Okay, as promised earlier I will now give my opinion on Lewis's historical ranking now that he has retired.
I think Lewis is one of 10 people who have a legitimate claim to being the number one boxer of all time. Those 10 people are all boxers who have cleared out their division and who have truly beaten everyone placed before them when they were in their prime. Physically, Lewis is the best and there is a very good argument that the progression of times means that realistically no-one can compete physically with Lewis. Comparing the times of runners or swimmers today with those of the 1900s, 1950s or even the 1970s and 1980s would suggest that the older fighters could not physically compete with the modern fighters and he would be too big and strong for anyone before them. I dont go along with this line of thinking but there is a rationality behind it which is hard to ignore. In a who beats who analysis, i think Lewis would pose a huge risk to many of the top 10 fighters. And I actually rate him one of the best chances to upset a prime Ali, who i rate as the best fighter ever.
Of the 10 fighters with a claim to best ever, I would rate Marciano, Ali and Jeffries in the top tier. These 3 guys were never beaten in their prime and when each retired they were considered the very best (in Alis case it was the enforced exile) without any dispute. No fighter of their time could really challenge either of these 3. I would also probably put Gene Tunney in this category as well. He did have a loss to Greb but he worked him out and went on to dominate him. His legacy is hurt because he fought so few fights at heavyweight but when he did fight he beat one of the all time greats who had cleared the division (admittedly it was an aging great but I think it is debateable as to how much Dempsey had lost going into those fights). I dont think Lewis would have got near these 4 greats in all time ranking.
On the next line, I have Johnson, Tyson, Louis, Holmes. These guys were all truly dominant in their primes but they have blemishes on their records which hurt their legacy. When they should have been capable of winning even if they were not fully in their prime. Louis had Schmeling, Tyson had Douglas, and Johnson failed to beat Marvin Hart in a fight which could have seen him meet Jim Jeffries and knock at least one of these guys out of the all time rankings. I think all of these guys rank ahead of Lewis but I would put them on the second tier because even though they dominated their opposition, they were shown up at certain times. I would probably put Holmes at the end of this who was only really beaten by Spinks but it was debateable and he was aging at this time. I think most agree that Prime Holmes would beat spinks.
The next line sees Lewis, Dempsey. Both are difficult to rate because they have some poor losses to average fighters mixed in with some devastating performances. I would rate Lewis here. Although he did avenge both of his losses, he wasnt really as dominant as the guys above him.
So there it is my top 10 (for the moment) - Ali, Jeffries, Marciano, Tunney, Louis, Johnson, Tyson, Holmes, Lewis, Dempsey.
This doesnt allow for greats like Foreman and Liston who would, imo, be a top 10 fighter but who could not be no 1 because they were dominated by Ali. Others who may make a top 10 claim but did not dominate their eras enough to be considered no 1 would include Corbett, Fitzimmons, Walcott, Charles, Frazier, Bowe, Holyfield, Peter Jackson and quite a few others. John L Sullivan is one who may stake a claim for greatest ever, but he was ommitted due to most of his fights being bare knuckled. His only loss to Corbett was debateable in that he really was well past it by this time.
I think Lewis is one of 10 people who have a legitimate claim to being the number one boxer of all time. Those 10 people are all boxers who have cleared out their division and who have truly beaten everyone placed before them when they were in their prime. Physically, Lewis is the best and there is a very good argument that the progression of times means that realistically no-one can compete physically with Lewis. Comparing the times of runners or swimmers today with those of the 1900s, 1950s or even the 1970s and 1980s would suggest that the older fighters could not physically compete with the modern fighters and he would be too big and strong for anyone before them. I dont go along with this line of thinking but there is a rationality behind it which is hard to ignore. In a who beats who analysis, i think Lewis would pose a huge risk to many of the top 10 fighters. And I actually rate him one of the best chances to upset a prime Ali, who i rate as the best fighter ever.
Of the 10 fighters with a claim to best ever, I would rate Marciano, Ali and Jeffries in the top tier. These 3 guys were never beaten in their prime and when each retired they were considered the very best (in Alis case it was the enforced exile) without any dispute. No fighter of their time could really challenge either of these 3. I would also probably put Gene Tunney in this category as well. He did have a loss to Greb but he worked him out and went on to dominate him. His legacy is hurt because he fought so few fights at heavyweight but when he did fight he beat one of the all time greats who had cleared the division (admittedly it was an aging great but I think it is debateable as to how much Dempsey had lost going into those fights). I dont think Lewis would have got near these 4 greats in all time ranking.
On the next line, I have Johnson, Tyson, Louis, Holmes. These guys were all truly dominant in their primes but they have blemishes on their records which hurt their legacy. When they should have been capable of winning even if they were not fully in their prime. Louis had Schmeling, Tyson had Douglas, and Johnson failed to beat Marvin Hart in a fight which could have seen him meet Jim Jeffries and knock at least one of these guys out of the all time rankings. I think all of these guys rank ahead of Lewis but I would put them on the second tier because even though they dominated their opposition, they were shown up at certain times. I would probably put Holmes at the end of this who was only really beaten by Spinks but it was debateable and he was aging at this time. I think most agree that Prime Holmes would beat spinks.
The next line sees Lewis, Dempsey. Both are difficult to rate because they have some poor losses to average fighters mixed in with some devastating performances. I would rate Lewis here. Although he did avenge both of his losses, he wasnt really as dominant as the guys above him.
So there it is my top 10 (for the moment) - Ali, Jeffries, Marciano, Tunney, Louis, Johnson, Tyson, Holmes, Lewis, Dempsey.
This doesnt allow for greats like Foreman and Liston who would, imo, be a top 10 fighter but who could not be no 1 because they were dominated by Ali. Others who may make a top 10 claim but did not dominate their eras enough to be considered no 1 would include Corbett, Fitzimmons, Walcott, Charles, Frazier, Bowe, Holyfield, Peter Jackson and quite a few others. John L Sullivan is one who may stake a claim for greatest ever, but he was ommitted due to most of his fights being bare knuckled. His only loss to Corbett was debateable in that he really was well past it by this time.
