i think lennox could beat ali.. lennox= greatest HW ever?

[StarshipTrooper]

I will simply point out the view of one of the best ever boxing historians. Hank Klapnan about Lewis . "Greatest right hand in the history of the heavyweight division and I would dare anyone to challenge that", so says Hank of Lewis. And in fact, Hank Kaplan also stated his opinion that in head-to-head matchups involving the greatest Heavyweights, he'd favour Lewis to finish with the overall best record out of all of them. Do I agree with Hank? No, but yea for those who say Lewis cant win any, and anyone who says other wise is an idiot, call Hank an idiot too then.

Actually I DO call Kaplan an idiot. Repeatedly. This is the same Hank Kaplan that nuthugged the **** out of Mike Tyson for years. Thought he was the greatest Heavy to ever walk the Earth. Kaplan has NO credibility with at all. All Lewis is is Kaplan's nuthug flavor of the month. Best right hand in the history of the division? :rofl9: I'm sorry but Joe Louis, George Foreman, Max Baer, and Earnie Shavers might have something to say about that.

1) Liston was never in his prime nor was he focused for that fight. I favor Liston over Lewis too. Nor is this an excuse, but Liston was not the same fighter he was.

Kind of irrelivent since I'd favor the past-it version of Liston that Ali beat to beat Lewis.

None of these guys had Lewis's power, sorry.

Liston did and Ali wasn't troubled by it. Regardless, the great chin beats can take the great punch and keep going.

1) Lewis is the bigger fighter by a big margin, height , reach weight all.

Terell had an 84" reach (BoxRec is incorrect in it's measurement) and was 6'6": The only thing Lewis has on him is weight.

Liston was not similar to Lewis and neither was he in his prime. Please watch some videos before commenting.

Liston was better: Bottom line.

Well all we know is Norton had the measure of Ali. I think stylistically he gives headache to any version of Ali. No matter how fast Ali's jab is it will be caught in the parry and no matter how fast he is he will still have to eat the return jab. What you are saying is simple speculation which is not based on facts.

Ali was past-prime for all the Norton fights and that IS a fact. We also know that Ali wasn't dependent on his jab: Ask Foreman how many right hand leads Ali tagged him with in Zaire. Saying Norton would give a prime Ali fits is simple speculation which is not based on facts.

I am gonna say one last thing before winding up. This whole speculation that Ali will never be bothered by power really upsets me.I know of no heavy including Ali who is not bothered by power. Didn't he go down? Wasn't he hurt? He was almost knocked out by a Cooper left hook , was really hurt by Frazier, where he wasn't quite dancing too. Was down against Sonny Banks.

Going down isn't always about power or chin. All too frequently it's about balance, getting your feet tangled up, walking into something because your burning it up on offense ect. Louis took a few knockdowns himself (more than Ali did by a good margin). Do you question Louis' chin? Of course not (or at least I would HOPE you don't). Flash knockdowns happens and it doesn't make a fighter chinny.

Boy, if all these can trouble Ali with his power why can't top 15 ATGS with murderous punching powers. God , Ali's chin is made up of bones and human tissues only, it is not impregnable. Nor was Chuvalo's.

I seem to recall Chuvalo sponging punches from Foreman without getting his lights put out and having to have the ref pull his plug. Want to try another example maybe? Power isn't the end-all-and-be-all of everything.

This arguement is thrown it to just nullify anything. He aint bothered by power and he will be never hurt and he will box to merry land. Yea in round 11th of Frazier Ali 1 after he was hurt I did see that he was not at all bothered by power. Bottom line once you are really hurt its not easy to just box. He is a human and not god. Ali had one of the best chins of all time , not only heavy weight but of all divisions. But it was a human chin.

You mean like the human chin of Hagler when he walked through Hearns best shots? The best chins nullify the best power: Bottom line.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

In most of his fights Ali outweighed his opponents. Even George had only 4 pounds over him. I dont think he fought anyone who was so big and so skill ful. Again Lewis will be able to reach him from outside unlike most of the heavy's who fought Ali.

Speed does overcome size to a degree but not fully. If a big guy is skilled it will be difficult for the smaller man. Spinks, Shavers are not equal to Lewis. Spinks has a barely winning record. Shavers beat Young in his 12th fight, then lost each of his big fight. Shavers troubled Ali greatly he landed good clean shots. Lewis had a much better jab than Shavers and I do see him outpointing that Ali easily.

You talk of Lewis stamina, how good was Shavers stamina? He was known to gas badly. He did fight Ali okay, but he had to conserve a lot of energy and was not at his best. When you are trying to last...you never can go all out and at your murderous best. See foreman vs young.

Last but not least Lewis did fight Holyfield who although not similar to Ali has similarities.

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight it's the size of the fight in the dog. If weight were everything then Valuev would be God.

Poet

[Greatest1942]

Actually I DO call Kaplan an idiot. Repeatedly. This is the same Hank Kaplan that nuthugged the **** out of Mike Tyson for years. Thought he was the greatest Heavy to ever walk the Earth. Kaplan has NO credibility with at all. All Lewis is is Kaplan's nuthug flavor of the month. Best right hand in the history of the division? :rofl9: I'm sorry but Joe Louis, George Foreman, Max Baer, and Earnie Shavers might have something to say about that.




Kind of irrelivent since I'd favor the past-it version of Liston that Ali beat to beat Lewis.




Liston did and Ali wasn't troubled by it. Regardless, the great chin beats can take the great punch and keep going.




Terell had an 84" reach (BoxRec is incorrect in it's measurement) and was 6'6": The only thing Lewis has on him is weight.



Liston was better: Bottom line.




Ali was past-prime for all the Norton fights and that IS a fact. We also know that Ali wasn't dependent on his jab: Ask Foreman how many right hand leads Ali tagged him with in Zaire. Saying Norton would give a prime Ali fits is simple speculation which is not based on facts.




Going down isn't always about power or chin. All too frequently it's about balance, getting your feet tangled up, walking into something because your burning it up on offense ect. Louis took a few knockdowns himself (more than Ali did by a good margin). Do you question Louis' chin? Of course not (or at least I would HOPE you don't). Flash knockdowns happens and it doesn't make a fighter chinny.




I seem to recall Chuvalo sponging punches from Foreman without getting his lights put out and having to have the ref pull his plug. Want to try another example maybe? Power isn't the end-all-and-be-all of everything.




You mean like the human chin of Hagler when he walked through Hearns best shots? The best chins nullify the best power: Bottom line.

Poet

You are one of the few who call Hank an idiot. He nut hugged Tyson? Monte has Tyson in his top 10. IBRO in top 15 They are nut hugging him too right.

Lewis had 84 inch reach. I corrected that post.He was not taller. But he was infintely better than Terrl sorry. And had more weigh and power to boot.

I wont favor that version of Liston against Lewis..you can its your call. I dont think he beat any fighter who is equal to Lewis. And before you start I know Williams, Folley, Machen and Patterson. And I also knew that Lewis got beat by McCall , Rahman and Liston by Marty Marshall. Prime for prime I will go with Liston though.

Of course you will favour anyone who beat Liston right? Leotis Martin also?



I wont call Ali's Knock down against Cooper a slip...he got caught and was hurt...I wont call the Ali staggerring around in round 11 vs Frazier a slip he got caught and its clear as daylight he got hurt.I wont call that he was not hurt against Shavers he was. I am not questioning Ali's chin...No one can man...but I don't see it as impregnable. Lewis had a good right hand and he could dent it , as he could Louis's.

Norton gave Ali fits and his strategy is a smart one against any version of Ali. When people say that a prime version of Ali will annihilate Norton its wild speculation too I say, since Ali never dominated Norton and all we know is Norton gave him trouble.

Well when I see Hagler vs hearns I see that one straight right hand causes a great chin to stagger. And it appears Hearns has some problems with his hand after that. Bottom line Hagler was hurt and staggered. And I think Hagler has a better p4p chin than Ali. He was never dropped (legally at least), unlike Ali. Ali was often hurt and staggered. He was down in his prime and his non prime.

I see Frazier Ali 1 too. A great chin (the gold standard) gets hurt in round 11. The fight is quite even till then. After that the fight is never the same. Takes a beating. Doesn't dance. Gets dropped later. And the puncher wins the fight.

Great chins beat the great punch when the others cant follow up.Chuvalo beat George did he?

You can conjure fights where chin beat power. But when a good boxer has power its not the same always. Examples ;
Sugar Ray robinson 1 punch KO vs Gene Fullmer (awesome chin)..for your Hearns vs Hagler one.
Louis KO Godoy( never KOd before)
Dempsey vs Willard( good chin)

[Greatest1942]

I seriously lost some respect for you for calling Hank an idiot Poet. He knows more about boxing than you or me. By a large degree I may say. George Foreman and Max Baer had gpood right hands , so had LOuis. If he says its Lewis whats wrong? Lewis certainly had a big right hand? I never saw George put anyone to sleep with a sinle big right hand like Lewis did.

Hell I will say Lewis right hand hand had more concussive power than George.

Max had a great right, but he was an undisclipned puncher. Louis had a great one too. Hank saw them all. If he says Lewis respect it and move on. You can have your opinion . I have too. Its different to him. That doesnt make it starnge or idiotic. Hank praised Tyson in the 1990's. You at his place will objectively do that too. He did not have the hind sight you have now.

It is easy to criticize in hind sight. He did praise because praising current boxers is good. And lets face it , you could not but praise Tyson at that time. He had speed, punch and good defense. It generates interest. If we all lose interest in current boxing where will it go. You can't live in history Poet.

Just as an aside BBC Sports, 2004 had Tyson at #8, Steve Farhood, 1997 at #7, Herbert Goldman, 1997 at #4!!!! I doubt Hank would have him in his top 10 though in 2006-7. And even if he does , he still knows 10X more about boxing than us.

Don't get me wrong....but you were over the top here.

[Greatest1942]

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight it's the size of the fight in the dog. If weight were everything then Valuev would be God.

Poet

I have often said that teh fascination for bigger men is ruining boxing. I brought up weight because Ali dominated guys physically. It was his style. See Ali Frazier 2. I dont think he will do this versus Lewis. Plus he did not beat any one who was as heavy....okay?

And again he did get hurt by the punchers he faced...some like Frazier took advantage some like Shavers did not...

And yea..about dogs...I know for a fact that I wont bet a pitbull against a Tiger..though he may have more fight in him

[Greatest1942]

``The greatest heavyweight who ever lived has to be Tyson,'' he declared without hesitation. ``He's the best two-fisted puncher ever, he's the best defensive heavyweight ever.

``The only ones I give a chance to beat him are (Muhammad) Ali and (Sonny son·ny
n. pl. son·nies
Used as a familiar form of address for a boy or young man.


[Diminutive of son. ) Liston. Liston was one of the most underrated heavyweights.''

What about the Douglas fight?

``Tyson wasn't focused,'' he said. ``It was one of those things.''


Poet I believe you are referring to this. Notice a couple of things :-

1) He said this before Tyson comeback. I doubt if he saw Tyson against Holy he would say this.

2) At that stage Tyson was 36-1...and the hype may be got to him. Besides lets face it no bodies or any bodies, Tyson was an exteremly dominant champ. He had everything speed , power, solid chin etc etc.
Hank got carried away may be, but it was at that time.

[Greatest1942]

"Liston did and Ali wasn't troubled by it. Regardless, the great chin beats can take the great punch and keep going."

Funny this one.

Did he land that many ?

You will have to land to bother a guy you know..
Still I remember a left hook hurting Ali. But I remember Liston not being able to follow up. Liston himself did not have much gas left.look at the The 13th and 14th rounds of the Shavers fight, except the Frazier one and the Cooper one please. He is not bothered at all. In fact it seems to me that he is doing absolutely fine in all? Poet its exactly true is it?

Cooper hurt Ali, had less power than Lewis. So did Frazier and I am sure Norton did too. It broke Ali's jaw and he lost that fight. I am sure broken jaw did not bother Ali. And Norton was a lesser puncher than Lewis.

[StarshipTrooper]

I seriously lost some respect for you for calling Hank an idiot Poet. He knows more about boxing than you or me. By a large degree I may say. George Foreman and Max Baer had gpood right hands , so had LOuis. If he says its Lewis whats wrong? Lewis certainly had a big right hand? I never saw George put anyone to sleep with a sinle big right hand like Lewis did.

Hell I will say Lewis right hand hand had more concussive power than George.

Max had a great right, but he was an undisclipned puncher. Louis had a great one too. Hank saw them all. If he says Lewis respect it and move on. You can have your opinion . I have too. Its different to him. That doesnt make it starnge or idiotic. Hank praised Tyson in the 1990's. You at his place will objectively do that too. He did not have the hind sight you have now.

It is easy to criticize in hind sight. He did praise because praising current boxers is good. And lets face it , you could not but praise Tyson at that time. He had speed, punch and good defense. It generates interest. If we all lose interest in current boxing where will it go. You can't live in history Poet.

Just as an aside BBC Sports, 2004 had Tyson at #8, Steve Farhood, 1997 at #7, Herbert Goldman, 1997 at #4!!!! I doubt Hank would have him in his top 10 though in 2006-7. And even if he does , he still knows 10X more about boxing than us.

Don't get me wrong....but you were over the top here.

Bert Sugar has more "boxing knowledge" then both of us combined.....He still has no credibility. Hank Kaplan also called Tyson "the greatest defensive fighter ever": A claim even Tyson's trainers thought was hysterically funny. It's hardly hindsight on my part: I never bought into the hype. The fact that Kaplan did flushes his credibility down the ****ter. The fact that he's now doing the same thing with Lennox tells me he found a new idol to nuthug since his former hero faded into the dustbin of history. Having Tyson in the top-10 isn't the issue, calling him the best ever is (and yeah, Goldman having him at #4 is just plain dumb).

And btw: It's not the job of a historian to "generate interest" in anything. The historian's job is to pursue the truth and report it accurately. Buying into hype isn't in the job description nor is "generating interest" in the current scene. Leave that to promoters.

Poet

[Greatest1942]

Bert Sugar has more "boxing knowledge" then both of us combined.....He still has no credibility. Hank Kaplan also called Tyson "the greatest defensive fighter ever": A claim even Tyson's trainers thought was hysterically funny. It's hardly hindsight on my part: I never bought into the hype. The fact that Kaplan did flushes his credibility down the ****ter. The fact that he's now doing the same thing with Lennox tells me he found a new idol to nuthug since his former hero faded into the dustbin of history. Having Tyson in the top-10 isn't the issue, calling him the best ever is (and yeah, Goldman having him at #4 is just plain dumb).

And btw: It's not the job of a historian to "generate interest" in anything. The historian's job is to pursue the truth and report it accurately. Buying into hype isn't in the job description nor is "generating interest" in the current scene. Leave that to promoters.

Poet

Poet , Hank is dead. So dont use "he is doing now"... He may have said a few wrong words , but there were few better than him. Have some respect for a dead man. If he was alive he would have defended himself rest assured. Dont take it personally but can you show the quotes whete Tyson's trainers laughed at him. Who was he ? Cus?

If Hank was alive you could have argued with him. He is no longer there, so why call him names.

I was not saying he wanted to generate interest. I said he saw a young talented fighter and praised him. You did not get caught up in the Tyson fine ,many did. And there was a reason behind it. Hank did so what?

Lewis has a great right hand one of the best in history. If someone rates him the best I don't find him an idiot. Name at least a few heavy weights who put to sleep 230 pound ranked contenders like Lewis did with one punch...not many I dare say..

And yes Lewis had better right hand than Foreman and Baer.

Louis and Shavers close. I favour Louis, you might Shavers , Hank favours Lewis so what the ****?

Anyways I think this thread is generating more heat than light and a bit of useless comments, so I will like to say bye to you for this thread. I love debating with you, and I think relationships will be strained if we go further.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet , Hank is dead. So dont use "he is doing now"... He may have said a few wrong words , but there were few better than him. Have some respect for a dead man. If he was alive he would have defended himself rest assured. Dont take it personally but can you show the quotes whete Tyson's trainers laughed at him. Who was he ? Cus?

If Hank was alive you could have argued with him. He is no longer there, so why call him names.

Live, dead, or cryogenically frozen it's irrelevant. Just because the dude is dead he can't be criticized for the positions he took? Well hell, that means we can't criticize Primo Carnera's qualities as a fighter.....'cuz he's dead. Historians from any and every field come in for criticism long after they're dead: Their room-temperature status doesn't grant them immunity. Why on Earth should Kaplan get a pass no one else gets? Personally I think Napoleon was a 24 karot azzhole. Should I refrain from saying it since he's been dead for nearly 200 years? Come on.

I was not saying he wanted to generate interest. I said he saw a young talented fighter and praised him. You did not get caught up in the Tyson fine ,many did. And there was a reason behind it. Hank did so what?

So what? Because he's a historian and historians have to have a certain level of academic objectivity. Buying into hype jeopardizes that academic standard. If anything, hype ought to make a good historian suspicious that the emperor has no clothes.

Lewis has a great right hand one of the best in history. If someone rates him the best I don't find him an idiot. Name at least a few heavy weights who put to sleep 230 pound ranked contenders like Lewis did with one punch...not many I dare say..

Obsessed with weight are we? You can't seem to make any point without making a gratuitous reference to weight. And again, you're failing to distinguish between "great right hand" and "greatest right hand". There's a big gulf between those two.

And yes Lewis had better right hand than Foreman and Baer.

A gratuitous assertion that may be equally gratuitously denied.

Poet