He is so fat that Manny Steward actually comments on it to Lennox in between rounds in an effort to calm LL down.

The fight is on Youtube as far as I know, you should check it out again...

Ive said this a million times before but will say it again (!), the Mercer fight is a damning performance for Lewis, especially bearing in mind fossilised Holmes stellar performance against him at roughly the same time.

Mercer completely overlooked Holmes and thought he would steamroll him. He wasnt in good shape, while when he fought Lewis, he was in great shape and it was his peak performance.

[NickHudson]

LL's era 1988-2002 was covered by: Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis among others.

There is absolutely no way I would agree LL was clearly the best of his era.

Legacy wise I have him 3rd after Holyfield (for obvious reasons) and Tyson (youngest ever HW champ, brilliant sweeping unbeaten run).

Head to head, prime for prime I have him 4th behind '88 Tyson, '91 Holyfield and '92 Bowe.

He is an absolute LOCK for top 10 All Time and CLEARLY the best of his era. Getting caught twice in your career and avenging losses while having one of the better HW resumes of all time and clearly being a top head to head HW doesn't make you a chump in my book.

[NickHudson]

I think prime Tyson goes exceptionally well versus prime Lewis, perhaps getting an early KO.

Utterly spent Holyfields performances against close to prime Lewis lead me to believe Prime for Prime a Holy points win is most likely.

He would've outboxed Bowe again. He is always a bad matchup for Tyson whenever they fight. And gimme a break, you think Holyfield beats him head to head?

Lewis's overall resume is way better than Tyson's, get real. Holyfield had a good resume but too many losses, way too inconsistent.

[Icemmann]

I think prime Tyson goes exceptionally well versus prime Lewis, perhaps getting an early KO.

Utterly spent Holyfields performances against close to prime Lewis lead me to believe Prime for Prime a Holy points win is most likely.

Judging an "Utterly spent" Holyfield's performances against Lewis gives you the idea that He would beat him if they fought earlier?


Going by that judging Holyfield by his performances against ancients from the 70's, he doesnt belong in any type of atg discussion unless it's strictly as a victim.

[Zakman]

He is an absolute LOCK for top 10 All Time and CLEARLY the best of his era. Getting caught twice in your career and avenging losses while having one of the better HW resumes of all time and clearly being a top head to head HW doesn't make you a chump in my book.

No one said "chump" guy - that's hater talk, and silly. Lewis is an ATG, no doubt. But those KO losses, to substandard opposition, in the heart of your career, when you've SUPPOSED to be the best, are MAJOR deficiencies that count HEAVILY in evaluating alll time status - and it makes the term "Lock" way overstating it.

So does not facing the other top guys of the era when they were even close to their best - particularly Tyson - and not facing Bowe at all. Yeah, I know there are a million excuses for this stuff from Lewis boosters, but that's all they are, and irrelevant for evaulating all time status.

The bottom line is that Lewis is borderline top ten. "Lock" is overrating it. And, like I said, he's not even the best HW of his era, who is a lock - especially if he wins another belt.

[Rock0052]

As much as it pains me to say it because he was one of the good guys in boxing (and I'm glad he was champ), Floyd Patterson is usually overrated when it gets to ATG heavyweight lists.

[Icemmann]

No one said "chump" guy - that's hater talk, and silly. Lewis is an ATG, no doubt. But those KO losses, to substandard opposition, in the heart of your career, when you've SUPPOSED to be the best, are MAJOR deficiencies that count HEAVILY in evaluating alll time status - and it makes the term "Lock" way overstating it.

So does not facing the other top guys of the era when they were even close to their best - particularly Tyson - and not facing Bowe at all. Yeah, I know there are a million excuses for this stuff from Lewis boosters, but that's all they are, and irrelevant for evaulating all time status.

The bottom line is that Lewis is borderline top ten. "Lock" is overrating it. And, like I said, he's not even the best HW of his era, who is a lock - especially if he wins another belt.


Lewis wanted to fight them all. they ducked him. Bowe gave up a title to avoid facing him, when he wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to fight for the belt when he did if he had not agreed to fight Lewis.

Holyfield is better than Lewis? They same Holyfield that lost to Bowe twice, split with Moore, was busy fighting guys like Holmes & Foreman?

No, Lewis was better than them. His title riegns were interrupted by a couple of knockout loses that could be contributed to the other guys getting lucky. Lewis went on to beat both of them.

And him getting startched by a couple of punchers is in someway worse than Holyfield getting his ass handed to him over 12 rounds?

[Ramon Rojo]

Rocky Marciano

[Zakman]

Lewis wanted to fight them all. they ducked him. Bowe gave up a title to avoid facing him, when he wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to fight for the belt when he did if he had not agreed to fight Lewis.

Even if you could prove that - which you CAN'T - it's irrelevant. Lewis either fought older versons of them, as in the case of Holyfield and Tyson (who was washed up), or not at all, in the case of Bowe. Those are the FACTS. All the excuses about "ducking" are just speculation to justify these serious omissions on Lewis's record. And, I might add - it ORIGINATED with the Lewis Camp propaganda campaign in the 90s, and now fans repeat it as if it were "fact." It's self-serving disinformation, nothing more

Holyfield is better than Lewis? They same Holyfield that lost to Bowe twice, split with Moore, was busy fighting guys like Holmes & Foreman?

Holyfield's decision loss to Moorer was controversial. Several journalists thought he should have gotten the nod. And to competitive losses to Bowe - who at his peak however short it may have been was perhaps the most naturally talented of ALL these guys - is not much of a detractions. Particularly considering how competitive the fights were.

No, Lewis was better than them. His title riegns were interrupted by a couple of knockout loses that could be contributed to the other guys getting lucky. Lewis went on to beat both of them.

Yeah, yeah, that " avenged" line. Sorry, doesn't erase the fact he got starched in the first place. Particularly his tainted victory over mental cripple McCall, fresh out of rehab and still obviously suffering the aftereffects of his addictions.

And him getting startched by a couple of punchers is in someway worse than Holyfield getting his ass handed to him over 12 rounds?

No it's not, not by a lonshot. There are fewer more serious blemishes on a fighter's record than getting laid out early by second rate fighters. And especially when compared to close competitive fights - that at least in the case of the Moorer fight, could have easily gone the other way, and should have according to a lot of experts.

[Icemmann]

Even if you could prove that - which you CAN'T - it's irrelevant. Lewis either fought older versons of them, as in the case of Holyfield and Tyson (who was washed up), or not at all, in the case of Bowe. Those are the FACTS. All the excuses about "ducking" are just speculation to justify these serious omissions on Lewis's record. And, I might add - it ORIGINATED with the Lewis Camp propaganda campaign in the 90s, and now fans repeat it as if it were "fact." It's self-serving disinformation, nothing more
Fine, Bowe didn't throw his belt into a garbage can vacating that title to avoid a mandatory, when the agreement he signed was for him to fight Lewis.

Nor did Tyson pay Lewis stand a side money. Right. All unsubstantiated speculation. :roll:



Holyfield's decision loss to Moorer was controversial. Several journalists thought he should have gotten the nod. And to competitive losses to Bowe - who at his peak however short it may have been was perhaps the most naturally talented of ALL these guys - is not much of a detractions. Particularly considering how competitive the fights were.
Only controversy that resulted from this fight was Holyfield alleged "heart problem" Which was later "cured" by God, via Benny Hinn.

Bowe? err. Who did Bowe beat beside Holyfield? Same way you allege that McCall and Rahman werent known for having a K.O. punch until they beat Lewis Bowe didn't get any recognition as a top Heavyweight. And his resume STILL stands on the Holyfield fights, without them he has no chance of cracking the top 100.



Yeah, yeah, that " avenged" line. Sorry, doesn't erase the fact he got starched in the first place. Particularly his tainted victory over mental cripple McCall, fresh out of rehab and still obviously suffering the aftereffects of his addictions.
Yeah, the avenged line. His McCall victory is just as viable as Holyfields fights with Tyson. Not his fault Oliver is a headcase, and being the champ if McCall felt he wasn't fit to fight he could have postponed.



No it's not, not by a lonshot. There are fewer more serious blemishes on a fighter's record than getting laid out early by second rate fighters. And especially when compared to close competitive fights - that at least in the case of the Moorer fight, could have easily gone the other way, and should have according to a lot of experts.



Yeah, hate on Lennox all you want but it doesnt change the fact that Evander stuggled against a guy that was startched by a geriatic, and lost a trilogy to a guy who's big fights besides the wins agianst Holyfield are DQ wins he got while getting a pounding from Andrew Golota.

Holyfield's record is a hell of a lot more blemished than Lewis'.

[Zakman]

Fine, Bowe didn't throw his belt into a garbage can vacating that title to avoid a mandatory, when the agreement he signed was for him to fight Lewis.

Nor did Tyson pay Lewis stand a side money. Right. All unsubstantiated speculation. :roll:

Oh please, that was a publicity stunt. Bowe and Newman knew they could make MUCH more money fighting Lewis after he had become better known in the states. ANd in fact, a Bowe-Lewis fight was on the draawing baord but then Lewis want and got himself startched by McCall.

Oh, and didn't Lewis take the payoff?? Seems he wasn't particularly interested in fighting Tyson either when he could collect cash for NOT doing so!!

Only controversy that resulted from this fight was Holyfield alleged "heart problem" Which was later "cured" by God, via Benny Hinn.

Watch the fight - it was a close decision that could have gone either way. ANd many ringside observers thought Evander knicked it. Don't forget he had Moorer on the canvas in the second round, too!! Quite unlike Lewis' situation against McCall and Rahman, huh?

Bowe? err. Who did Bowe beat beside Holyfield? Same way you allege that McCall and Rahman werent known for having a K.O. punch until they beat Lewis Bowe didn't get any recognition as a top Heavyweight. And his resume STILL stands on the Holyfield fights, without them he has no chance of cracking the top 100.

Riddick Bowe, however much of an underchiever he may have beocme, was the most highly regarded of these guys in the early 90s. In 1993 a victory over Bowe was a BIG deal - particularly considering the size disadvtanges Holyfield faced.

Yeah, the avenged line. His McCall victory is just as viable as Holyfields fights with Tyson. Not his fault Oliver is a headcase, and being the champ if McCall felt he wasn't fit to fight he could have postponed.

McCall was forced into that fight by King and his need for money. It was an utter travesty that he was even allowed to compete in that condition. No comission should have licenced him fresh out of rehb like that.

Yeah, hate on Lennox all you want but it doesnt change the fact that Evander stuggled against a guy that was startched by a geriatic, and lost a trilogy to a guy who's big fights besides the wins agianst Holyfield are DQ wins he got while getting a pounding from Andrew Golota.

Holyfield's record is a hell of a lot more blemished than Lewis'.

I don't "hate" Lewis, I just think he is grossly overated by many fans. And to say that Holyfield "struggled" against Moorer is a complete misrepresentation of that fight - which was a COMPETITIVE match that many thought Evander won. Hardly a "blemish." And Bowe's subsequent decline and performances against Golota just might have something to do with what the fights with Holyfield took out of him. Pretty impressive, I'd say - and yet another reason why Evander is the BEST HW of the era!!!!

[Mendoza]

He would've outboxed Bowe again. He is always a bad matchup for Tyson whenever they fight. And gimme a break, you think Holyfield beats him head to head?

Lewis's overall resume is way better than Tyson's, get real. Holyfield had a good resume but too many losses, way too inconsistent.

Lewis beat every man he faced as a professional prize fighter. Which heavyweight besides Rocky Marciano and Gene Tunney can boast that? There can be little doubt that Lewis heavyweight wins easily exceed that of Marciano’s and Tunney's. Lewis had more title defenses than Marciano and Tunney combined. Lewis is not overrated. Overrated goes to fighters who lost too often, look mediocre on film, and avoided the best competition and champion.

[McGrain]

Lewis beat every man he faced as a professional prize fighter. Which heavyweight besides Rocky Marciano and Gene Tunney can boast that? There can be little doubt that Lewis heavyweight wins easily exceed that of Marciano’s and Tunney's. Lewis had more title defenses than Marciano and Tunney combined. Lewis is not overrated. Overrated goes to fighters who lost too often, look mediocre on film, and avoided the best competition and champion.


Fine post.

[Duodenum]

Lewis beat every man he faced as a professional prize fighter. Which heavyweight besides Rocky Marciano and Gene Tunney can boast that?Uhhh, I dunno, Riddick Bowe?

On Lennox's behalf, I do admire his comportment in defeat. Like Tommy Hearns (and regrettably, unlike Holmes), he conducted himself with class and dignity, and did avenge his defeats. It's not as if he was an obnoxiously sore loser making pervasive excuses for his failures.

My criticisms of Lewis are not character assassinations. I simply don't believe he merits the exhaulted position among the all time greats that his most ardent boosters argue he deserves. Nor is it his fault that Big Daddy refused to defend his undisputed championship against Lennox, splintering the title which Tyson had run the gamut to unify. (This was a match I'm confident Bowe would have prevailed in, with a competent referee and judges officiating.)

Fat, bloated partial LH champion Eddie Mustafa Muhammad didn't take a backwards step against peak conditioned adonis Renaldo Snipes, who despite outweighing Eddie by nearly 25 pounds, wasn't even able to tickle the much smaller man. If anybody should have been able to successfully ambush his way to an upset title win, it should have been Mr. Snipes against Holmes. Yet, when Snipes surprised Holmes with the perfectly executed right of a lifetime, Larry, unlike Lewis against Rachman and McCall, got up, dusted himself off, and proceeded to win the remainder of the KD round and match, finally stopping Snipes. That's what really sets Larry apart from Lennox, the upsets which did not happen.

The judges could just as easily have erroneously ruled against Lennox in his two matches against Holyfield, as they actually did against Larry in his back-to-back set against Mike Spinks. But over 23 consecutive title fights covering a span of nine calendar years, the odds are that Larry should have been laid out in defeat at least once, by being caught off guard by a surprise kayo from a lightly regarded easy title defense. It never happened, and in fact, Larry was laid out only once, coming off an extended layoff at an advanced age, against an opponent with a fearful reputation, at the height of his powers.

A strong argument can be made that the only two authentic defeats of Larry's career were against a peak Tyson (a match where Larry was far better than most of peak Tyson's opponents were), and a peak Holyfield (again, with a far more impressive performance than most of peak Evander's opposition was able to manage)

Contrast that with Lennox's two early stoppage losses to McCall and Rachman. I don't understand how anybody could make a valid argument that Lewis was superior to Holmes. They both had controversial decision wins, and two decisive losses, but Lennox sustained his in mid career, both by kayo, once by clean knockout, and he will never be able to match Larry's longevity.

The argument that Holmes never officially unified the title is a feeble red herring. He posted wins over more than one eventual holder of a paper alternative to the true title, and in Larry's case, the boxer made the title, not the other way around. The enormity of his prestige and acceptance is what secured the IBF as the third major governing body in boxing. Other organizations like the WBO are lesser recognized sanctioning entities because they don't have a Holmes to endow them with immediate prestige and legitimacy.

[heerko koois]

Moehamed alie...............

[ChrisPontius]

A strong argument can be made that the only two authentic defeats of Larry's career were against a peak Tyson (a match where Larry was far better than most of peak Tyson's opponents were), and a peak Holyfield (again, with a far more impressive performance than most of peak Evander's opposition was able to manage)


To make that strong argument you'd have to argue that Holmes beat Spinks the first time around. That would really be a stretch. He should've won the second one, but the first one......

[Muchmoore]

Statements like that are EXACTLY why Lewis is so overrated. He's not a "lock" for the top ten at all. Hell, he's not even the best HW of his own era!!

Neither is Joe Frazier or George Foreman.

[JohnThomas1]

That's a pretty hefty claim friend.

I could think of better descriptions :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Riddick Bowe.

[Muchmoore]

Hey Muchmoore,

The Mercer fight is key and worth dwelling on for a moment.

You should take another look at it. Mercer is grossly out of shape, he looks like a guy in the local pub, not a trained pro boxer. He is so fat that Manny Steward actually comments on it to Lennox in between rounds in an effort to calm LL down.

The fight is on Youtube as far as I know, you should check it out again...

Ive said this a million times before but will say it again (!), the Mercer fight is a damning performance for Lewis, especially bearing in mind fossilised Holmes stellar performance against him at roughly the same time.

Mercer almost always carried a little extra fat. It was natural for him, some fighters just always have some baby fat around their midsection like Povetkin, it doesn't mean that they are out of shape.

Mercer FOUGHT the better fight against Lewis because he knew Lewis was a tough and dangerous fighter.

[Robbi]

Moehamed alie...............

Won the title three times. Fought the best quality opposition of any heavyweight in history. Twice won the title when he was a massive underdog against fearsome punchers. Liston and Foreman. And won the title for a third time at the age of 36 against a much younger opponent.

Ali was the greatest heavyweight of all time. I don't think Joe Louis comes close even though he reigned for longer. Ali's quality of oppostion combined with his three title wins, and having good wins when past his prime are simply too much for anyone else to make an arguement.

[ChrisPontius]

Riddick Bowe.

Good call.

I never understood why Monte Cox rates Bowe at #13.
What's even more suprising is that he rates Holyfield at #14, who basically Bowe's entire legacy is built upon.

[JohnThomas1]

Good call.

I never understood why Monte Cox rates Bowe at #13.
What's even more suprising is that he rates Holyfield at #14, who basically Bowe's entire legacy is built upon.

I agree, that's a wierd rating right there. Outside of Evander Bowe did little to impress me whist Holyfield has many many highlights. His two wins over Tyson launch him to places Bowe can't even see IMO.

[Holmes' Jab]

Bowe was definitely an unfulfilled 'potential'. On occasions he looked truely great (ie: Holyfield I, II & III, Ferguson), however outside the Holy trilogy his resume is too thin to make a case for him getting near the Top 10. Something like 15-25 for 'aul Riddick sounds right depending on your view.

I personally have him at around #16

[KobeIsGod]

I feel any fighter who's claim to fame is based more on potential than actual accomplishment like a Tua or a Ike are badly overrated. They were great in certain areas, but badly lacked the other characteristics needed to become a top fighter like dedication (Tua) or sanity :nut (Ike).

Media hype jobs are probably worse though like a Conney. I don't think Tyson is overrated because he actually was on top and won in dominating fashion, so he was great in his own right.

As for now, Sam Peter is too hyped on this board off the beating Klit gave him. He has a great power, heart, determination, and chin which always give him a chance but his skills will never be good enoguh to dominate imo. Saying that, he will likely be a multiple beltholder in his career.

Wald :yep is both badly underrated and overrated. Both Wald haters/fanboys drive me nuts. Right now, Wlad is a very solid hw w/all-time physical skills and questionable intangibles with the potential to become a dominant champ in the same mold of Lennox. I don't think it helped matters he was Europeon.

[Boinko]

I absolutely agree that Bowe should not be ranked above Holyfield. At the same time, I don't have a big problem with Evander's ranking since three of his most prolific fights were against Bowe, and he lost 2 of them.
Since I've always contended Bowe was overrated, that doesn't reflect well on Holyfield. There is no doubt that Evander had a lot of heart and determination, but his ranking is just about right in this list.
Of course, it's all so subjective that no single list will ever be anything more than one guy's opinion.

[Doppleganger]

Bowe is a good contender.

I tend to think that if you overrate Bowe, it also follows that you overrate Holyfield, given that the 2 boxers are irrecoverably linked through their trilogy. For Bowe his position is especially weak given this, as he hardly did anything else of note. Bowe's legacy is one of unfufilled potential and waste of talent IMO. He wasted a huge opportunity in not meeting Lewis as was planned and he wasted his career by lack of focus and indifference. I'd probably have him between 20-25 myself off the top of my head.

[Thread Stealer]

It's a tough call since everyone is underrated and overrated (especially Mike Tyson).

I'll go with Vitali Klitschko. Decent wins over fringe contenders, a couple of solid wins over fat contenders, LOSSES to an undertrained Lewis and also Byrd, and some people here have called him a top 15, or even top 12 HW all-time. :lol: :lol:

[Duodenum]

To make that strong argument you'd have to argue that Holmes beat Spinks the first time around. That would really be a stretch. He should've won the second one, but the first one......I don't necessarily disagree with this, just pointing out that many others have, that's all.

[NickHudson]

I love your criteria (in bold below) but not your conclusion!

1) Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall. The two worst opponents in HW history that a prime ATG has been KOd by.
2) The Lewis Akinwande fight is the most mediocre HW fight I have ever seen on film.
3) Lewis 'avoided' Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe when it actually mattered, accepting the ridiculous pay-off from Tyson.

Applying your own criteria to Tyson, Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield shows you that Lewis is not a lock for TOP10 HW of all time. He is borderline TOP15.

Lewis beat every man he faced as a professional prize fighter. Which heavyweight besides Rocky Marciano and Gene Tunney can boast that? There can be little doubt that Lewis heavyweight wins easily exceed that of Marciano’s and Tunney's. Lewis had more title defenses than Marciano and Tunney combined. Lewis is not overrated. Overrated goes to fighters who lost too often, look mediocre on film, and avoided the best competition and champion.

[NickHudson]

brilliant post!

Uhhh, I dunno, Riddick Bowe?

On Lennox's behalf, I do admire his comportment in defeat. Like Tommy Hearns (and regrettably, unlike Holmes), he conducted himself with class and dignity, and did avenge his defeats. It's not as if he was an obnoxiously sore loser making pervasive excuses for his failures.

My criticisms of Lewis are not character assassinations. I simply don't believe he merits the exhaulted position among the all time greats that his most ardent boosters argue he deserves. Nor is it his fault that Big Daddy refused to defend his undisputed championship against Lennox, splintering the title which Tyson had run the gamut to unify. (This was a match I'm confident Bowe would have prevailed in, with a competent referee and judges officiating.)

Fat, bloated partial LH champion Eddie Mustafa Muhammad didn't take a backwards step against peak conditioned adonis Renaldo Snipes, who despite outweighing Eddie by nearly 25 pounds, wasn't even able to tickle the much smaller man. If anybody should have been able to successfully ambush his way to an upset title win, it should have been Mr. Snipes against Holmes. Yet, when Snipes surprised Holmes with the perfectly executed right of a lifetime, Larry, unlike Lewis against Rachman and McCall, got up, dusted himself off, and proceeded to win the remainder of the KD round and match, finally stopping Snipes. That's what really sets Larry apart from Lennox, the upsets which did not happen.

The judges could just as easily have erroneously ruled against Lennox in his two matches against Holyfield, as they actually did against Larry in his back-to-back set against Mike Spinks. But over 23 consecutive title fights covering a span of nine calendar years, the odds are that Larry should have been laid out in defeat at least once, by being caught off guard by a surprise kayo from a lightly regarded easy title defense. It never happened, and in fact, Larry was laid out only once, coming off an extended layoff at an advanced age, against an opponent with a fearful reputation, at the height of his powers.

A strong argument can be made that the only two authentic defeats of Larry's career were against a peak Tyson (a match where Larry was far better than most of peak Tyson's opponents were), and a peak Holyfield (again, with a far more impressive performance than most of peak Evander's opposition was able to manage)

Contrast that with Lennox's two early stoppage losses to McCall and Rachman. I don't understand how anybody could make a valid argument that Lewis was superior to Holmes. They both had controversial decision wins, and two decisive losses, but Lennox sustained his in mid career, both by kayo, once by clean knockout, and he will never be able to match Larry's longevity.

The argument that Holmes never officially unified the title is a feeble red herring. He posted wins over more than one eventual holder of a paper alternative to the true title, and in Larry's case, the boxer made the title, not the other way around. The enormity of his prestige and acceptance is what secured the IBF as the third major governing body in boxing. Other organizations like the WBO are lesser recognized sanctioning entities because they don't have a Holmes to endow them with immediate prestige and legitimacy.

[Titan1]

Unfortunately, Lennox Lewis, though he was definitely a good fighter.

[Zakman]

I love your criteria (in bold below) but not your conclusion!

1) Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall. The two worst opponents in HW history that a prime ATG has been KOd by.
2) The Lewis Akinwande fight is the most mediocre HW fight I have ever seen on film.
3) Lewis 'avoided' Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe when it actually mattered, accepting the ridiculous pay-off from Tyson.

Applying your own criteria to Tyson, Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield shows you that Lewis is not a lock for TOP10 HW of all time. He is borderline TOP15.

Exactly. Lewis is top 15, nowhere near a "lock" top ten. ANd not the best HW of his era either. THe best of an era don't get laid out cold by Hasim Rahman or knocked into queer street by Oliver McCall. And they face the other top guys of their era when they aren't shells of their former selves.

[McGrain]

Exactly. Lewis is top 15, nowhere near a "lock" top ten. ANd not the best HW of his era either. THe best of an era don't get laid out cold by Hasim Rahman or knocked into queer street by Oliver McCall. And they face the other top guys of their era when they aren't shells of their former selves.

Lewis' prime weakness was given completley to exactly this kind of loss.

He's the only super-heavy to beat everyone he ever faced, fighting in the era of super-heavies too.

[Irish Steel]

[quote=Novirasputin]Any fighter can be torn down or overrated with the right spin.



Case in point: As good as Tyson was he could never dance at all.
A guy with that much good foot movement should have rightly been taught to
be a better defensive fighter.

./quote]


I thought early tyson was a master of the slip?

[robert ungurean]

L.Lewis is so overated its sick.
For all that size he was fragile & lacked a warriors heart.
Who wants to see a 6'5 245 ib man constantly fight safty first because he knows his chin has glass in it.
Not me for one.So glad he retired.

[Zakman]

L.Lewis is so overated its sick.
For all that size he was fragile & lacked a warriors heart.
Who wants to see a 6'5 245 ib man constantly fight safty first because he knows his chin has glass in it.
Not me for one.So glad he retired.

Sir you clearly understand exactly how completely overrated Lewis is. Believe me, there are people around here who say he was the GOAT!!!!! It's insane. Like I said, he wasn't even the best HW of his era. Holyfield was CLEARLY greater, and Tyson, too for that matter, although I'll admit that's at least arguable.

[McGrain]

L.Lewis is so overated its sick.
For all that size he was fragile & lacked a warriors heart.
Who wants to see a 6'5 245 ib man constantly fight safty first because he knows his chin has glass in it.
Not me for one.So glad he retired.

Robert i've no wish to fall out with you over this but you're opinion where Lewis is concerned clearly can't be trusted.

It's fair enough for you to dislike him - I understand why - but i'd suggest that your dislike makes it impossible for you to make an unbiased view.

Your dislike for him shines through in this post.

[McGrain]

Sir you clearly understand exactly how completely overrated Lewis is. Believe me, there are people around here who say he was the GOAT!!!!! It's insane. Like I said, he wasn't even the best HW of his era. Holyfield was CLEARLY greater, and Tyson, too for that matter, although I'll admit that's at least arguable.

P4P Hollyfield may have been greater. As a heavyweight it's hard to see how this statement can be defended - unless you're disregarding head to head alltogether?

Anyone who says Lewis is the GOAT has work to do and it's fair to say they'd be overating him.

[robert ungurean]

Robert i've no wish to fall out with you over this but you're opinion where Lewis is concerned clearly can't be trusted.

It's fair enough for you to dislike him - I understand why - but i'd suggest that your dislike makes it impossible for you to make an unbiased view.

Your dislike for him shines through in this post.
No offense taken my friend.
I just dont think much of Lewis as a fighter & nothing can really change my mind on that.:good

[McGrain]

No offense taken my friend.
I just dont think much of Lewis as a fighter & nothing can really change my mind on that.:good


Fair enough.

[Doppleganger]

Sir you clearly understand exactly how completely overrated Lewis is. Believe me, there are people around here who say he was the GOAT!!!!! It's insane. Like I said, he wasn't even the best HW of his era. Holyfield was CLEARLY greater, and Tyson, too for that matter, although I'll admit that's at least arguable.
Lewis is in no way in any shape or form the G.O.A.T. but he's the best HW of his era, and a better HW than Holyfield or Tyson.

[mr. magoo]

Joe Louis is the most overrated heavyweight of all time..........Period..............

[Vantage_West]

Any fighter can be torn down or overrated with the right spin.

However, the most overrated fighter of all time and i know this will hurt many people on here was Mike Tyson.


Not in the sense that he was a shitty mediocare fighter cause he wasnt.

Tyson had alot of great accomplishments as a pro (Spinks, Holmes, Berbick, just off the top of my head. All terrific wins) however the problem is since he was so popular people got it into their heads that he was invincible.

So much so that they made him think that and made this media machine out of him and forgot about the sport.

That shit ruined him.

Case in point: As good as Tyson was he could never dance at all.
A guy with that much good foot movement should have rightly been taught to
be a better defensive fighter.

This is why any time he got downed he stayed down.i totally buy that he was overated to early and it's still in the mindset to day to be a media driven scary man...ripped the boxing abilty out of him he had a good jab for such a small short reached guy. he outjabbed tony tucker and parried lewiss jab with it.

[Zakman]

Lewis is in no way in any shape or form the G.O.A.T. but he's the best HW of his era, and a better HW than Holyfield or Tyson.

The supposed "best" of the doesn't get starched by guys like McCall or Rahman, or fight old versions of Holyfield or Tyson, and not fight Bowe at all. But then, there's always excuses for all of that, right? How convenient.

Evander Holyfield doesn't need any excuses, he never got laid out early by second raters, and he beat two of the top guys of the era when it mattered. And Tyson dominated in a way that Lewis could only dream of!

[Vantage_West]

Lewis is in no way in any shape or form the G.O.A.T. but he's the best HW of his era, and a better HW than Holyfield or Tyson.i would put him top 5 he was only beaten by lucky shots not saying when your punching somone you are lucky to land but mccall didnt mean to ko him with that shot and rahman had hurt lewis before hand

great inside fighter great outside fighter

i feel people say he had a weak chin becuase he was so damn good that somthing had to give. and becuase he was koed twice ( by maybe the best countershot by McCall and rahman caught him badly when he wasnt defending).

his chin wasnt iron but it was above average he took flush hits from
tua, tyson, vitali, ruddock, briggs, holy...his career is a roll call of hard hitters and great fighters. some still fighting today

to say he was in control of a weak division is rubbish stop trying to undermine his achievements

[Vantage_West]

anyways most overated for me would be george foreman he was a tully hard hitting guy but maybe the worse skills i have everseen from any champion only darchinyan is in the same catagory. low defence went in hands low was slow and easily hit...it was his power,size and jaw that got him through and i feel it's almost unfair that he is rated as an amazing fighter (his comeback was very impressive) when most of the top men now have by far better skills abilty power speed chin but get disregarded on when foreman was by far less skiled and able.

[Vantage_West]

The supposed "best" of the doesn't get starched by guys like McCall or Rahman, or fight old versions of Holyfield or Tyson, and not fight Bowe at all. But then, there's always excuses for all of that, right? How convenient.

Evander Holyfield doesn't need any excuses, he never got laid out early by second raters, and he beat two of the top guys of the era when it mattered. And Tyson dominated in a way that Lewis could only dream of!who did dempsey fight cant remember one firpo i rember ....got knocked out the ring in the first round gastly business

[Zakman]

who did dempsey fight cant remember one firpo i rember ....got knocked out the ring in the first round gastly business
Dempsey got up and WON that fight. When Lewis hit the canvas, the fight was OVER. That's the difference between a top ten great, and a borderline top 15 fighter

[McGrain]

Dempsey got up and WON that fight. When Lewis hit the canvas, the fight was OVER. That's the difference between a top ten great, and a borderline top 15 fighter

Dempsey would have been allowed to continue in the McCall fight, of course.

Perhaps the difference is era?

[Zakman]

Dempsey would have been allowed to continue in the McCall fight, of course.

Perhaps the difference is era?

If Lewis had been allowed to continue in the McCall fight he woulda ended up like he did against Rahman. Personaly I wish they had let it go on, then there wouldn't be all these excuses.

[NickHudson]

I have also always assumed this to be the case.

Is there anyone on the forum who believes LL would have turned things round against McCall had he been allowed to continue? He would go up in my estimation if a strong case could be made for this.

On another matter, I have heard it argued that the losses to mediocre McCall and Rahman means LL was susceptible, but only to mediocre fighters!!

This is a fascinating conclusion and frankly one I hadnt even considered. If I see a sportsmen lose to mediocrity I think the simplest and safest conclusion is they are also mediocre...

If Lewis had been allowed to continue in the McCall fight he woulda ended up like he did against Rahman. Personaly I wish they had let it go on, then there wouldn't be all these excuses.

[McGrain]

If Lewis had been allowed to continue in the McCall fight he woulda ended up like he did against Rahman. Personaly I wish they had let it go on, then there wouldn't be all these excuses.

I think it's a dangerous assumption. Certainly we've seen Lewis hurt in fights before and survive. What evidence exsists to prove that Lewis when hurt was likely to be put away?

[McGrain]

On another matter, I have heard it argued that the losses to mediocre McCall and Rahman means LL was susceptible, but only to mediocre fighters!!

This is a fascinating conclusion and frankly one I hadnt even considered. If I see a sportsmen lose to mediocrity I think the simplest and safest conclusion is they are also mediocre...

Yes, this is my argument. It's not that Lewis was only vulnerable to lesser fighters - it's that his very own shortcomings are likely to make him more vulnerable to this type of fighter. He is arrogant and overconfident against weaker fighters, fighters he feel are in the league below. I don't use this to excuse the losses, if you are rating a fighter in terms of legacy they must be taken into account and how important they are is you call - but consider the difference between the first Rahman fight (worst) and the second Rahman fight (best). The differece is mental attitude.

THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR THESE LOSSSES. I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO DISMISS THEM.

Boxing is a composite sport. If you lose because of mental issues it's the same as losing due to lack of heart or technical issues IMO. I am just doing my best to make an objective view of Lewis.

Good for you for keeping an open mind Nick.

[Senya13]

Muhammad Ali.
GOAT doesn't get starched by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper, and doesn't get a boxing lesson from Doug Jones, Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Ken Norton three times in a row, and by 7-0-1 Leon Spinks.

[Marciano Frazier]

GOAT doesn't get starched by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper, and doesn't get a boxing lesson from Doug Jones, Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Ken Norton three times in a row, and by 7-0-1 Leon Spinks.
Well, it's telling that that didn't happen to Ali, then, isn't it?

[ChrisPontius]

Dempsey got up and WON that fight. When Lewis hit the canvas, the fight was OVER. That's the difference between a top ten great, and a borderline top 15 fighter

Then again, Lewis hit the deck only twice in his career.

Name me champions who have been down fewer times:

Ali: 3 knockdowns (if we omit the Wepner one)
Holyfield: 6 knockdowns
Liston: 3 knockdowns
Foreman: 3 knockdowns
Frazier: 11 knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up)
Marciano: 2 knockdowns
Dempsey: 13 knockdowns (4 if we omit knockdowns from his early fights, that was basically amatuer career)
Louis: 10 knockdowns
Jeffries: 3 knockdowns
Tyson: 5 knockdowns
Bowe: 3 knockdowns (not counting the nutcrushers)
Walcott: 5+ knockdowns
Charles: 10+ knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up and kept fighting far past his prime)
Patterson: 21 knockdowns
Johansson: 5 knockdowns
Max Baer: 5 knockdowns
Johnson: 4+ knockdowns
Holmes: 5 knockdowns
Schmeling: 7+ knockdowns
Willard: 8+ knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up)
Sharkey: 5+ knockdowns



... so there you have it. The only one to tie Lewis in number of career knockdowns is Rocky Marciano. Every other single heavyweight champion in history has been on the canvas more often than Lewis, and what's more, Lewis faced more punchers than every one of them with the exception of Ali and maybe Walcott.

[Senya13]

It's still nothing to be proud about. McCall and Rahman were much better than Banks or Cooper. A two difficult fights with Mercer and Holyfield are not as bad as struggling with those five. Not to mention several title fights that were a disgrace to the sport, so weak were Ali's opponents.

[Senya13]

Charles: 10+ knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up and kept fighting far past his prime)
If we take all of his career, Charles was down at least two dozen times, probably more.

[Duodenum]

Good heavens, who's making a case for Lennox being the GOAT? Bowe was far more impressive in his trilogy against a near prime Holyfield than Lennox was in two matches against a shot version of Evander, of which the rematch was a far more competitive showing by Holy, not Lennox. Bowe, on the other hand, dropped Evander en route to winning their inaugural encounter, lost the rematch decision in Holyfield's performance of a career, then came off the deck to become the first man to stop Holyfield in their rubber match.

Buster Douglas was far more impresssive against a near prime pre-prison Tyson, as was Holyfield in stopping Mike twice, whereas it took Lennox eight rounds to take out Tyson, five years after Holyfield dispatched Tyson for the second time, a rather pathetic legacy win for Lewis, if it was indeed that.

Looking at Lewis's record, it would appear that his 12 round decision win over Tua is his most impressive victory. A decision win of less than 15 rounds duration, over a previously defeated opponent, isn't much of a coathook to hang a career reputation on.

Granted, it may not be Lewis's fault that he never defeated Ibeabuchi or Bowe in a professional match, or kayo Tua in a return bout, or ever take on Chris Byrd, or kayo Wladimir Klitschko, or rematch Vitali Klitschko to secure a decisive kayo win, or contend with Mercer in a rematch, but the fact remains that Lennox Lewis may have only been in the top five among active heavyweights during the course of his career. To suggest that he might be the GOAT is patently absurd.

[NickHudson]

Once again duo, your words are music to my ears!! Everything you have said in this thread resonates totally with my own viewpoint.

ChrisPontius stats about LLs career knockdowns is very interesting though, and not something I had considered before.

Being down only twice in a career is certainly impressive, but I guess I never thought about it because I was so disappointed by his reaction to those punches. Man, I would have loved him to bounce up at 2 or 3 and win the remainder of those rounds...

Good heavens, who's making a case for Lennox being the GOAT? Bowe was far more impressive in his trilogy against a near prime Holyfield than Lennox was in two matches against a shot version of Evander, of which the rematch was a far more competitive showing by Holy, not Lennox. Bowe, on the other hand, dropped Evander en route to winning their inaugural encounter, lost the rematch decision in Holyfield's performance of a career, then came off the deck to become the first man to stop Holyfield in their rubber match.

Buster Douglas was far more impresssive against a near prime pre-prison Tyson, as was Holyfield in stopping Mike twice, whereas it took Lennox eight rounds to take out Tyson, five years after Holyfield dispatched Tyson for the second time, a rather pathetic legacy win for Lewis, if it was indeed that.

Looking at Lewis's record, it would appear that his 12 round decision win over Tua is his most impressive victory. A decision win of less than 15 rounds duration, over a previously defeated opponent, isn't much of a coathook to hang a career reputation on.

Granted, it may not be Lewis's fault that he never defeated Ibeabuchi or Bowe in a professional match, or kayo Tua in a return bout, or ever take on Chris Byrd, or kayo Wladimir Klitschko, or rematch Vitali Klitschko to secure a decisive kayo win, or contend with Mercer in a rematch, but the fact remains that Lennox Lewis may have only been in the top five among active heavyweights during the course of his career. To suggest that he might be the GOAT is patently absurd.

[Doppleganger]

Good heavens, who's making a case for Lennox being the GOAT?

Looking at Lewis's record, it would appear that his 12 round decision win over Tua is his most impressive victory. A decision win of less than 15 rounds duration, over a previously defeated opponent, isn't much of a coathook to hang a career reputation on.
You're a good poster, but you can't know much about Lewis's career if you think that his win over Tua was his most impressive victory. What about his 2 round blow-out of Razor Ruddock in 1992, when Ruddock was probably the most feared HW on the planet at the time, as a prime example. As for calling him only amongst the top 5 of active HWs during the course of his career, it's a huge disservice and an insult. He beat every fighter he faced over a period of 14 years. The only major fighter he didn't fight was Bowe, who clearly ducked him. Despite the constant sniping about his glass jaw he only ever hit the deck twice. He has 2 big black marks on his record of course but fair play Lewis he avenged them both, with the Rahman rematch so dominant as to make any 3rd match meaningless.

Anyone who calls Lewis the GOAT is an idiot and/or an out and out fanboy. You can quote me on that. He clearly was not. But he was the best HW of his era because he beat a variety of different styles, he could win on points or knock them out in 2 rounds, he beat every man he faced and held the HW title for long periods of time. In essence he dominated his era and surely that is one of the major considerations when ranking a fighter.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Lewis should have rematched Tua? On what grounds, because it wasn't quite a shut out. :huh

[MachineGunMitch]

For me, both of the Klitschkos. They are decent fighters but in head to head matchups they get WAY too much over rated.

x2,finally the kid came up with a good one
Those 2 brothers havent impressed me yet

[JohnThomas1]

Lewis should have rematched Tua? On what grounds, because it wasn't quite a shut out. :huh

Tua was ko'ed every second fight too wasn't he :lol:

[Duodenum]

Holmes: 5 knockdownsChris, don't forget that Larry was also floored early in his career by Kevin Isaac, so to clarify, his true official total is 6 knockdowns. I tend to throw out Jeff's knockdowns against Jack Johnson, but then again, I consider Aaron Pryor's career to have ended with the Arguello rematch.

Having viewed the stoppage of Lennox's match against McCall, I do agree that Lewis was entitled to the benefit of a doubt, being the defending champion. Given the fact that he was counted out against Rahman, I'm convinced that Lennox didn't have the recuperative powers necessary to recover against McCall, but he deserved a chance to disprove that. Premature stoppages are one of the things killing boxing, and if performers possess first rate conditioning, they should have the ability to rebound quickly from having their bell rung like that.

[Duodenum]

You're a good poster, but you can't know much about Lewis's career if you think that his win over Tua was his most impressive victory. What about his 2 round blow-out of Razor Ruddock in 1992, when Ruddock was probably the most feared HW on the planet at the time, as a prime example. As for calling him only amongst the top 5 of active HWs during the course of his career, it's a huge disservice and an insult. He beat every fighter he faced over a period of 14 years. The only major fighter he didn't fight was Bowe, who clearly ducked him. Despite the constant sniping about his glass jaw he only ever hit the deck twice. He has 2 big black marks on his record of course but fair play Lewis he avenged them both, with the Rahman rematch so dominant as to make any 3rd match meaningless.

Anyone who calls Lewis the GOAT is an idiot and/or an out and out fanboy. You can quote me on that. He clearly was not. But he was the best HW of his era because he beat a variety of different styles, he could win on points or knock them out in 2 rounds, he beat every man he faced and held the HW title for long periods of time. In essence he dominated his era and surely that is one of the major considerations when ranking a fighter.I think my posts generally suck, personally, but I'm using this forum to try improving on that. I do appreciate any compliments I can get however, so thanks for the kind words.

I have to admit, Doppleganger, that I most definitely do not know much about boxing in the post 15 round era, and that's why this is the only forum on ESB I hang out on. (In fact, the first and only internet forum I've ever posted to.) The posters here are generally a highly intelligent, knowledgable and articulate bunch of fans, and I enjoy the more civilized and thoughtful discourse here, to the mindless prattle and personal, albeit amusing, insults between argumentative posters elsewhere on-line.

There's no bones to make about it. I am a die-hard, 15 round, anti- steroid snob, who feels modern boxing has deteriorated dreadfully as a result of the mandated shorter distance, and will always hold the view that never having gone 15 rounds irrevocably diminishes the boxers who have competed during this era of a dying sport.

What turned me off to modern boxing? The 15th round of the final WBC Championship contest scheduled for that distance was pivotal to the outcome of that match. (Bobby Chacon's title winning knockdown of Bazooka Limon.) Then, Edwin Rosario wins the WBC Lightweight Title over Jose Luis Ramirez, exclusively because that match is scheduled for 12 rounds, instead of 15. Hagler decisions Duran by sweeping the final three rounds of a 15 round contest, then loses to SRL, again, exclusively because that match is scheduled for only 12 rounds.

The final great day in boxing history for me was August 4, 1988, when Jorge Paez dropped Calvin Grove three times in the 15th and final round of the last match scheduled for the true championship distance. Paez's knockdowns were the difference which proved his superiority over Grove.

The 12 round limit guarantees the triumph of clearly inferior and more poorly conditioned boxers over superior opposition with better endurance. Matches longer than 15 rounds reward endurance over superior boxing ability. Matches shorter than 15 rounds reward inferior conditioning, steroid use, and much smaller heart. Going 15 hard rounds requires conditioning, rewards patience, and demands guts. If Lennox Lewis had trained himself to go 15 hard rounds, he would have withstood the bombs of Rachman and McCall, then might actually merit consideration as an ATG.

No, I don't know much about the careers of boxers during the 12 round era, because it was instantly apparent that it rewarded mediocrity and inferiority, and therefore, not worth following. Yes, it's my attitude that simply being a champion during the 12 round era automatically disqualifies a boxer from consideration in my eyes as a contender for ATG status. Of course I realize it's not the fault of the competitors that they box in a system that creates champions out of inferior athletes, but that doesn't change the fact that modern boxing is no longer worth following, and hasn't been for over a couple of decades now.

[ChrisPontius]

You are right Dueodenum.

I've never seen that fight with Isaac by the way, was it a flash knockdown or was he genuinly hurt?

[ChrisPontius]

Lewis should have rematched Tua? On what grounds, because it wasn't quite a shut out. :huh

That call can have only been made by an insomniac.


Good performance by Lewis, excellent in fact.... but a what a bore that fight was.

[UpWithEvil]

There's no bones to make about it. I am a die-hard, 15 round, anti- steroid snob, who feels modern boxing has deteriorated dreadfully as a result of the mandated shorter distance, and will always hold the view that never having gone 15 rounds irrevocably diminishes the boxers who have competed during this era of a dying sport.

I agree with these sentiments without reservation.

[Duodenum]

You are right Dueodenum.Ahhh, yes. I just knew there were others on this board who agreed with me that my posts suck!I've never seen that fight with Isaac by the way, was it a flash knockdown or was he genuinly hurt?That's a good question Chris. I've never seen it either, but have always assumed it was just a flash knockdown, though that may not be the case. I understand that it was a right hand which Isaac dropped Larry with. (Holmes certainly seems to have been a sucker for those.)

[Doppleganger]

I agree with these sentiments without reservation.

As do I. :good

[Zakman]

.. so there you have it. The only one to tie Lewis in number of career knockdowns is Rocky Marciano. Every other single heavyweight champion in history has been on the canvas more often than Lewis, and what's more, Lewis faced more punchers than every one of them with the exception of Ali and maybe Walcott.

Guy, I admire your statistical work there, in fact I'm gonna save it for my records. Problem is though, you ignore the QUALITY of opposition and concentrate solely on QUANTITY. Of course, that benefits your side of the argument.

But however you QUANTIFY it, Lewis is the only top level ATG to get laid out early twice by guys of the low QUALITY of McCall and Rahman when he was champ. The ONLY one. And that means he just can't be as highly rated as some of you guys think. It's too big a deficiency, however many excuses or marginally relevant stats you conjure up.

[Robbi]

Muhammad Ali.
GOAT doesn't get starched by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper, and doesn't get a boxing lesson from Doug Jones, Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Ken Norton three times in a row, and by 7-0-1 Leon Spinks.

A boxing lesson from Lyle?. Ali was fooling around with Lyle for for the first 5 rounds of the fight. He came out early behind a peeek a booo high guard coming forward throwing nothing. Once Ali got on his toes and circled, it was Lyle recieving a boxing lesson. Ali treated a top heavyweight like a sparring partner. Watch the 11th round and you will see Lyle getting spanked.

The GOAT was starched from Banks and Cooper. It doesn't harm his legacy in the slightest because he hit the canvas against them both. It actually helps his legacy more than anything, as he got up to win, and inside the distance for that matter.

[ChrisPontius]

Guy, I admire your statistical work there, in fact I'm gonna save it for my records. Problem is though, you ignore the QUALITY of opposition and concentrate solely on QUANTITY. Of course, that benefits your side of the argument.


If you can name champions outside of Ali and Walcott who faced a larger amount of quality punchers then i will conceed my point.

One thing you must not forget is that punchers always look bad in defeat.
Foreman looked like shit against Ali, Liston looked like shit against Ali, Tyson looked like shit against anyone who beat him, Peter looked like shit against Wlad, etc etc.
But the thing is that they have the unique property that they can turn looking shit for an entire fight around with a single punch. Brewster looked like shit untill he landed a few punches and knocked Krasiniq out. But when they don't land that punch, it's easy to dismiss them as limited fighters or whatever. But that doesn't make them any less dangerous. Julian Jackson looked like an amatuer and if you didn't know him, you'd wonder why he even was in the same ring with Terry Norris. Norris easily outlanded him untill Jackson landed that one shot and it was all over.
Don't underestimate punchers.


By the way, i knew a chin-freak like you would appreciate that knockdown list. :D


But however you QUANTIFY it, Lewis is the only top level ATG to get laid out early twice by guys of the low QUALITY of McCall and Rahman when he was champ. The ONLY one. And that means he just can't be as highly rated as some of you guys think. It's too big a deficiency, however many excuses or marginally relevant stats you conjure up.

True, but you can make a distinction like that for every fighter. Ali was nearly knocked out by an unranked cruiserweight and maybe saved by the bell. Holmes ducked every rematch and a lot of dangerous fights. Tyson lacked the true heart in some fights. Holyfield losts to fighters whose only reason they are good is because Holyfield lost to them. Etc, etc.

How you weigh these arguments differs per person of course, but Lewis has shown to be able to take a punch tons of times and against more punchers than almost anyone else too. Furthermore, one of his knockoutlosses came at the age of 35 and the other was a rather quick stoppage. So i can forgive him for those two nights.

[Doppleganger]

But however you QUANTIFY it, Lewis is the only top level ATG to get laid out early twice by guys of the low QUALITY of McCall and Rahman when he was champ. The ONLY one. And that means he just can't be as highly rated as some of you guys think. It's too big a deficiency, however many excuses or marginally relevant stats you conjure up.
That fact that this often repeated mantra of yours is the only thing you can really come up with to detract from Lewis says a great deal IMO. Yes, it's a black mark on Lewis that he allowed himself to be taken out in such a manner. Make no mistake though it was more Lewis losing than McCall or Rahman winning. Isn't that a mark of a truly great fighter that controls the outcome of a fight even in defeat? And he didn't get a fair chance to see if he could continue against McCall. If Lewis had never rematched both fighters, or had lost again or even looked shaky in winning, I'd concede to your point entirely. But he didn't. He dominated both rematches, especially in the case of Rahman. Isn't a fighter allowed to have a couple of off-nights in a 14 year career? Obviously not according to you.

[RockyJim]

Sports Illustrated gave the title"Most Overrated" to Ali a few years back...they also called Marciano the "Most Underated" heavy of all time!

[Bad_Intentions]

Overrated as most talked about?. or overrated as everything...

either way, it's ALI.

[cross_trainer]

Guy, I admire your statistical work there, in fact I'm gonna save it for my records. Problem is though, you ignore the QUALITY of opposition and concentrate solely on QUANTITY. Of course, that benefits your side of the argument.

But however you QUANTIFY it, Lewis is the only top level ATG to get laid out early twice by guys of the low QUALITY of McCall and Rahman when he was champ. The ONLY one. And that means he just can't be as highly rated as some of you guys think. It's too big a deficiency, however many excuses or marginally relevant stats you conjure up.

Both were top contenders of their era--hardly a qualitative leap from the guys who knocked down/out other ATG fighters. Where are you getting the impression that McCall and Rahman were substandard, inferior fighters?

[Zakman]

But when they don't land that punch, it's easy to dismiss them as limited fighters or whatever. But that doesn't make them any less dangerous. J
Don't underestimate punchers.

By the way, i knew a chin-freak like you would appreciate that knockdown list. :D
Oh believe me, I don't underestimate punchers - they are my favorite type of fighter. The problem here, however, is that NEITHER McCall or Rahman has reps as particularly big punchers UNTIL they starched Lewis. What were McCall's best pre- Lewis KOs - laying out glass jawed guys like Bruce Seldon or Oleg Maskaev? Rahman?? Jeez, his biggest KO was probably Corrie Sanders, who was starched in a couple of rounds by Tony Tubbs brother, who was no more of a hitter than Tony!!

Bottom line is that NOONE would even consider McCall or Rahman "big punchers" if they hadn't starched Lewis. Because they're not. And Rahman has probably the worst chin of a rated HW this side of Herbie Hide. Without the Lewis KO, he's be known as just another contender with a shitty chin. McCall would have his well deserved Chuvalo like rep, but that's about it. These guys just ain't that good.

[NickHudson]

"Lewis controlled the outcome of Rahman I and McCall I even in defeat. The mark of a great fighter."

Cripes, this sounds like a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo to me.

Ive heard on this forum recently that 2000-2002 was Lewis's golden 3 year spell. So you can make that ione off-night in a 3 year period. And no, that is not allowed for ATG status, unless there are a different set of rules for Lennox than the other 9 warriors that make it in the HW TOP10.

That fact that this often repeated mantra of yours is the only thing you can really come up with to detract from Lewis says a great deal IMO. Yes, it's a black mark on Lewis that he allowed himself to be taken out in such a manner. Make no mistake though it was more Lewis losing than McCall or Rahman winning. Isn't that a mark of a truly great fighter that controls the outcome of a fight even in defeat? And he didn't get a fair chance to see if he could continue against McCall. If Lewis had never rematched both fighters, or had lost again or even looked shaky in winning, I'd concede to your point entirely. But he didn't. He dominated both rematches, especially in the case of Rahman. Isn't a fighter allowed to have a couple of off-nights in a 14 year career? Obviously not according to you.

[Zakman]

Cripes, this sounds like a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo to me.

Mumbo jumbo, excuses and spin are the stock in trade of the Lewis overrating brigade. And to think the Lewis Camp started all this crap themselves with their silly and disingenous "Chicken Bowe" campaign. And then they tried the same shit on Holyfield and Tyson. Gee, those guys all managed to fight each other, except for the external circumstances that prevented Tyson-Bowe. Hell, Holyfiled fought ALL of them, and he's the only one to do it. One of the MANY reasons why he's the best HW since Holmes.

[ChrisPontius]

Oh believe me, I don't underestimate punchers - they are my favorite type of fighter. The problem here, however, is that NEITHER McCall or Rahman has reps as particularly big punchers UNTIL they starched Lewis. What were McCall's best pre- Lewis KOs - laying out glass jawed guys like Bruce Seldon or Oleg Maskaev? Rahman?? Jeez, his biggest KO was probably Corrie Sanders, who was starched in a couple of rounds by Tony Tubbs brother, who was no more of a hitter than Tony!!

Bottom line is that NOONE would even consider McCall or Rahman "big punchers" if they hadn't starched Lewis. Because they're not. And Rahman has probably the worst chin of a rated HW this side of Herbie Hide. Without the Lewis KO, he's be known as just another contender with a shitty chin. McCall would have his well deserved Chuvalo like rep, but that's about it. These guys just ain't that good.
Rahman came into the Lewis fight with a record of 34-2-0 with 29 KO's with a stoppage win over Sanders. Tell me how that is not a puncher?
McCall came into the fight with a record of 24-5-0 with 18 KO's and has stoppage wins over Maskaev, Seldon and Akinwande.

The "Sanders was starched by Nate Tubbs so this is not a big deal" does not work either.

Tua built his legacy as a puncher on knocking out your favorite, Ruiz, Rahman and Moorer.
Well guess what, Ruiz was knocked down by mediocre hitting Holyfield and an old Golota, Rahman was starched by Maskaev twice (worst chin in history by your own words), and Moorer was starched by grandfather Foreman.. so by your logic i've just proven that Tua is not a puncher. :-(

McCall and Rahman were both decent contenders. In fact, McCall still is a fringe contender today. Moorer and Bowe were not much better and had their legacies built on their wins over Holyfield. Unless you want to talk about Bowe losing to an old Tony Tubbs, the should've been DQ'ed against Mathis fight or when Golota was completly destroying him right after he knocked Holyfield out. Or how about Moorer being starched by what looks like the lightest KO punch i've ever seen, nevermind lasting 40 seconds against a fat Tua.


Holyfield fought Tyson and Bowe in their primes because they saw him as the much easier fight while still fighting a big "name"; Holyfield admitted this himself.
Tyson and Bowe both dropped their belts to avoid their mandatory in Lewis. Of course that stoppage loss that Bowe had in the amatuers against Lewis didn't help either.

[McGrain]

Both were top contenders of their era--hardly a qualitative leap from the guys who knocked down/out other ATG fighters. Where are you getting the impression that McCall and Rahman were substandard, inferior fighters?


This is a fine question.

[Doppleganger]

"Lewis controlled the outcome of Rahman I and McCall I even in defeat. The mark of a great fighter."

Cripes, this sounds like a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo to me.

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to make excuses for Lewis losing those 2 fights. He lost them, fair and square. What I am trying to say, and perhaps badly, is that he shouldn't have allowed himself to lose them. In other words, he turned up for the McCall fight and was sloppily throwing right hands without watching for the counter and in the Rahman fight he didn't train properly. They were 2 bad days at the office that marred an otherwise excellent career. They should not be allowed to overrule all the good work Lewis has done and in the case of Zakman this is exactly what he does. It is grossly unfair.

[Minotauro]

For me it Jack Dempsey, he never fought Wills despite him being pretty much the number contender for years turned down a fight with an old almost blind Langford. Instead fought once a year and got beaten twice by the best fighter he fought Tunney also never fought Greb. Marciano gets a lot of stick for his competition but Dempsey's was worse his best win was probably against an old inactive Jess Willard.

[Marciano Frazier]

Then again, Lewis hit the deck only twice in his career.

Name me champions who have been down fewer times:

Ali: 3 knockdowns (if we omit the Wepner one)
Holyfield: 6 knockdowns
Liston: 3 knockdowns
Foreman: 3 knockdowns
Frazier: 11 knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up)
Marciano: 2 knockdowns
Dempsey: 13 knockdowns (4 if we omit knockdowns from his early fights, that was basically amatuer career)
Louis: 10 knockdowns
Jeffries: 3 knockdowns
Tyson: 5 knockdowns
Bowe: 3 knockdowns (not counting the nutcrushers)
Walcott: 5+ knockdowns
Charles: 10+ knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up and kept fighting far past his prime)
Patterson: 21 knockdowns
Johansson: 5 knockdowns
Max Baer: 5 knockdowns
Johnson: 4+ knockdowns
Holmes: 5 knockdowns
Schmeling: 7+ knockdowns
Willard: 8+ knockdowns (inflated because he kept getting up)
Sharkey: 5+ knockdowns



... so there you have it. The only one to tie Lewis in number of career knockdowns is Rocky Marciano.
This is misleading. Lewis only suffered two knockdowns because he was finished both times he was knocked down. Jeffries would have suffered only one career knockdown if he'd just stayed down the first time Johnson floored him instead of getting up three times, for example. Marciano "tied" Lewis in the number of knockdowns suffered, but spent about a fifth as long on the floor and the result of his two knockdown fights were starkly different.

Every other single heavyweight champion in history has been on the canvas more often than Lewis,
Tunney was only down once.

and what's more, Lewis faced more punchers than every one of them with the exception of Ali and maybe Walcott.
This is debatable- for example, Louis was in there with both Baers, Schmeling, Galento, Marciano, etc., Tyson fought Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Lewis, etc., Charles fought Marciano, Satterfield, Ray, etc., and others can be thrown in there. Lewis fought a lot of powerful hitters, no doubt, but a lot of other champions did as well.

However, all of that said, I agree that Lewis is far from the most overrated heavyweight of all time.

[ChrisPontius]

This is misleading. Lewis only suffered two knockdowns because he was finished both times he was knocked down. Jeffries would have suffered only one career knockdown if he'd just stayed down the first time Johnson floored him instead of getting up three times, for example. Marciano "tied" Lewis in the number of knockdowns suffered, but spent about a fifth as long on the floor and the result of his two knockdown fights were starkly different.


Yes it is misleading and there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts", but my point was that Lewis was not easy to floor.

Maybe a better perspective would be obtained by making a list of "in how many fights has a fighter been decked one time or more". I don't feel like making that list right now, but i think Lewis will still end fairly high.


Tunney was only down once.


You are right.


This is debatable- for example, Louis was in there with both Baers, Schmeling, Galento, Marciano, etc., Tyson fought Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Lewis, etc., Charles fought Marciano, Satterfield, Ray, etc., and others can be thrown in there. Lewis fought a lot of powerful hitters, no doubt, but a lot of other champions did as well.


I went over all champions a few months ago and listed every puncher they faced, and Lewis ended #3 or #2, i forgot. Louis was very close either way.



However, all of that said, I agree that Lewis is far from the most overrated heavyweight of all time.

Well this was actually another foolish attempt to show Zakman that Lewis did not have a glass chin. :D

[NickHudson]

Chris,

I think the Bowe v. Lewis amateur contest should be completely ruled out as totally irrelevent in any comparison you make of the Big4 (Tyson, Holy, Bowe and Lewis).

Bowe was 18, Lewis was in his 20s. In terms of physical development it is not a level playing field and an unjust comparison.

I am very confident in saying this because in athletics, the purest measure of physical performance, there are a number of athletes who have broken world records in their early 20s (Coe, Ovett to name but 2) whereas it is extremely unusual to even be able to compete in international competition as an 18 year old.

Rahman came into the Lewis fight with a record of 34-2-0 with 29 KO's with a stoppage win over Sanders. Tell me how that is not a puncher?
McCall came into the fight with a record of 24-5-0 with 18 KO's and has stoppage wins over Maskaev, Seldon and Akinwande.

The "Sanders was starched by Nate Tubbs so this is not a big deal" does not work either.

Tua built his legacy as a puncher on knocking out your favorite, Ruiz, Rahman and Moorer.
Well guess what, Ruiz was knocked down by mediocre hitting Holyfield and an old Golota, Rahman was starched by Maskaev twice (worst chin in history by your own words), and Moorer was starched by grandfather Foreman.. so by your logic i've just proven that Tua is not a puncher. :-(

McCall and Rahman were both decent contenders. In fact, McCall still is a fringe contender today. Moorer and Bowe were not much better and had their legacies built on their wins over Holyfield. Unless you want to talk about Bowe losing to an old Tony Tubbs, the should've been DQ'ed against Mathis fight or when Golota was completly destroying him right after he knocked Holyfield out. Or how about Moorer being starched by what looks like the lightest KO punch i've ever seen, nevermind lasting 40 seconds against a fat Tua.


Holyfield fought Tyson and Bowe in their primes because they saw him as the much easier fight while still fighting a big "name"; Holyfield admitted this himself.
Tyson and Bowe both dropped their belts to avoid their mandatory in Lewis. Of course that stoppage loss that Bowe had in the amatuers against Lewis didn't help either.

[Vantage_West]

Lennox Lewis without question!!!possibly the best heavywieght since the 70's....
p4p he was great few men could beat every man they went into the ring with.
great inside fighter
loads of power
long reach
great use of tools
could do everything better than your average

[Vantage_West]

Excuses, excuses. Why is it that SO many excuses have to made to justify his "greatness??" He wasn't prepared. He wasn't at his best! The ref called it off to quick. He "avenged" the losses (big deal, the greats don't get starched in the first place by second raters TWICE). And his victory over mental cripple McCall isn't all that impressive anyway. C'mon. This guy is the most overrated top line champ ever. The greats don't get laid out TWICE by B-level fighters. Period.get off your fucking high horse.
trying to be the moderator of the atg club which includes inductees like dempsey,marciano,liston.

greats can get laid out twice by b-level fighters once by pure fluke which would of knocked down any champion ,titleist, tough man ,chuvalo.
he was the first atg to do so.

this atg thing is like trying to win the victoria cross.
it gets harder and harder to win becuase it's to special to give away it was easier to give to the old timers becuase there was none to look up to.
dempsey gets in the club easy not becuase he was a great fighter but that he was a scary guy with monsterous power.....wow tua, tyson, foreman are already in the club then:p

[Vantage_West]

For me it Jack Dempsey, he never fought Wills despite him being pretty much the number contender for years turned down a fight with an old almost blind Langford. Instead fought once a year and got beaten twice by the best fighter he fought Tunney also never fought Greb. Marciano gets a lot of stick for his competition but Dempsey's was worse his best win was probably against an old inactive Jess Willard.but he was good and pre louis...:think

i would persoanlly say liston he was a great fighter just didnt have the tools his jab is amazing for it's power but it was a shot you could se a mile off long reach big right hand and left hook...but it didnt compile together he would scramble over guys to hit them he looked messy and was a pure bully...there is the re-romantisom of liston as noble but tainted beast but in reality he was just overated becuase he was underated in the firsrt place.

not the worse just not the best

[cross_trainer]

This is a fine question.

Thanks...and I really want to know the answer. I constantly hear the "B Level Fighter" cry from those who discredit Lewis's defeats, but fail to see how Rahman or McCall are any different from top contenders in any other era. :huh

[ripcity]

I realy don't know who the most overrated heveyweight is. I asume we are talking about champions and tittlests. I would chose from any of the heaveyweight champs who came before Joe Louis. When you don't fight top quality oponents because of their race. I have Dempsy and Johnson in my all time top 10, but I have them there with some reservations.

[mr. magoo]

threeway tie


Foreman- Jack Johnson- Lennox Lewis


The holy trinity of shitty fighters who manage to get themselves insanely overrated.

Shitty fighters? Hmmm.

Jack Johnson- Was the first black champ in history, and defended his belt ten times.

George Foreman- was a 2 time champion, had the highest knockout ratio of any linear heavyweight champion, became the oldest champion in history against incredible odds, and was only taken out once in some 80 fights by what most consider to be the best of all time.

Lennox Lewis- Two time olympian. Unified the heavyweight crown ( something you personally give Tyson credit for on a regular basis ) defeated pretty much everyone in his time, and avenged the only losses he ever had. Also, beat over 25 ranked fighters in his career, which I believe is pretty close to being an all time record at heavyweight.

[cross_trainer]

they sucked.

No more than fighters in other eras sucked. In fact, your 70's cycle of overratedness theory would tend to support the idea that there were equally sucky top contenders in the era generally considered the best in history.

In what eras did the top fighters not suck?

[ChrisPontius]

Chris,

I think the Bowe v. Lewis amateur contest should be completely ruled out as totally irrelevent in any comparison you make of the Big4 (Tyson, Holy, Bowe and Lewis).

Bowe was 18, Lewis was in his 20s. In terms of physical development it is not a level playing field and an unjust comparison.

I am very confident in saying this because in athletics, the purest measure of physical performance, there are a number of athletes who have broken world records in their early 20s (Coe, Ovett to name but 2) whereas it is extremely unusual to even be able to compete in international competition as an 18 year old.

I know that Lewis was older and more experienced than Bowe, but none of this matters to the mind. Bowe still remembers his knockout loss in the amateur finals, which is always embarresing for a fighters. Champions are human too. You can't deny that this takes away from confidence that he had. I'm not saying that this means Lewis automatically wins, i'm just saying that Lewis automatically has an edge here. Just like McCall and Rahman had a psychological edge in the rematches with Lewis.

But the fact that Bowe rather dumped his belt in the trashcan than to face Lewis does make you think about..

[ChrisPontius]

Thanks...and I really want to know the answer. I constantly hear the "B Level Fighter" cry from those who discredit Lewis's defeats, but fail to see how Rahman or McCall are any different from top contenders in any other era. :huh

They weren't any different.

Tyson, Norton, Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Foreman, Holyfield etc also lost to so called B-level fighters, but you will never read the words B-level fighter and their names in one sentence for some reason.

[cross_trainer]

Whichever era suits the argument i happen to making at the time.

:lol: :good

[janitor]

Tyson, Norton, Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Foreman, Holyfield etc also lost to so called B-level fighters, but you will never read the words B-level fighter and their names in one sentence for some reason.

This is a verry valid observation.

[Holmes' Jab]

They weren't any different.

Tyson, Norton, Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Foreman, Holyfield etc also lost to so called B-level fighters, but you will never read the words B-level fighter and their names in one sentence for some reason.

Good point. :good

[JohnThomas1]

They weren't any different.

Tyson, Norton, Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Foreman, Holyfield etc also lost to so called B-level fighters, but you will never read the words B-level fighter and their names in one sentence for some reason.

A superb point. It amuses how the likes of Zakman (nothing personal, but when it comes to Lewis the man loses all perception like Rooster and SRL) twist around the criteria to fit there exact agenda, and it is indeed an agenda. They add the title of "champion" so they can bypass the likes of those you mention, as well as many many others. It's not hard to tear down most anyone with an attitude like this.

[cross_trainer]

A superb point. It amuses how the likes of Zakman (nothing personal, but when it comes to Lewis the man loses all perception like Rooster and SRL) twist around the criteria to fit there exact agenda, and it is indeed an agenda. They add the title of "champion" so they can bypass the likes of those you mention, as well as many many others. It's not hard to tear down most anyone with an attitude like this.

Moorer and Douglas, for instance, are little better than either McCall or Rahman. Contenders all.

[JohnThomas1]

Moorer and Douglas, for instance, are little better than either McCall or Rahman. Contenders all.
Exactly!!!! Not by much! As a matter of fact i don't rate Moorer that much at all at Heavyweight. His main claim to fame is a close win over an inconsistent Holyfield. Besides beating hapless coppers. Douglas did very little apart from his one night stand too. Potential and prettiness doesn't mean everything.

[UpWithEvil]

They weren't any different.

Tyson, Norton, Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Foreman, Holyfield etc also lost to so called B-level fighters, but you will never read the words B-level fighter and their names in one sentence for some reason.

While I think you make a good overall point, I believe there is one significant difference between Lewis' situation and that of the other fighters you mention.

Lewis' "B-level" loss to Hasim Rachman was for the heavyweight championship of the world, and Lewis was KO'd decisively. I'm not sure you can really compare such a humiliating loss to those incurred by other great fighters early or late in their careers.

[JohnThomas1]

While I think you make a good overall point, I believe there is one significant difference between Lewis' situation and that of the other fighters you mention.

Lewis' "B-level" loss to Hasim Rachman was for the heavyweight championship of the world, and Lewis was KO'd decisively. I'm not sure you can really compare such a humiliating loss to those incurred by other great fighters early or late in their careers.

the telling factor is that Lewis came back tiptop and absolutely KTFO Rahman. This makes excuses for the loss very very believable. It also proves his worth under possibly the most excruciating situation known to boxer, the ability to come back and beat a guy that has knocked you out. This proves the true mettle of Lewis. Incidently he did it twice, irregardless of Mad McCall's state.

How many didn't do this?

Ali
Tyson
Holmes


hell, i need not even bother to go on.

[Doppleganger]

the telling factor is that Lewis came back tiptop and absolutely KTFO Rahman. This makes excuses for the loss very very believable. It also proves his worth under possibly the most excruciating situation known to boxer, the ability to come back and beat a guy that has knocked you out. This proves the true mettle of Lewis. Incidently he did it twice, irregardless of Mad McCall's state.

How many didn't do this?

Ali
Tyson
Holmes


hell, i need not even bother to go on.

Yup. What's the maxim, KO someone once and you'll KO them quicker in the rematch? Lewis disproved that usually reliable truism not once, but twice. What does that tell you about the first fights? It tells me at least that Lewis was operating below the level that he was capable of performing at. He should never have lost the fights but he did. These are some of the things that Lewis-haters try to highlight regarding lewis, simply because they can't find anything else.


The man goes 14 years and only hits the deck twice and he gets accused of having a glass jaw.
He loses to 2 fighters that happened not to be in the top 20 HWs of all time so they are labelled as 'B level journeymen'.
He is charged with not fighting the best fighters of his era in their primes. Nevermind that this is almost entirely because said fighters either ducked him or paid him step-aside money.No other top HW has had to undergo this level of scrutiny or unfairness when their careers are being dissected. Give the guy a fucking break I say.

[Robbi]

the telling factor is that Lewis came back tiptop and absolutely KTFO Rahman. This makes excuses for the loss very very believable. It also proves his worth under possibly the most excruciating situation known to boxer, the ability to come back and beat a guy that has knocked you out. This proves the true mettle of Lewis. Incidently he did it twice, irregardless of Mad McCall's state.

How many didn't do this?

Ali
Tyson
Holmes


hell, i need not even bother to go on.

Agreed

Sustained beatings can really age a fighter, but one punch knockouts do more damage to a fighters confidence. Knowing that your in with an opponent who had knocked you out in a previous fight, yet coming back to dominate them so convincingly takes bottle and courage. The thing I liked about Lewis during his rematches with McCall and Rahman, he oozed confidence and focused more on his own work than his opponents. He never went into his shell.

[JohnThomas1]

Yup. What's the maxim, KO someone once and you'll KO them quicker in the rematch? Lewis disproved that usually reliable truism not once, but twice. What does that tell you about the first fights? It tells me at least that Lewis was operating below the level that he was capable of performing at. He should never have lost the fights but he did. These are some of the things that Lewis-haters try to highlight regarding lewis, simply because they can't find anything else.

The man goes 14 years and only hits the deck twice and he gets accused of having a glass jaw.
He loses to 2 fighters that happened not to be in the top 20 HWs of all time so they are labelled as 'B level journeymen'.
He is charged with not fighting the best fighters of his era in their primes. Nevermind that this is almost entirely because said fighters either ducked him or paid him step-aside money.No other top HW has had to undergo this level of scrutiny or unfairness when their careers are being dissected. Give the guy a fucking break I say.

Posts like this by you and Chris is why i left the Lennox Lewis defending to you guys. What a superb post, short but concise and impeccable in it's finality. Keep up the fantastic work you two.

[Sonny's jab]

Zakman's argument about Lennox Lewis is sound.

Which other GREAT heavyweight champion was STARCHED twice by SINGLE PUNCHES thrown by B-level fighters ?

That is Zakman's question. Is Zakman operating with an irrational anti-Lewis agenda ? I dont think so. I think Zakman is willing to disqualify any historical heavyweight from the ranks of the "true greats" if they have been found to have been starched TWICE by one-punch against B-level fighters, (while they were champion, in their prime, or at their peak).

[JohnThomas1]

Zakman's argument about Lennox Lewis is sound.

Which other GREAT heavyweight champion was STARCHED twice by SINGLE PUNCHES thrown by B-level fighters ?

That is Zakman's question. Is Zakman operating with an irrational anti-Lewis agenda ? I dont think so. I think Zakman is willing to disqualify any historical heavyweight from the ranks of the "true greats" if they have been found to have been starched TWICE by one-punch against B-level fighters, (while they were champion, in their prime, or at their peak).

With all due respect Sonny you are as hard on Tyson as Zakman is on Lewis. As we've been thru recently. Incidently you are both immense Holyfield fans.

IMO Zakman is grossly unfair to Lewis, as are you to Tyson. Uncannily i agree with most every post both of you make when it comes to topics other than Lewis and Tyson.

[Sonny's jab]

With all due respect Sonny you are as hard on Tyson as Zakman is on Lewis. As we've been thru recently. Incidently you are both immense Holyfield fans.

IMO Zakman is grossly unfair to Lewis, as are you to Tyson. Uncannily i agree with most every post both of you make when it comes to topics other than Lewis and Tyson.

I think I'm fair to Tyson.
As an immense Holyfield fan who makes no excuses for his losses to Bowe and Moorer, I dont feel my acknowledgment of Douglas KO10 Tyson is out of line.
I understand that my fairness in this matter is a minority view. :D

I think Zakman had a sound case against Lewis but I dont necessarily agree with the extent of the conclusions he draws. I think he's sincere and consistent with his criteria for "greatness" but I dont share those criteria, although I find it a partially persuasive argument.

[Sonny's jab]

Riddick Bowe was 21 when he fought Lennox Lewis in the 1988 Olympics. Lewis was 23.

[Doppleganger]

Posts like this by you and Chris is why i left the Lennox Lewis defending to you guys. What a superb post, short but concise and impeccable in it's finality. Keep up the fantastic work you two.
Thank you JT. :good I dunno but this is a subject I just can't leave alone. Probably because I see otherwise good, knowledgable posters coming up with biased, unfair crap. I'd love to get a couple of these guys in a bar or somewhere where they can't wriggle away or ignore my points/facts if said points/facts don't fit in with their opinion. :yep

[mcvey]

Perhaps you meant to call this thread "underated"?!



I'd say his defencive infighing is the greatest ever. He attacked of his defence (generally speaking) which made him a deceptivley dangerous fighter. He was also a very strong one.

The holding you're refering to was very much a part of the mindset of the day.



His competition as linear champ wasn't great. His competition as black champ and challenger is up there - most fighters had losses near the end of their careers, Johnsons went on much longer than mosts.



I have him at four.

I agree with Sweet Pea, Marciano. Just on the numbers. A great fighter, I have him at 13, many guys have him top three, some at one.
I must be a fool I have JJ at no2 behind Ali,and Rocky just scraping in tothe top 10at 9.

[warchild]

Riddick Bowe. People always say that if he had more discipline and trained harder, he could've been one of the best ever. Well....guess what?....he didn't....and he wasn't.

[mcvey]

Also, does Tate have anywhere CLOSE to the resume that Lewis has?

You are taking Lewis' worst fights and saying that he isnt great just because of them. Do you ignore the rest of his career?
You know the song LOVE and MARRIAGE?the line that goes "you cant have one without the other ",Lewis,s resume is hurt bythe 2 kos to average fighters,but he would be a hard nights work for any champion,big ,skilled could box ,punch,chin so so.head to head he might have beat 80% of the champs that went before him,there againsome of the bombers might have got him out of there.I have a gut feeling he will be drastically re evalued in years to come and placed higher than he generally is today,rather like Marciano who when he retired wasnt rated with Dempsey and Louis,[and still wouldnt be for me].

[NickHudson]

At the risk of going round in circles here, the sustained performance Douglas put in to beat Tyson was vastly superior to anything Rahman and McCall did ever did, let alone against Lewis.

The fact that Douglas didnt repeat this performance doesnt matter in this particular debate.

What matters is that it took a superb performance to wrest the title off Tyson. It did not take a superb performance to wrest it off Lewis.

Moorer and Douglas, for instance, are little better than either McCall or Rahman. Contenders all.

[NickHudson]

I stand corrected.

Have been given a bum steer on this, need to double-check sources!

My argument on the relevence of the Bowe Lewis amateur contest is now much less valid than I thought. The smaller developmental difference should still be factored in the analysis of the two though.

Bowe may have been psyched by the loss, but I personally doubt it. He was a different man as a pro in the early 90s, especially coming off the stellar win over Holyfield. Bowe was scared of Gonzalez as an amateur but thrashed him as a pro.

Riddick Bowe was 21 when he fought Lennox Lewis in the 1988 Olympics. Lewis was 23.

[Duodenum]

At the risk of going round in circles here, the sustained performance Douglas put in to beat Tyson was vastly superior to anything Rahman and McCall did ever did, let alone against Lewis.

The fact that Douglas didnt repeat this performance doesnt matter in this particular debate.

What matters is that it took a superb performance to wrest the title off Tyson. It did not take a superb performance to wrest it off Lewis.Well put. (That's a devastating perspective to articulate!)

[JohnThomas1]

Thank you JT. :good I dunno but this is a subject I just can't leave alone. Probably because I see otherwise good, knowledgable posters coming up with biased, unfair crap. I'd love to get a couple of these guys in a bar or somewhere where they can't wriggle away or ignore my points/facts if said points/facts don't fit in with their opinion. :yep

Hahahaha, that's just wicked.

[JohnThomas1]

I think I'm fair to Tyson.
As an immense Holyfield fan who makes no excuses for his losses to Bowe and Moorer, I dont feel my acknowledgment of Douglas KO10 Tyson is out of line.
I understand that my fairness in this matter is a minority view. :D

I think Zakman had a sound case against Lewis but I dont necessarily agree with the extent of the conclusions he draws. I think he's sincere and consistent with his criteria for "greatness" but I dont share those criteria, although I find it a partially persuasive argument.

Hahahaha, i loved the minority view comment, great stuff. Don't get me wrong, i read your Tyson posts most intently and do try to see your points. Zak just says the same monotonous thing again and again. In other topics he digs substancially deeper, maybe Lewis is just a gee up

:lol:

[Mike South]

For me I would have to say Jack Johnson.

All film I have seen of him has been terrible, lacked offense and defense consisted of holding excessively.

His competition wasn't great, fighting middleweights. And he had many losses near the end of his career.

Despite this i've seen people rate him as high as third on top HW lists.

I don't know how you feel about Roy Jones, but Jack Johnson reminds me a lot of Jones at Light Heavy. He had God-given talent but seldom used it.

[Mike South]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Here's what I think Johnson has going fo him in the head to head department.

Best ring general of all time at heavyweight - only Ali competes in this area.

Great reactions. There are videos of him on youtube, you should look them up, he's openly compared to Ali in this department.

Very strong. As much as most of the others I would suggest.

Mentally strong. Never flustered.

For some of the above reasons he would need to be solved "in the ring". Sparring would be no use - that hamstrings some from the get go, the great Joe Louis included. I'd pick Jack to beat Joe head to head.

These are all very good points. I would only add that ring generalship in and of itself counts for nothing. Only cleanly landed punches score in boxing.

[timmers612]

Big Jeff. In todays twelve rounders Corbett would have had a near shut out in their return go. By most accounts of the day sailor Tom, though badly mauled over the last five rounds of their 25 rounder, was far and clearly ahead after the twentieth. Both of these bouts give a clear idea of how often Jeff would had lost going head to head against the all time greats....as in many times. Tunney, Charles, Walcott along with others not usually in the top five all clear winners over the boiler maker.

[Bigcat]

Frank Bruno was rated high enough to be granted not 1
Not 2
Not 3

But 4 Shots at a World Championship..

With the type of skill levels he posessed .

Frank has to be in the running...

[janitor]

If Marciano Isnt Everybodies Pick Then It Just Shows How Things Havent Really Changed Even Though Its 2007.a 180 Pound Man Who Fought Mostly 180 Pound And Smaller Men Yet His Name Is Still Mentioned As One Of The All Time Heavyweight Greats.he Wasnt A Big Puncher At His Own Weight Class Even Though You Would Assume By His Record He Was.marciano Was A Pressure Fighter Who Broke The Bums He Fought Down.any Decent Real Heavyweight From Tyson To Foreman To Lewis Would Destroy Him With Ease.

Thankyou for your input but this forum dose not need another vilage idiot with a chip on his shoulder about Rocky Marciano.

[janitor]

And he had many losses near the end of his career.


How startling when he fought well into his 50s.

[Doppleganger]

Frank Bruno was rated high enough to be granted not 1
Not 2
Not 3

But 4 Shots at a World Championship..

With the type of skill levels he posessed .

Frank has to be in the running... To be fair to Big Frank though he only got 4 shots at the title because he was a moneyspinner. He probably didn't deserve to get 4 cracks at the title based on talent or his previous efforts.

[Sweet Science]

In my experience Henry Cooper is grossley overrated in England by old white guys who think he was robbed against "that loud coloured fella Clay".

[Holmes' Jab]

In my experience Henry Cooper is grossley overrated in England by old white guys who think he was robbed against "that loud coloured fella Clay".

He was certainly better than London, Bugner, Dunn and the likes. :yep

I don't think he'd be that far down the line when taking into account the best British HW's ever: Somewhere behind the likes of Lewis, Fitz and Farr etc is fair.

[TBooze]

In my experience Henry Cooper is grossley overrated in England by old white guys who think he was robbed against "that loud coloured fella Clay".

Yes that is true. People go on 'If only he had not got cut all the time'... Well between 1957 and end of his career (1971) Cooper was only stopped on cuts in the Ali/Clay fights. Our 'enry's main problem (with one or two exceptions) was he kept getting knocked out when he met the top level fighters!

As for the knockdown, Clay/Ali's glove was not replaced but he did recieve an extra..... 10 seconds between the rounds!!!!!!! The BBC timed it, and it is shown on ESPN in Britain.

[Sweet Science]

He was certainly better than London, Bugner, Dunn and the likes. :yep

I don't think he'd be that far down the line when taking into account the best British HW's ever: Somewhere behind the likes of Lewis, Fitz and Farr etc is fair.

Well I know the best British HW list is nothing to write home about, as we don't have a great wealth of talent to choose from. But I think Cooper would be even futher down the list than that.

Hide, Bruno and even Danny Williams on a good day would have beaten Cooper. Or am I being too harsh?

[Holmes' Jab]

Well I know the best British HW list is nothing to write home about, as we don't have a great wealth of talent to choose from. But I think Cooper would be even futher down the list than that.

Hide, Bruno and even Danny Williams on a good day would have beaten Cooper. Or am I being too harsh?

I'll give you Bruno, head to head. :good

[amhlilhaus]

Lewis would be a handful for everyone who every put gloves on.

he also could be a pushover for anyone with a strong punch.

two of the lesser heavyweight champions proved that, and for the fanboys who say his chin WAS solid, show me another top ten all time great starched with one punch, not once but twice.

[janitor]

he also could be a pushover for anyone with a strong punch.

two of the lesser heavyweight champions proved that, and for the fanboys who say his chin WAS solid, show me another top ten all time great starched with one punch, not once but twice.

Lewis took punches that would bring down the walls of a city in some of his fights.

Any puncher who depended on his chin to secure victory would come away sorely disapointed.

[Bummy Davis]

Holmes, I see him posted in the top 5, a lot of the old timers laugh at that, Ali is often rated # 1, there is a case of him being in the top 4 but how does he get rated over Louis, Foreman was a great puncher but very amatuerish, some have him listed in top 4, Liston, quit in 2 fights vs Ali,was dropped and beaten by a 178lber Marty Marshall and his Big win over Patterson(a frozen Floyd) and Big Cat Williams who was ko'd 1st and faster by 174lb Bob Satterfield, Tyson (great power and skills but NEVER got OFF the Floor to WIN)..Shavers they make him a legend on this site but I seen him fight live, agood puncher but overated

[Doppleganger]

he also could be a pushover for anyone with a strong punch.

Why didn't Tyson, Bruno, Holyfield, Tua, Tucker, Mason, Briggs, Klitschko, Mercer, Morrison, Jackson, Golota, Ruddock, Grant and Weaver beat him then if he was such a pushover? They all had strong punches.

two of the lesser heavyweight champions proved that, and for the fanboys who say his chin WAS solid, show me another top ten all time great starched with one punch, not once but twice.

Show me another top ten all time great who beat every man he faced. Hint: there's only one other, he's Italian-American and under 6 foot.

[Dempsey1238]

Why didn't Tyson, Bruno, Holyfield, Tua, Tucker, Mason, Briggs, Klitschko, Mercer, Morrison, Jackson, Golota, Ruddock, Grant and Weaver beat him then if he was such a pushover? They all had strong punches.



Show me another top ten all time great who beat every man he faced. Hint: there's only one other, he's Italian-American and under 6 foot.

Well the top ten is relly a arugment relly. But though not top ten, I think Tunney makes a good top ten sometimes lol.


Gene Tunney.
Ingo
Rocky Marciano of couse
Bowe
And Lewis of couse.

[NickHudson]

Bummy Davis,

I am interested in your top 10 HWs based on your analysis below:

1) Who are the other HWs that are so good Ali has only 'a case' for top 4? Everyone else on the forum has Ali a lock for top2, and most at #1.

2) Where do you rank Holmes as I see you mock a top3 placing.

48 consecutive wins over a 13 year stretch, including Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon and Smith is a tremendous run of form.

I am also amazed at your comment that 'old timers' would laugh at a top3 ranking, as Holmes is the modern heavy that most resembled one of the craftsmen of the 20s and 30s. I think many old timers would approve of a high Holmes placing. I find the textbook ramrod job, the years of sparring and learning from Ali, plus his will-to-win and general guts as a very difficult combination to overcome.

Holmes, I see him posted in the top 5, a lot of the old timers laugh at that, Ali is often rated # 1, there is a case of him being in the top 4 but how does he get rated over Louis, Foreman was a great puncher but very amatuerish, some have him listed in top 4, Liston, quit in 2 fights vs Ali,was dropped and beaten by a 178lber Marty Marshall and his Big win over Patterson(a frozen Floyd) and Big Cat Williams who was ko'd 1st and faster by 174lb Bob Satterfield, Tyson (great power and skills but NEVER got OFF the Floor to WIN)..Shavers they make him a legend on this site but I seen him fight live, agood puncher but overated

[Balboa]

Firstly my 5 cents worth on the Lewis debate. He lost twice by stoppage to perhaps not the best oposition at the time but give the guy his dues he was straight back in there to avenge his loses. Regarding his chin, I don't think anyone can say that Tua, Morrison etc were not big punchers but he with stood some big shots from many guys but stayed vertical, the fact he was knocked/tko'd twice is just unfortunate, hey this is heavy weight boxing brother knockouts are inevitable. I place him above Holyfield at HEAVY as I think he was able/blessed with better tools for the job. Lewis is above Tyson as I think he was just better, Tyson carried a lot of quality to the ring but could be beaten by a talented and metally strong fight which Lewis was. Bowe I consider less than these three due to his short period at the top and I think he would struggle with Lewis whos physicality was similar to Bowe's therefore nullifying a lot of Bowe big weapons i.e. reach.

Now for most overrated I have to say Ali unfortunely. Before I get flamed I would like to say I have Ali top 2/3 all time heavy. His resume speaks for itself but I do think due to his personna the spotlight on him has always shone more brightly and causes people to look back with rose tinted glasses on his performances.

Finally all those who say no ATG heavy has ever beaten taken out by a mediocre fighter like Lewis, I would be interested on your thoughts about Tyson-Douglas. I rate Douglas on the same sort of level as McCall and Rahman and don't see loses to any of the three to be unforgivable.

I prepare to be flamed:good

[NickHudson]

Mate,

Lewis was certainly blessed with greater physical tools than Holyfield. No dount about that. Unfortunately many feel ( I am one of them) he didnt use them as Holyfield would have.

All boxers considered chinny have also survived in other matches. Patterson is chinny, but wasn't knocked down by Moore who put rock-chinned Marciano on the deck. He also annihilated Johansson in two of their matches, and Johansson had a tremendous right hand punch. Patterson is still chinny though, despite these performances.

The Tyson-Douglas example does not support your argument. Douglas was awesome that night, and Tyson went down in a thriller, fighting his guts out like a true champion until the last few moments, and decking Douglas along the way. Lewis caved in like a deck of cards to a single punch in both his losses. The McCall and Rahman that beat Lewis were not a patch on the Douglas that beat Tyson...

Firstly my 5 cents worth on the Lewis debate. He lost twice by stoppage to perhaps not the best oposition at the time but give the guy his dues he was straight back in there to avenge his loses. Regarding his chin, I don't think anyone can say that Tua, Morrison etc were not big punchers but he with stood some big shots from many guys but stayed vertical, the fact he was knocked/tko'd twice is just unfortunate, hey this is heavy weight boxing brother knockouts are inevitable. I place him above Holyfield at HEAVY as I think he was able/blessed with better tools for the job. Lewis is above Tyson as I think he was just better, Tyson carried a lot of quality to the ring but could be beaten by a talented and metally strong fight which Lewis was. Bowe I consider less than these three due to his short period at the top and I think he would struggle with Lewis whos physicality was similar to Bowe's therefore nullifying a lot of Bowe big weapons i.e. reach.

Now for most overrated I have to say Ali unfortunely. Before I get flamed I would like to say I have Ali top 2/3 all time heavy. His resume speaks for itself but I do think due to his personna the spotlight on him has always shone more brightly and causes people to look back with rose tinted glasses on his performances.

Finally all those who say no ATG heavy has ever beaten taken out by a mediocre fighter like Lewis, I would be interested on your thoughts about Tyson-Douglas. I rate Douglas on the same sort of level as McCall and Rahman and don't see loses to any of the three to be unforgivable.

I prepare to be flamed:good

[robert ungurean]

For the last time its Lennox Lewis!!!
One of the most Big fragil men ever.
He was a big,safty first ,fragil,heart & soul lacking overated HWC.

[Bummy Davis]

Bummy Davis,

I am interested in your top 10 HWs based on your analysis below:

1) Who are the other HWs that are so good Ali has only 'a case' for top 4? Everyone else on the forum has Ali a lock for top2, and most at #1.

2) Where do you rank Holmes as I see you mock a top3 placing.

48 consecutive wins over a 13 year stretch, including Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Berbick, Witherspoon and Smith is a tremendous run of form.

I am also amazed at your comment that 'old timers' would laugh at a top3 ranking, as Holmes is the modern heavy that most resembled one of the craftsmen of the 20s and 30s. I think many old timers would approve of a high Holmes placing. I find the textbook ramrod job, the years of sparring and learning from Ali, plus his will-to-win and general guts as a very difficult combination to overcome.

I Have Ali at 3 but I see a lot of people have him rated over 1 as the all time greatest ever superman. Ali was a top 4 lock IMO but he could lose on a given night to Louis,Dempsey,Marciano,Frazier and others. Holmes won a split decision over a15 fight Witherspoon but many felt spoon won(Holmes never rematched him) Norton lost a SD to Holmes on 6/09/78 but Norton was KO'd in 1 by Shavers on 3/23/79 and dropped twice in the 10th round and lucky to Draw with journeyman Scott Ledoux on 8/19/79 and out of Nortons next 5 fights he won 2, Berbick was a wide punching muscle guy but look how Tyson bounced him around, Weaver was a19-8 fighter when Holmes fought him and he Wacked Holmes around the ring until a premature stop(Holmes never rematched Weaver) and Holmes never unified, Smith was a big Bum, Holmes also avoided to many fighters in his era,Page,Dokes,Coetzee,Thomas,Weaver,Williams and Witherspoon in rematches then he lost to soft touch Spinks but Holmes never tried to unify and avoided good right hand Bangers. Holmes had skills but avoided too many to be listed so high, I have Holmes bordering the top 10, he fought the weakest contenders and never unified

[Seamus]

Ali is usually over-rated, Dempsey, also. Both are given more credit than is due for their abilities because they came around at the right time.

But no one is more over-rated than Jack Johnson, a middlin' champion at best. A more sober eye finds him quite disappointing.

Lewis is decidedly under-rated. I would bet on him to beat any champion head-to-head who ever lived. He could lose, no doubt, but the ODDS are he would win.

[Dempsey1238]

Even PRIME Tyson?? Or Joe Louis?? I dont see Lewis getting by them.

[Bummy Davis]

Lewis had a great offence but not lasting stamina or late power, his KO over Rahman was classic(but Maskaev did it to Rahman also 2 times) tKo over Rudduck was good, Ko over Golota,Botha,Grant very good but the talent was abit better than ordinary, He could not hurt Evander or Mercer, so he is hard to judge

[JohnThomas1]

Ali is usually over-rated, Dempsey, also. Both are given more credit than is due for their abilities because they came around at the right time.


Yeah, Ali was so lucky to come thru such a weak era wasn't he. Sonny Liston the champ, then followed by peak Frazier and Foreman. Easybeats, all three. Contenders like Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, more fruit.

:patsch

[Seamus]

Yeah, Ali was so lucky to come thru such a weak era wasn't he. Sonny Liston the champ, then followed by peak Frazier and Foreman. Easybeats, all three. Contenders like Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, more fruit.

:patsch

Not that I don't think Ali was great, I just don't think his farts cure cancer like some.

Devil's Advocacte...
Liston was old as dirt and threw at least one of those fights for money or fear.

Norton would not even be remembered were it not for the fact he had Ali's number.


Foreman beat two decent (one good in Norton and one well on his way down in Frazier) fighters in his early reign. Probably the most protected heavy prospect of all time.


Shavers got beat by lots of people noone remembers, Young was a sparring partner, Lyle a stubborn but not all that talented cat...

Meanwhile, Ali got gifted Norton III, lost to Spinks-unforgiveable at any age, and fought a bunch of fleabags in the 70's.

OK, back to reality, do I consider Ali one of the top 2 heavies of all-time by virtue of his record? Yes. Can I still consider him to be over-rated despite this lofty praise? Yes.

[JohnThomas1]

Not that I don't think Ali was great, I just don't think his farts cure cancer like some.

Devil's Advocacte...
Liston was old as dirt and threw at least one of those fights for money or fear.

Norton would not even be remembered were it not for the fact he had Ali's number.


Foreman beat two decent (one good in Norton and one well on his way down in Frazier) fighters in his early reign. Probably the most protected heavy prospect of all time.


Shavers got beat by lots of people noone remembers, Young was a sparring partner, Lyle a stubborn but not all that talented cat...

Meanwhile, Ali got gifted Norton III, lost to Spinks-unforgiveable at any age, and fought a bunch of fleabags in the 70's.

OK, back to reality, do I consider Ali one of the top 2 heavies of all-time by virtue of his record? Yes. Can I still consider him to be over-rated despite this lofty praise? Yes.

A negative slant like this can be aimed at anyones career/record. This is absolute worst case scenario. The facts are that Ali very likely fought the toughest collective of any Heavyweight champ ever. If we really want to get back to reality, 3 of Ali's victims are commonly found in the Top 10 Heavyweight lists ever, often all 3 at once.

[Dempsey1238]

Fraizer sometimes makes my list. Foreman often does also. Liston has never made my top ten list. He is always a what if, sort of like Baer.

[Street Lethal]

Rocky Marciano. It wasn't that he wasn't a hell of a fighter, but when I see him ranked in the top 10 all time list then he is overrated.

[Seamus]

A negative slant like this can be aimed at anyones career/record. This is absolute worst case scenario.

bullshit. facts are facts. Foreman was entirely protected. Liston threw at least one of those fights. Norton would be another over-exalted 70's contender were it not for his ability to give Ali fits- that is the ONLY thing he has going for him. Shavers, Young and Lyle were were b-level fighters at best. Dispute these contentions, please.

Ali is OVER-rated but still highly rated by me. OVER-rated because many want to deify him rather than take him warts and all.

Oh yeah, no body attack, clinched and held as much as any heavy since 1910, allowed to grab the ropes, clutch opponents necks...

Still, number 2 all-time in my book as a heavy.

[JohnThomas1]

Fraizer sometimes makes my list. Foreman often does also. Liston has never made my top ten list. He is always a what if, sort of like Baer.

Liston comes down heavily to personal perception and criteria. He always makes my top 10, lower half. I look at all the work he did pre title, basically clearing the challengers Patterson wasn't so keen to face. Sonny really should have been champ at this time but couldn't get his shot. By the time he fought Clay he was getting a bit old and facing a stylistic nightmare. The second fight was a fix IMO. Almost definitely. Head to head i think he beats Frazier and Foreman.

You know, this convo inspires me to get some reading material about Sonny. I think there is 2 books. I must look.

[hdog]

Roy Jones Junior?

[JohnThomas1]

bullshit. facts are facts. Foreman was entirely protected.

I knew you absolutely hated Liston, but didn't realise you were so hard on Foreman as well, sheesh.

Ok. Protected? I'd term it brought along carefully rather than protected. At the end of the day he still had to face a champion that had beaten Ali and was held in great esteem. A great fighter. You can spin the old and fragile stuff all day but the facts are Foreman beat a dominant champion, a great one. Not only beat him, he anniliated the man. Obliterated. He did the same thing to the decent, very decent, Norton. It wasn't even a contest. Spare me the crap that Foreman isn't a great fighter or a great, absolutely great, win for Ali. Even at a ridiculous age he was still able to come back and win the world title. Little doubt you will attack Moorer, but a fact is indeed a fact.

Norton would be another over-exalted 70's contender were it not for his ability to give Ali fits- that is the ONLY thing he has going for him. Shavers, Young and Lyle were were b-level fighters at best. Dispute these contentions, please.

This group is no worse than the main of pretty much any champion ever. Are we forgetting the fits Norton gave Holmes by any chance? That's not one, but two great fighters he troubled immensely. Norton is a damn good fighter who struggled vs aggressive big hitting fighters but was a nightmare for all others. Add Liston, Foreman and Frazier on top and we have the best group of names on any champs resume IMO.

Out of interest, what champion faced better opposition than Ali? We might open up their opposition under a similar light.

Ali is OVER-rated but still highly rated by me. OVER-rated because many want to deify him rather than take him warts and all.

I myself rate the Ali that was exiled as the best of him. I think he lost a fair bit of effectiveness later which showed in later struggles vs Young, Norton and co.

Oh yeah, no body attack, clinched and held as much as any heavy since 1910, allowed to grab the ropes, clutch opponents necks...

You forget a seldom used left hook, but he did quite ok with what he had. Again, any champ can be dragged down. Louis had heavy feet, tho he'd be close to the most complete heavyweight ever.

Still, number 2 all-time in my book as a heavy.

I have Ali 1 and Joe 2, but it's debatable. Joe didn't have the great wins Ali had (Tho you'd disagree lol) but he had a sensational level of consistency. Great fighters.

[Dempsey1238]

Rocky Marciano. It wasn't that he wasn't a hell of a fighter, but when I see him ranked in the top 10 all time list then he is overrated.

Marciano belongs in the top heavyweights of all time. He earn and prove himself to be with the elite. He has beating Great fighters and HOFERS like Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore. And 3 of em were a murders role at the time.

[Dempsey1238]

Liston comes down heavily to personal perception and criteria. He always makes my top 10, lower half. I look at all the work he did pre title, basically clearing the challengers Patterson wasn't so keen to face. Sonny really should have been champ at this time but couldn't get his shot. By the time he fought Clay he was getting a bit old and facing a stylistic nightmare. The second fight was a fix IMO. Almost definitely. Head to head i think he beats Frazier and Foreman.

You know, this convo inspires me to get some reading material about Sonny. I think there is 2 books. I must look.

Yeah Liston clean out the top divsion and all. But I cant get over him flopping the way he did vs Ali the 2nd time.

[RoccoMarciano]

Ali :)

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah Liston clean out the top divsion and all. But I cant get over him flopping the way he did vs Ali the 2nd time.

Well i take the belief that he threw the fight and if he didn't the mafia may have given him and family the good old blowtorch. I think the guy had no choice. Many many fighters dogged it for the mafia but Liston, due to his menacing reputation, the fact that he had the biggest title in sport, the importance of the fight and Ali's sheer magnetism is singled out like no other. I dare say a handful of ATG's have done similar, just not on a stage as big as Liston - Ali.

[Dempsey1238]

Well the Mob threating Marciano if he didnt thown the Cockell fight. And did Rocky take the dive?? No he crush Cockell in 9 rounds. And even if Liston was theating, I sure they would not have acting on it at the time. Ali was pretty hated with him switicng to the new name and Islam and all. I think it would be the Mob's BEST move if they had Liston as champ, than compare to Ali.

[JohnThomas1]

Well the Mob threating Marciano if he didnt thown the Cockell fight. And did Rocky take the dive?? No he crush Cockell in 9 rounds. And even if Liston was theating, I sure they would not have acting on it at the time. Ali was pretty hated with him switicng to the new name and Islam and all. I think it would be the Mob's BEST move if they had Liston as champ, than compare to Ali.

Liston was in deep with the mob, Marciano never was. Big difference. Hey, good on Marciano and co for resisting and sad that Sonny didn't from day one. I think however life led him that way. I'll have to get his book and get some facts.

[Dempsey1238]

I belive the mob would perfer Liston over Ali at the time. I mean Ali was relly on the media's bad side with Islam and the Clay to Ali changing and all that. Also Malcome X was killed shortly before the fight. I see the mob if they were took part in the fight, be backing Liston in a case like this.

[JohnThomas1]

I belive the mob would perfer Liston over Ali at the time. I mean Ali was relly on the media's bad side with Islam and the Clay to Ali changing and all that. Also Malcome X was killed shortly before the fight. I see the mob if they were took part in the fight, be backing Liston in a case like this.

I've got no doubt at all in my own mind that Liston took a dive in the second fight. The mob liked their money and Liston was still favourite i believe. I think Clay beat him fairly in the first, Liston may or may not have been in great shape.

[Street Lethal]

Marciano belongs in the top heavyweights of all time. He earn and prove himself to be with the elite. He has beating Great fighters and HOFERS like Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore. And 3 of em were a murders role at the time.

Joe Louis was 37 and his career was really over. Ezzard Charles had decisively defeated him a year earlier. In his prime, Louis would have beaten Marciano. Walcott was 38 with many losses on his record, and he almost beat Rocky. Moore was 38 years old and a light heavyweight. Charles was 33, but his best days were long behind him, and he was a natural light heavyweight anyway, and he did quote well against Marciano. As much as I respect all these boxers, they were all in the twilight of their careers. Marciano would have needed to defeat a lot of young elite heavyweights before I would consider him for a spot in the top 10 all time boxers.

[Dempsey1238]

Walcott, Charles, and Moore pretty much clean out the guys Rocky didnt fight though. They were the top contenders. I belive the first Marciano fight ruin Charles. He was impressive vs Johnson(Highway robber) Shatterfiled, and Wallace. Charles still had a lot left.

Moore has beating EVEY top contender to get his shot at the crown. And Walcott had 2 impressive wins over Charles, and a first impressive fight with Marciano. These guys were STILL great fighters when they fought the Rock.

[Seamus]

Please understand that me thinking Ali is over-rated does not negate the fact I believe he stands as one of the greatest HW's ever.

Now for the nitpicking, Norton's loss to Holmes is an exagerrated Phyric victory. Holmes went on to defend against the greatest collection of bums ever assembled, so how good was he really? Pretty damn good, but we don't really know because the likes of Scott Frank and a coked up Spinks don't provide proper litmus tests.

The exiled Ali never fought, so there is no basis in saying some upstart wouldn't have figured out the limitations in his game. Everyone is beatable, at every stage of their career. That whole thread of arguementation is a non-starter.

I don't hate Liston; I do rather despise his characterization by the media. He was a hell of a fighter, who I enjoy rewatching.

Foreman was rediculously over-protected. Even the match-making vs. Ali was considered a pre-ordained annihilation. Look at his record pre-Frazier, simply paddycake tomato cans. What were they hiding?

You will really have to go to great lengths to prove Norton was some sort of great fighter. He was strong and persistent- with gaping easily ,exploitable flaws- and that is it. If you carried a decent punch, and believed in it as part of your strategy, you had a good chance against him.

[MrSmall]

Right here and now?
Fucking Wlad Klitschko, for fucks sake.

[JohnThomas1]

Please understand that me thinking Ali is over-rated does not negate the fact I believe he stands as one of the greatest HW's ever.


I've followed, your rating him at 2 is plenty defendable. Top 2 is the norm.

Now for the nitpicking, Norton's loss to Holmes is an exagerrated Phyric victory. Holmes went on to defend against the greatest collection of bums ever assembled, so how good was he really? Pretty damn good, but we don't really know because the likes of Scott Frank and a coked up Spinks don't provide proper litmus tests.

Well ya pretty fair hahaha. Certainly no punches pulled on anyone. I agree Larry fought in an easy time which is one reason why i rate Ali's resume very very highly. Many will tell us Louis, Marciano or both had an average assortment of opponent too. Much comes back to personal opinion. Ali IMO is definitely the most tested.

Regarding Norton - Holmes, well it's a toughie. I rate Norton just one step below Holmes, Ali and the likes. Maybe one and a half given losses like Shavers. Not great and i'd never claim he was, but i thought he showed some excellent abaility against a Holmes i rate highly head to head. As you hint, it comes back to our own perception of Holmes. I rate him very high (contrary to some opinion as i bagged his choice of defenses late career) but can see how many can debate he wasn't all that.


The exiled Ali never fought, so there is no basis in saying some upstart wouldn't have figured out the limitations in his game. Everyone is beatable, at every stage of their career. That whole thread of arguementation is a non-starter.

What i said/meant was that the Ali fighting right before exile is IMO the best Ali ever. IMO the Norton struggles were just as much from Ali's aging as Norton's style and tactics. Personally i see the Ali right before exile winning comfortable decisions vs Norton. Ali after the exile had lost a lot and i don't agree for one second that his extra size/style whatever made him just as good a fighter.


[Only registered and activated users can see links] Re: Most overrated HW of all time.
Please understand that me thinking Ali is over-rated does not negate the fact I believe he stands as one of the greatest HW's ever.

Now for the nitpicking, Norton's loss to Holmes is an exagerrated Phyric victory. Holmes went on to defend against the greatest collection of bums ever assembled, so how good was he really? Pretty damn good, but we don't really know because the likes of Scott Frank and a coked up Spinks don't provide proper litmus tests.

The exiled Ali never fought, so there is no basis in saying some upstart wouldn't have figured out the limitations in his game. Everyone is beatable, at every stage of their career. That whole thread of arguementation is a non-starter.

I don't hate Liston; I do rather despise his characterization by the media. He was a hell of a fighter, who I enjoy rewatching.

Yeah, i questioned you on this ages ago. Every time Liston came up you bagged the shit out of the guy lol. I thought there must have been something personal going on.

Foreman was rediculously over-protected. Even the match-making vs. Ali was considered a pre-ordained annihilation. Look at his record pre-Frazier, simply paddycake tomato cans. What were they hiding?

At the end of the day Foreman had to go thru Frazier and he did that with ridiculous ease. Frazier was top dog. He then murdered the highly rated Norton. I don't believe they were hiding things, if anything perhaps they were cruising easy to guarantee he got his money and shot. Cooney was the same. Safety first (IF it was even that) need not be considered protecting i think.

You will really have to go to great lengths to prove Norton was some sort of great fighter. He was strong and persistent- with gaping easily ,exploitable flaws- and that is it. If you carried a decent punch, and believed in it as part of your strategy, you had a good chance against him.

Can't argue with that, and i'd never call him great, but truth is he's right on the next rung IMO. A damn fine fighter.

[mcvey]

:patsch :patsch :patsch :patsch :patsch Oh dear

[JohnThomas1]

:patsch :patsch :patsch :patsch :patsch Oh dear

I'd put this thread in the "will be explosive" category, tho it's been pretty tame really

:lol:

[Muchmoore]

Right here and now?
Fucking Wlad Klitschko, for fucks sake.

:good

Every time a Klitschko reels off a few wins after getting stopped he automaticly enters ATG discussion.

[BoppaZoo]

all i want to say in this thread is

i cannot bring myself to overate any of these Heavyweight because i like pretty much all of them because they all had there own unique part to play in boxing.

i dont overate

Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Floyd Patterson
Ezzard Charles
Sonny Liston
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Muhammed Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Larry Holmes

but there is one Champ i feel personally was overated through the years and was a former Champ and that is

Primo Carnera should i say any more.

[Seamus]

Primo Carnera should i say any more.

Does anyone really overrate him?

Most people bag on him incessantly.

[Luigi1985]

all i want to say in this thread is

i cannot bring myself to overate any of these Heavyweight because i like pretty much all of them because they all had there own unique part to play in boxing.

i dont overate

Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Floyd Patterson
Ezzard Charles
Sonny Liston
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Muhammed Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Larry Holmes

but there is one Champ i feel personally was overated through the years and was a former Champ and that is

Primo Carnera should i say any more.



:lol:


Who overrates him? It´s the opposite with this poor man...

[Luigi1985]

Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson are by many very overrated IMO...

[Sonny's jab]

I think Ali pre-exile is overrated.

The Ali from 1964-67 has taken on mythical levels of ability, and is seen as significantly superior to the Ali of the 1970s.

Actually, he wasn't tested much at all in his first reign. Most of the guys were too old, too small or just too second-rate to apply necessary pressure.

But any opponent who beat him or gave him a hard fight in the 1970s is often said to have been lucky not to have faced the 60s Ali.

Highlight reels of his speed and dancing in the 60s are impressive, but the full fights or lengthy highlights show that he had weaknesses that surely would have been better exploited had he been fight a slightly better quality of opponent (as he did sometimes in the 70s).

[Luigi1985]

I think Ali pre-exile is overrated.

The Ali from 1964-67 has taken on mythical levels of ability, and is seen as significantly superior to the Ali of the 1970s.

Actually, he wasn't tested much at all in his first reign. Most of the guys were too old, too small or just too second-rate to apply necessary pressure.

But any opponent who beat him or gave him a hard fight in the 1970s is often said to have been lucky not to have faced the 60s Ali.

Highlight reels of his speed and dancing in the 60s are impressive, but the full fights or lengthy highlights show that he had weaknesses that surely would have been better exploited had he been fight a slightly better quality of opponent (as he did sometimes in the 70s).


Very good post, I see it the same way...

[janitor]

but there is one Champ i feel personally was overated through the years and was a former Champ and that is

Primo Carnera should i say any more.

It is dificult to see how people could rate him any lower while still acknowledging that he did not trip over his own feet.

[janitor]

Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson are by many very overrated IMO...

Also vastly under rated by many.

[ChrisPontius]

I think Ali pre-exile is overrated.

The Ali from 1964-67 has taken on mythical levels of ability, and is seen as significantly superior to the Ali of the 1970s.

Actually, he wasn't tested much at all in his first reign. Most of the guys were too old, too small or just too second-rate to apply necessary pressure.

But any opponent who beat him or gave him a hard fight in the 1970s is often said to have been lucky not to have faced the 60s Ali.

Highlight reels of his speed and dancing in the 60s are impressive, but the full fights or lengthy highlights show that he had weaknesses that surely would have been better exploited had he been fight a slightly better quality of opponent (as he did sometimes in the 70s).

Good call. Some people actually think the 60's Ali would simply "dance all the time and Frazier wouldn't catch him". :lol:

[Dostoevsky]

I would have to say Marciano, its not his accomplisments, it just head-to-head.
I would have to say, he would lose to every other heavyweight champion from any other era.
Infact I would include contenders who could beat him.

[Luigi1985]

Also vastly under rated by many.


Yeah, that´s right, but that´s with all elite fighters, some overrate them and some underrate them, but IMO both of these 2 were not so much proven in their title reign that they could be considered as surely one of the greatest ever ( some rank Dempsey as the 4th best HW for example, that´s a bit too high IMO)...

[mcvey]

I think Ali pre-exile is overrated.

The Ali from 1964-67 has taken on mythical levels of ability, and is seen as significantly superior to the Ali of the 1970s.

Actually, he wasn't tested much at all in his first reign. Most of the guys were too old, too small or just too second-rate to apply necessary pressure.

But any opponent who beat him or gave him a hard fight in the 1970s is often said to have been lucky not to have faced the 60s Ali.

Highlight reels of his speed and dancing in the 60s are impressive, but the full fights or lengthy highlights show that he had weaknesses that surely would have been better exploited had he been fight a slightly better quality of opponent (as he did sometimes in the 70s).
which of Alis challengers do you think were too old and which too small? It,s interesting that Zora folley is considered ancient at 34 and Patterson in his midle 30s yet Marcianos best opponents wrere a 38 Walcott a 33 Charles and a39 Mooreall of which are pumped up on this site as being in their primes.who of Alis opponents were too small? In his first reign as Champ the lightest challenger Ali defended against was Cooper who weighed 188,Ali scaled 201 1/2 for that fight hardly a mismatch,Patterson weighed 13 1/4lbs less than Ali.no other challenger conceded significant weight to him,or age he didnt defend against a 40 year old LH ,and get put on his arse,Ali had weaknesses ,all fighters do ,which challengers do you think he avoided during his first reign that could have exploited them?

[mcvey]

:good :good :good :good :good :good Also vastly under rated by many.

[Luigi1985]

I would have to say Marciano, its not his accomplisments, it just head-to-head.
I would have to say, he would lose to every other heavyweight champion from any other era.
Infact I would include contenders who could beat him.



:lol:



Please stay here in the Classic Section, we need some clowns like you to laugh a bit, go on with your jokes...

[Dostoevsky]

I stand by my claims.
How would a 5'10 185lber compete with the likes of Lewis,Wlad,Holmes,Ali, Prime Louis, prime Dempsey?
He wouldn't.

Head-to-head, Marciano is the worst heavyweight champion. If Marciano had a record of 49-1. then people would never make so much noise about him, that magic '0' blinds people.

[SevenSamurai]

It is clearly Ali, if it wasnt for his iron jaw and the dodgy decisions he got he would have been seen for what he was a very good heavyweight.

He is only called the greatest by many because he called himself the greatest.

[Dempsey1238]

The Worse??? So you favor L Spinks or Rahman over Marciano?? Even had Marciano lost a fight, he still make the top ten for mostly cleaning out the 50's in the fashion he did. Dempsey lost, and he makes people's top ten. So has Jeff, and he is on people's top ten. Outside of Foreman, I think Marciano gives eveyone hell.

Also in Marciano's day, they train DOWN. Marciano weight a good 220 when he was not in training.

[Dostoevsky]

yes, Leon Spinks and Rahman aren't even rated, and of course are thought off as chumps.

To be overrated you need to be rated for a start. rahman and Spinks aren't, Marciano is.

[Dempsey1238]

and about this weight, Dempsey only weight 190 pounds. He only had 5 mere pounds over the Rock. What makes Dempsey so differnt in this regard?? Same goes for Louis who weight about 200. It was not that big of a weight gap. Even 170 pound Bill Conn gave Louis hell.

[Dostoevsky]

Dempsey and Louis were far faster, had better handspeed and had better punch combinations.

Marciano was predicatble he just did Left hook, right hook,left hook, right hook, left hook,right hoo........you get the picture.

[Dempsey1238]

Marciano was one of the MOST predicatble heavyweight champions ever, He may look sloppy, but he was dam akward. Charles says he feits with his fist and he feits his feet, you never know what he thown next, he was always thinking out there.

One of the Rock's most fame punchings the right that took out Walcott, was started off of a feit. He feit with the left and drove home with the right hand. Than we have Marciano leading and bobing and weaving. It was dang near impossible to land any thing clean on him as Walcott found out. underated defense, and tricks up the sleeves in regards to feits to get the punch home.

[Seamus]

Marciano is often over-rated as a head to head heavyweight, but he is vastly under-rated as a all time pound for pound fighter. No one at 185 and perhaps up to 205 beats him.

[OLD FOGEY]

Dempsey and Louis were far faster, had better handspeed and had better punch combinations.

Marciano was predicatble he just did Left hook, right hook,left hook, right hook, left hook,right hoo........you get the picture.

and he could knock you out with any single one of them.

A fighter who defeated the Robinson who knocked out Fullmer, the Tiger who beat Benvenuti, the Monzon who beat Valdez, and the Hopkins of the last few years would have defeated a bunch of old men but he would have to have been a great fighter.

[OLD FOGEY]

yes, Leon Spinks and Rahman aren't even rated, and of course are thought off as chumps.

To be overrated you need to be rated for a start. rahman and Spinks aren't, Marciano is.

Yup, knocking out every rated fighter you ever fought will do that for you. Sweeping your Hall-of-Famers will do that for you. Defeating the man with the longest winning streak of any man defeated by any heavyweight champion will do that for you. Having the highest knockout percentage against champions and rated fighters of any man at any weight in the Hall-of-Fame will do that for you. Having the highest knockout percentage of any heavyweight champion, and also obviously the highest winning percentage, will do that for you.

If you have the best record of anyone who ever fought against the men you fought and the men you fought were the best of their time, some will jump to the conclusion you are a good fighter.

[janitor]

[quote=Iron Duke]I stand by my claims.
How would a 5'10 185lber compete with the likes of Lewis,Wlad,Holmes,Ali, Prime Louis, prime Dempsey?
He wouldn't.


Once fighters get to 185 lbs you start to get guys who have the power to shatter any bone in the human body however big you are. A puncher like Marciano, Dempsey or Satterfield could beat a 1000 lb shire horse into a bloody mess eaSILY

Decades after Jess Willard fought Jack Dempsey he caried visible dents in his skull.


If Marciano had a record of 49-1. then people would never make so much noise about him, that magic '0' blinds people.


I disagree.

He would still be one of a handfull of champions who dominated a definable era.

Sullivan
Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Marciano
Liston
Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Lewis

[janitor]

Marciano was predicatble he just did Left hook, right hook,left hook, right hook, left hook,right hoo........you get the picture.

I think that you are making the same mistake that a lot of Rockys opponents made.

They said before they fought him that he was a neanderthal and predictable.

After they fought him they were all saying that he feinted them into knots and that they could never time his punches.

If you read what guys like Moore, Charles and Walcott said then go back and look at the film then you start to see it.

[Sonny's jab]

which of Alis challengers do you think were too old and which too small?

Most of them were a bit of both. Dont get me wrong, Ali's superiority to those fighters is what won him the fights, so I guess it's more about them not being good enough, rather than age and size. Ali's speed and reach were his most apparent assets in the 60s, and no one was equipped to do much against him.

The point is, men like Frazier and Norton were better than those who he faced in the 60s. I dont think he'd even have had an easy time with Oscar Bonavena or Jimmy Young.

It,s interesting that Zora folley is considered ancient at 34 and Patterson in his midle 30s yet Marcianos best opponents wrere a 38 Walcott a 33 Charles and a39 Mooreall of which are pumped up on this site as being in their primes.

Marciano's opposition isn't relevant.
I dont think Patterson was too old. Folley had seen better days but I just dont rate him particularly highly - he was skilful but not very durable.

who of Alis opponents were too small? In his first reign as Champ the lightest challenger Ali defended against was Cooper who weighed 188,Ali scaled 201 1/2 for that fight hardly a mismatch,Patterson weighed 13 1/4lbs less than Ali.no other challenger conceded significant weight to him,

By size, I mean his height and reach.
The point is, a lot of the fighters he fought in the 70s were better.


or age he didnt defend against a 40 year old LH ,and get put on his arse,Ali had weaknesses ,all fighters do ,which challengers do you think he avoided during his first reign that could have exploited them?


He avoided no one. He fought the best available.
He fought no one as good as a 1971 version of Joe Frazier. That's the point.

[mcvey]

Most of them were a bit of both. Dont get me wrong, Ali's superiority to those fighters is what won him the fights, so I guess it's more about them not being good enough, rather than age and size. Ali's speed and reach were his most apparent assets in the 60s, and no one was equipped to do much against him.

The point is, men like Frazier and Norton were better than those who he faced in the 60s. I dont think he'd even have had an easy time with Oscar Bonavena or Jimmy Young.



Marciano's opposition isn't relevant.
I dont think Patterson was too old. Folley had seen better days but I just dont rate him particularly highly - he was skilful but not very durable.



By size, I mean his height and reach.
The point is, a lot of the fighters he fought in the 70s were better.



He avoided no one. He fought the best available.
He fought no one as good as a 1971 version of Joe Frazier. That's the point.
Ali didnt have an easy time with Bonavena or Young,but he did something Frazier couldnt do against Oscar ,though rusty from his exile,with only 3 rounds of competitive boxing in 3 1/2 years,he kod Bonavena,against Young Ali scaled 230lbs he was undertrained ,but still won aginst a man who spent most of the fight with his head outside the ropes,this is the Young who gave Norton a good fight and beat Foreman.The point about Alis fights in the70,s is that he was getting older ,his style which had relied on reflexes and movement had to be adapted as he hit his middle 30,she was heavier and slower,something Chuvalo noticed and commented on after their second fight.

[mcvey]

Ali didnt have an easy time with Bonavena or Young,but he did something Frazier couldnt do against Oscar ,though rusty from his exile,with only 3 rounds of competitive boxing in 3 1/2 years,he kod Bonavena,against Young Ali scaled 230lbs he was undertrained ,but still won aginst a man who spent most of the fight with his head outside the ropes,this is the Young who gave Norton a good fight and beat Foreman.The point about Alis fights in the70,s is that he was getting older ,his style which had relied on reflexes and movement had to be adapted as he hit his middle 30,she was heavier and slower,something Chuvalo noticed and commented on after their second fight.
"he fought no one as good as the 1971 Frazier".Frazier ,fighting the best fight of his life beat a comebacking Ali by decision,and finished up looking like a gargoyle after the fight,that fight ruined him he was in his prime Alis prime we never saw ,it would have been the 3 years he was denied the right to fight.

[janitor]

and he could knock you out with any single one of them.

A fighter who defeated the Robinson who knocked out Fullmer, the Tiger who beat Benvenuti, the Monzon who beat Valdez, and the Hopkins of the last few years would have defeated a bunch of old men but he would have to have been a great fighter.

I wonder if the people who criticise Marciano for fighting older and smaller oponents would give Joe Calzaghe any credit if he beat Bernard Hopkins.

[enquirer]

I think marciano is a very unusual to rank as he had very good attributes of power,stamina,heart,was probably very awkward to fight and beat all the men put in front of him....However his opposition cannot be said to be stellar/prime or against big men so his resume is lacking and how he would do against the big atg heavies is somewhat unknown....Did he ever beat a big world class heavyweight contendor? Im talking 6 ft 3 225 and athletic? Its hard to say as he seemed an extremely determined and awkward guy and sometimes that can make all the difference....Any modern heavy that fought marciano would be fighting a style that they probably would never have faced before. Marciano could also have added a bit more functional weight with some weight training/advanced nutrition.....If frazier can be successful at 5ft 11 and 205 then maybe marciano can,rocky was more two fisted than frazier....

[OLD FOGEY]

I think marciano is a very unusual to rank as he had very good attributes of power,stamina,heart,was probably very awkward to fight and beat all the men put in front of him....However his opposition cannot be said to be stellar/prime or against big men so his resume is lacking and how he would do against the big atg heavies is somewhat unknown....Did he ever beat a big world class heavyweight contendor? Im talking 6 ft 3 225 and athletic? Its hard to say as he seemed an extremely determined and awkward guy and sometimes that can make all the difference....Any modern heavy that fought marciano would be fighting a style that they probably would never have faced before. Marciano could also have added a bit more functional weight with some weight training/advanced nutrition.....If frazier can be successful at 5ft 11 and 205 then maybe marciano can,rocky was more two fisted than frazier....

Your description, 6' 3" and 225 lbs and very athletic--I would point out that no one at all defeated anyone who really fits this bill prior to the 1970's. The only one who might come close to such a discription is Jeffries, and only Johnson beat him when he was washed up. This amounts to saying that modern heavys have grown larger and so we should dismiss all old-timers. There is not much point in studying the history of the sport then.
Joe Louis, whom Marciano did defeat as an old man, was, in my judgement, the best big heavy (over 200 lbs) prior to Ali.
By the way, why not dismiss Ali by pointing out he never defeated anyone at least 6' 5" and over 240 lbs at all, let alone someone very athletic, such as Lewis or Wlad Klitschko?

[enquirer]

Ok,i will clarify my point a little more. Even 6ft 3 and 210 of athletic muscle would be fine...
Ali did beat athletic guys of this range such as terrell,williams,foreman etc....When we get to 6 ft 5 and 240 there arent that many athletic guys,maybe lewis,bowe and a few others....I wouldnt even mind if we had seen marciano against a 6ft plus 210 powerhouse like liston....My point being its hard to tell if the rock could hang with these types of athletic big guys....Maybe some knowledgable posters could discuss the size and athleticism of marcianos opponents?
Finally,if you say that heavies pre 70s did not defeat athletic guys of this size than i will say that does make comparison somewhat hard between eras,it doesnt mean i am dismissing old timers,the films can show us who could box well,with ali he was big and athletic enough to beat bigger guys than himself,and i think this is quite obvious and proven....

[mcvey]

For me I would have to say Jack Johnson.

All film I have seen of him has been terrible, lacked offense and defense consisted of holding excessively.

His competition wasn't great, fighting middleweights. And he had many losses near the end of his career.

Despite this i've seen people rate him as high as third on top HW lists.
I dont think its only your keys you lost.

[torchkit]

For me I would have to say Jack Johnson.

All film I have seen of him has been terrible, lacked offense and defense consisted of holding excessively.

His competition wasn't great, fighting middleweights. And he had many losses near the end of his career.

Despite this i've seen people rate him as high as third on top HW lists.Most over rated of all time? Simple: Ali

[robert ungurean]

1 Lennox Lewis
2 Lennox Lewis
3 Lennox Lewis
4 Lennox Lewis
5 Lennox Lewis

[GazOC]

Overated? Marciano, his lack of top class opponents isn't his fault but its still a fact.

[hdog]

I think that you are making the same mistake that a lot of Rockys opponents made.

They said before they fought him that he was a neanderthal and predictable.

After they fought him they were all saying that he feinted them into knots and that they could never time his punches.

If you read what guys like Moore, Charles and Walcott said then go back and look at the film then you start to see it.

look at marciano's footwork when he knocked out walcott, sweet. when he stopped lastarza he hit him with a left then ducked, adjusted his feet and put him through the ropes with a right. beautiful.

he also could make himself a smaller target and had very good upper body movement although i think it wasn't quite as good at the end due to his back.

[Illmatic]

how is Jack Dempsey not being discussed? he is CLEARLY the most overrated heavy champ....he was popular, but did little to earn that popularity.