1988 Mike Tyson vs 2011 Wladimir Klitschko - who would win this match ?

[Ambling Alp II]

Better career overall? Maybe in some stupid points system filled with meaningless title defenses against what passed for as contenders, but not in real life. If Klitschko was in Tyson's era, he would have been buried with Witherspoon, Thomas etc.

3 stoppages by losses by unranked opponents during his prime. Never happened to a great heavyweight champion.

It happened to Wladimir. Wladimir is a great Champion.

Wladimir could've beaten most of Tyson's competition and vice versa. If you think Mike is better than Wlad that's perfectly reasonable, but they're definitely in the same league, and to me Wladimir ranks higher. Wladimir was the more consistent of the 2 over a longer period of time. Tyson was the more spectacular for a brief 3 to 4 year period.

For every other big name fighter the losses are inconsequential to you. For Wladimir, the losses are all there is.

Why Wladimir being credited as a great fighter is so offensive an idea to you, I don't know, but to pretend he wasn't a Great Champion is just ludicrous.

He was not a great fighter. He had two major flaws: a glass jaw and poor stamina.
Klitschko did not get better after the Brewster loss. His best performances were actually before that.

His competition was a joke which was a huge factor why he didn't lose for those years.
You should be able to come with a decent list of great heavyweights who got stopped by three non-contenders during their prime. You can't. That speaks volumes.

Beat Chris Byrd. Defended the title for a lot time against stiffs. Got stopped by Purritty, Brewster, and Sanders. Not one of the greats. Nowhere near Mike Tyson. Tyson was unquestionably great from 1986 to the Douglas fight in 1990. Very good after that for several other years.

[Ambling Alp II]

Tyson was stopped 5 times. Surely he had a terrible chin by that logic

The chin was a complete non factor for a decade so either it improved or he got better at protecting it. So why are people so fixated on it?

His chin was a no factor later on because his competition sucked. He did clutch and grab which limited his opponents' chances. That doesn't work against really good fighters. It can help you against guys who can't punch, are inaccurate, or aren't busy enough.

[gilgamesh]

Better career overall? Maybe in some stupid points system filled with meaningless title defenses against what passed for as contenders, but not in real life. If Klitschko was in Tyson's era, he would have been buried with Witherspoon, Thomas etc.

3 stoppages by losses by unranked opponents during his prime. Never happened to a great heavyweight champion.

It happened to Wladimir. Wladimir is a great Champion.

Wladimir could've beaten most of Tyson's competition and vice versa. If you think Mike is better than Wlad that's perfectly reasonable, but they're definitely in the same league, and to me Wladimir ranks higher. Wladimir was the more consistent of the 2 over a longer period of time. Tyson was the more spectacular for a brief 3 to 4 year period.

For every other big name fighter the losses are inconsequential to you. For Wladimir, the losses are all there is.

Why Wladimir being credited as a great fighter is so offensive an idea to you, I don't know, but to pretend he wasn't a Great Champion is just ludicrous.

He was not a great fighter. He had two major flaws: a glass jaw and poor stamina.
Klitschko did not get better after the Brewster loss. His best performances were actually before that.

His competition was a joke which was a huge factor why he didn't lose for those years.
You should be able to come with a decent list of great heavyweights who got stopped by three non-contenders during their prime. You can't. That speaks volumes.

Beat Chris Byrd. Defended the title for a lot time against stiffs. Got stopped by Purritty, Brewster, and Sanders. Not one of the greats. Nowhere near Mike Tyson. Tyson was unquestionably great from 1986 to the Douglas fight in 1990. Very good after that for several other years.

For one thing there aren't really a ton of truly Great Heavyweights to choose from.

Dempsey lost to Fireman Jim Flynn and Willie Meehan prior to winning the title. Those guys are nothing special at all, but they beat Dempsey. In fact Meehan beat Dempsey more often than Dempsey was able to beat him in a series of fights.

Jack Johnson lost to Marvin Hart. You know Marvin Hart, that guy people often cite as possibly the worst Heavyweight Champ ever. Yeah that Marvin, he beat Jack Johnson. In his prime.

Even in weak eras fighters do not reign for 10 years because that's REALLY f*cking hard to do. Maintaining the discipline to stay in that kinda shape for that length of time, and always have the skill to beat any and all challengers.


Yes Wladimir had weaknesses. He overcame them. He improved his defense to the point where even if you had power, the chances of you landing that shot on his "weak chin" was slim.

He improved his stamina. After the Brewster loss, he went the distance and won on numerous occasions. He scored knockouts in the 12th, 11th and 10th rounds of Championship fights. Guys with piss poor stamina don't get knockouts late in fights. They can't.

Wladimir wasn't the most exciting Champion ever I'll grant you that, but your hatred of him absolutely blinds you to what he could or couldn't do.

To you he got knocked down against Sanders and Brewster and never got back up again. In the real world, he got up and went far beyond what anybody would've thought him capable of in 2004.

Dislike Wladimir if it pleases you, but don't try to distort reality.

[gilgamesh]

Jack Johnson also lost to Joe Choynski, Klondike Haynes and Joe Jeanette in his prime.

Dempsey also lost to a little known fighter named Jack Downey. Downey and Meehan have mediocre records that suggest they were nothing special, but they were good enough to beat Dempsey.

So Dempsey and Johnson must be total losers in your eyes right?

Don't even get me started on how many times Jersey Joe Walcott lost in his prime, and the level of guys that beat him. That being said, i do not consider Walcott to be Great. I do consider Dempsey and Johnson to be great however.

[Jaywheel]

Again, you fail to realize that old time fighters didn't chase an undefeated record. Records suggests that Downey and Meehan were nothing special? Someone lost to Joe Jeannette? Must have sucked!

I would rank Wlad higher if he had more losses but negated those with great wins. He has Byrd. The Pianeta, Wasz, Chambers and Thompson (twice for good measure) wins do nothing for his legacy. The bum of the month tour is held against Louis and we shouldn't adress Wlad's bum of the decade tour lol?

[Cojimar 1946]

The chin was a complete non factor for a decade so either it improved or he got better at protecting it. So why are people so fixated on it?

His chin was a no factor later on because his competition sucked. He did clutch and grab which limited his opponents' chances. That doesn't work against really good fighters. It can help you against guys who can't punch, are inaccurate, or aren't busy enough.

In literally every era there are people claiming it sucked. During the 1990s people were calling the heavyweight division garbage. People should be able to point to specific things to back up their argument beyond simply arguing how bad the division is.

For example Bowe had very poor defense and a so so chin. That's a specific criticism beyond claiming the division sucked.

[gilgamesh]

The chin was a complete non factor for a decade so either it improved or he got better at protecting it. So why are people so fixated on it?

His chin was a no factor later on because his competition sucked. He did clutch and grab which limited his opponents' chances. That doesn't work against really good fighters. It can help you against guys who can't punch, are inaccurate, or aren't busy enough.

In literally every era there are people claiming it sucked. During the 1990s people were calling the heavyweight division garbage. People should be able to point to specific things to back up their argument beyond simply arguing how bad the division is.

For example Bowe had very poor defense and a so so chin. That's a specific criticism beyond claiming the division sucked.

Yeah I remember watching a few of old man Larry Holmes' fights, and they'd comment about the fact that Larry at his age is still in the Top 10 is a sad comment on the Heavyweight division.

This is the commentators sh*tting on one of the best eras in the history of the Heavyweight division.

Some people are just glass half empty kinda people.

[gilgamesh]

Again, you fail to realize that old time fighters didn't chase an undefeated record. Records suggests that Downey and Meehan were nothing special? Someone lost to Joe Jeannette? Must have sucked!

I would rank Wlad higher if he had more losses but negated those with great wins. He has Byrd. The Pianeta, Wasz, Chambers and Thompson (twice for good measure) wins do nothing for his legacy. The bum of the month tour is held against Louis and we shouldn't adress Wlad's bum of the decade tour lol?

You're of the opinion that Jack Downey and Willie Meehan were hot sh*t I guess?

I don't particularly insult the "Bum of the Month" tour for Louis. He fought who was there to fight, and I consider him the 2nd Greatest Heavyweight of all time behind only Muhammad Ali, and the gap between #2 and #3 is pretty f*cking big.

Wlad's competition wasn't the greatest of all time, but it was the best that was available at the time he fought them all. Povetkin, David Haye, Ruslan Chagaev.

Other great Heavyweights fought in similarly weak eras as Wlad, and didn't have half the amount of success.

Consistency goes a long way.

[Ambling Alp II]

Downey? Seriously?
Demspey was 19 years old. Had been a pro for less than 5 months. Lost a decision in a fight that was 4 rounds.
This isn't the same thing as having an extensive amateur career, years of experience and getting knocked out by non-contenders.
Do you really not get this?

Yes, Demspey got ko'd by Flynn. That should count against him. How did the rematch go?

Johnson against Choynski? No, Johnson was not in prime yet. He very inexperienced. This isn't a gray area.
Marvin Hart? Every account says Johnson should have got the decision easily.

You have start leaning how the sport was set up before your time. Walcott was a pro at 16. Did not have a trainer for the first several years of his career. Still took on anyone. Notice his career turned around when he got a real trainer.

This isn't the same as someone like Klitschko. First class trainers from the word go. Easy set up wins in the first few years to build up the record.
Stop looking at Boxrec records, searching for losses by the old guys and thinking you found gold. Use some context.

[Cojimar 1946]

Johnson had considerable experience when he faced Choynski and should have been able to win based on where he was in his career.

[gilgamesh]

Downey? Seriously?
Demspey was 19 years old. Had been a pro for less than 5 months. Lost a decision in a fight that was 4 rounds.
This isn't the same thing as having an extensive amateur career, years of experience and getting knocked out by non-contenders.
Do you really not get this?

Yes, Demspey got ko'd by Flynn. That should count against him. How did the rematch go?

Johnson against Choynski? No, Johnson was not in prime yet. He very inexperienced. This isn't a gray area.
Marvin Hart? Every account says Johnson should have got the decision easily.

You have start leaning how the sport was set up before your time. Walcott was a pro at 16. Did not have a trainer for the first several years of his career. Still took on anyone. Notice his career turned around when he got a real trainer.

This isn't the same as someone like Klitschko. First class trainers from the word go. Easy set up wins in the first few years to build up the record.
Stop looking at Boxrec records, searching for losses by the old guys and thinking you found gold. Use some context.

Alp here are 2 simple questions. A yes or no answer is all I require.

Did Wladimir Klitschko have a good jab? Did Wladimir have a good right hand?

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Downey? Seriously?
Demspey was 19 years old. Had been a pro for less than 5 months. Lost a decision in a fight that was 4 rounds.
This isn't the same thing as having an extensive amateur career, years of experience and getting knocked out by non-contenders.
Do you really not get this?

Yes, Demspey got ko'd by Flynn. That should count against him. How did the rematch go?

Johnson against Choynski? No, Johnson was not in prime yet. He very inexperienced. This isn't a gray area.
Marvin Hart? Every account says Johnson should have got the decision easily.

You have start leaning how the sport was set up before your time. Walcott was a pro at 16. Did not have a trainer for the first several years of his career. Still took on anyone. Notice his career turned around when he got a real trainer.

This isn't the same as someone like Klitschko. First class trainers from the word go. Easy set up wins in the first few years to build up the record.
Stop looking at Boxrec records, searching for losses by the old guys and thinking you found gold. Use some context.

- Coming up on 30 years of dominating HVY Boxing including Usyk whom the Ks mentored.



Well, at least we can thank you for helping to make the US the current Billionaire troubled Empire in search of a Heart...

[Ambling Alp II]

Downey? Seriously?
Demspey was 19 years old. Had been a pro for less than 5 months. Lost a decision in a fight that was 4 rounds.
This isn't the same thing as having an extensive amateur career, years of experience and getting knocked out by non-contenders.
Do you really not get this?

Yes, Demspey got ko'd by Flynn. That should count against him. How did the rematch go?

Johnson against Choynski? No, Johnson was not in prime yet. He very inexperienced. This isn't a gray area.
Marvin Hart? Every account says Johnson should have got the decision easily.

You have start leaning how the sport was set up before your time. Walcott was a pro at 16. Did not have a trainer for the first several years of his career. Still took on anyone. Notice his career turned around when he got a real trainer.

This isn't the same as someone like Klitschko. First class trainers from the word go. Easy set up wins in the first few years to build up the record.
Stop looking at Boxrec records, searching for losses by the old guys and thinking you found gold. Use some context.

Alp here are 2 simple questions. A yes or no answer is all I require.

Did Wladimir Klitschko have a good jab? Did Wladimir have a good right hand?

Yes, he did.

[Ambling Alp II]

Johnson had considerable experience when he faced Choynski and should have been able to win based on where he was in his career.

No, he did not have considerable experience. He only had about 10 fights before he fought Choynski. Choynski was much better than anyone that he had fought up this point.

[gilgamesh]

Downey? Seriously?
Demspey was 19 years old. Had been a pro for less than 5 months. Lost a decision in a fight that was 4 rounds.
This isn't the same thing as having an extensive amateur career, years of experience and getting knocked out by non-contenders.
Do you really not get this?

Yes, Demspey got ko'd by Flynn. That should count against him. How did the rematch go?

Johnson against Choynski? No, Johnson was not in prime yet. He very inexperienced. This isn't a gray area.
Marvin Hart? Every account says Johnson should have got the decision easily.

You have start leaning how the sport was set up before your time. Walcott was a pro at 16. Did not have a trainer for the first several years of his career. Still took on anyone. Notice his career turned around when he got a real trainer.

This isn't the same as someone like Klitschko. First class trainers from the word go. Easy set up wins in the first few years to build up the record.
Stop looking at Boxrec records, searching for losses by the old guys and thinking you found gold. Use some context.

Alp here are 2 simple questions. A yes or no answer is all I require.

Did Wladimir Klitschko have a good jab? Did Wladimir have a good right hand?

Yes, he did.

Just wanted to make sure you could at least give him SOME credit.

[Ambling Alp II]

At one time, I thought he might be the next great. It looked like he had a good mix of boxing ability and power. (I thought that the loss to Purrity might have been a fluke.) In some of his fights, he looked pretty good.
Then came the Corrie Sanders fight. That was an eye opener. It was brutal. He just got hammered. And it wasn't against a Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis or a George Foreman. It was Corrie Sanders.

After that, I had serious doubts. Then came the Lamon Brewster fight. Watched boxing all the time. Had never heard of the guy before. And he gets embarrassed. Yet again. that removed what little doubt there was. He was not the real thing.

Yes, he later had several title defenses. By then the sport was just a fringe sport and the division was a joke as it continues to be. If he just did his grab and clutch thing, he would minimize the amount of times he would get hit. Since his opponents always lacked power, ability, tenaciousness, that was good enough. Would not have been good enough in a normal era.

Have nothing against him personally. It's just that it bugs the heck out of me (and others who saw truly great hws) when people go on and on about him.

[gilgamesh]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Heavyweight Boxing in the last 20 years. America hasn't produced any particularly noteworthy Heavyweights in a long while, but the division as a whole still has plenty of top fighters, and good matchups.

Wladimir Klitschko was a Great Heavyweight. You don't dominate a sport for 10 years by being just Ok at it.

[Ambling Alp II]

He wasn't OK. But he wasn't great either. There is a lot in between. He was good, at times very good.

The heavyweight division has totally sucked for more than 20 years now. It has sucked before, but never for this long. One boring fight after another.
Vitaly wasn't great or even that good at anything. He was tall so people like to say he had a really good jab. He didn't.

In his only two big fight he quit like a dog against Byrd and lasted 6 rounds against a terrible version of Lewis.
Wilder had a big punch and absolutely nothing else. No jab. Had no idea he needed to.
Fury had some ability but was not great. Decent power, decent chin, decent boxing ability. OK chin. Not one thing that is great.
Usyk is supposed to have all this ability. Has never had a performance that shows that. Has shown very little power at all.
Joshua seemed to have some ability but has been an underachiever.

The first Wilder-fury fight and the first Usyk-Joshua fights were two of the worst fights I have ever seen. Fury didn't do Anything round after round except for raising his hands at the end of every round as if he did something.
Usyk threw jab after jab that were comically short. Many of his jabs didn't even reach Joshua's gloves.
Wouldn't call any of the fights good, much less great. And as mentioned, some were awful.

Not to mentioned that these guys fight so rarely. Usyk has 8 fights in 7 years. 8. And now he going to fight a kick boxer. Can't wait.

[gilgamesh]

Right everyone was a lot better back when they were losing 3 or 4 times as often.

[gilgamesh]

He wasn't OK. But he wasn't great either. There is a lot in between. He was good, at times very good.

The heavyweight division has totally sucked for more than 20 years now. It has sucked before, but never for this long. One boring fight after another.
Vitaly wasn't great or even that good at anything. He was tall so people like to say he had a really good jab. He didn't.

In his only two big fight he quit like a dog against Byrd and lasted 6 rounds against a terrible version of Lewis.
Wilder had a big punch and absolutely nothing else. No jab. Had no idea he needed to.
Fury had some ability but was not great. Decent power, decent chin, decent boxing ability. OK chin. Not one thing that is great.
Usyk is supposed to have all this ability. Has never had a performance that shows that. Has shown very little power at all.
Joshua seemed to have some ability but has been an underachiever.

The first Wilder-fury fight and the first Usyk-Joshua fights were two of the worst fights I have ever seen. Fury didn't do Anything round after round except for raising his hands at the end of every round as if he did something.
Usyk threw jab after jab that were comically short. Many of his jabs didn't even reach Joshua's gloves.
Wouldn't call any of the fights good, much less great. And as mentioned, some were awful.

Not to mentioned that these guys fight so rarely. Usyk has 8 fights in 7 years. 8. And now he going to fight a kick boxer. Can't wait.

The Usyk vs Verhoeven match was really good it turns out. Shame you dismissed it as a joke like everyone else. I knew better.

[Cojimar 1946]

At one time, I thought he might be the next great. It looked like he had a good mix of boxing ability and power. (I thought that the loss to Purrity might have been a fluke.) In some of his fights, he looked pretty good.
Then came the Corrie Sanders fight. That was an eye opener. It was brutal. He just got hammered. And it wasn't against a Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis or a George Foreman. It was Corrie Sanders.

After that, I had serious doubts. Then came the Lamon Brewster fight. Watched boxing all the time. Had never heard of the guy before. And he gets embarrassed. Yet again. that removed what little doubt there was. He was not the real thing.

Yes, he later had several title defenses. By then the sport was just a fringe sport and the division was a joke as it continues to be. If he just did his grab and clutch thing, he would minimize the amount of times he would get hit. Since his opponents always lacked power, ability, tenaciousness, that was good enough. Would not have been good enough in a normal era.

Have nothing against him personally. It's just that it bugs the heck out of me (and others who saw truly great hws) when people go on and on about him.

By that logic though you couldn't rate Lewis over someone like Usyk given his losses. Isn't it disrespectful to Usyk to have him below someone who lost to Rahman and McCall? Especially given Usyk never lost in his prime.

[Ambling Alp II]

He wasn't OK. But he wasn't great either. There is a lot in between. He was good, at times very good.

The heavyweight division has totally sucked for more than 20 years now. It has sucked before, but never for this long. One boring fight after another.
Vitaly wasn't great or even that good at anything. He was tall so people like to say he had a really good jab. He didn't.

In his only two big fight he quit like a dog against Byrd and lasted 6 rounds against a terrible version of Lewis.
Wilder had a big punch and absolutely nothing else. No jab. Had no idea he needed to.
Fury had some ability but was not great. Decent power, decent chin, decent boxing ability. OK chin. Not one thing that is great.
Usyk is supposed to have all this ability. Has never had a performance that shows that. Has shown very little power at all.
Joshua seemed to have some ability but has been an underachiever.

The first Wilder-fury fight and the first Usyk-Joshua fights were two of the worst fights I have ever seen. Fury didn't do Anything round after round except for raising his hands at the end of every round as if he did something.
Usyk threw jab after jab that were comically short. Many of his jabs didn't even reach Joshua's gloves.
Wouldn't call any of the fights good, much less great. And as mentioned, some were awful.

Not to mentioned that these guys fight so rarely. Usyk has 8 fights in 7 years. 8. And now he going to fight a kick boxer. Can't wait.

The Usyk vs Verhoeven match was really good it turns out. Shame you dismissed it as a joke like everyone else. I knew better.

Instead of saying that Usyk came close to an embarrassing loss, we get this?
Talk about spin. Make to sure to give him a ton of points on your awesome system.

[Ambling Alp II]

At one time, I thought he might be the next great. It looked like he had a good mix of boxing ability and power. (I thought that the loss to Purrity might have been a fluke.) In some of his fights, he looked pretty good.
Then came the Corrie Sanders fight. That was an eye opener. It was brutal. He just got hammered. And it wasn't against a Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis or a George Foreman. It was Corrie Sanders.

After that, I had serious doubts. Then came the Lamon Brewster fight. Watched boxing all the time. Had never heard of the guy before. And he gets embarrassed. Yet again. that removed what little doubt there was. He was not the real thing.

Yes, he later had several title defenses. By then the sport was just a fringe sport and the division was a joke as it continues to be. If he just did his grab and clutch thing, he would minimize the amount of times he would get hit. Since his opponents always lacked power, ability, tenaciousness, that was good enough. Would not have been good enough in a normal era.

Have nothing against him personally. It's just that it bugs the heck out of me (and others who saw truly great hws) when people go on and on about him.

By that logic though you couldn't rate Lewis over someone like Usyk given his losses. Isn't it disrespectful to Usyk to have him below someone who lost to Rahman and McCall? Especially given Usyk never lost in his prime.

No that isn't the logic. You have to weigh the quality (not quantity) of wins/ great performances against losses/bad performances.

Lewis had two losses. They count against him. Not as nearly as much as Klitschko who had three losses to opponents worse than the guys who beat Lewis.
Lewis had far better wins than Klitschko. Not even close.
Usyk has not officially lost yet. In a whopping 9 fights as a heavyweight, 25 total. He also doesn't have one great win.

[gilgamesh]

He wasn't OK. But he wasn't great either. There is a lot in between. He was good, at times very good.

The heavyweight division has totally sucked for more than 20 years now. It has sucked before, but never for this long. One boring fight after another.
Vitaly wasn't great or even that good at anything. He was tall so people like to say he had a really good jab. He didn't.

In his only two big fight he quit like a dog against Byrd and lasted 6 rounds against a terrible version of Lewis.
Wilder had a big punch and absolutely nothing else. No jab. Had no idea he needed to.
Fury had some ability but was not great. Decent power, decent chin, decent boxing ability. OK chin. Not one thing that is great.
Usyk is supposed to have all this ability. Has never had a performance that shows that. Has shown very little power at all.
Joshua seemed to have some ability but has been an underachiever.

The first Wilder-fury fight and the first Usyk-Joshua fights were two of the worst fights I have ever seen. Fury didn't do Anything round after round except for raising his hands at the end of every round as if he did something.
Usyk threw jab after jab that were comically short. Many of his jabs didn't even reach Joshua's gloves.
Wouldn't call any of the fights good, much less great. And as mentioned, some were awful.

Not to mentioned that these guys fight so rarely. Usyk has 8 fights in 7 years. 8. And now he going to fight a kick boxer. Can't wait.

The Usyk vs Verhoeven match was really good it turns out. Shame you dismissed it as a joke like everyone else. I knew better.

Instead of saying that Usyk came close to an embarrassing loss, we get this?
Talk about spin. Make to sure to give him a ton of points on your awesome system.

Brother. If you always want to see the Glass as Half Empty that's on you.

Rico Verhoeven was a dominant Kickboxing Champion. He's been THE GUY in Heavyweight Kickboxing for over 10 years. He's a great fighter.

But instead, he was just some loser and Usyk looked like sh*t.

What Usyk did, was struggle against an awkward style, and find a way to pull the fight off when it was getting dicey. He deserves credit for that, not ridicule, but see it how you want man.

Fact is you don't know how any other Boxer would've done against a great Kickboxing Champion of the past because this kinda thing has never happened before. It was a sporting 1st.

[gilgamesh]

At one time, I thought he might be the next great. It looked like he had a good mix of boxing ability and power. (I thought that the loss to Purrity might have been a fluke.) In some of his fights, he looked pretty good.
Then came the Corrie Sanders fight. That was an eye opener. It was brutal. He just got hammered. And it wasn't against a Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis or a George Foreman. It was Corrie Sanders.

After that, I had serious doubts. Then came the Lamon Brewster fight. Watched boxing all the time. Had never heard of the guy before. And he gets embarrassed. Yet again. that removed what little doubt there was. He was not the real thing.

Yes, he later had several title defenses. By then the sport was just a fringe sport and the division was a joke as it continues to be. If he just did his grab and clutch thing, he would minimize the amount of times he would get hit. Since his opponents always lacked power, ability, tenaciousness, that was good enough. Would not have been good enough in a normal era.

Have nothing against him personally. It's just that it bugs the heck out of me (and others who saw truly great hws) when people go on and on about him.

By that logic though you couldn't rate Lewis over someone like Usyk given his losses. Isn't it disrespectful to Usyk to have him below someone who lost to Rahman and McCall? Especially given Usyk never lost in his prime.

No that isn't the logic. You have to weigh the quality (not quantity) of wins/ great performances against losses/bad performances.

Lewis had two losses. They count against him. Not as nearly as much as Klitschko who had three losses to opponents worse than the guys who beat Lewis.
Lewis had far better wins than Klitschko. Not even close.
Usyk has not officially lost yet. In a whopping 9 fights as a heavyweight, 25 total. He also doesn't have one great win.

He has 4 great wins dumbass.