You were trolling because your one-line answers showed absolutely no inclination to engage with the topic, and your previous list included some very odd choices, no wonder DG assumed it was a wikipedia list. It looked like one.
As for your assessments. 'Ali fought and beat tougher fighters in a tougher era.' So the cliche goes. Lewis fought in one of the best eras and had some fine victories himself. Are you seriously saying that you punished Lewis in terms of a ranking because Joe Frazier was not around?
Ali also lost to Frazier in their first fight, his acid test up to that point, prior to this Ali had beaten some good names, but a good few were well past it, or not as good as Lewis. Ali would have struggled with Lewis
.I cannot seriously believe you are suggesting Lewis can compare to Ali. This is the most compelling evidence to suggest you are biased towards Lewis
Joe Calzaghe defended a title longer than anyone else. That does not make Louis the best. Louis' title reign, that lengthy one, also included some sterile years, both due to the army, and due to the fact that Louis had no top-level challengers, he cleared out a lot of dead wood prior to his title win, he also took on a lot of shite during his reign.
Joe Calzaghe's title was a worthless WBO strap for most of his reign. Louis' was a proper world title. When you defend so many times, obviously not everybody you beat will be an all time great, but he did beat great fighters before and during his reign in Baer, Braddock, Walcott and Schmeling.
Johnson beat the best fighters prior to winning his title, his title reign was not massively distinguished, an aging former great and a smaller man. He also ducked a few names himself, put up his own colour bar and generally fought better, by all accounts, when in contention.
Does it matter when he beat the best fighters? The fact remains that he beat them.
Holmes, see Louis, it is not about length, it is about depth. Holmes could jab with Lewis, take his shots and probably show a greater shot variety, he would also struggle with Lewis' right hand, jab and ability to negate.
Holmes was a more complete boxer than Lewis, and would cause him more problems than Lewis would cause him.
Marciano retiring undefeated is no criteria for making him the best. You are getting repetitive at this point. His record also inluded some men who were well past their best, a la Holyfield-Lewis, you torpedo your later point in this respect.
He beat the best of his time, which included some fighters who were past their best. How does that conflict with my later statement that Holyfield's loss to Lewis does not make him any worse than Lewis? And I did not make him the best, just one of the best. Are you saying that retiring undefeated without avoiding anyone does not add to his greatness?
Frazier did beat Ali, after Ali had been away for three years and Ali was struggling in his previous contests (cut against Quarry and blind left against Oscar aside). Frazier also got wiped out by Foreman, a huge guy with intimidation and a booming right hand, sound familiar? Lewis is all wrong for Frazier, any fule no that.
Ali was still great, and beating him was no mean feat. Foreman had more power than Lewis did, and had more of an aura of intimidation about him. The fact that the guy was good enough to come back at 45 and win a title speaks volumes.
Foreman did beat some good names, he also lost because of a lack of ring intelligence, because of a lot of arrogance and because he struggled with a guy, Ali, who put some thought into his boxing, Lewis puts a lot of thought into his boxing also.
He was good enough to come back at 45, as I've already said, and win a title in Lewis' time.
Wills is a nonsensical pick. You cannot even justify that one, and barely try.
Why is it nonsensical? He was possibly the best HW in the world in his time, but never got a title shot. He may have been even better than Jackson, but we cannot know that.[/color]
Liston may have cleared out the division, but he was also beaten when someone stood up to his bullying routine, and Lewis would have the physical capacity and mental capacity to do this. Liston may have destroyed a big guy in Williams but, in both fights, Cleveland brought about his own downfall. Look to the Machen fight, and then come back to me on Liston, who was great, but flawed, and those flaws are all on show in the win over Machen, that is Eddie Machen by the way.
He had flaws, but what fighter doesn't? I must admit he is not someone I have seen a lot of (or as much as you seem to have seen), and do not feel I can comment much on. However, the fact that he was so highly regarded in his own time made me feel he warranted inclusion.. He lost to the best version of the best HW of all time, does this mean he is not a great fighter?
Holyfield beat the best of his time, Lewis aside, oh, Holyfield was old when Lewis beat him, see Marciano, above.
See Marciano above.
Lewis was old when beating Vitali, he still did it, and Lewis was also quite advanced when Holyfield fought him. Lewis cannot dictate the terms of the timescale, he chased Holyfield and Tyson, and when he did get them he did what he had to do, going 2-0-1 in those fights, fights against the best of his era.
Was your post coherent enough? Not really, you know little or nothing about heavyweight boxing. If I was asking someone about a food, and they read the ingredients from the can, I would not respect them, I would find it a bit odd.
I take it you have revised your thoughts on Baer et al, laughable, it really is, best of look in other strands, you will need it. As for the troll thing, trolls make empty statements, latch onto every post, and generally do not have a jar of glue about anything other than what they can scratch from the 'net. I hesitate to call people on here trolls, but you do fit the bill.
I have made no statements I have not backed up. This was not an exclusive list of fighters that could beat Lewis, this was a list of my top ten HWs. You have avoided my question, which is, where does Lewis fit into an all time top 5, where you claim he belongs?
