BoxRec

DG. wrote:

hitman09 wrote:
Show me where on Wikipedia that list can be found. Don't talk shit unless you can back it up.

You plucked it from somewhere and by the looks of some of your choices I would guess you pulled it from out of your bottom.

hitman09 wrote:

TheCentre wrote:Yeah. Not to be a bitch here yiddo14 But I am still waiting on how you managed to imagine Vitali was losing on one of the cards? and Also according to the guy that posted under me in page 3 of this thread you also were not right about Lennox making a come back in the 2 rounds before Vitali got cut.

So? Just say it was you British citizenship that colored your perception of the fight better than to look incompetent.

Exactly. The same is true for everybody who says Lewis would beat Foreman, Frazier and Marciano.
Except for DG, he isn't biased, he's just a dumb pudendum.

hitman09 wrote:

TheCentre wrote:Yeah. Not to be a bitch here yiddo14 But I am still waiting on how you managed to imagine Vitali was losing on one of the cards? and Also according to the guy that posted under me in page 3 of this thread you also were not right about Lennox making a come back in the 2 rounds before Vitali got cut.

So? Just say it was you British citizenship that colored your perception of the fight better than to look incompetent.

Exactly. The same is true for everybody who says Lewis would beat Foreman, Frazier and Marciano.
Except for DG, he isn't biased, he's just a dumb pudendum.

DG. wrote:

hitman09 wrote:

TheCentre wrote:Yeah. Not to be a bitch here yiddo14 But I am still waiting on how you managed to imagine Vitali was losing on one of the cards? and Also according to the guy that posted under me in page 3 of this thread you also were not right about Lennox making a come back in the 2 rounds before Vitali got cut.

So? Just say it was you British citizenship that colored your perception of the fight better than to look incompetent.

Exactly. The same is true for everybody who says Lewis would beat Foreman, Frazier and Marciano.
Except for DG, he isn't biased, he's just a dumb pudendum.

hitman09 wrote:The same is true for everybody who says Lewis would beat Foreman, Frazier and Marciano.

EddieShredder wrote:

And, I think Lewis would have beat Foreman, Frazier and Marciano.

For me, Lewis is easily a top5 heavyweight... and it drives me mental when people allow their dislike for him to cloud their judgement of him as a fighter.


Lewis is an all time great, and very very few hw's would have beaten a prime Lewis.

hitman09 wrote:
A dumb pudendum with a pathetic sense of humour.

banjo wrote:

hitman09 wrote:The same is true for everybody who says Lewis would beat Foreman, Frazier and Marciano.

How is that so? Are they invincible?

As for the Vitali fight, Lennox was out of shape and inactive, he was in worse shape than when he got knocked out by Rahman, and he won fair and square no matter what the scorecards said(yes they were all in Vitalis favour and they were spot on).

Terry D wrote:As for British perception on Lewis being coloured by his nationality. He was a Canadian who lived in Jamaica and drapped himself in a British flag when talking to the British press. We do not think he would beat those names simply because he is British, we think that because it is our reasoned opinion, in the case of DG, his mad-crazed opinion

Terry D wrote:

hitman09 wrote:

Terry D wrote:As for British perception on Lewis being coloured by his nationality. He was a Canadian who lived in Jamaica and drapped himself in a British flag when talking to the British press. We do not think he would beat those names simply because he is British, we think that because it is our reasoned opinion, in the case of DG, his mad-crazed opinion

Your reasoning is very, very, flawed then.

At least I presented some. You have shown absolutely nothing to justify any of your statements, that shopping list post was a joke, or that was my initial assumption. Enjoy the trolling, but take my advice, you will sink unless you actually back up your statements with coherant arguments, not silly bluish highlights.

hitman09 wrote:
6.Frazier is ahead of him because he beat Muhammed Ali near his prime, which Lewis would never have been able to do.

doctorboxing wrote:

hitman09 wrote:
6.Frazier is ahead of him because he beat Muhammed Ali near his prime, which Lewis would never have been able to do.

The list you presented was a joke and this statement is nonsense.

Ali was in his prime before his enforced three year absence (infact his prime probably was never seen in the ring due to the ban). He lost to Frazier AFTER a three year absence from the ring where he no longer was the fast Ali that could not be hit.

hitman09 wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

hitman09 wrote:
6.Frazier is ahead of him because he beat Muhammed Ali near his prime, which Lewis would never have been able to do.

The list you presented was a joke and this statement is nonsense.

Ali was in his prime before his enforced three year absence (infact his prime probably was never seen in the ring due to the ban). He lost to Frazier AFTER a three year absence from the ring where he no longer was the fast Ali that could not be hit.

Which is why I included the word "near".

TheCentre wrote:Yeah. Not to be a bitch here yiddo14 But I am still waiting on how you managed to imagine Vitali was losing on one of the cards? and Also according to the guy that posted under me in page 3 of this thread you also were not right about Lennox making a come back in the 2 rounds before Vitali got cut.

So? Just say it was you British citizenship that colored your perception of the fight better than to look incompetent.

Terry D wrote:

TheCentre wrote:Yeah. Not to be a bitch here yiddo14 But I am still waiting on how you managed to imagine Vitali was losing on one of the cards? and Also according to the guy that posted under me in page 3 of this thread you also were not right about Lennox making a come back in the 2 rounds before Vitali got cut.

So? Just say it was you British citizenship that colored your perception of the fight better than to look incompetent.

It makes no odds who was winning on the cards, Lewis cut Vitali to ribbons with his punches, and won the fight. That is the main thing to take out of that fight, that and the fact Lewis was old, past it, unprepared and took the fight at late notice, and still he landed the more effective blows.

hitman09 wrote:

DG. wrote:Which of the following do you rate Lewis higher than DG:

Ali - L
Louis W
Marciano W
Johnson L
Dempsey W
Frazier W
Foreman W
Charles W
Patterson W
Tyson L
Holyfield L
Walcott W
Holmes L
Liston W
Tunney W
Baer W
Norton W
Schmeling W
Moore W
Langford W
McVey WHO?? W
Sullivan W
Jeffries W
Braddock W
Wills Who? W


And how many of them woud,have beaten Lewis?

How many?????

I will list my version of who wins... see above!

W=Win for Lennox
L=Loss for Lennox
D=Draw...


Remember - Prime for Prime.. Achievements and modern day rules - none of this standing over the guy when you knock him down...


Lennox and his 17st 10lbs 6ft 6in athletic and powerful tears a lot of them up due to just being bigger - faster - stronger and a heavier hitter than most!

Answer this, WHERE would you put Haye?


I am a Haye Fan, but lets not get carried away..

He has to rule for years to equal Lennox and I think he would admit it.... In fact I will email him!

Haye obviously gets nowhere. I never suggested that. But if you believe that LENNOX LEWIS would beat prime versions of Louis, Frazier, Foreman, Langford, Tunney and Marciano, then you are a complete invalid.
And anybody who has never heard of Harry Wills and Sam McVey has no business making statement about who is an all time great.

Terry D wrote: 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. 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.A very good fight, I imagine, but i would expect Holmes to outbox Lewis and win a close but fair UD

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.

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?

Terry D wrote:
No offence, but it is bad enough when people do line-by-line quoting, I am not sifting through my own post and looking at your gaudily tacked on bits of commentary. Make a proper post.

As for top five, I do not do lists in general, I am not some housewife tottering around ASDA. If someone asked me the top heavyweights I would go Holmes, Ali and Lewis, in no fixed order, but with Holmes slightly edging out the other two, perhaps. Lists work for some people, not for me.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wills is a nonsensical pick. You cannot even justify that one, and barely try.

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.

Holyfield beat the best of his time, Lewis aside, oh, Holyfield was old when Lewis beat him, 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.

Terry D wrote:Can Lewis compare to Ali? Both physically superior boxers, both worked extensively off the jab, both used clinching on the inside when the time came, both were criticised for not using the left hook but when they did use it (Lewis versus Morrison and Bruno, Ali versus Bonavena and Bob Foster) it was used well, both won the heavyweight title three times, and on it goes. So, yeah, I do think they compare, and it is not bias, it is called knowing the ins and outs of both fighters.

Braddock is/was not great, Baer is not great, if he was he would have had some consistency, and would have pushed Joe, who was great. Joe defended THE title, but he took on some questionable opposition. Anyway, you said initially that it was all about the length of his reign, well that length included some Army time, and the belt was put on hold for a while. Louis is perhaps, along with Liston, the finest heavyweight to watch, but there are flaws in his reign, and there was a huge flaw in your first statement.

Walcott was quite aged when pushing Joe close, and Louis taking him out in the rematch was a last hurrah for Joe, not to mention further proof that he was the man when it came to a return contest, or two. If you are saying Walcott makes Joe great, then Tyson and Holyfield count for Lewis, which also clears up your Marciano point, as Rocky took on some tough guys, like Lewis, but was defined by fights with guys who are seen as past their best, as is the case with Lewis.

I will quote you here.

Does it matter when he beat the best fighters? The fact remains that he beat them.

Extend that to Lewis' wins over Tyson and Holyfield.

Foreman had more power than Lewis? I am not quite sure, certainly he was not as sharp when it came to one-shot power. Lewis, when landing clean, certainly carried greater one-shot power. In Foreman's biggest wins, in his youthful prime, he hit guys with a few shots before taking them out. In the Moorer win he hit Michael with a pair of shots. Lewis' punching, when clean, had more snap.

Wills is a nonsensical pick, there is little or no footage, if there was I have not found it. That statement suggests that you are lifting your thoughts from some boxing 'historian', at best.

I am about to quote you again RE Liston.

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?

I have watched every piece of footage possible on Liston. Some that is very rare, including umpteen docs and whatnot, I suggest that you watch Liston, and then comment on him, that tends to work better on this forum, how many more of these guys have you not seen a lot of, I would say all of them, including Lewis.

As for Liston, the evidence of the Machen fight suggests that he was not invincible. Although the two Williams fights show that he could give Lewis hell, the suspicion is that Lewis would be right up for this, and would negate and then beat Sonny, although Liston would be able to out-jab Lewis at times a la Ray Mercer, but Mercer pushing Lewis does not naturally mean Sonny bets him, it does not work like that.

Liston did not lose to the best version of Ali, he lost to a relatively inexperienced one. In the rematch Ali's physical dimensions altered, by a few inches all round, and Liston was distraught when the fight was pushed back, leaving Liston more time to grow old (Sonny was in great shape for the aborted fight, as footage shows) and Ali more time to physically mature. Despite this physical change his skills took a while to catch up. I own every Ali fight, have watched them also, in my opinion his absolute peak was around the Terrell-Big Cat period, not in either Liston fight.

I am not being a twat, but your first list looked random, strip away names like Braddock and Baer, saying they are better than Lewis in ability and achievement is nonsense, we are all aged under-70 on this forum. Wills does not fly, nor does Langford, for reasons that should be obvious.

Again, I do not keep a top five list, but I named the three best heavyweights, Lewis was on it, you do the math.