rank higher wlad or lennox lewis?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Lennox never beat him in the pros and that's all that matters. He also lost to two low level fighters during his prime and also to Ray Mercer but got the gift from the judges.

Lewis is probably the most overrated HW boxer ever. He wouldn't even be elite in the current era. Joshua, Wilder and Fury all beat him. Probably Povetkin and Ortiz too.

I agree that Wladimir Klitschko is the better / greater heavyweight between the two. However, Lennox Lewis certainly is an all time great himself. Even if he ranks slightly below Wladimir Klitschko.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Statistically, Wladimir Klitschko is the greatest heavyweight of all time with the greatest feats from a statistical (factual standpoint). This isn't about preference but actual accomplishments during their own era. So far, Wladimir Klitschko has dominated heavyweight boxing (from 2006 - 2012) to a level that no other past heavyweight champion has (at real heavyweight - when boxers weigh 200 pounds or above). This is based on the margin between winning and losing. The margin between Wladimir Klitschko's wins and losses are greater than those of other past heavyweight champions. Including Lennox Lewis. Wladimir Klitschko beat more of his opponents, more convincingly and decisively than any past heavyweight champion has done.

Here are some of those accomplishments / feats in REAL heavyweight bouts (when the boxers weigh 200 pounds or above):


1) Knocked out more previously unbeaten opponents than any other heavyweight in history.

2) Knocked out more previously UN-KO'ed opponents than any other heavyweight in history.

3) Has beaten and knocked out more southpaws than any other heavyweight champion in history.

4) Has beaten and knocked out opponents with more styles than any other heavyweight in history (especially at the elite level).

5) Has the highest number of title defenses in REAL heavyweight bouts (when opponents weigh 200 pounds or above).

6) Has the highest knockout quantity and percentage in championship bouts than any other heavyweight in history.

7) Has lost fewer rounds than any other heavyweight in history (excluding his brother Vitali Klitschko).

8) Has defeated more mandatory challengers and top ranked opponents by knockout, than any other heavyweight champion in history.

9) Has one of the best win / loss ratio in his career record, out of the number of bouts he has had.



Furthermore, some here are arguing about Lennox Lewis being the more impressive champion due to holding more belts / more prestigious belts and so forth so on.

Let's look at the following numbers:

- Muhammad Ali had THREE belts (WBA, WBC, RING) for 3+ years.

- Mike Tyson had THREE belts (WBA, WBC, IBF) for 2+ years

- Mike Tyson had FOUR belts (WBA, WBC, IBF, RING) for 1+ year

- Lennox Lewis had FOUR belts (WBC, WBA, IBF, IBO) for 0+ years (half a year).
And FOUR belts for 1 year (WBC, IBF, IBO, RING).

- Wladimir Klitschko had THREE belts (WBO, IBF, IBO) for 3+ years.
And FOUR belts (WBO, IBF, IBO, RING) for 2+ years (until June 2011).
And FIVE belts (WBO, WBA, IBF, IBO, RING) for 1+ years (as of October 2012)

So again, Wladimir Klitschko statistically OUTPERFORMS the other greats like Ali, Tyson and Lennox even in this department.

Wladimir Klitschko beat every possible opponent that qualified as the best possible opponent to him from 2005 - 2014. He did so most convincingly when in his prime from 2006 - 2012. That is excluding against his brother Vitali Klitschko of course. Which is obviously forgivable since they both made a promise to their mother that they'll never box against each other.

So when it comes to the main objectives of boxing. Such as winning, offense (landing the most effective punches on the opponent which result in the highest amount of damage or knockouts / stoppage) and defense (not getting hit by the opponent). Wladimir Klitschko statistically outperforms Lennox Lewis due to more wins in title bouts and overall. Better knockout stats. Being in fewer close contests. Losing fewer rounds and so forth so on. All relative to the number of bouts they both had.

Here are some of the typical reproaches against Wladimir Klitschko:

1) He didn't avenge as many losses as Lennox Lewis and other past heavyweight champions.

My response: There isn't a single boxer with as many real heavyweight bouts (over 60 bouts where boxers weigh 200 pounds or above) who has avenged as many losses as Wladimir Klitschko. More bouts = more likelihood of losses and less likelihood of avenging all of those losses.


2) Wladimir Klitschko lost more bouts than Lennox Lewis

My response: Wladimir Klitschko also had more bouts and won more bouts too. 64 wins out of 69 professional heavyweight bouts for Wladimir Klitschko > 41 wins out of 44 professional heavyweight bouts for Lennox Lewis.


3) Wladimir Klitschko boxed in the weakest era of heavyweight boxing and his opponents were inferior to the opponents of past heavyweight champions like Lennox Lewis.

My response: I challenge anyone to actually prove that such is the case using objective and relevant facts. Take into consideration that points like fame / name of a boxer are irrelevant. The true worth / value of a boxer is based on how impressive their actual record is and I challenge anyone to prove how Lennox Lewis's best opponents or opponents on average are better than Wladimir Klitschko's average opponents or best opponents. Until then, this remains a baseless claim.


4) "Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered great because he is so limited"

My response: All such statements are equivalent to"Damn, why can't he fight like my favorite fantasy fighter?" and "MY boxer bobs and weaves better than YOUR boxer!" and "Japanese Pantomime should be compulsory subject in drama schools" and "I wish actresses would look like External link, opens in new window...Mary Pickford"

It's all wishful thinking and useless drivel BUT ABOVE ALL IT'S IDIOTIC TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE FOR A FIGHTING STYLE that keeps him WINNING. And let me clarify (since "keeps him winning" doesn't nail it enough): Keeps him winning every round since years and makes him KO his opponents like nobody before him (= flawless victory after flawless victory). The Klitschkos are the best knockout artists compared to any past heavyweight champion. and thus the wrong conclusion is "Wladimir Klitschko should throw more uppercuts". The correct conclusion should be "Why fix something that isn't broken" and "Past-time boxers should have fought like the Klitschkos and not vice versa".


5) "Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he only wins due to his huge body size"

Complaining about body advantages in a combat sport is really funny.
"Evan Fields only wins because of his hard chin based on his massive neck" and "Mike Tyson only wins because of his muscles" is equally ridiculous (especially considering that Mike Tyson is smaller than Oscar de la Hoya).
What's next? Complaining that "Vitali Klitschko only wins because he TRAINS MORE than his opponent"?

Furthermore, there have been boxers who have had similar dimensions to the Klitschkos (in height, weight and reach) but without anywhere near the record that they have racked up. So maybe the success of the Klitschkos are based on little more than just their size and physical dimensions?



So Wladimir Klitschko's performance during his reign as a champion is definitely superior statistically than Lennox Lewis's performance overall. However, having stated all of those things, in a head to head match up, I think both are as evenly matched as two boxers can be. The winner of this hypothetical match up would in my opinion be based on who's corner Emmanuel Steward is in during the bout.

I would still rank Lennox Lewis in the top 4 in the list of all time great heavyweights in terms of heavyweight accomplishments. Below Wladimir Klitschko but in the same tier as Vitali Klitschko and prime Mike Tyson. It is debatable who ranks higher among those ones.

In regards to today's best heavyweights being better / greater than Wladimir Klitschko or Lennox Lewis. That's flat out impossible due to most of them only having started their careers off. In the case of Anthony Joshua. Whilst Fury might never box again or be able to compete at the highest level due to his lack of discipline. Whilst Deontay Wilder is near unproven against the best level of opposition, despite having around 40 bouts and he is unlikely to improve anymore. Based on his performance that he has already shown, he is most likely to be beaten by any of the best heavyweights today.

[Holler]

Lennox never beat him in the pros and that's all that matters. He also lost to two low level fighters during his prime and also to Ray Mercer but got the gift from the judges.

Lewis is probably the most overrated HW boxer ever. He wouldn't even be elite in the current era. Joshua, Wilder and Fury all beat him. Probably Povetkin and Ortiz too.

Like many discussions in boxing it's largely subjective and there's no way to be sure. I do think you are guilty however of underestimating just how good Lewis was at the peak of his powers. His physique and skill would present a serous challenge to any current HW. Indeed I'm not sure how you can say that any of those listed would've beaten him because I'm no aware of any of them facing an opponent of comparable skill or pedigree?

[sunny31]

This thread stinks of Freedom's Alts in a major way.

[RedZmaja]

My response: I challenge anyone to actually prove that such is the case using objective and relevant facts. Take into consideration that points like fame / name of a boxer are irrelevant. The true worth / value of a boxer is based on how impressive their actual record is and I challenge anyone to prove how Lennox Lewis's best opponents or opponents on average are better than Wladimir Klitschko's average opponents or best opponents. Until then, this remains a baseless claim.

Klitschko's era is underrated because he beat European and Asian boxers who had no hype behind them in the USA. Also, because he beat everybody in convincing fashion he made the era look weak.

Lewis fought in the 90s when the division was full of Americans who will always get more fame than the fighters of similar quality from Europe or Asia.

If the likes of Chagaev, Pulev, Ibragimov or Povetkin were Americans they would get more hype behind them and Klitschko's wins over them would look better. They were all undefeated before Klitschko beat them. You only need to look at Wilder to see how much hype an undefeated American HW can get despite not beating anybody elite. In fact, those guys were more proven than Wilder is now before they faced Wlad.

The so-called "great eras" in boxing are usually defined by great rivalries. The Ali era was "great" because Ali lost to Frazier who then lost to Foreman who then lost ot Ali and they made each other look great. If Ali would have beaten both in convincing fashion ironically his legacy would suffer because then Frazier and Foreman wouldn't look so good.

Boxing is the only sport where you don't get credit for being a dominant champion. Boxing fans are so dumb that they only give you credit if you win in close wars against your opponents because then your opponents look better and ironically enhance your own status.

When Guardiola's Barcelona was beating everybody in football nobody complained that it was a weak era. Schumacher is regarded by many as the GOAT driver despite not having a real rival - because he made all the other drivers look mediocre.

In every other sport when they're looking at the greatest teams/athletes they're looking at how many titles the team/athlete has won and what kind of a run and longevity they/he/she had. They look at Messi and Ronaldo and see the crazy stats and give them credit, nobody is going to come up with crap like "it was a weak era".

Yet in boxing if you do a Schumacheresque run in your division then suddenly your era is weak and you're a nobody. In the eyes of the dumb boxing fans it would literally be better for Wlad if he let some of his opponents beat him or win rounds against him so he would make the era look better. Case in point, Wlad got more credit for his Joshua loss than for most of his big wins, because he made Joshua look good. If he had just dominated Joshua the way he dominated his opponents when he was in his prime, people would just declare Joshua a hype job and nobody would give him any credit. Just like they don't give him credit for the Haye win.

Floyd is the exception to this rule because he was moving up weightclasses and was facing established champions in those weightclasses. The thing is, you can't do that in HW. The fighters who Wlad faced weren't established champions because he prevented them to become established champions by being so dominant over them and snatching their ABC belts from them.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Some absolute delinquent’s on this thread. Comparing the fact that Wlad held more belts than Ali��������
When Ali fought there was generally ONE champion especially earlier on in his career.
ABC belts DONT MATTER. Ali was undisputed champion. Wlad was NEVER undisputed champion. FACT.
Idiots talking like Wlad is the GOAT HW he ain’t even the best HW in his family������

[Poet682006]

This thread stinks of Freedom's Alts in a major way.

Same old Klitlickers, just using different alts. One of these deranged nuthuggers is "The Facts" dude, I'm sure of it.

[juggernaut666]

RJJ-94-02=GOAT Clueless as usual .

There were far more fighters to deal with in modern eras which made fights longer to take and more belts surfaced since Alis time . The ring isnt even a real belt so Ali had two , the only thing stopping Wlad from getting them all was Vitali and Don King who hid his fighters from Wlad long enough .

You say belts dont matter than use the undisputed card with Ali ? What a special idiot you truly are .


Dont worry i wont put you on ignore like you did me ( you couldn't handle the heat ) bc i like schooling you .

[sunny31]

Same old Klitlickers, just using different alts. One of these deranged nuthuggers is "The Facts" dude, I'm sure of it.

Yep - by a country green mile the worst fans on NSB.

[sunny31]

Klitschko's era is underrated because he beat European and Asian boxers who had no hype behind them in the USA. Also, because he beat everybody in convincing fashion he made the era look weak.

Lewis fought in the 90s when the division was full of Americans who will always get more fame than the fighters of similar quality from Europe or Asia.

If the likes of Chagaev, Pulev, Ibragimov or Povetkin were Americans they would get more hype behind them and Klitschko's wins over them would look better. They were all undefeated before Klitschko beat them. You only need to look at Wilder to see how much hype an undefeated American HW can get despite not beating anybody elite. In fact, those guys were more proven than Wilder is now before they faced Wlad.

The so-called "great eras" in boxing are usually defined by great rivalries. The Ali era was "great" because Ali lost to Frazier who then lost to Foreman who then lost ot Ali and they made each other look great. If Ali would have beaten both in convincing fashion ironically his legacy would suffer because then Frazier and Foreman wouldn't look so good.

Boxing is the only sport where you don't get credit for being a dominant champion. Boxing fans are so dumb that they only give you credit if you win in close wars against your opponents because then your opponents look better and ironically enhance your own status.

When Guardiola's Barcelona was beating everybody in football nobody complained that it was a weak era. Schumacher is regarded by many as the GOAT driver despite not having a real rival - because he made all the other drivers look mediocre.

In every other sport when they're looking at the greatest teams/athletes they're looking at how many titles the team/athlete has won and what kind of a run and longevity they/he/she had. They look at Messi and Ronaldo and see the crazy stats and give them credit, nobody is going to come up with crap like "it was a weak era".

Yet in boxing if you do a Schumacheresque run in your division then suddenly your era is weak and you're a nobody. In the eyes of the dumb boxing fans it would literally be better for Wlad if he let some of his opponents beat him or win rounds against him so he would make the era look better. Case in point, Wlad got more credit for his Joshua loss than for most of his big wins, because he made Joshua look good. If he had just dominated Joshua the way he dominated his opponents when he was in his prime, people would just declare Joshua a hype job and nobody would give him any credit. Just like they don't give him credit for the Haye win.

Floyd is the exception to this rule because he was moving up weightclasses and was facing established champions in those weightclasses. The thing is, you can't do that in HW. The fighters who Wlad faced weren't established champions because he prevented them to become established champions by being so dominant over them and snatching their ABC belts from them.

Anyone with half a brain and knowledge of these sports could dissect the **** out of this. I do have intimate knowledge of football, F1, and boxing, but I'm not going to touch this, because you are not worth the time and effort.