BoxRec

As this is my first posting I would just like to say what a great forum this is. I have enjoyed reading many comments and knowledgeable arguments on some great boxing topics.

Without taking fighters records into the equation and just going for a simple match up against one another during their prime, it would be interesting to see what the common consensus is on who is regarded as the best heavyweight ever to step into a boxing ring.

I have naturally my own opinion and I know that with most folk on here it will be met with derisory objection. However I feel that with a combination of ring craft, punching power but most of all for his sheer size and weight then Lennox Lewis would have to come out on top in a straight match up with any of the greats from the past. Remember this is not a reflection on where he would stand in the all time list, as that is taking into consideration a whole host of other things and for that I would have him just shading the top 10 and no more.

I believe Ali could have beaten them all.

Louis could have beaten them all bar Ali.

Lewis, on the other hand could have beaten maybe 50% of them but if blokes like McCall and Rahman (who have to be 2 of the worst ever claimants to a heavyweight 'world' title belt) can beat him then the figure of 50% is probably flattering him.

With the greatest respect Tiger Lennox is nowhere near being the best heavyweight of all time, he was talented yes but personally I'd rate him at about 14/15 all time and many of the fighters above and indeed below him would have had a chance at taking him out had they connected... you have to take into account his flaws, mainly the dodgey chin, and often negative attitude (probably due to dodgey chin!) and the fact that he operated in an era of gross mediocrity... also the best fighters that he fought (Holyfield and Tyson) were past their primes when he finally fought them...
The best of all time was Ali... great skills, speed, heart, intelligence, Chin... opposition... basically everything, ...its very hard to make a case for any other heavyweight being better than Ali...

Ali and Louis seems to be the general concensus for the all time greatest in boxing. With Ali nudging louis out of the top spot by a small percentage. But most lists have either one or the other leading the pack.

Personally I think Holmes and Johnson pip Louis... dare I say that I think Louis is a little overrated, great fighter no doubt, but I think Ali, Holmes and Johnson would have given him fits...

Ali beats Johnson who beats Louis who beats Holmes, IMO

I think Holmes would be too mobile and clever for Louis... if Conn could outbox Louis for 12 rounds then Ali, Johnson and Holmes would do it for 15 imo... 8)

This may be true young fella. Although I could also envisage Louis at some point landing a short sharp right from which Holmes may not get up from

There was nothing wrong with Holmes chin though, if he could get up from that shot from Shavers then I don't think Louis would keep him down... Holmes wasnt a bad puncher himself and Louis was floored more times than Holmes during his career... and usually by lighter fighters... 8)

silkov wrote:I think Holmes would be too mobile and clever for Louis... if Conn could outbox Louis for 12 rounds then Ali, Johnson and Holmes would do it for 15 imo... 8)

No offense silkov, but to me that's a bit like saying if Holmes can lose to Spinx twice Louis would definately beat him. Don't forget Holmes had a bigger weight advantage over Spinx in both their fights than Louis did over Conn in both of their's.

Louis fought a dumb fight against Conn and also came in way too light but I think the perfomance is held against him too often, not to mention one of the judges had the fight even at the time of stoppage. At least Louis came back to win the fight and then won a rematch infatically, something Holmes could not manage with Spinks.

Don't get me wrong i have Holmes ranked No.3 and he could well have beat Louis in a fantasy match-up I just don't think the Conn fight proves this.

But Holmes was 36 when he lost to Spinks??.... he was hardly at his peak anymore while Louis was 27 and at his peak when he fought Conn!... so the comparison is not valid. A peak Holmes vs Mike Spinks would have been a different fight. And Holmes was robbed in the rematch against Spinks which he should have been given.
Spinks would have given Louis fits as well... Louis always fought the same way, that was one of his flaws, he fought Conn the same way he always fought. It worked most of the time but against fast and clever mobile boxers Louis always had trouble even in his prime...
Thats thought by some to be one of the reasons why Louis never fought Jimmy Bivins in his prime...

Fair enough it's a bad comparison, I just think it's harsh to use a fighter's worst performance a the yardstick to judge him against the other great fighters.

However your point about mobile boxers I definately agree with, I think foot speed would be one of the keys to beating a prime Louis and I think Ali is probably the worst match-up for him out of the other top ten heavies.

silkov wrote:But Holmes was 36 when he lost to Spinks??.... he was hardly at his peak anymore while Louis was 27 and at his peak when he fought Conn!... so the comparison is not valid. A peak Holmes vs Mike Spinks would have been a different fight. And Holmes was robbed in the rematch against Spinks which he should have been given.
Spinks would have given Louis fits as well... Louis always fought the same way, that was one of his flaws, he fought Conn the same way he always fought. It worked most of the time but against fast and clever mobile boxers Louis always had trouble even in his prime...
Thats thought by some to be one of the reasons why Louis never fought Jimmy Bivins in his prime...

How about this then? If Mike Weaver could give a peak Holmes hell, then certainly Louis would have been able to beat him. You can play this game all day with any fighter. How about-- if skinny, broken down Henry Cooper could nearly KO Ali, then certainly Mike Tyson could have stopped him. Or if a past his prime Gregorio Peralta could give George Foreman fits in 2 fights, then certainly <fill in the blank> could have out boxed him. Louis clearly had problems with Conn, but you have to look beyond one fight and rate a fighter on their entire career and their overall abilities.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:But Holmes was 36 when he lost to Spinks??.... he was hardly at his peak anymore while Louis was 27 and at his peak when he fought Conn!... so the comparison is not valid. A peak Holmes vs Mike Spinks would have been a different fight. And Holmes was robbed in the rematch against Spinks which he should have been given.
Spinks would have given Louis fits as well... Louis always fought the same way, that was one of his flaws, he fought Conn the same way he always fought. It worked most of the time but against fast and clever mobile boxers Louis always had trouble even in his prime...
Thats thought by some to be one of the reasons why Louis never fought Jimmy Bivins in his prime...

How about this then? If Mike Weaver could give a peak Holmes hell, then certainly Louis would have been able to beat him. You can play this game all day with any fighter. How about-- if skinny, broken down Henry Cooper could nearly KO Ali, then certainly Mike Tyson could have stopped him. Or if a past his prime Gregorio Peralta could give George Foreman fits in 2 fights, then certainly <fill in the blank> could have out boxed him. Louis clearly had problems with Conn, but you have to look beyond one fight and rate a fighter on their entire career and their overall abilities.

Holmes had flu when he fought Weaver and besides are you really saying that Louis hit harder than Weaver??. Do you think Schmeling and Braddock hit harder than Holmes?... if Braddock who was little more than a Light-heavy can floor and daze Louis Holmes had the power to ko him imo.... if anyones getting koed in a Holmes vs Louis matchup its Louis... Holmes had a mixture of size, strength and speed that none of Louis opponents had... I'm not basing what I'm saying just on the Conn fight, how about the Schmeling fight, and Farr, Walcott... all the fast fighters that Louis fought gave him trouble...

J-C wrote:Fair enough it's a bad comparison, I just think it's harsh to use a fighter's worst performance a the yardstick to judge him against the other great fighters.

However your point about mobile boxers I definately agree with, I think foot speed would be one of the keys to beating a prime Louis and I think Ali is probably the worst match-up for him out of the other top ten heavies.

Thats all I'm saying, that the way to be Louis was by speed and mobility... and the best boxers with that style were Ali, Johnson and Holmes... Holmes would probably have been the toughest fight for a peak Ali as well...

silkov wrote:Holmes had flu when he fought Weaver and besides are you really saying that Louis hit harder than Weaver??.

No I’m saying that Louis was a MUCH BETTER FIGHTER than Weaver. Are you saying that Weaver was a better fighter than Louis? The flu excuse is great. Ever stop to think that Louis may not have been at his best in the few fights in his prime where he struggled?

silkov wrote:…I'm not basing what I'm saying just on the Conn fight, how about the Schmeling fight, and Farr, Walcott... all the fast fighters that Louis fought gave him trouble...

Let’s see, when a poster brought up Holmes losing to Spinks, you said that wasn’t fair because Holmes was past his prime. Now you bring up Walcott!??!

And Holmes barely beat a past his prime Norton, struggled with Cooney, Weaver, Williams, Witherspoon, Snipes, pretty much every decent fighter he fought. Holmes was a true great – I have him 3rd – but your rather simplistic evaluation of Louis is pretty sad. Just about every great fighter struggled in some of their fights – so what?

And since you brought it up, I’ve asked several times before on this forum when the topic of Louis against “fast” fighters is brought up, so I’ll try again. Please list the fast fighters that Louis struggled with in his prime? As you mentioned, Farr gave him a very good fight, but he gave him problems with pressure and punching, not speed as you’ve implied. I’ll give you Conn. Anyone else?

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Holmes had flu when he fought Weaver and besides are you really saying that Louis hit harder than Weaver??.

No I’m saying that Louis was a MUCH BETTER FIGHTER than Weaver. Are you saying that Weaver was a better fighter than Louis? The flu excuse is great. Ever stop to think that Louis may not have been at his best in the few fights in his prime where he struggled?

silkov wrote:…I'm not basing what I'm saying just on the Conn fight, how about the Schmeling fight, and Farr, Walcott... all the fast fighters that Louis fought gave him trouble...

Let’s see, when a poster brought up Holmes losing to Spinks, you said that wasn’t fair because Holmes was past his prime. Now you bring up Walcott!??!

And Holmes barely beat a past his prime Norton, struggled with Cooney, Weaver, Williams, Witherspoon, Snipes, pretty much every decent fighter he fought. Holmes was a true great – I have him 3rd – but your rather simplistic evaluation of Louis is pretty sad. Just about every great fighter struggled in some of their fights – so what?

And since you brought it up, I’ve asked several times before on this forum when the topic of Louis against “fast” fighters is brought up, so I’ll try again. Please list the fast fighters that Louis struggled with in his prime? As you mentioned, Farr gave him a very good fight, but he gave him problems with pressure and punching, not speed as you’ve implied. I’ll give you Conn. Anyone else?

Your attitude is typical of those who start wailing to the sky when ever anyone questions the ability of Louis, as for his problems with mobile fighters if you dont know who they were then I'm not spelling it out for you mate, if you know so little about Louis career then how can you make any argument?...

silkov wrote:Your attitude is typical of those who start wailing to the sky when ever anyone questions the ability of Louis, as for his problems with mobile fighters if you dont know who they were then I'm not spelling it out for you mate, if you know so little about Louis career then how can you make any argument?...

If I know so little, then why am I the one mentioning names and accomplishments? If a prime Louis had so many struggles with fast fighters, then you certainly can name at least ONE other fighter besides Conn!??! Come on, are you that bereft of boxing knowledge? You probably didn’t even know that the Walcott fights were post WWII, when Louis was far removed from his prime. Please enlighten us oh great boxing historian.

BTW, I agree with Holmes giving Louis problems. I’m just basing my evaluations on knowledge rather than simply repeating other people’s bogus assessments. What I resent are people like you repeating others judgments without having facts or knowledge to back up their statements.

I suppose Weaver wasnt as good as Braddock, Galento, Baer etc. .. Louis 'bum of the month club' was often just that... as for Louis accomplishments I know all about that and havent the time or inclination to write huge lists here just because you say so... you havent said anything to discount the fact that Louis had trouble with faster fighters... the fact that he was steered away from the peak Bivins speaks for itself!... explain that one!... 8)

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Your attitude is typical of those who start wailing to the sky when ever anyone questions the ability of Louis, as for his problems with mobile fighters if you dont know who they were then I'm not spelling it out for you mate, if you know so little about Louis career then how can you make any argument?...

If I know so little, then why am I the one mentioning names and accomplishments? If a prime Louis had so many struggles with fast fighters, then you certainly can name at least ONE other fighter besides Conn!??! Come on, are you that bereft of boxing knowledge? You probably didn’t even know that the Walcott fights were post WWI, when Louis was far removed from his prime. Please enlighten us oh great boxing historian.

BTW, I agree with Holmes giving Louis problems. I’m just basing my evaluations on knowledge rather than simply repeating other people’s bogus assessments. What I resent are people like you repeating others judgments without having facts or knowledge to back up their statements.

What I resent is people like you thinking you know it all when you plainly dont!. What I said is my own opionion and please enlighten me who I'm repeating??. Again you show a complete closed mind to any opinion other than your own and anyone who questions your fragile world view has to be wrong otherwise its the end of life itself!. And if the assessments about Louis being troubled by faster fighters is bogus why do you say that Holmes would give Louis problems?... rather contridictory there I'd say!.
You seem to have a thing about Weaver vs Holmes but I dare say if Louis could be floored by the likes of Braddock Weaver would have had a good chance of koing him... take the rose tinted glasses off and look at the evidence!...

silkov wrote:I suppose Weaver wasnt as good as Braddock, Galento, Baer etc. .. Louis 'bum of the month club' was often just that... as for Louis accomplishments I know all about that and havent the time or inclination to write huge lists here just because you say so... you havent said anything to discount the fact that Louis had trouble with faster fighters... the fact that he was steered away from the peak Bivins speaks for itself!... explain that one!... 8)

As I expected, you have NO RESPONSE to my question, but can only come back with your own lame questions, proving once again that the old standby used by Louis detractors has no substance. Was Louis perfect? Of course not, but as I stated, there is no real evidence in his career that he was any more susceptible to fast fighters than any other great HW. And by your lack of even attempting a response, you clearly have shown you have no ammo in this argument.

And unlike you, I will actually respond to your inquiry about Bivins. Are you implying that Louis ducked Bivins? While it’s true that the Louis management team may have avoided fighting the top African-American HW’s, this had nothing to do with any fear of losing, but was more a reflection of the times, something you seem to know little about. Bivins was a very quick and talented fighter, and would have probably been a tough fight for Louis, although I think a peak Louis would have caught up to him for a mid to late rounds stoppage. He probably would have been a tough opponent for Holmes as well. But you may not be aware that during most of Bivins prime, Louis was serving his country, so it would have been a hard match to make.

Why did you bring up Weaver again? I listed plenty of other guys that Holmes struggled with as well. However, even though you are not capable of answering my questions, I will answer yours.

Weaver could have probably beaten Braddock, and would have had a very tough time with the power of Galento and Baer. And I mean both Max and Buddy Baer. Or maybe you didn’t know there were 2 of them? Who was “better” among those fighters? Now that’s a question not worth wasting any time on.

At a guess I'd say I know a fair more about Louis than you do mate, and for your information all Louis fights were post WW1... skip history lessons did you!!... 8)

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:I suppose Weaver wasnt as good as Braddock, Galento, Baer etc. .. Louis 'bum of the month club' was often just that... as for Louis accomplishments I know all about that and havent the time or inclination to write huge lists here just because you say so... you havent said anything to discount the fact that Louis had trouble with faster fighters... the fact that he was steered away from the peak Bivins speaks for itself!... explain that one!... 8)

As I expected, you have NO RESPONSE to my question, but can only come back with your own lame questions, proving once again that the old standby used by Louis detractors has no substance. Was Louis perfect? Of course not, but as I stated, there is no real evidence in his career that he was any more susceptible to fast fighters than any other great HW. And by your lack of even attempting a response, you clearly have shown you have no ammo in this argument.

And unlike you, I will actually respond to your inquiry about Bivins. Are you implying that Louis ducked Bivins? While it’s true that the Louis management team may have avoided fighting the top African-American HW’s, this had nothing to do with any fear of losing, but was more a reflection of the times, something you seem to know little about. Bivins was a very quick and talented fighter, and would have probably been a tough fight for Louis, although I think a peak Louis would have caught up to him for a mid to late rounds stoppage. He probably would have been a tough opponent for Holmes as well. But you may not be aware that during most of Bivins prime, Louis was serving his country, so it would have been a hard match to make.

Why did you bring up Weaver again? I listed plenty of other guys that Holmes struggled with as well. However, even though you are not capable of answering my questions, I will answer yours.

Weaver could have probably beaten Braddock, and would have had a very tough time with the power of Galento and Baer. And I mean both Max and Buddy Baer. Or maybe you didn’t know there were 2 of them? Who was “better” among those fighters? Now that’s a question not worth wasting any time on.

Your boring me now mate, I'm always up for a 'debate' but when someone stoops to personal insults and attempted WW1 history lessons then I lose interest, ...take your ball home mate I'm not interested anymore!... 8)

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:I suppose Weaver wasnt as good as Braddock, Galento, Baer etc. .. Louis 'bum of the month club' was often just that... as for Louis accomplishments I know all about that and havent the time or inclination to write huge lists here just because you say so... you havent said anything to discount the fact that Louis had trouble with faster fighters... the fact that he was steered away from the peak Bivins speaks for itself!... explain that one!... 8)

As I expected, you have NO RESPONSE to my question, but can only come back with your own lame questions, proving once again that the old standby used by Louis detractors has no substance. Was Louis perfect? Of course not, but as I stated, there is no real evidence in his career that he was any more susceptible to fast fighters than any other great HW. And by your lack of even attempting a response, you clearly have shown you have no ammo in this argument.

And unlike you, I will actually respond to your inquiry about Bivins. Are you implying that Louis ducked Bivins? While it’s true that the Louis management team may have avoided fighting the top African-American HW’s, this had nothing to do with any fear of losing, but was more a reflection of the times, something you seem to know little about. Bivins was a very quick and talented fighter, and would have probably been a tough fight for Louis, although I think a peak Louis would have caught up to him for a mid to late rounds stoppage. He probably would have been a tough opponent for Holmes as well. But you may not be aware that during most of Bivins prime, Louis was serving his country, so it would have been a hard match to make.

Why did you bring up Weaver again? I listed plenty of other guys that Holmes struggled with as well. However, even though you are not capable of answering my questions, I will answer yours.

Weaver could have probably beaten Braddock, and would have had a very tough time with the power of Galento and Baer. And I mean both Max and Buddy Baer. Or maybe you didn’t know there were 2 of them? Who was “better” among those fighters? Now that’s a question not worth wasting any time on.

Dah!... yeah I really didnt know there were two Baers! can you tell me if the earth is really round or flat?... fool!.

silkov wrote:Your boring me now mate, I'm always up for a 'debate' but when someone stoops to personal insults and attempted WW1 history lessons then I lose interest, ...take your ball home mate I'm not interested anymore!... 8)

Sorry to bore you mate, but all you had to do was answer the question, rather than continually redirect the discussion. There’s no debate when only one side presents any facts.

My appologies for the insults. I got a little carried away.