Lewis Without the Defeats

First topic message reminder :

Sorry for the briefness of the article, been a bit tied up today & yesterday.

It's widely regarded that the two defeats on lennox's record came about due to sheer complacency rather being beaten by a better opponent, further highlighted by the fact both losses were avenged - ok McCall was in bizarre fashion but Rahman was as decisive as it gets. How much do those defeats hurt Lennox' legacy in the all tine standings - ie if he'd just done to McCall & Rahman first time what he did to them second time and went undefeated his whole career, how high would you rank him? For me he's a bottom end of the top ten hw's fighter, without the two soft defeats could a top 5 arguement be made?

I know you could make a "what if he didn't lose to so and so" arguement for any fighter, but I think it's especially pertinent to Lewis given it was sheer complacency that cost him, he avenged the defeats and beat every other top fighter of his era.

Opinions?

Probably top 5 without the losses, whereas I have him around 11-12 with them.

They show he can be KO'd by single punches from mediocre punchers. Dempsey, Foreman, Tyson, Shavers, Liston and Louis - even Frazier look to have a good chance of chinning him based purely on those losses.