Originally posted by Lacrimosa
View Post
..............
-
..............
-
May be the dumbest post I've ever seen in my life.Originally posted by Lacrimosa View Post
Incredible.
I'm speechless.Comment
-
I think it's a decent list, but I'd rate Lewis higher than Holyfield or Holmes. Lewis defeated more dangerous opponents. Holyfield was a warrior, no doubt. But he was a dirty, dirty fighter. I have a problem with the advantages he gained through continuously going in with the head against Tyson and Lewis.
Holyfield also seems to have far more credit than he deserves for losing twice, in his supposed prime HW years, to Rid**** Bowe (who only just sc****s in to the top 25).
Just because Holyfield's a smaller guy, yes it makes his achievements more commendable, but doesn't mean he had more chance of beating the top heavyweights of all time. The fact is, he would more often than not have been on the losing end in fights against ATG's of similar size and stature to Bowe. I mean prime Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Muhammad Ali etc.
I believe Holyfield is often rated higher than he should be by American journos due to emotional, not logical reasoning.
Lewis and Holmes are more evenly matched. Holmes has the fact that he went so long undefeated and didn't slip up against weaker opposition (McCall & Rahman). However, Lewis has more wins against quality opposition than Holmes does.
It could go either way. If the two ever fought it'd be a great fight. Lewis obviously wouldn't have taken it lightly (like he did against McCall and Rahman) and I believe a prime, focused Lewis would have more often than not defeated any heavyweight, except maybe Muhammad Ali.
A focused Lennox Lewis was as close to the complete heavyweight as you can get.Last edited by Shazam!; 03-19-2010, 11:40 AM.Comment
-
I would have put Joe Louis infront of Ali..Comment
-
I respectfully don't think it's flawed logic. It's the only fair way to rank fighters through decades : by looking at what they did in their respective era. Sometimes, we don't have footage of one fighter, but we have footage of his opponents, so it gives a good idea what the man could do if he could beat another great man on tape. There are reports too, newspapers etc., that give an idea of their styles...Originally posted by Kilrain View Post
I believe more dominant, new champions, can dump old-timers off the list. For exmple, Wladimir. This guy will one day enter the rankings, probably the top 15-20, so someone will have to be dumped. It could be an old-timer.
Anyway, just looking at the state of boxing, it's hard to imagine a lot of great and dominant fighters will come in the future that could outclass on an all-time list the top names, old-timers or not...Last edited by Tiozzo; 03-19-2010, 12:03 PM.Comment
-
Something else that's interesting. I think you have to consider that the heavyweight division is so lowly regarded now because there aren't any top American Heavyweights. For example, David Haye is bringing a lot of interest in England and I think people in the U.S. would be a lot more excited if he was American.Comment
-
My bad - I remembered that Holy had his first couple of fights around 175 lbs - i`ve forgotten he weighed a little more than the LHW limit...Originally posted by crold1 View PostComment
-
So 188-198 lbs Dempsey does what 250 Vitali couldn`t do, while being a lesser puncher?Originally posted by tourlou82 View Post
Very objective here
You talk as if Dempsey was undefeated and undefeatable... God damn! Firpo knocked Dempsey down twice...
It is not about disrespect to the Champion (cause i actually respect Dempsey a lot) - it is simply logical... When two ****ers step into the ring, the one with longer arms, bigger punch, better chin, and bigger weight usually ends victorious...Comment
Very objective here
Comment