BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: You're a retard.

Just like you. Thanks.

You're welcome, retard. You could only dream of being like me.

And you're a pussy hole! How about that, asshole?

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Just like you. Thanks.

You're welcome, retard. You could only dream of being like me.

And you're a pussy hole! How about that, asshole?

Whatever helps you sleep, retard.we all can't be so brave as yourself, calling bad asses bums from your retarded keyboard.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: You're welcome, retard. You could only dream of being like me.

And you're a pussy hole! How about that, asshole?

Whatever helps you sleep, retard.we all can't be so brave as yourself, calling bad asses bums from your retarded keyboard.

Whatever, bitch!

Once again, Elmer the retard is losing his shit in a Lennox Lewis thread. Never fails.

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Just like you. Thanks.

You're welcome, retard. You could only dream of being like me.

And you're a pussy hole! How about that, asshole?

Read in the voice of either Cartman, or former HBO interpreter Ray Torres, this just sounds so cute I could eat you up you're adorable, guy

Very hard to rank any heavyweight in the top 100 p4p let alone Lennox Lewis, imho.

Hell, I don't even have him in my top ten heavyweights list (#11 is where I have him) so its difficult for me to imagine him anywhere in the top 100 p4p or even p4p top 500... there's been literally millions of fighters good, great, elite over the passed 150 years that I'd rate higher than Lennox Lewis on the p4p scale, especially when you consider up until the 1970's it was common practice to see lighter weight guys fight bigger opponents on an almost continuous basis.

Lennox isn't in your top million? Lol, Elmer is off the hook.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Lennox isn't in your top million? Lol, Elmer is off the hook.

Think about it Saad.... even in the bareknuckle days, I'd probably rate Jem Mace and Charlie Mitchell and the original Nonpareil Jack Dempsey well above Lennox Lewis on the p4p scale.... you're not wanting to take into consideration just how old this sport of ours is and just how many people have competed in it.... 6'5" 250 pound heavyweights like Lewis can't possibly be considered "p4p greats" because they absolutely dwarf everyone, so where is the challenge? P4P should only apply to people who MOVE UP in weight and have great success. Probably the greatest p4p was Sam Langford and Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Archie Moore, Henry Armstrong, Billy Conn, Ezzard Charles, etc etc etc.... are not far behind him.... when we're talking P4P thats when we really get down to splitting hairs, and quite honestly I cannot think of a single fight that Lewis ever had that stood out and said "YEAH, THATS THE GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL TIME," or "YEAH, THAT'S THE GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT OF THE PASSED FIFTY YEARS," etc..... Lewis was only a three-time heavyweight champion because most everyone who was once a threat, was no longer a threat, and quite honestly his era was one of the weakest in heavyweight history. Besides, TELL ME HOW can anyone be a top 100 P4P fighter and have HASIM RAHMAN and OLIVER MCCALL down as losses? Bullshit.

I don't get why some people say that don't know how to rate heavyweights in comparison to fighters from other weight classes.
Can you really not see the speed and reflexes of Ali or the power and technical ability of Joe Louis? We saw them show this many times against quality competition.

I actually have more trouble rating fighters in the really small weight classes; ie bantamweight and below. There is never any depth in those divisions so it is harder to rate those fighters.

As for Lewis, I don't think anyone is saying that is top 10. Yes he did lose to Rahman and McCall. (It should be noted that the McCall stoppage was premature.)
That alone can't keep him out of the top 100. There were times when he looked like the best heavyweight since Ali. He had his flaws and occasional off nights that kept him from being right at the very top. However, he certainly was in the Top 100.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I don't get why some people say that don't know how to rate heavyweights in comparison to fighters from other weight classes.
Can you really not see the speed and reflexes of Ali or the power and technical ability of Joe Louis? We saw them show this many times against quality competition.

I actually have more trouble rating fighters in the really small weight classes; ie bantamweight and below. There is never any depth in those divisions so it is harder to rate those fighters.

As for Lewis, I don't think anyone is saying that is top 10. Yes he did lose to Rahman and McCall. (It should be noted that the McCall stoppage was premature.)
That alone can't keep him out of the top 100. There were times when he looked like the best heavyweight since Ali. He had his flaws and occasional off nights that kept him from being right at the very top. However, he certainly was in the Top 100.

Spot on, but this has to be the first top million list he's missed! Jem mace? My god this place is mad.

There are too many great fighters in my view that didn't make the top 100 ATG pound per pound, but I have rated them above Lennox Lewis. For starters, he didn't had anything in his boxing skills to be awed about. Second, his resume is good, not great. Third, Lost to two guys below average. Two bums! What great heavyweight lost in his prime with bums like Hasim Rahman or Oliver McCall? I don't care if he avenged them. The way he lost and by knockout to da at least, in his prime. I imagine if the great Muhammad Ali lose to bums like that.

One problem is there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy when rating fighters. Many of the people that rate Lewis highly do not think highly of Wladimir Klitschko which is ironic considering how similar their careers are. People are willing to overlook Lewis's losses but not Wlad's losses despite the fact that Wladimir displayed greater consistency and managed more consecutive title defenses. I just don't see the argument for Lewis being a great heavyweight but not Wladimir. If Lewis is great, than so is Wlad.

HomicideHenry wrote:[ Probably the greatest p4p was Sam Langford and Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Archie Moore, Henry Armstrong, Billy Conn, Ezzard Charles,



TELL ME HOW can anyone be a top 100 P4P fighter and have HASIM RAHMAN and OLIVER MCCALL down as losses? Bullshit.

Archie - Clinton Bacon, Henry Hall, Giulio Rinaldi
Henry Armstrong- Rueben Shank, Tony Chavez , Richie Fontaine, Joe Conde
Billy Conn - Solly Krieger, Teddy Movan, Ralph Gizzy


Sometimes great fighters have a few shit losses on their slate

To be fair, in some case the fighter was past his best and some of these opponents were pretty good. However, yes, even great fighters have bad losses and/or bad performances.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:One problem is there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy when rating fighters. Many of the people that rate Lewis highly do not think highly of Wladimir Klitschko which is ironic considering how similar their careers are. People are willing to overlook Lewis's losses but not Wlad's losses despite the fact that Wladimir displayed greater consistency and managed more consecutive title defenses. I just don't see the argument for Lewis being a great heavyweight but not Wladimir. If Lewis is great, than so is Wlad.

It is not hypocrisy at all. Lennox Lewis was not just better than Klitschko, he was a lot better.

Watch them on tape. Klitschko had major flaws; he lack stamina and had a glass jaw. Lewis did not have those flaws.

Consecutive title defenses don't mean anything at all if the competition sucked.
Lewis had two losses. One was a premature stoppage. Klitschko had three (near his prime.) One was to a complete journeyman.
Look at the wins.

Klitschko beat Chris Byrd. Besides that, there is no one worth mentioning. Lewis beat several opponents around that level; most of them easily.

There are many fighter not as good as Lewis but better than Klitschko.

davie wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:[ Probably the greatest p4p was Sam Langford and Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Archie Moore, Henry Armstrong, Billy Conn, Ezzard Charles,



TELL ME HOW can anyone be a top 100 P4P fighter and have HASIM RAHMAN and OLIVER MCCALL down as losses? Bullshit.

Archie - Clinton Bacon, Henry Hall, Giulio Rinaldi
Henry Armstrong- Rueben Shank, Tony Chavez , Richie Fontaine, Joe Conde
Billy Conn - Solly Krieger, Teddy Movan, Ralph Gizzy


Sometimes great fighters have a few poo losses on their slate

I think in most of those cases, it was either at the beginning of their careers, or near the end of their careers. Not prime years. Lewis was champion when he had his losses to Rahman and McCall, that is the difference.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:One problem is there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy when rating fighters. Many of the people that rate Lewis highly do not think highly of Wladimir Klitschko which is ironic considering how similar their careers are. People are willing to overlook Lewis's losses but not Wlad's losses despite the fact that Wladimir displayed greater consistency and managed more consecutive title defenses. I just don't see the argument for Lewis being a great heavyweight but not Wladimir. If Lewis is great, than so is Wlad.

None of the two are top ten heavyweight greats. And for pound per pound ratings, they don't come near the top 100. Too many boxers out there to be considered.

Any chance that you will actually ever post your Top 100?
Or are you just going to continue to pick guys that you don't like and say that they aren't in the Top 100?

Should be pretty easy for us to post our top 100 - we (he) can just edit his "crease' lists.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Any chance that you will actually ever post your Top 100?
Or are you just going to continue to pick guys that you don't like and say that they aren't in the Top 100?

He actually did.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:One problem is there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy when rating fighters. Many of the people that rate Lewis highly do not think highly of Wladimir Klitschko which is ironic considering how similar their careers are. People are willing to overlook Lewis's losses but not Wlad's losses despite the fact that Wladimir displayed greater consistency and managed more consecutive title defenses. I just don't see the argument for Lewis being a great heavyweight but not Wladimir. If Lewis is great, than so is Wlad.

It is not hypocrisy at all. Lennox Lewis was not just better than Klitschko, he was a lot better.

Watch them on tape. Klitschko had major flaws; he lack stamina and had a glass jaw. Lewis did not have those flaws.

Consecutive title defenses don't mean anything at all if the competition sucked.
Lewis had two losses. One was a premature stoppage. Klitschko had three (near his prime.) One was to a complete journeyman.
Look at the wins.

Klitschko beat Chris Byrd. Besides that, there is no one worth mentioning. Lewis beat several opponents around that level; most of them easily.

There are many fighter not as good as Lewis but better than Klitschko.

Which loss was premature? You mean the McCall fight where Lewis is falling into the ref after the count of 9? He may well have gone down again without the ref to lean on.

They were both legit, I'd also add that either of those guys the night they beat Lennox would be no worse than 50/50 with wlad at whatever you consider to have been him at his best.

crusader wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:One problem is there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy when rating fighters. Many of the people that rate Lewis highly do not think highly of Wladimir Klitschko which is ironic considering how similar their careers are. People are willing to overlook Lewis's losses but not Wlad's losses despite the fact that Wladimir displayed greater consistency and managed more consecutive title defenses. I just don't see the argument for Lewis being a great heavyweight but not Wladimir. If Lewis is great, than so is Wlad.

It is not hypocrisy at all. Lennox Lewis was not just better than Klitschko, he was a lot better.

Watch them on tape. Klitschko had major flaws; he lack stamina and had a glass jaw. Lewis did not have those flaws.

Consecutive title defenses don't mean anything at all if the competition sucked.
Lewis had two losses. One was a premature stoppage. Klitschko had three (near his prime.) One was to a complete journeyman.
Look at the wins.

Klitschko beat Chris Byrd. Besides that, there is no one worth mentioning. Lewis beat several opponents around that level; most of them easily.

There are many fighter not as good as Lewis but better than Klitschko.

Which loss was premature? You mean the McCall fight where Lewis is falling into the ref after the count of 9? He may well have gone down again without the ref to lean on.

Lennox Lewis was Knocked The Fuuck Out in both fights. You could have counted until 100, and still, he wasn't going to get up....Embarrassing!

elmersalsa wrote:

crusader wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

It is not hypocrisy at all. Lennox Lewis was not just better than Klitschko, he was a lot better.

Watch them on tape. Klitschko had major flaws; he lack stamina and had a glass jaw. Lewis did not have those flaws.

Consecutive title defenses don't mean anything at all if the competition sucked.
Lewis had two losses. One was a premature stoppage. Klitschko had three (near his prime.) One was to a complete journeyman.
Look at the wins.

Klitschko beat Chris Byrd. Besides that, there is no one worth mentioning. Lewis beat several opponents around that level; most of them easily.

There are many fighter not as good as Lewis but better than Klitschko.

Which loss was premature? You mean the McCall fight where Lewis is falling into the ref after the count of 9? He may well have gone down again without the ref to lean on.

Lennox Lewis was Knocked The Fuuck Out in both fights. You could have counted until 100, and still, he wasn't going to get up....Embarrassing!

He was on his feet against McCall. Why tell lies?



Surprisingly it seems there is a topic you know even less about than football. Embarrassing!