rank higher wlad or lennox lewis?

[chaos]

Lewis was put to sleep twice by journeymen.

[Robbie Barrett]

Lewis was put to sleep twice by journeymen.

Rahman/McCall >>>>>>>> Puritty/Sanders/Brewster

[Mr Objecitivity]

Yet, after 18 pages of this thread. Not a shred of evidence provided by those arguing Lennox Lewis is the better boxer OBJECTIVELY. Still, statistically (factually), Wladimir Klitschko remains the best / greatest heavyweight of all time with the best / greatest heavyweight record of all time. The numbers don't lie! People however do.

Here are the facts comparing Lennox Lewis's era and Wladimir Klitshcko's era. That is, all of Lennox Lewis's and Wladimir Klitschko's bouts. Plus all of the bouts that all of their opponents had. This is after Lennox Lewis finished his career and at the time when Wlad had only 58 bouts (before his career even ended):

Lennox Lewis's era:

1) Total fights:1800+ fights

2) Total boxers: 1000+

3) Average weight: 220 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 51% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 65%

7) Total KO'ers: 186

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 KO's: 51



Wladimir Klitschko's era:

1) Total fights: 2000+

2) Total boxers: 1200+

3) Average weight: 224 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 49% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 62%

7) Total KO'ers: 224

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 knockouts: 66


According to the numbers, it is close (compared to the quality difference between Wladimir Klitschko's era and pre Mike Tyson's era) but Wladimir Klitschko's era is slightly better statistically than Lennox Lewis's.

It's one thing to prefer one boxer over the other (subjective). It's another thing to evaluate the quality of both's heavyweight record and era objectively.

A typical reproach to the numbers and statistics (facts) I've provided is that 'one can can misrepresent / twist / misconstrue facts and statistics'. Well, I challenge anybody to counter the facts I've provided objectively by providing facts of their own or at the very least, demonstrating how the facts I've provided are misconstrued / misrepresented / twisted. So far, I've met nobody that has ever managed this!

Anybody up to the challenge of objectively proving / demonstrating how Lennox Lewis is the better heavyweigt champion and how his era was better?

[Robbie Barrett]

Yet, after 18 pages of this thread. Not a shred of evidence provided by those arguing Lennox Lewis is the better boxer OBJECTIVELY. Still, statistically (factually), Wladimir Klitschko remains the best / greatest heavyweight of all time with the best / greatest heavyweight record of all time. The numbers don't lie! People however do.

Here are the facts comparing Lennox Lewis's era and Wladimir Klitshcko's era. That is, all of Lennox Lewis's and Wladimir Klitschko's bouts. Plus all of the bouts that all of their opponents had. This is after Lennox Lewis finished his career and at the time when Wlad had only 58 bouts (before his career even ended):

Lennox Lewis's era:

1) Total fights:1800+ fights

2) Total boxers: 1000+

3) Average weight: 220 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 51% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 65%

7) Total KO'ers: 186

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 KO's: 51



Wladimir Klitschko's era:

1) Total fights: 2000+

2) Total boxers: 1200+

3) Average weight: 224 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 49% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 62%

7) Total KO'ers: 224

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 knockouts: 66


According to the numbers, it is close (compared to the quality difference between Wladimir Klitschko's era and pre Mike Tyson's era) but Wladimir Klitschko's era is slightly better statistically than Lennox Lewis's.

It's one thing to prefer one boxer over the other (subjective). It's another thing to evaluate the quality of both's heavyweight record and era objectively.

A typical reproach to the numbers and statistics (facts) I've provided is that 'one can can misrepresent / twist / misconstrue facts and statistics'. Well, I challenge anybody to counter the facts I've provided objectively by providing facts of their own or at the very least, demonstrating how the facts I've provided are misconstrued / misrepresented / twisted. So far, I've met nobody that has ever managed this!

Anybody up to the challenge of objectively proving / demonstrating how Lennox Lewis is the better heavyweigt champion and how his era was better?

The evidence is in the fights. We don't need numbers when we have eyes.

[Mr Objecitivity]

The evidence is in the fights. We don't need numbers when we have eyes.

The evidence is in the fights.

True! Which is exactly what the statistics / numbers facts I've posted, are related to in order evaluate the quality of those fights OBJECTIVELY

We don't need numbers

Yes we do, if we're being objective. fortunately for me "Stats! Stats! Stats!" are "Facts! Facts! Facts!" thus anyone complaining about statistics is complaining about reality ("Arithmetic is not an opinion").

when we have eyes.

You claiming that you have eyes, or anybody else having eyes, doesn't prove anything in relation to the difference in quality between Wladimir Klitschko's record / era and Lennox Lewis's record / era. No different from someone claiming numbers aren't needed to judge a weather forecast since they and others have eyes. Fortunately, numbers give us the most specific representation of what is going on in the most objective sense.

[Robbie Barrett]

True! Which is exactly what the statistics / numbers facts I've posted, are related to evaluate the quality of those fights OBJECTIVELY



Yes we do, if we're being objective. fortunately for me "Stats! Stats! Stats!" are "Facts! Facts! Facts!" thus anyone complaining about statistics is complaining about reality ("Arithmetic is not an opinion").



You claiming that you have eyes, or anybody else having eyes, doesn't prove anything in relation to the difference in quality between Wladimir Klitschko's record / era and Lennox Lewis's record / era. No different from someone claiming numbers aren't needed to judge a weather forecast since they and others have eyes. Fortunately, numbers give us the most specific representation of what is going on in the most objective sense.

Numbers mean nothing when the quality of the division as a whole had decreased.

You had Ruiz/Valuev/Fat MW Toney as top fighters FFS.

Ancient Holyfield was still a contender.

Numbers don't tell you how skilled a fighter is.

[Robbie Barrett]

David Haye being Klitschkos best win tells you everything you need to know about Klitschko's reign. WEAK.

[sunny31]

Yet, after 18 pages of this thread. Not a shred of evidence provided by those arguing Lennox Lewis is the better boxer OBJECTIVELY. Still, statistically (factually), Wladimir Klitschko remains the best / greatest heavyweight of all time with the best / greatest heavyweight record of all time. The numbers don't lie! People however do.

Here are the facts comparing Lennox Lewis's era and Wladimir Klitshcko's era. That is, all of Lennox Lewis's and Wladimir Klitschko's bouts. Plus all of the bouts that all of their opponents had. This is after Lennox Lewis finished his career and at the time when Wlad had only 58 bouts (before his career even ended):

Lennox Lewis's era:

1) Total fights:1800+ fights

2) Total boxers: 1000+

3) Average weight: 220 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 51% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 65%

7) Total KO'ers: 186

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 KO's: 51



Wladimir Klitschko's era:

1) Total fights: 2000+

2) Total boxers: 1200+

3) Average weight: 224 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 49% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 62%

7) Total KO'ers: 224

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 knockouts: 66


According to the numbers, it is close (compared to the quality difference between Wladimir Klitschko's era and pre Mike Tyson's era) but Wladimir Klitschko's era is slightly better statistically than Lennox Lewis's.

It's one thing to prefer one boxer over the other (subjective). It's another thing to evaluate the quality of both's heavyweight record and era objectively.

A typical reproach to the numbers and statistics (facts) I've provided is that 'one can can misrepresent / twist / misconstrue facts and statistics'. Well, I challenge anybody to counter the facts I've provided objectively by providing facts of their own or at the very least, demonstrating how the facts I've provided are misconstrued / misrepresented / twisted. So far, I've met nobody that has ever managed this!

Anybody up to the challenge of objectively proving / demonstrating how Lennox Lewis is the better heavyweigt champion and how his era was better?

One thing you idiots never seem to understand is that you can't make linear comparisons when it comes to two different fighters in different eras. No amount of stupid statistics like this will influence anyone with any decent boxing knowledge.

If you have a trained boxing eye, you can distinguish skill level, technique, and physical ability. It does not matter whether fighters look good or not good, or are in competitive fights or non-competitive fights. If they fought in the same era then it is normal to compare relative competition etc.

At the end of the day, Lewis beat the better fighters, guys with serious pedigree, he also beat Vitali, which we all know Wladimir probably wouldn't last 3 rounds with. The only thing Wlad really has is longevity, and there is something to be said about longevity, that part is impressive and he gets due credit for that, it takes serious professionalism to pick yourself up, camp after camp. b

But most people understand that he is not in the league of the best heavyweights of all time, and nor did he prove it, he competed in one of the weakest era's in the history of the sport, not just the heavyweight division. He doesn't have even one HOF'er or likely HOF'er on his resume, not ONE. He got pasted by Corrie Sanders - and needed big bro to step in, instead of rematching himself, why? Because the same thing would have happened again.

The only elite fighters Wlad beat are David Haye and Povetkin, arguably Byrd as well. He had a massive size advantage over them all. The way he beat Povetkin was hardly clean, who in turn in is a good heavyweight, a dangerous heavyweight, but not a world beater. Lets not pretend he didn't go life and death with Marco Huck, a very good fighter, but a cruiserweight.

Haye is a physical talented fighter who moved up as a unified cruiserweight champion. But he is hardly one of the top 5 cruiserweights of all time, like a Holyfield. As I said Haye was talented, but also fundamentally flawed, he has become a much better pro than he was amateur, but even as a pro he has major flaws, bad feet to name one.

As soon as Wlad faced two fighters who had ability and similar dimensions he was outboxed and out-slugged. He has an in-built excuse of course with the age factor, and I'm sure it played a part, but not as much as you'd think. His flaws against tall fighters were always there, and he had a defence based on using his feet, he had no defensive guard, or defensive technique at all, and no inside game. He was a machine at beating smaller, shorter fighters, but as soon as someone could get to his chin, match his physicality, different ball game.

There is no way a fighter who lacked versatility to the extend of Wlad is going to be ranked that highly by educated boxing fans. You can come out with any kind of statistics you want. If there was a pole on this, you better believe Lewis would be miles ahead, don't insult peoples intelligence. Wlad is a HOF'er, and put together a remarkable career, and even more impressive if you consider the losses, you should be happy with that.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I'll use anti wlad rhetoric. Pele played at a time when competition was weak, there were like five good teams in the world.

Pele played against scrubs, ronaldo and messi are playing against the best in the world, from far reaching corners of the world

Played against scrubs😂😂😂
I ain’t even gonna get into it cause it’s a boxing forum. But I’ll just say this: do your research on players like Gerd Muller, Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruyff, Lev Yashin, Eusebio etc who Pele played against in World cups or even have a look at guys he played against domestically: Garrincha, Jairzinho, Rivelino etc.
Anyone who thinks that’s a weak era of football clearly hasn’t studied it.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

“Wlad was better cause he held more belts”. Ganstaz you are that much of a ****** it’s incalculable������
Ali’s title NOT belt meant more cause of WHO he beat. Who exactly did Wlad beat again??? Keep hiding behind irrelevant statistics that support your bias, false narrative.
And keep running from me b*tch.
Certified ******������