rank higher wlad or lennox lewis?

[W1LL]

Lennox Lewis. Only a complete idiot would say Wladimir Klitschko. Sadiqkingofko ain't an idiot though, he gets a pass because I like that guy.

[Chrismart]

I rate Wlad highly and think he's often underrated. I'd have to pick Lewis though, who i'd have placed high on any HW list.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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.

Numbers mean nothing

Yes, they do. They provide the most specific / accurate representation of events that occurred. The same way numbers / values in terms of temperature provides the most accurate / specific representation of weather. The same way numbers / values in relation to weight provides the most accurate / specific representation of the weight of something. Thus, attempting to argue against numbers / facts is analogous to arguing against reality. In other words, it's akin to being delusional.

when the quality of the division as a whole had decreased.

An unsubstantiated claim. Ergo, not an objective fact. Ergo, irrelevant in an objective discussion.

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

Yes, so? How are they any worse (by their record) than some of the boxers during Lennox Lewis's era that were ranked in the same positions?

Ancient Holyfield was still a contender.

Ancient Larry Holmes was still a contender during Lewis's era.

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

Yes, they do. If a boxer was truly the most skilled boxer, that boxer would have the best record (supported by numbers / statistics). Wladimir Klitschko has the best REAL heavyweight record (when his opponents weigh 200 pounds or above). Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is the most skilled REAL heavyweight of all time.

Everything else is subjective. We don't need to focus on subjective things like speed, movement, fluidity and so forth so on. These are either irrelevant or only marginally relevant. A true skilled boxer will have a record that shows their quality / worth / value as a boxer.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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.

You started off your response with an ad - hominem attack. Ergo, you are dismissed! If you seek for a healthy, respectful and an objective discussion with me. Next time, avoid using ad - hominem attacks.

Most of your claims aren't supported by objective facts anyway. They are subjective based on your personal interpretation. Until you can objectively prove using objective facts that Lennox Lewis is the better boxer than Wladimir Klitschko or his era is better, the facts / statistics I've posted have greater precedence over your subjective claims.

[VG_Addict]

Yes, they do. They provide the most specific / accurate representation of events that occurred. The same way numbers / values in terms of temperature provides the most accurate / specific representation of weather. The same way numbers / values in relation to weight provides the most accurate / specific representation of the weight of something. Thus, attempting to argue against numbers / facts is analogous to arguing against reality. In other words, it's akin to being delusional.



An unsubstantiated claim. Ergo, not an objective fact. Ergo, irrelevant in an objective discussion.



Yes, so? How are they any worse (by their record) than some of the boxers during Lennox Lewis's era that were ranked in the same positions?



Ancient Larry Holmes was still a contender during Lewis's era.



Yes, they do. If a boxer was truly the most skilled boxer, that boxer would have the best record (supported by numbers / statistics). Wladimir Klitschko has the best REAL heavyweight record (when his opponents weigh 200 pounds or above). Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is the most skilled REAL heavyweight of all time.

Everything else is subjective. We don't need to focus on subjective things like speed, movement, fluidity and so forth so on. These are either irrelevant or only marginally relevant. A true skilled boxer will have a record that shows their quality / worth / value as a boxer.

Records don't tell you how skilled a fighter is. A fighter could be 40-0 40 KO, but has fought nothing but bums. Does that make him the most skilled fighter?

[chaos]

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

Never put to sleep budz. A hw champ getting one-punched is disgraceful.

[Robbie Barrett]

Yes, they do. They provide the most specific / accurate representation of events that occurred. The same way numbers / values in terms of temperature provides the most accurate / specific representation of weather. The same way numbers / values in relation to weight provides the most accurate / specific representation of the weight of something. Thus, attempting to argue against numbers / facts is analogous to arguing against reality. In other words, it's akin to being delusional.



An unsubstantiated claim. Ergo, not an objective fact. Ergo, irrelevant in an objective discussion.



Yes, so? How are they any worse (by their record) than some of the boxers during Lennox Lewis's era that were ranked in the same positions?



Ancient Larry Holmes was still a contender during Lewis's era.



Yes, they do. If a boxer was truly the most skilled boxer, that boxer would have the best record (supported by numbers / statistics). Wladimir Klitschko has the best REAL heavyweight record (when his opponents weigh 200 pounds or above). Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is the most skilled REAL heavyweight of all time.

Everything else is subjective. We don't need to focus on subjective things like speed, movement, fluidity and so forth so on. These are either irrelevant or only marginally relevant. A true skilled boxer will have a record that shows their quality / worth / value as a boxer.

Speed/movement/fluidity are irrelevant? WTF. How can you even call yourself a boxing fan.

You are claiming numbers are be all and end all. But aren't you one of the posters that says Mayweather 0 doesn't matter and his 50 shouldn't count?

Boxing is a subjective sport. Everything about t is subjective. Numbers mean nothing.

[Robbie Barrett]

Never put to sleep budz. A hw champ getting one-punched is disgraceful.

Put to sleep by a golfer.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Records don't tell you how skilled a fighter is. A fighter could be 40-0 40 KO, but has fought nothing but bums. Does that make him the most skilled fighter?

That's a good point and I agree that records won't tell us the quality / skills of a boxer if we don't take into consideration multiple different factors.

However, records can account for quality of opposition too. In the very example you provided where a boxer is undefeated with 40 wins and 40 knockouts. If you have two boxers with 40 fights, 40 wins and 40 knockouts. Say one of them defeated more previously unbeaten opponents, more previously UN-KO'ed opponents and the sum record of their opponents (total win:loss ratio of all their opponent's record combined) is better than the other boxer's because in total, their opponents together have more wins and less losses. Then that boxer's record is obviously better. Even though both have the same number of fights, wins and knockouts

I don't JUST look at simple things such as how many wins / losses a boxer has. I look at multiple different statistics of a boxer's record.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Speed/movement/fluidity are irrelevant? WTF. How can you even call yourself a boxing fan.

You are claiming numbers are be all and end all. But aren't you one of the posters that says Mayweather 0 doesn't matter and his 50 shouldn't count?

Boxing is a subjective sport. Everything about t is subjective. Numbers mean nothing.

Speed/movement/fluidity are irrelevant?

Irrelevant only if they don't translate into good results. If a boxer was supposedly the fastest boxer in the world but lost every fight he has ever been in. What relevance is the speed? I tend to look at the whole package rather than single attributes / assets.

You are claiming numbers are be all and end all.

I'm claiming that numbers are objective facts that can't be disputed. The same way a temperature with a value / number in relation to a location's weather is an indisputable fact which can't be disputed. Numbers give us the most accurate / specific representation / description of events that take place. Hence, numbers and mathematics are used for the very device you are currently using to type your comments right now.

But aren't you one of the posters that says Mayweather 0 doesn't matter and his 50 shouldn't count?

Actually, I have Floyd Mayweather Jr in the top 3 greatest boxers ever in terms of pound for pound ranking. I don't even have a problem with anyone ranking him as number 1 either.

I personally think Vasyl Lomachenko is more skilled (my subjective interpretation) than Floyd Mayweather Jr as a boxer. However, Floyd Mayweather Jr still currently has the better record. Thus, he statistically, factually and objectively is a worthier / higher quality boxer.

Everything about t is subjective.

Untrue! Having a better win:loss ratio than another boxer isn't subjective. Having a higher knockout record against undefeated opponents compared to another boxer isn't subjective. Beating more former champions (in Floyd Mayweather Jr's case) than any other boxer isn't subjective. These are all objective accomplishments / feats which indicate the level / quality / worth / value / skill of a boxer.

Numbers mean nothing.

The language of the universe is mathematics which is comprised of numbers. So numbers absolutely do mean something.

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

Actually, Alexander Povetkin has a better HEAVYWEIGHT record than David Haye. So does Ruslan Chagaev and Chris Byrd (arguably). So officially, Wladimir Klitschko's win over prime Alexander Povetkin is more impressive than his win over David Haye.

Put to sleep by a golfer.

Wladimir Klitschko was also a golfer. Instead, he was even more of a golfer than Corrie Sanders.

Furthermore, Wlad wasn't put to 'sleep'. Last time I checked, he got up and was still standing at the time of the stoppage.



Just so you know, I have nothing against Lennox Lewis. I personally had him as the greatest heavyweight of all time (along with Vitali Klitschko) until Wlad retired. However, my ranking is purely based on accomplishments and Wladimir Klitschko undoubtedly has the better heavyweight accomplishments. Maybe if Lennox Lewis boxed for longer, he would've at least rivaled Wlad's accomplishments but he didn't since he retired with fewer bouts.

In terms of head to head ranking, I think all 3 (Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko and Wladimir Klitschko) are evenly matched in a head to head match up. Below them is Mike Tyson. The winner of a bout between Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko in my opinion will be decided by who's corner Emmanuel Steward is in during the bout. Otherwise, it's a 50/50 match up that could go either way.