IYO was Oliver McCall was HW Champion ?

[BKM-]

He does, but sadly they get looked past so people can rank him above modern fighters.

He gets ranked above modern fighter(He's a 'modern fighter' himself btw) because he beat every man he ever faced in arguably the strongest or second strongest HW era of all time.

This was not green Lewis either, this was Lewis in his absolute prime, and yes, credit for the rematch wins, but really, a top guy should be beating B/C level opposition with 2 bites at the cherry.

Which is how he avenged both defeats.

He also in his prime lost to Mercer in reality, and he was very one-paced and predictable in that fight. I watched Lewis's whole career, and was and still am a big fan, but Tyson Fury beats him handily imo. I'd take Wilder to beat Lewis as well. Nash out.

Now that's sad, that you would discredit your own intellect in such a way.

The only thing you've proven is that Lewis is the most scrutinized HW ever. Nobody has such little ammo used against him so passionately. If we did the same for other greats they would be ranked 10+ spots lower than they are.

[QueensburyRules]

He gets ranked above modern fighter(He's a 'modern fighter' himself btw) because he beat every man he ever faced in arguably the strongest or second strongest HW era of all time.



Which is how he avenged both defeats.



Now that's sad, that you would discredit your own intellect in such a way.

The only thing you've proven is that Lewis is the most scrutinized HW ever. Nobody has such little ammo used against him so passionately. If we did the same for other greats they would be ranked 10+ spots lower than they are.

- - What other greats were one punched to Bolivia via Timbuktu by journeymen in their primes while pretending to play chess?

[Anthony342]

Exactly McCall was a belt holder, nothing more. Was there ever even a debate about this?

[BKM-]

Exactly McCall was a belt holder, nothing more. Was there ever even a debate about this?

I'll give you one since you want to give credence to the clown above you.

You might want to give your definition of a journeyman because to me, a title winner and defender is not a journeyman(especially in this case where many people feel McCall won the lineal title not just a belt) I consider that someone who never wins a title and never actually manages to fight for one either. McCall did and defended it, and he also managed to KO 4(If my memory serves me right) future title holders before he imploded mentally. He also happens to be one of the most physically gifted HW's who didn't have it upstairs.

Rahman, far from an all time great managed to be in world title contention for a decade and a half which is a remarkably long time in boxing.

I think the problem here is what many boxing fans fall victim to which is the black and white thinking. There's only great fighters or bums, no inbetween. Well, I guess journeyman since it would be a bit much even for haters to claim Lewis lost to 2 bums.

Probably the old American bias against Lewis hence the scrutiny. I really don't consider losses with 1 punch outcomes in fights the winner should have won, and easily won in the rematches, such a legacy damaging occurrence.

You want really bad losses in the prime of an ATG?
-Try Tyson getting the piss beaten out of him and brutally knocked out by Douglas who was far less remarkable than Lewis' foes. It wasn't a moment of losing concentration, no --Douglas gave a half an hour blueprint on how to beat prime Tyson.
-Same with Louis against Schmeling in his prime, another long lasting absolute beatdown resulting in a KO.
-Ingemar Johansson was an up and coming contender yet never even fought outside of Sweden. He comes in and knocks Floyd Patterson down 7 times and out. Quite a spectacular defeat for a champ in his prime.
-Remember Michael Bentt? Me neither. A nobody who ko'd poor Tommy Morrison for the belt.
Did Leon Spinks even have 10 fights before he beat the great Ali?

Like I said, plenty of bad losses out there and this is only the HW's I looked back at.

[Willow The Wisp]

Exactly McCall was a belt holder, nothing more. Was there ever even a debate about this?

None. A good contender, a very solid puncher. Hey...Anthony....Do you recall about when the idea of holding one of those mass produced "Championship" belts became seen as more prestigious than being a Top 10 Contender? If I remember right, it was about the same time fans got too lazy or disinterested to think for themselves and started to allow sketchy promoters and their sham "sanctioning body" business accomplices to supply the thinking for them.

[BKM-]

None. A good contender, a very solid puncher. Hey...Anthony....Do you recall about when the idea of holding one of those mass produced "Championship" belts became seen as more prestigious than being a Top 10 Contender? If I remember right, it was about the same time fans got too lazy or disinterested to think for themselves and started to allow sketchy promoters and their sham "sanctioning body" business accomplices to supply the thinking for them.

It all ties in together though. You can't hate on one aspect that's part of the bigger thing. You can't get one of those "mass produced belts" without having a high "ranking" so it's silly to discredit one while putting value on the other.

[Willow The Wisp]

I'll give you one since you want to give credence to the clown above you.

You might want to give your definition of a journeyman because to me, a title winner and defender is not a journeyman(especially in this case where many people feel McCall won the lineal title not just a belt) I consider that someone who never wins a title and never actually manages to fight for one either. McCall did and defended it, and he also managed to KO 4(If my memory serves me right) future title holders before he imploded mentally. He also happens to be one of the most physically gifted HW's who didn't have it upstairs.

Rahman, far from an all time great managed to be in world title contention for a decade and a half which is a remarkably long time in boxing.

I think the problem here is what many boxing fans fall victim to which is the black and white thinking. There's only great fighters or bums, no inbetween. Well, I guess journeyman since it would be a bit much even for haters to claim Lewis lost to 2 bums.

Probably the old American bias against Lewis hence the scrutiny. I really don't consider losses with 1 punch outcomes in fights the winner should have won, and easily won in the rematches, such a legacy damaging occurrence.

You want really bad losses in the prime of an ATG?
-Try Tyson getting the piss beaten out of him and brutally knocked out by Douglas who was far less remarkable than Lewis' foes. It wasn't a moment of losing concentration, no --Douglas gave a half an hour blueprint on how to beat prime Tyson.
-Same with Louis against Schmeling in his prime, another long lasting absolute beatdown resulting in a KO.
-Ingemar Johansson was an up and coming contender yet never even fought outside of Sweden. He comes in and knocks Floyd Patterson down 7 times and out. Quite a spectacular defeat for a champ in his prime.
-Remember Michael Bentt? Me neither. A nobody who ko'd poor Tommy Morrison for the belt.
Did Leon Spinks even have 10 fights before he beat the great Ali?

Like I said, plenty of bad losses out there and this is only the HW's I looked back at.

BKM. I'll remember that name. Good post.

[QueensburyRules]

I'll give you one since you want to give credence to the clown above you.

You might want to give your definition of a journeyman because to me, a title winner and defender is not a journeyman(especially in this case where many people feel McCall won the lineal title not just a belt) I consider that someone who never wins a title and never actually manages to fight for one either. McCall did and defended it, and he also managed to KO 4(If my memory serves me right) future title holders before he imploded mentally. He also happens to be one of the most physically gifted HW's who didn't have it upstairs.

Rahman, far from an all time great managed to be in world title contention for a decade and a half which is a remarkably long time in boxing.

I think the problem here is what many boxing fans fall victim to which is the black and white thinking. There's only great fighters or bums, no inbetween. Well, I guess journeyman since it would be a bit much even for haters to claim Lewis lost to 2 bums.

Probably the old American bias against Lewis hence the scrutiny. I really don't consider losses with 1 punch outcomes in fights the winner should have won, and easily won in the rematches, such a legacy damaging occurrence.

You want really bad losses in the prime of an ATG?
-Try Tyson getting the piss beaten out of him and brutally knocked out by Douglas who was far less remarkable than Lewis' foes. It wasn't a moment of losing concentration, no --Douglas gave a half an hour blueprint on how to beat prime Tyson.
-Same with Louis against Schmeling in his prime, another long lasting absolute beatdown resulting in a KO.
-Ingemar Johansson was an up and coming contender yet never even fought outside of Sweden. He comes in and knocks Floyd Patterson down 7 times and out. Quite a spectacular defeat for a champ in his prime.
-Remember Michael Bentt? Me neither. A nobody who ko'd poor Tommy Morrison for the belt.
Did Leon Spinks even have 10 fights before he beat the great Ali?

Like I said, plenty of bad losses out there and this is only the HW's I looked back at.

- - U as boring as watching Lewie play at Chess while ditching every belt he owned while never defending the unified title.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'll give you one since you want to give credence to the clown above you.

You might want to give your definition of a journeyman because to me, a title winner and defender is not a journeyman(especially in this case where many people feel McCall won the lineal title not just a belt) I consider that someone who never wins a title and never actually manages to fight for one either. McCall did and defended it, and he also managed to KO 4(If my memory serves me right) future title holders before he imploded mentally. He also happens to be one of the most physically gifted HW's who didn't have it upstairs.

Rahman, far from an all time great managed to be in world title contention for a decade and a half which is a remarkably long time in boxing.

I think the problem here is what many boxing fans fall victim to which is the black and white thinking. There's only great fighters or bums, no inbetween. Well, I guess journeyman since it would be a bit much even for haters to claim Lewis lost to 2 bums.

Probably the old American bias against Lewis hence the scrutiny. I really don't consider losses with 1 punch outcomes in fights the winner should have won, and easily won in the rematches, such a legacy damaging occurrence.

You want really bad losses in the prime of an ATG?
-Try Tyson getting the piss beaten out of him and brutally knocked out by Douglas who was far less remarkable than Lewis' foes. It wasn't a moment of losing concentration, no --Douglas gave a half an hour blueprint on how to beat prime Tyson.
-Same with Louis against Schmeling in his prime, another long lasting absolute beatdown resulting in a KO.
-Ingemar Johansson was an up and coming contender yet never even fought outside of Sweden. He comes in and knocks Floyd Patterson down 7 times and out. Quite a spectacular defeat for a champ in his prime.
-Remember Michael Bentt? Me neither. A nobody who ko'd poor Tommy Morrison for the belt.
Did Leon Spinks even have 10 fights before he beat the great Ali?

Like I said, plenty of bad losses out there and this is only the HW's I looked back at.

Here's the problem with making absolute statements in prize fighting.

By the above (bold) standard we have to accept Gene Fulmer as being a head above Sugar Ray Robinson in legacy.

In four fights Fullmer went 2-1-1 against SRR (Two UDs) with Sugar Ray's only victory coming from a one punch KO, with Robinson behind on two of the judges score cards at the time of the stoppage. (So save for the 'one punch' we were probably looking at a third UD for Fullmer.)

So since the one punch KO was revenged by a UD and a split draw (and supported by an earlier UD) shouldn't we consider Fullmer as gulity of committing nothing more than a mere misstep, as did Lewis with his one punch loses?

Yet that 'one punch KO' has, over the years, gotten such legs under it that fans still to this day make the KO story a foundation of SRR's legacy.

I am not suggesting this is true, I am suggesting that prize fighting is a sport where you just can't set abosulte standards, every fight has to be evaluated on its own merit.

Lewis got stopped hard, Fullmer got stopped hard. Both men revenged their loss. Fullmer against a fighter no man calls a journeyman.

Either Fullmer isn't getting his just deserves or you're letting Lewis off the hook too easily.

Or maybe there just aren't any constant standards one can set for evaluating greatness.

[billeau2]

Exactly right. There is no room for any debate about this topic whatsoever.

Explain this to me because it confuses me. At the time of this debate, I am assuming that Foreman was the alleged lineal because he beat Moorer who beat Holyfield. Is this correct? IF this is correct... Lewis beat Holyfield, he was the best... There is nothing that says hindsight cannot be used with asserting a lineal claim, or, if speculation cannot be used, when clearly Lewis *****s holly.

So this means that McCall beat the best no?