BoxRec

Big George is over in England at the moment & he was on Talksport Radio this morning.

He has a very high opinion of Lennox Lewis. He rates him at number 3 in his all time HW list. He rates Joe Louis as number 1 & Tyson at 7 or 8. He didn't give his full top 10.

He went on to say that he gets ridiculed for his views on Lewis by Americans because they are jealous! Is this true???

He also believes that Lewis could come back at any time & regain the title, which I can believe.

Somewhat ridiculously, he reckons he'd like to see Tyson fight another 5 years! Is he crazy? Tyson is more shot than a clay pigeon! He does not have the adaptability of Lewis to carry on fighting past his prime!

Big Old George is a lovely old fella but he does come out with some right nonsence from time to time - Tyson to fight on for 5 yrs!!? after he has admitted he no longer wished to box...Sometimes I think Ali's punches in Zaire may have done more damage then we ever truly knew!

Still, I agree with him that yanks generally denegrate LL's achievements because he is a limey/non-US

Foreman's all-time Heavyweight top 10 changes everytime he opens his mouth. I think he's ranked Lewis everywhere from number 1 to number 15 in his time.

A mate of mines bought a george forman style grill, however, its not a foreman its a "carl lewis" .... useless info

How George has Lewis @ number 3 of is beyond me; Lewis does rank in the top-10, but not as high as 3!

Wonder where Foreman would have ranked himself?

I also would have Tyson higher than NO.8!

Rocky Balboa wrote:How George has Lewis @ number 3 of is beyond me; Lewis does rank in the top-10, but not as high as 3!

Wonder where Foreman would have ranked himself?

I also would have Tyson higher than NO.8!

See Rocky, thats why this whole d@mn thing is so subjective because in 1989 I woulda had Tyson higher then 8 but now, on conclusion of his career I would place him just out of the top 10 me thinks..

Rocky Balboa wrote:How George has Lewis @ number 3 of is beyond me; Lewis does rank in the top-10, but not as high as 3!

Wonder where Foreman would have ranked himself?

I also would have Tyson higher than NO.8!

WELL I HAVE TO SAY HOW YOU WOULD HAVE TYSON ABOVE 8 IS BEYOND ME!

I cant see Tyson in the top ten, he just never beat the right people for me and with the Douglas (not highly rated) and Holyfield (cruiserweight, and showed Tyson's frustration if he was outboxed) losses (never avenged) drops totally out of contention with the likes Lewis, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Johnson, etc

I would however have Lewis in the top three for avenging both of his defeats and for the determination to go out of his way to fight the best fighters (that did not duck him, Bowe), not to mention his lack of being american being an obsticle.

It is difficult not to have Ali as number one just for his charisma inside and outside the ring.

I like foreman, but it seems that having gone from his relatively quiet workhorse of the past he never shuts up now, and when he is talking it seems to be because he always has something to promote.

Top ten lists are a waste of space but would Joe Louis beat Lennox Lewis?
Lewis would murder him.

big george has made a fortune out of those grills. what he's earned in his ring career is pocket change compared with those grills. is foreman over rated in the all time listings????

very short world championship reign at his peak and got schooled by young.

then fucked off for 10 yrs and took on a load of bums until losing to holyfield. then lost to morrison before getting a lucky crack at the title. respect for the moorer fight but he was never up to much at heavyweight anyway.

farcical reign as champ and left the division a mess for a good few years.

bugs wrote:I cant see Tyson in the top ten, he just never beat the right people for me and with the Douglas (not highly rated) and Holyfield (cruiserweight, and showed Tyson's frustration if he was outboxed) losses (never avenged) drops totally out of contention with the likes Lewis, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Johnson, etc

i think tyson deserves to be there. 9 defences in a row and 6 by KO at his peak was an impressive run. he won 12 of 16 title fights in his career.

he never avenged his losses but wasn't given the chance against douglas and fought lewis way too late in the day for it to really matter in the big scheme of things.

tyson did enuff to get in the top 10. he had more title fights than frazier and foreman put together.

Cuban Lion wrote:Top ten lists are a waste of space but would Joe Louis beat Lennox Lewis?
Lewis would murder him.

Hmm, dunno about that. Louis liked guys who stood off him, and was damned fast, he wasn't impossible to hit, but he could certainly whack and was probably technically the best puncher in heavyweight history. He didn't have amazing brute strength like Shavers, Liston and Foreman, but he was athletic enough to generate incredible power through his timing.

Don't forget that Louis beat some truly big men in his time, including Buddy Baer who was 6 foot 7.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Cuban Lion wrote:Top ten lists are a waste of space but would Joe Louis beat Lennox Lewis?
Lewis would murder him.

Hmm, dunno about that. Louis liked guys who stood off him, and was damned fast, he wasn't impossible to hit, but he could certainly whack and was probably technically the best puncher in heavyweight history. He didn't have amazing brute strength like Shavers, Liston and Foreman, but he was athletic enough to generate incredible power through his timing.

Don't forget that Louis beat some truly big men in his time, including Buddy Baer who was 6 foot 7.

I hear what you are saying James about Louis beating a big old lump in Buddy Bear but you have to ask yourself was Baer a big, co-ordinated, quality big man like Lewis or just a bigger target for Louis’ awesome combinations?

Joe Louis is far and away my favourite heavyweight to watch – the way he walked down foes and closed the show with dynamite shots from either hand is awe inspiring – but the worry I would have for him against modern heavies is the size gap.

Take a look at the first Billy Conn match for instance; Billy boxed his way to a handy lead through the first 12 rounds and very nearly dropped Louis with a shot at the end of the 12th. It was the sight of Louis staggering that gave Conn the notion that he could knock Louis out and lead to his own demise in the next round, when he elected to stand and trade with the Brown Bomber.

Whilst Louis showed powers of recovery here and late round knock out prowess, it also gives rise to a number of questions. How did such a slightly built foe ever give the heavyweight champ such problems? Could you ever envisage a 12 ½ st fighter giving Lennox Lewis fits and very nearly flooring him? I know I can’t.

I wouldn't take Foremans rankings seriously... the guy is a fake... Larry Holmes has said for years that Foremans public persona is just an act and I agree with him. I mean anyone who names all his children after himself... boys and girls! must have one hell of an oversized ego.....

Ali was decked by Tiny Henry Cooper, and struggled with fast guys like Doug Jones and Jimmy Ellis. Holmes battered monsters like Shavers and Cooney, but was flummoxed by the smaller and faster Spinks. Louis struggled with Conn, precisely because he was smaller and quicker, Louis loved taking on big guys.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera and Abe Simon, stopping all of them by knockout. Now I am not saying these guys are on a par with Lewis, although Baer by all accounts was phenomenally talented, but loved the high life too much.

Also, you'd have to figure with modern training, Louis would have weighed around 220-225 maybe slightly more, and his speed would be pretty impressive when compared to modern heavyweights.

Louis also could fight at a serious pace for 15 rounds, very few modern heavyweights fight at any sort of pace at all, something which has been the case since the 80's onward.

I know it is certainly conceivable that Lewis had the power to drop and stop Louis, but how easy would he find it to land on Louis who faced technically better boxers than Lewis. Joe Walcott for instance was a real technical fighter, and in general I think the technique of heavyweights was superior.

Buddy Baer wasn't as skilled as Louis, but he wasn't a primo Carnera. Max Baer was a very talented fighter also,

I think too much is made of size differentials. Tyson was what, 215 in his prime, and he had plenty of punchpower.

Speed can certainly make up for size difference if it is translated into timing and power.

It's all conjecture of course, and I'm not saying I cannot envisage Lewis beating Louis, but I'm giving the other side of the argument, which is that Lewis would really struggle with the pace, determination, speed of hand and two fisted punching power of Louis.

The guy who got decked by a fairly wide shot from McCall, would certainly have been susceptible to Louis' fists, as Louis was far more accurate and deadly with his punching.

I used to be of the opinion that Lewis would have mullered Louis, but not any more, I think the increase in size of heavyweights is no indication of increasing prowess, Tyson in terms of pure devastating power is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years, Holyfield the hardest man along with Mercer, neither are big by modern standards.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ali was decked by Tiny Henry Cooper, and struggled with fast guys like Doug Jones and Jimmy Ellis. Holmes battered monsters like Shavers and Cooney, but was flummoxed by the smaller and faster Spinks. Louis struggled with Conn, precisely because he was smaller and quicker, Louis loved taking on big guys.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera and Abe Simon, stopping all of them by knockout. Now I am not saying these guys are on a par with Lewis, although Baer by all accounts was phenomenally talented, but loved the high life too much.

Also, you'd have to figure with modern training, Louis would have weighed around 220-225 maybe slightly more, and his speed would be pretty impressive when compared to modern heavyweights.

Louis also could fight at a serious pace for 15 rounds, very few modern heavyweights fight at any sort of pace at all, something which has been the case since the 80's onward.

I know it is certainly conceivable that Lewis had the power to drop and stop Louis, but how easy would he find it to land on Louis who faced technically better boxers than Lewis. Joe Walcott for instance was a real technical fighter, and in general I think the technique of heavyweights was superior.

Buddy Baer wasn't as skilled as Louis, but he wasn't a primo Carnera. Max Baer was a very talented fighter also,

I think too much is made of size differentials. Tyson was what, 215 in his prime, and he had plenty of punchpower.

Speed can certainly make up for size difference if it is translated into timing and power.

It's all conjecture of course, and I'm not saying I cannot envisage Lewis beating Louis, but I'm giving the other side of the argument, which is that Lewis would really struggle with the pace, determination, speed of hand and two fisted punching power of Louis.

The guy who got decked by a fairly wide shot from McCall, would certainly have been susceptible to Louis' fists, as Louis was far more accurate and deadly with his punching.

I used to be of the opinion that Lewis would have mullered Louis, but not any more, I think the increase in size of heavyweights is no indication of increasing prowess, Tyson in terms of pure devastating power is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years, Holyfield the hardest man along with Mercer, neither are big by modern standards.

Very well put.

I think size can be detrimental.

Good points James with regards to Louis struggling with a smaller man due to his speed and swift feet but I really worry about how a 195lb louis would fair against a 240lb lewis.

Joe had a habit of getting decked and not always but out and out bangers like ‘Two Ton‘ Tony. He was put down in the first round of his title winning effort against Braddock, no murderous hitter himself, and who can forget the multiple knockdowns Schmeling inflicted on a young Brown Bomber?

Its not only the fact that Louis could be downed that is worrying (to give the man his due credit, he nearly always got up to win.) but rather the fact that he seemed so eminently hittable in these instances. Would he be able to keep out of the way of the long jab and right hand bombs of a Lewis for long enough to detonate his own?

I accept that Max Bear was a clowning colossus who simply did not make enough of his natural talents but I am a little unsure of his brother Buddy’s standing in this regard. I am no boxing historian so leave it to others to asses his relative merit but surely his inability to land that crown at any point in his career hurts his historical standing? I have only seen his match with Louis so am not best placed to pass comment.

It is all pure speculation as you have pointed out and whilst Joe Louis is, and will remain, my favourite heavyweight fighter, I am still unconvinced that he could have traded on even terms with the hall of fame legends from the modern era.

Syntax Error wrote:Big George is over in England at the moment & he was on Talksport Radio this morning.

He has a very high opinion of Lennox Lewis. He rates him at number 3 in his all time HW list. He rates Joe Louis as number 1 & Tyson at 7 or 8. He didn't give his full top 10.

He went on to say that he gets ridiculed for his views on Lewis by Americans because they are jealous! Is this true???

He also believes that Lewis could come back at any time & regain the title, which I can believe.

Somewhat ridiculously, he reckons he'd like to see Tyson fight another 5 years! Is he crazy? Tyson is more shot than a clay pigeon! He does not have the adaptability of Lewis to carry on fighting past his prime!

tyson will probably fight until he gets banned from boxing.

lewis could easily come back and regain any of the belts if he was focused. he has already beaten the self proclaimed best heavyweight in the world. and he wasn't even in shape.

heartandsoulofboxing wrote:lewis could easily come back and regain any of the belts if he was focused.

WBA & IBF for sure... WBO, maybe... WBC? I don't think even the biggest Lewis fans would agree with you, unless Vitali looks HORRIBLE in 2 weeks.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ali was decked by Tiny Henry Cooper, and struggled with fast guys like Doug Jones and Jimmy Ellis. Holmes battered monsters like Shavers and Cooney, but was flummoxed by the smaller and faster Spinks. Louis struggled with Conn, precisely because he was smaller and quicker, Louis loved taking on big guys.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera and Abe Simon, stopping all of them by knockout. Now I am not saying these guys are on a par with Lewis, although Baer by all accounts was phenomenally talented, but loved the high life too much.

Also, you'd have to figure with modern training, Louis would have weighed around 220-225 maybe slightly more, and his speed would be pretty impressive when compared to modern heavyweights.

Louis also could fight at a serious pace for 15 rounds, very few modern heavyweights fight at any sort of pace at all, something which has been the case since the 80's onward.

I know it is certainly conceivable that Lewis had the power to drop and stop Louis, but how easy would he find it to land on Louis who faced technically better boxers than Lewis. Joe Walcott for instance was a real technical fighter, and in general I think the technique of heavyweights was superior.

Buddy Baer wasn't as skilled as Louis, but he wasn't a primo Carnera. Max Baer was a very talented fighter also,

I think too much is made of size differentials. Tyson was what, 215 in his prime, and he had plenty of punchpower.

Speed can certainly make up for size difference if it is translated into timing and power.

It's all conjecture of course, and I'm not saying I cannot envisage Lewis beating Louis, but I'm giving the other side of the argument, which is that Lewis would really struggle with the pace, determination, speed of hand and two fisted punching power of Louis.

The guy who got decked by a fairly wide shot from McCall, would certainly have been susceptible to Louis' fists, as Louis was far more accurate and deadly with his punching.

I used to be of the opinion that Lewis would have mullered Louis, but not any more, I think the increase in size of heavyweights is no indication of increasing prowess, Tyson in terms of pure devastating power is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years, Holyfield the hardest man along with Mercer, neither are big by modern standards.

i see what your saying james but when cooper caught the then clay he certainly wasnt 50 pounds lighter than clay. and true tyson was around the 215 mark in his prime but that is still a good stone heavier than the brown bomber.
weight isnt everything but lewis carried his pounds well, he wasnt an oversized musclebound type and i was often surprised to hear his weight because he didnt look that heavy. i think his advantages in weight, reach, height and strength (not neccesarily punching power) would be too much for joe or even marciano for that matter, imo that is.
i`m not saying i rate lewis above louis or rocky in the all time lists i`m just saying if they fought each other without accounting for the older guys using modern nutrition and training i think size would matter.
plus when i think of lewis bombing out the likes of botha and rahman i dont think i`d particulary want to see a 14 stone fella take one of those shots.

Tantum wrote:

heartandsoulofboxing wrote:lewis could easily come back and regain any of the belts if he was focused.

WBA & IBF for sure... WBO, maybe... WBC? I don't think even the biggest Lewis fans would agree with you, unless Vitali looks HORRIBLE in 2 weeks.

I disagree, I think that vitali looks just as beatable now as he ever did. When he is put under pressure he looks off balance, so put a decent fighter up against him and I think he will be comprehensively beaten either on points or by a mid to late stoppage. He is too wooden and unbalanced. So throw a otivated Lewis his way and he doesn't stand a chance.

I'm a massive Lewis fan so you could say I'm bias. I think he he had the calibre of oppenents like Ali, Frazier, Liston etc he would have stepped it up and become even better than he was. I think he was never really challenged by anyone. He beat some world class fighters, but only Holyfield could be classed as one of the best ever. As for Tyson, he always struggled against big guys with ability or those with ability: Smth, Tucker, Douglas, Ruddock, Willis, Holyfild, Lewis etc. Remember in his prime Tyson struggled against Ruddock whereas Lewis blew him away. Tyson also got beat by Douglas but Holyfield blew him away. Then Lewis beats Holyfield TWICE! Tyson was a great fighter but he always struggled against good fighters but destroyed the bad fighters. Lewis on the other hand was always at his best against the best fighters and at his worse against the bad ones.

bugs wrote:I disagree, I think that vitali looks just as beatable now as he ever did. So throw a otivated Lewis his way and he doesn't stand a chance.

Do not confuse this...

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ ... xel105.jpg

With this...

http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/200 ... _29103.jpg

headhunter wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ali was decked by Tiny Henry Cooper, and struggled with fast guys like Doug Jones and Jimmy Ellis. Holmes battered monsters like Shavers and Cooney, but was flummoxed by the smaller and faster Spinks. Louis struggled with Conn, precisely because he was smaller and quicker, Louis loved taking on big guys.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera and Abe Simon, stopping all of them by knockout. Now I am not saying these guys are on a par with Lewis, although Baer by all accounts was phenomenally talented, but loved the high life too much.

Also, you'd have to figure with modern training, Louis would have weighed around 220-225 maybe slightly more, and his speed would be pretty impressive when compared to modern heavyweights.

Louis also could fight at a serious pace for 15 rounds, very few modern heavyweights fight at any sort of pace at all, something which has been the case since the 80's onward.

I know it is certainly conceivable that Lewis had the power to drop and stop Louis, but how easy would he find it to land on Louis who faced technically better boxers than Lewis. Joe Walcott for instance was a real technical fighter, and in general I think the technique of heavyweights was superior.

Buddy Baer wasn't as skilled as Louis, but he wasn't a primo Carnera. Max Baer was a very talented fighter also,

I think too much is made of size differentials. Tyson was what, 215 in his prime, and he had plenty of punchpower.

Speed can certainly make up for size difference if it is translated into timing and power.

It's all conjecture of course, and I'm not saying I cannot envisage Lewis beating Louis, but I'm giving the other side of the argument, which is that Lewis would really struggle with the pace, determination, speed of hand and two fisted punching power of Louis.

The guy who got decked by a fairly wide shot from McCall, would certainly have been susceptible to Louis' fists, as Louis was far more accurate and deadly with his punching.

I used to be of the opinion that Lewis would have mullered Louis, but not any more, I think the increase in size of heavyweights is no indication of increasing prowess, Tyson in terms of pure devastating power is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years, Holyfield the hardest man along with Mercer, neither are big by modern standards.

i see what your saying james but when cooper caught the then clay he certainly wasnt 50 pounds lighter than clay. and true tyson was around the 215 mark in his prime but that is still a good stone heavier than the brown bomber.
weight isnt everything but lewis carried his pounds well, he wasnt an oversized musclebound type and i was often surprised to hear his weight because he didnt look that heavy. i think his advantages in weight, reach, height and strength (not neccesarily punching power) would be too much for joe or even marciano for that matter, imo that is.
i`m not saying i rate lewis above louis or rocky in the all time lists i`m just saying if they fought each other without accounting for the older guys using modern nutrition and training i think size would matter.
plus when i think of lewis bombing out the likes of botha and rahman i dont think i`d particulary want to see a 14 stone fella take one of those shots.

My point is that even at 13 stone and a half dripping wet, Cooper hit hard enough to deck a guy who took everything Frazier, Liston, Lyle, Shavers and Foreman could dish out.

Louis was 190-200 lbs in his prime, small by modern standards of course, but he was certainly bigger than cooper.

Marciano for all his size deficit was a tremendous puncher. I think he would have struggled against Lewis due to the reach disadvantage and he would have been easy to tie up, but you would have to figure Marciano could have stopped Lewis with one of those hooks.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

headhunter wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ali was decked by Tiny Henry Cooper, and struggled with fast guys like Doug Jones and Jimmy Ellis. Holmes battered monsters like Shavers and Cooney, but was flummoxed by the smaller and faster Spinks. Louis struggled with Conn, precisely because he was smaller and quicker, Louis loved taking on big guys.

Louis beat Baer, Carnera and Abe Simon, stopping all of them by knockout. Now I am not saying these guys are on a par with Lewis, although Baer by all accounts was phenomenally talented, but loved the high life too much.

Also, you'd have to figure with modern training, Louis would have weighed around 220-225 maybe slightly more, and his speed would be pretty impressive when compared to modern heavyweights.

Louis also could fight at a serious pace for 15 rounds, very few modern heavyweights fight at any sort of pace at all, something which has been the case since the 80's onward.

I know it is certainly conceivable that Lewis had the power to drop and stop Louis, but how easy would he find it to land on Louis who faced technically better boxers than Lewis. Joe Walcott for instance was a real technical fighter, and in general I think the technique of heavyweights was superior.

Buddy Baer wasn't as skilled as Louis, but he wasn't a primo Carnera. Max Baer was a very talented fighter also,

I think too much is made of size differentials. Tyson was what, 215 in his prime, and he had plenty of punchpower.

Speed can certainly make up for size difference if it is translated into timing and power.

It's all conjecture of course, and I'm not saying I cannot envisage Lewis beating Louis, but I'm giving the other side of the argument, which is that Lewis would really struggle with the pace, determination, speed of hand and two fisted punching power of Louis.

The guy who got decked by a fairly wide shot from McCall, would certainly have been susceptible to Louis' fists, as Louis was far more accurate and deadly with his punching.

I used to be of the opinion that Lewis would have mullered Louis, but not any more, I think the increase in size of heavyweights is no indication of increasing prowess, Tyson in terms of pure devastating power is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years, Holyfield the hardest man along with Mercer, neither are big by modern standards.

i see what your saying james but when cooper caught the then clay he certainly wasnt 50 pounds lighter than clay. and true tyson was around the 215 mark in his prime but that is still a good stone heavier than the brown bomber.
weight isnt everything but lewis carried his pounds well, he wasnt an oversized musclebound type and i was often surprised to hear his weight because he didnt look that heavy. i think his advantages in weight, reach, height and strength (not neccesarily punching power) would be too much for joe or even marciano for that matter, imo that is.
i`m not saying i rate lewis above louis or rocky in the all time lists i`m just saying if they fought each other without accounting for the older guys using modern nutrition and training i think size would matter.
plus when i think of lewis bombing out the likes of botha and rahman i dont think i`d particulary want to see a 14 stone fella take one of those shots.

My point is that even at 13 stone and a half dripping wet, Cooper hit hard enough to deck a guy who took everything Frazier, Liston, Lyle, Shavers and Foreman could dish out.

yeah thats a fair comment (and one i`ll store in the old memory bank for when i`m in the boozer and fancy arguing the corner for the old guys!) but i still think at around 250lbs and a decent boxer to boot lennox would have been too big for those guys.
just like footy its a game of opinions mate.