Who is The #1 Heavyweight of All Time?

[Kalan]

Dillian Whyte clearly hurt Joshua in the second round and landed a fair few shots too - Does this make him the second best heavy of all time? :-)

AJ is definitely the best Heavyweight of all time... Lewis was knocked cold by guys who weren't nearly as good as AJ.

If fail to see any Heavyweight in Fistic History who matched up with AJ's combination package of height... weight... reach... jab... speed... strength... skillsets as: right hand... left hook... body attack... counter punching skills... ring control and footwork... and finishing ability... and defense... Maybe Luis Ortiz is a better defender for now...and a slicker counterpuncher and absorbs a punch as well as AJ... The man is 37 and fading quickly... But the time they meet he'll be done.

I have spoken to people who argue that Joshua has been tested because he fought Dillian Whyte, who is good. And when you ask why they think Dillian Whyte is good they say it's because he did so well against Joshua.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Ali did against such punching bags as Alfredo Evangelista.. Buster Mathis.. Mac Foster.. and Rudi Lubbers.. He couldn't put them down.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Lennox Lewis did in his first efforts with Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall..

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad George Foreman looked against tiny little feather-punching Jimmy Young... who lost 3 of his next 4 fights -- including to a cruiserweight.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Joe Frazier looked against somebody 6'3" X 217 who could really hit.. He's the first punching bag I ever saw that had ears.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Mike Tyson did against 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas... who was not as big and tall as Joshua's last 4 opponents -- but made Tyson look like a midget.

[Kalan]

Louis got knocked out by 192-pound Max Schmeling... and by 184-pound Rocky Marciano... Come on Hector - this isn't the Light Heavyweight Division.

[gp.]

Dillian Whyte clearly hurt Joshua in the second round and landed a fair few shots too - Does this make him the second best heavy of all time? :-)

I have spoken to people who argue that Joshua has been tested because he fought Dillian Whyte, who is good. And when you ask why they think Dillian Whyte is good they say it's because he did so well against Joshua.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Ali did against such punching bags as Alfredo Evangelista.. Buster Mathis.. Mac Foster.. and Rudi Lubbers.. He couldn't put them down.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Lennox Lewis did in his first efforts with Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall..

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad George Foreman looked against tiny little feather-punching Jimmy Young... who lost 3 of his next 4 fights -- including to a cruiserweight.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Joe Frazier looked against somebody 6'3" X 217 who could really hit.. He's the first punching bag I ever saw that had ears.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Mike Tyson did against 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas... who was not as big and tall as Joshua's last 4 opponents -- but made Tyson look like a midget.

So when Joshua fights anyone remotely as good as Jimmy Young, Hasim Rahman, Oliver McCall, George Foreman or Buster Douglas, we will know how good he is. If he sticks to fighting undefeated fighters who are only undefeated because they've never fought anyone good either, we won't.

[Ambling Alp II]

Louis got knocked out by 192-pound Max Schmeling... and by 184-pound Rocky Marciano... Come on Hector - this isn't the Light Heavyweight Division.

Great points. Really, you can just rely on the scales to decide who would have won a fight or who was better.

Imagine if Louis had to fight Primo Carnera, who weighed 260 pounds. He would have got slaughtered, right? Would the fight have even lasted 6 rounds?

How about if Dempsey would have fought 245-pound Jess Willard? What chance would Dempsey have had? Would it have even lasted past the 3rd round?

[Kalan]

I have spoken to people who argue that Joshua has been tested because he fought Dillian Whyte, who is good. And when you ask why they think Dillian Whyte is good they say it's because he did so well against Joshua.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Ali did against such punching bags as Alfredo Evangelista.. Buster Mathis.. Mac Foster.. and Rudi Lubbers.. He couldn't put them down.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Lennox Lewis did in his first efforts with Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall..

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad George Foreman looked against tiny little feather-punching Jimmy Young... who lost 3 of his next 4 fights -- including to a cruiserweight.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Joe Frazier looked against somebody 6'3" X 217 who could really hit.. He's the first punching bag I ever saw that had ears.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Mike Tyson did against 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas... who was not as big and tall as Joshua's last 4 opponents -- but made Tyson look like a midget.

So when Joshua fights anyone remotely as good as Jimmy Young, Hasim Rahman, Oliver McCall, George Foreman or Buster Douglas, we will know how good he is. If he sticks to fighting undefeated fighters who are only undefeated because they've never fought anyone good either, we won't.

Put it this way... Joshua isn't losing to clowns who are no good like those guys all did... Young had numerous defeats when he beat Foreman... and lost 3 of his next 4 fights... We know NONE of your list were good boxer-punchers except for Buster Douglas. And he was ONLY good for ONE (1) FIGHT!!! ... Douglas wasn't as good as he could have been because skills aren't a faucet that you can turn off and on when you finally have the ambition to set up a real training camp and train really hard -- and then phone in the next fight again because you’re already rich.

We know Dillian Whyte is a better boxer-puncher than most of your list anyway. When did any of those clowns other than Douglas demonstrate superior boxing AND punching ability?

[Kalan]

Another thing... Amir Mansour had only 1 defeat in 24 fights when Breazeale beat him... Mansour was considered a pretty good heavyweight.

Vyacheslav Glazkov was undefeated in 23 fights when Charles Martin beat him... He was at least on the level of a Hasim Rahman or Jimmy Young who both had numerous loses... Both seemed extremely punchable and not too strong. Maybe you missed Rahman's 2 fights with Oleg Maskaev.

[gp.]

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Ali did against such punching bags as Alfredo Evangelista.. Buster Mathis.. Mac Foster.. and Rudi Lubbers.. He couldn't put them down.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how poorly Lennox Lewis did in his first efforts with Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall..

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad George Foreman looked against tiny little feather-punching Jimmy Young... who lost 3 of his next 4 fights -- including to a cruiserweight.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Joe Frazier looked against somebody 6'3" X 217 who could really hit.. He's the first punching bag I ever saw that had ears.

It's not how easily Joshua smashed undefeated Heavyweights like Gary Cornish.. Dillian Whyte.. Charles Martin.. Or Dominic Breazeale... It's how bad Mike Tyson did against 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas... who was not as big and tall as Joshua's last 4 opponents -- but made Tyson look like a midget.

So when Joshua fights anyone remotely as good as Jimmy Young, Hasim Rahman, Oliver McCall, George Foreman or Buster Douglas, we will know how good he is. If he sticks to fighting undefeated fighters who are only undefeated because they've never fought anyone good either, we won't.

Put it this way... Joshua isn't losing to clowns who are no good like those guys all did... Young had numerous defeats when he beat Foreman... and lost 3 of his next 4 fights... We know NONE of your list were good boxer-punchers except for Buster Douglas. And he was ONLY good for ONE (1) FIGHT!!! ... Douglas wasn't as good as he could have been because skills aren't a faucet that you can turn off and on when you finally have the ambition to set up a real training camp and train really hard -- and then phone in the next fight again because you’re already rich.

We know Dillian Whyte is a better boxer-puncher than most of your list anyway. When did any of those clowns other than Douglas demonstrate superior boxing AND punching ability?

It's not my list. It's your list.

You think "we know" Dillian Whyte is better than Jimmy Young, Oliver McCall, Hasim Rahman and (wait for this one) the well-known clown George Foreman then, do you?

How do "we know" this?

Videos of Joe Frazier swimming or photographs of very tall men on chat shows don't count as evidence. What, from what has happened in the boxing ring, allows us to form this judgement?

Dillian Whyte has certainly looked superior to measurably poor fighters. This does not mean that because Oliver McCall has looked inferior to Lennox Lewis, he must be worse than Dillian Whyte. You don't seem to understand anything about relative levels.But then, you think George Foreman was a clown.

[gp.]

Another thing... Amir Mansour had only 1 defeat in 24 fights when Breazeale beat him... Mansour was considered a pretty good heavyweight.

Vyacheslav Glazkov was undefeated in 23 fights when Charles Martin beat him... He was at least on the level of a Hasim Rahman or Jimmy Young who both had numerous loses... Both seemed extremely punchable and not too strong. Maybe you missed Rahman's 2 fights with Oleg Maskaev.

First, what is it with you and losses? Why can you not understand than beating your grandmother up 40 times is not as much of an achievement as beating , say, the British champion, then the European champion, and then losing to the World Champion?

Second, why do you keep willfully ignoring the fact that Mansour was easily beating Breazeale until he nearly bit off his own tongue due to a poorly designed mouthpiece? And that Glazkov and Martin had hardly got going when Glazkov tore his ACL?

[Tomasino]

Another thing... Amir Mansour had only 1 defeat in 24 fights when Breazeale beat him... Mansour was considered a pretty good heavyweight.

Vyacheslav Glazkov was undefeated in 23 fights when Charles Martin beat him... He was at least on the level of a Hasim Rahman or Jimmy Young who both had numerous loses... Both seemed extremely punchable and not too strong. Maybe you missed Rahman's 2 fights with Oleg Maskaev.

First, what is it with you and losses? Why can you not understand than beating your grandmother up 40 times is not as much of an achievement as beating , say, the British champion, then the European champion, and then losing to the World Champion?

Second, why do you keep willfully ignoring the fact that Mansour was easily beating Breazeale until he nearly bit off his own tongue due to a poorly designed mouthpiece? And that Glazkov and Martin had hardly got going when Glazkov tore his ACL?

Insanity. It's the only logical answer.

[Kalan]

Another thing... Amir Mansour had only 1 defeat in 24 fights when Breazeale beat him... Mansour was considered a pretty good heavyweight.

Vyacheslav Glazkov was undefeated in 23 fights when Charles Martin beat him... He was at least on the level of a Hasim Rahman or Jimmy Young who both had numerous loses... Both seemed extremely punchable and not too strong. Maybe you missed Rahman's 2 fights with Oleg Maskaev.

First, what is it with you and losses? Why can you not understand than beating your grandmother up 40 times is not as much of an achievement as beating , say, the British champion, then the European champion, and then losing to the World Champion?

Second, why do you keep willfully ignoring the fact that Mansour was easily beating Breazeale until he nearly bit off his own tongue due to a poorly designed mouthpiece? And that Glazkov and Martin had hardly got going when Glazkov tore his ACL?

Losses show how piss poor a boxer someone is... Everyone knows Joshua WAS the British Champion and would DESTROY the European Chamnpion.

You seem to have an excuse for everything... Martin was doing well when Glazkov blew his knee out... Breazeale absorbed a lot of hard punches from Mansour and battled back with very hard punches of his own... Mansour had a lot of help biting his tongue...a hard uppercut.. Those guys were very well known, undefeated, or once beaten name Heavyweights... Being the British Champion or the European Champion was a joke in the 1960's and 70's anyway.. The landscape is a little different today and Europeans have ramped it up big time.

[gilgamesh]

So when Joshua fights anyone remotely as good as Jimmy Young, Hasim Rahman, Oliver McCall, George Foreman or Buster Douglas, we will know how good he is. If he sticks to fighting undefeated fighters who are only undefeated because they've never fought anyone good either, we won't.

Put it this way... Joshua isn't losing to clowns who are no good like those guys all did... Young had numerous defeats when he beat Foreman... and lost 3 of his next 4 fights... We know NONE of your list were good boxer-punchers except for Buster Douglas. And he was ONLY good for ONE (1) FIGHT!!! ... Douglas wasn't as good as he could have been because skills aren't a faucet that you can turn off and on when you finally have the ambition to set up a real training camp and train really hard -- and then phone in the next fight again because you’re already rich.

We know Dillian Whyte is a better boxer-puncher than most of your list anyway. When did any of those clowns other than Douglas demonstrate superior boxing AND punching ability?

It's not my list. It's your list.

You think "we know" Dillian Whyte is better than Jimmy Young, Oliver McCall, Hasim Rahman and (wait for this one) the well-known clown George Foreman then, do you?

How do "we know" this?

Videos of Joe Frazier swimming or photographs of very tall men on chat shows don't count as evidence. What, from what has happened in the boxing ring, allows us to form this judgement?

Dillian Whyte has certainly looked superior to measurably poor fighters. This does not mean that because Oliver McCall has looked inferior to Lennox Lewis, he must be worse than Dillian Whyte. You don't seem to understand anything about relative levels.But then, you think George Foreman was a clown.

He just flat out doesn't understand Boxing. He thinks Edwin Valero is a Top 10 all time P4P fighter in spite of the fact that Valero never even found his way onto a P4P list in his own time....if that don't say it all.

[Kalan]

Dillian Whyte has certainly looked superior to measurably poor fighters. This does not mean that because Oliver McCall has looked inferior to Lennox Lewis, he must be worse than Dillian Whyte. You don't seem to understand anything about relative levels.But then, you think George Foreman was a clown.

Foreman wasn't a clown, but as a group of Heavyweights those guys were clowns on average... Foreman was a great puncher but he couldn't box---as Jimmy Young proved... Joshua is certainly a far better boxer then Young---who lost 5 fights previous to out-boxing Foreman - and then lost 3 of his next 4 fights after beating Foreman.

[gilgamesh]

Joshua's still got a ways to go to prove he's the best of his own time. That has to be done first before you start proclaiming guys the best ever. He has 1 victory over a Top 10 ranked opponent. He needs dozens more meaningful victories before he's even in the conversation.

[gp.]

Dillian Whyte has certainly looked superior to measurably poor fighters. This does not mean that because Oliver McCall has looked inferior to Lennox Lewis, he must be worse than Dillian Whyte. You don't seem to understand anything about relative levels.But then, you think George Foreman was a clown.

Foreman wasn't a clown, but as a group of Heavyweights those guys were clowns on average... Foreman was a great puncher but he couldn't box---as Jimmy Young proved... Joshua is certainly a far better boxer then Young---who lost 5 fights previous to out-boxing Foreman - and then lost 3 of his next 4 fights after beating Foreman.

We're not talking about Joshua being better than Young. We're talking about your claim that "we know" DILLIAN WHYTE is better than McCall, Young, Rahman, Foreman, and Buster Douglas. Not "might prove to be better". Is, now, clearly better. Dillian Whyte. if you are retracting on that then say "I am retracting on that", don't just change the subject.

[gp.]

Another thing... Amir Mansour had only 1 defeat in 24 fights when Breazeale beat him... Mansour was considered a pretty good heavyweight.

Vyacheslav Glazkov was undefeated in 23 fights when Charles Martin beat him... He was at least on the level of a Hasim Rahman or Jimmy Young who both had numerous loses... Both seemed extremely punchable and not too strong. Maybe you missed Rahman's 2 fights with Oleg Maskaev.

First, what is it with you and losses? Why can you not understand than beating your grandmother up 40 times is not as much of an achievement as beating , say, the British champion, then the European champion, and then losing to the World Champion?

Second, why do you keep willfully ignoring the fact that Mansour was easily beating Breazeale until he nearly bit off his own tongue due to a poorly designed mouthpiece? And that Glazkov and Martin had hardly got going when Glazkov tore his ACL?

Losses show how piss poor a boxer someone is... Everyone knows Joshua WAS the British Champion and would DESTROY the European Chamnpion.

You seem to have an excuse for everything... Martin was doing well when Glazkov blew his knee out... Breazeale absorbed a lot of hard punches from Mansour and battled back with very hard punches of his own... Mansour had a lot of help biting his tongue...a hard uppercut.. Those guys were very well known, undefeated, or once beaten name Heavyweights... Being the British Champion or the European Champion was a joke in the 1960's and 70's anyway.. The landscape is a little different today and Europeans have ramped it up big time.

No, losses give an indication of someone's level as being below that of the person they have lost to.

Whereas wins give an indication of someone's level being above that of the person they beat.

Beating the no 1000 in the world 40 times still only indicates(very broadly) that you are somewhere from 999th in the world up.

Losing to the number 1 indicates you are somewhere from number 2 down.

There are of course outliers in any career, so one has to take an overall picture.

It's really bizarre, and rather sad, that you have been so inculcated into the modern and inane culture of "winning being everything" that you can't see this.


Your second paragraph is, as usual, rambling miles away from the point.

[Kalan]

gp says..., "Beating the no 1000 in the world 40 times still only indicates(very broadly) that you are somewhere from 999th in the world up. Losing to the number 1 indicates you are somewhere from number 2 down."

I disagree... Each of the last 4 guys Joshua fought only lost to Joshua... AJ is #1 but that doesn't indicate any of them are #2. They were beaten too decisively and all knocked out. There's nothing there to indicate they could compete well with any of the top 5 Heavyweights.

If you destroy the 10th ranked guy... It indicates you MIGHT be the best Heavyweight.. Other indications are: What kind of a jab do you have??? ... Do you eat punches to land punches??? ... What do your stance and footwork look like??? ... Do you defend very well??? ... Joshua's whole game looks solid. Not too many Heavyweights have an all around game.

Generally you can knock holes in any Heavyweight's game. Such as: Waldimir and Ali had no body attack... they grabbed a lot... they couldn't fight inside... and they had defensive holes ... Holmes was one of the greatest boxers. But he lacked terrific punching power... Louis was a bit chinny, and he lacked size and reach... Johnson wasn't always in shape, like for Willard... Marciano was short, light, slow, and unskilled... Lewis wasn't ready or prepared well for all his fights... Tyson ate jabs... So did Foreman... Holyfield was okay, but didn't do anything outstandingly well.

[jbizzle20]

gp says..., "Beating the no 1000 in the world 40 times still only indicates(very broadly) that you are somewhere from 999th in the world up. Losing to the number 1 indicates you are somewhere from number 2 down."

I disagree... Each of the last 4 guys Joshua fought only lost to Joshua... AJ is #1 but that doesn't indicate any of them are #2. They were beaten too decisively and all knocked out. There's nothing there to indicate they could compete well with any of the top 5 Heavyweights.

If you destroy the 10th ranked guy... It indicates you MIGHT be the best Heavyweight.. Other indications are: What kind of a jab do you have??? ... Do you eat punches to land punches??? ... What do your stance and footwork look like??? ... Do you defend very well??? ... Joshua's whole game looks solid. Not too many Heavyweights have an all around game.

Generally you can knock holes in any Heavyweight's game. Such as: Waldimir and Ali had no body attack... they grabbed a lot... they couldn't fight inside... and they had defensive holes ... Holmes was one of the greatest boxers. But he lacked terrific punching power... Louis was a bit chinny, and he lacked size and reach... Johnson wasn't always in shape, like for Willard... Marciano was short, light, slow, and unskilled... Lewis wasn't ready or prepared well for all his fights... Tyson ate jabs... So did Foreman... Holyfield was okay, but didn't do anything outstandingly well.

Kalan, it's called getting lucky. McCall and Rahman landed lucky punches, simple. Lewis was clearly beating both prior to the KO. Boxers are only human beings and, as such, are subject to being screwed by luck (AJ is no exception). Except for that bullshit score in the first Holyfield fight, Lewis was never behind against anyone except Klitschko (who Lewis fought on 2 weeks notice and in the WORST shape of his life yet still Lewis f*cked up Vitali.) I'm a big believer in AJ's potential,trust me. If there is ever going to be another Lewis, it's going to be AJ. However, as of right now, he needs more fights against future HOFers. Really want to see him fight Wilder, Klitschko, etc.

[Kalan]

McCall and Rahman landed lucky punches, simple ... Lewis was never behind against anyone except Klitschko (who Lewis fought on 2 weeks notice and in the WORST shape of his life yet still Lewis f*cked up Vitali

When you land a lucky punch you had help from your opponent... He made his chin available... The video record is clear... After almost getting knocked out in the first 2 rounds, Lewis f*cked Vitali up shortly into the 3rd round with an obvious thumb strike to the corner of VK's left eye... a wrestling grab around the head and Lewis's hair rubbed into the nick he opened with the thumb strike - while he held Vitali around the neck - followed... then maintaining his headlock Lewis ripped Vitali with a palm rake with his right glove... All those fouls opened 3 major cuts on Vitali's face (including his cheek) and blood started streaming into his left eye... That was the only time Vitali ever suffered a serious cut in his career -- and the only fight Lewis ever won on cuts... That fight should have gone to the scorecards because fouls contributed mightily to those cuts... Proper result??? Vitali Klitschko wins by Unanimous Technical Decision over Lennox Lewis in 6 rounds.. I think it's interesting that Klitschko could maintain his lead on the scorecards having to fight 4 rounds half blinded.

Kind of like Ward-Kessler went to the scorecards -- because unintentional head-butts by Ward opened a far less severe cut on Kessler.

As for Lewis fighting Vitali on 2 weeks notice... Lewis had been training for a World Heavyweight Championship Fight for MONTHS... Vitali had less than 2 weeks to prepare for a World Heavyweight Championship Fight.. Lewis retired after they made Vitali his mandatory challenger -- and after vociferously proclaiming he would give Vitali a rematch.. LL knew he dodged a bullet and wouldn't have Lou Moret as his referee in the rematch.

[gp.]

gp says..., "Beating the no 1000 in the world 40 times still only indicates(very broadly) that you are somewhere from 999th in the world up. Losing to the number 1 indicates you are somewhere from number 2 down."

I disagree... Each of the last 4 guys Joshua fought only lost to Joshua... AJ is #1 but that doesn't indicate any of them are #2. They were beaten too decisively and all knocked out. There's nothing there to indicate they could compete well with any of the top 5 Heavyweights.

If you destroy the 10th ranked guy... It indicates you MIGHT be the best Heavyweight.. Other indications are: What kind of a jab do you have??? ... Do you eat punches to land punches??? ... What do your stance and footwork look like??? ... Do you defend very well??? ... Joshua's whole game looks solid. Not too many Heavyweights have an all around game.

Generally you can knock holes in any Heavyweight's game. Such as: Waldimir and Ali had no body attack... they grabbed a lot... they couldn't fight inside... and they had defensive holes ... Holmes was one of the greatest boxers. But he lacked terrific punching power... Louis was a bit chinny, and he lacked size and reach... Johnson wasn't always in shape, like for Willard... Marciano was short, light, slow, and unskilled... Lewis wasn't ready or prepared well for all his fights... Tyson ate jabs... So did Foreman... Holyfield was okay, but didn't do anything outstandingly well.

Ffs. I say "indicates very broadly that they are somewhere from #2 down." You interpret this as "They are #2", and go on a three paragraph rant based wholly on a misunderstanding that would shame the average 5 year old. How is possible for anyone to talk to you about anything when you can't understand the most basic points?

Incidentally your obsession with being knocked out is also misguided. A moment's lapse of concentration can get you knocked out. Losing every round clearly means you've been comprehensively outclassed.

[SteveO]

Lewis retired after they made Vitali his mandatory challenger -- and after vociferously proclaiming he would give Vitali a rematch.. LL knew he dodged a bullet and wouldn't have Lou Moret as his referee in the rematch.

Lennox knew his best days were behind him and wisely decided to retire having beaten every opponent he faced in a professional boxing ring.
He retired a very happy, healthy and wealthy man - more than can be said for some.

[Kalan]

gp says..., "Beating the no 1000 in the world 40 times still only indicates(very broadly) that you are somewhere from 999th in the world up. Losing to the number 1 indicates you are somewhere from number 2 down."

I disagree... Each of the last 4 guys Joshua fought only lost to Joshua... AJ is #1 but that doesn't indicate any of them are #2. They were beaten too decisively and all knocked out. There's nothing there to indicate they could compete well with any of the top 5 Heavyweights.

If you destroy the 10th ranked guy... It indicates you MIGHT be the best Heavyweight.. Other indications are: What kind of a jab do you have??? ... Do you eat punches to land punches??? ... What do your stance and footwork look like??? ... Do you defend very well??? ... Joshua's whole game looks solid. Not too many Heavyweights have an all around game.

Generally you can knock holes in any Heavyweight's game. Such as: Waldimir and Ali had no body attack... they grabbed a lot... they couldn't fight inside... and they had defensive holes ... Holmes was one of the greatest boxers. But he lacked terrific punching power... Louis was a bit chinny, and he lacked size and reach... Johnson wasn't always in shape, like for Willard... Marciano was short, light, slow, and unskilled... Lewis wasn't ready or prepared well for all his fights... Tyson ate jabs... So did Foreman... Holyfield was okay, but didn't do anything outstandingly well.

Ffs. I say "indicates very broadly that they are somewhere from #2 down." You interpret this as "They are #2", and go on a three paragraph rant based wholly on a misunderstanding that would shame the average 5 year old. How is possible for anyone to talk to you about anything when you can't understand the most basic points?

Incidentally your obsession with being knocked out is also misguided. A moment's lapse of concentration can get you knocked out. Losing every round clearly means you've been comprehensively outclassed.

Yeah... It indicates that they could be WAY down from #2. You don't have the sense of a 1-year old - I'm not obsessed with being knocked out.. But if you get knocked out you're f*cked so far as winning...so you damned well better not GET knocked out -- because it doesn't indicate you're a good fighter. You're beaten more clearly then if you lost every round because your 5-year-old can tell who won. The judges could have stayed home. And not only that but Lewis was preforming poorly before he suffered those KO losses.

[Kalan]

Lewis retired after they made Vitali his mandatory challenger -- and after vociferously proclaiming he would give Vitali a rematch.. LL knew he dodged a bullet and wouldn't have Lou Moret as his referee in the rematch.

Lennox knew his best days were behind him and wisely decided to retire having beaten every opponent he faced in a professional boxing ring.
He retired a very happy, healthy and wealthy man - more than can be said for some.

Yes... He retired very healthy, wealthy, and maybe happy... But his ATG ranking dipped because he reneged on the rematch he promised Vitali Klitschko

[gp.]

gp says..., "Beating the no 1000 in the world 40 times still only indicates(very broadly) that you are somewhere from 999th in the world up. Losing to the number 1 indicates you are somewhere from number 2 down."

I disagree... Each of the last 4 guys Joshua fought only lost to Joshua... AJ is #1 but that doesn't indicate any of them are #2. They were beaten too decisively and all knocked out. There's nothing there to indicate they could compete well with any of the top 5 Heavyweights.

If you destroy the 10th ranked guy... It indicates you MIGHT be the best Heavyweight.. Other indications are: What kind of a jab do you have??? ... Do you eat punches to land punches??? ... What do your stance and footwork look like??? ... Do you defend very well??? ... Joshua's whole game looks solid. Not too many Heavyweights have an all around game.

Generally you can knock holes in any Heavyweight's game. Such as: Waldimir and Ali had no body attack... they grabbed a lot... they couldn't fight inside... and they had defensive holes ... Holmes was one of the greatest boxers. But he lacked terrific punching power... Louis was a bit chinny, and he lacked size and reach... Johnson wasn't always in shape, like for Willard... Marciano was short, light, slow, and unskilled... Lewis wasn't ready or prepared well for all his fights... Tyson ate jabs... So did Foreman... Holyfield was okay, but didn't do anything outstandingly well.

Ffs. I say "indicates very broadly that they are somewhere from #2 down." You interpret this as "They are #2", and go on a three paragraph rant based wholly on a misunderstanding that would shame the average 5 year old. How is possible for anyone to talk to you about anything when you can't understand the most basic points?

Incidentally your obsession with being knocked out is also misguided. A moment's lapse of concentration can get you knocked out. Losing every round clearly means you've been comprehensively outclassed.

Yeah... It indicates that they could be WAY down from #2. You don't have the sense of a 1-year old - I'm not obsessed with being knocked out.. But if you get knocked out you're f*cked so far as winning...so you damned well better not GET knocked out -- because it doesn't indicate you're a good fighter. You're beaten more clearly then if you lost every round because your 5-year-old can tell who won. The judges could have stayed home. And not only that but Lewis was preforming poorly before he suffered those KO losses.

Yes. it does. It absolutely indicates that, which is why you look like a fool when you shout "I disagree" and go on to state exactly that. Please try and understand, it's almost painful.

[gp.]

Lewis retired after they made Vitali his mandatory challenger -- and after vociferously proclaiming he would give Vitali a rematch.. LL knew he dodged a bullet and wouldn't have Lou Moret as his referee in the rematch.

Lennox knew his best days were behind him and wisely decided to retire having beaten every opponent he faced in a professional boxing ring.
He retired a very happy, healthy and wealthy man - more than can be said for some.

Yes... He retired very healthy, wealthy, and maybe happy... But his ATG ranking dipped because he reneged on the rematch he promised Vitali Klitschko

You rate him less highly because he realised he was getting old and wasn't as good as he used to be?

Say Klitshcko hadn't existed and Lewis could have still beaten a series of shit heavyweights. Would you have decried him if by the time a decent fighter came along he was 50, and he acknowledged he couldn't beat him at this age and retired?

Try, I beseech you, to think.

[SteveO]

Yes... He retired very healthy, wealthy, and maybe happy... But his ATG ranking dipped because he reneged on the rematch he promised Vitali Klitschko

I doubt Lennox has had any sleepless nights worring about his ATG ranking.