The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

[McGrain]

Assuming Harrison's level of alertness, I doubt Moore would fair much better at all.

Would any fighter at all fair better?

[dmt]

[quote=dmt]

Along with numerous other big heavy's.




I don't recall making any such claim.



What exactly am I not getting here? Just because I pick one guy over another in a fantasy matchup is no indication of what I know or don't know. I prefer to pick guys who we have far more footage of to watch and fully understand. Guys who trained according to the standards and prinicipals of modern day training and nutritional guidelines. Guys who fought men of all racial descriptions and who never avoided someone because of their skin. Guys who spent most of their careers knocking out fighters of the same weight class and with comparable records.





I beg to differ.There is also a big difference between 6'5 250 and 6'2 210, yet why didn't he kill Holyfield? And funny how u don't even realise the boxing and racial politics of the day before claming avoding because of skin colour. Wills himself did not blame Dempsey and acknowledged that it was not Dempsey's fault, yet u claim Dempsey "ducked him cause he's black" Lol.

BTw Lewis also ducked Vitaly unfairly refusing him a rematch

[China_hand_Joe]

Would any fighter at all fair better?

McCall I'd imagine. Plenty others too.

[PowerPuncher]

It is a big deal because Tunney was a former light heavyweight and even as a lightheavyweight he did not hit hard.


You say "it happened to him only once, not twice" about the Flynn KO.
But mind you, Dempsey retired at the age of 33. Lewis retired at the age of 37, and his last opponent was not a former light heavyweight but a 6'7 250lb fast, iron chinned man who had won 31 of his 33 fights by KO. And he didn't get knocked down nor lost 9 out of 10 rounds like Dempsey did against Tunney, when he was 33.




No, i don't think Dempsey punches near as hard as Lewis does. It's like saying Julian Jackson punched as hard as Marciano did. When you have two great punchers, those 50 lbs of natural muscle is definitly gonna make a difference. Lewis proved his punch against skilled 230+lb fighters throughout his entire career, Dempsey proved it against two big unskilled, old oafs.

The same holds for the punch-resistance department. Dempsey's best punchers are a joke. Lewis faced something like 12 punchers, each of which was a harder puncher than Dempsey's top1 puncher faced. No comparison.

Again, it's like saying Tunney has a better chin than Ali because Hagler was never floored, while overlooking the size difference of themselfes and their opponents. It's no secret that when moving up, most fighters all of a sudden get durability problems which they never showed at lower weights.




Willards, of course. Would rather be a p4p great puncher at 150lb or at 185lb? Or at 185lb or at 245lb? A no-brainer.



Yes, that was true back in the day when a 6'2 205lb fighter like Jack Johnson was called a "giant". When people were naturally very small and because there were only a few in multiple thousands, you were left with talentless big oafs. Since people naturally get bigger, there are 200+++lb men without losing something. Stop living in the past.




0. He never fought 10 and 4-round jokes for the heavyweight championship of the world, though.

And this is relevant to my argument...... how? I merely stated that there have been several fighters over 210lb succesful at 15 rounds, so it's simply not true that Dempsey was 185-192lb because of the 15 round limit.




I don't. Rahman is nothing great but his skills far, far exceed Firpo's.

On top of that, let's look at the circumstances.

Dempsey was knocked down twice. Once out of the ring and helped back into the ring by thirds. Could he have made it back on his own? Maybe, maybe not. Official rules state he should've been disqualified.
What would've happened had the referee who stopped Lewis when he was up after 6 seconds and clearly ready to continue, evident from the fact that he had a "what the fuck?"-expression when the referee stopped it?
He would've waved the fight off when Dempsey layed outside the ring.

If you for some reason consider the wild swinging Firpo more skillful than Rahman, then we can look at accomplishments. Rahman still outclasses Firpo in that department.




You're reaching straws again. How is it relevant that Ali was under 200lbs before he naturally filled out? I never said that Dempsey was a lightheavyweight because he was at that weight before he had filled out. Dempsey still weighed 190lb at the end of his career.

Fact remains that there have been several natural 210+lb fighters that fought 15 rounds, so the reason that Dempsey was around 190lb for the fighting distance is simply not true.

By the way, Byrd left his training camp against Klitschko at 203lb and lifted/ate himself up to 213lb after that.
And how can you call Foreman a lean 210 pounder?? He never fought at that weight, he was 217lb at his lightest and carried 230lb without much problems. You are clearly looking at things through a wishful-that-they-were-smaller glasses.



In 16 pages, no one has said a single word about Peter, Maskaev and Ibragimov. You are the one that brings it up. Let's stay on the topic, Peter etc have nothing to do with this Dempsey/Lewis discussion.

Excellent post, I agree whole heartidly.

One point is, how big would Dempsey be if he had grown up in a world with modern nutrition. Height and muscle mass has gone up on average for the whole population because of better nutrition and less poverty. Also how big would he be with modern supplements, steroids and weight training?

[dmt]

One point is, how big would Dempsey be if he had grown up in a world with modern nutrition. Height and muscle mass has gone up on average for the whole population because of better nutrition and less poverty. Also how big would he be with modern supplements, steroids and weight training?like 210 pounds

[PowerPuncher]

He is not ever knocking Dempsey out, Lewis may but not Jones, not in a million years

Its possible, Dempsey has been ko'd by Flyn, kd'ed by Firpo & Tunney - if Jones catches him with enough big counter punches he may KO him. Its speculative none the less

[PowerPuncher]

like 210 pounds

Its possible, he may just have drained down to 175 for easier fights too

[mr. magoo]

[quote=mr. magoo][quote]There is also a big difference between 6'5 250 and 6'2 210, yet why didn't he kill Holyfield?

The gap between 6'5" 250, and 6'2 210, is still not as great as it would be if Lewis had met Dempsey, besides I don't place Dempsey in Holyfield's league either. Evander had a far more tested chin, defensive skills and a physique that Dempsey couldn't come close to having.

And funny how u don't even realise the boxing and racial politics of the day before claming avoding because of skin colour. Wills himself did not blame Dempsey and acknowledged that it was not Dempsey's fault, yet u claim Dempsey "ducked him cause he's black" Lol.

Did I officially use the word DUCK ? No. Why don't you tell me exactly how many black men Dempsey fought during his career as a fighter? The answer is 4, and none of them ranked. He defended his title 6 times in 7 years, and failed to face a mandatory. That is an attrocious resume for a man who was gifted the status of an all time great.


BTw Lewis also ducked Vitaly unfairly refusing him a rematch


Oh boy, it sure sounds like you need a little help understanding basic terminology.

Lewis beat Vitali by a stoppage in the 6th round, then retired at age 38. Is this what you would describe as a ducking situation? Dempsey never even gave Wills a shot period. From what do you draw a comparison with these two very different scenarios?

[dmt]

Its possible, Dempsey has been ko'd by Flyn, kd'ed by Firpo & Tunney - if Jones catches him with enough big counter punches he may KO him. Its speculative none the lessvery fishy no where near his prime

Tunney knowd him down for a few seconds. Fripo had no technique but even without that he was ten times harder hitter then Jones, not to mention agressivley persued Dempsey. Jones would be on his bicyle vs Dempsey and woould not even dare be agressive

[PowerPuncher]

That's fine but some people here argue Dempsey is a bum or something, not u but some other idiots

Dempsey was a spectacular innovator of the sport. However physically he'd have trouble competiting the way he was, he'd need to pack some muscle on his frame. Even then he wouldn't

I do think Dempsey was better than many but his resume doesn't reflect it - he just doesnt have the names

[dmt]

[quote=dmt][quote=mr. magoo]

The gap between 6'5" 250, and 6'2 210, is still not as great as it would be if Lewis had met Dempsey, besides I don't place Dempsey in Holyfield's league either. Evander had a far more tested chin, defensive skills and a physique that Dempsey couldn't come close to having.



Did I officially use the word DUCK ? No. Why don't you tell me exactly how many black men Dempsey fought during his career as a fighter? The answer is 4, and none of them ranked. He defended his title 6 times in 7 years, and failed to face a mandatory. That is an attrocious resume for a man who was gifted the status of an all time great.



Oh boy, it sure sounds like you need a little help understanding basic terminology.

Lewis beat Vitali by a stoppage in the 6th round, then retired at age 38. Is this what you would describe as a ducking situation? Dempsey never even gave Wills a shot period. From what do you draw a comparison with these two very different scenarios?

Dempsey was better then Holyfield and could have easily had a steroid built physique. Dempsey was a better hitter and faster.

You did use the world “avoid” Again do you realize that how many top “black contenders” were Dempsey’s own sparring partners? And now he’s supposed to face them somehow despite the politics? Do you not realize the amount of race riots these fights create? Do you realize that Dempsey’s own sparring partners included George Godfrey (one of the best black fighters that Wills wouldn’t meet) or Larry Gains? Do you think only the whites ducked the blacks and not the other way around? Do u know Wills refused to fight Tunney, the same man that an older Dempsey fought- TWICE. And do you not realize that both Wills and Dempsey tried for the fight, signed for it twice, but the fear of race riots prevented it?

Lewis beat Vitaly by cuts, his win, fine but he was losing otherwise and the least he could have done is given Vitaly a rematch but he backed out

[mr. magoo]

Old school advocates commonly like to point out that Dempsey had 27 first round knockouts, but what few of them ever address is that 14 of those Ko's came against men who had 0's in the win column.

[ChrisPontius]

Chris, cAn uy please tell me how Vitaly was fast and even though he won so many ko's, what exactly were his top flight comp?


His dominated solid contenders, Sanders, Johnson and Williams.
He also dominated Byrd untill the injury and did the same against Lewis.

His resume is rather weak but the way in which he won (he lost 1 round in all of his fights against Sanders, Johnson and Williams), his high KO%, the fact that he was winning the fights he lost untill the stoppages all speak for his ability. Injuries cut (no pun intended) his accomplishments short.


Dempsey was knocked down for a couple of seconds, Louis was stunned by Conn, Marciano down against Moore for a few seconds, Cooper at 185 lb flooring Ali, it happened but they also got up or recovered to win.(except Dempsey vs Tunney in which Dempsey managed to last the distance) And in neither of the fights he was down did Lewis manage to get up to win the fight. Anyone can be crticised in that way.

Anyone can be critised that way?

Alright, then find me a lightheavyweight/cruiser like Conn/Cooper/Moore/Tunney that put Lewis on his ass.




But the following is true:

There is an overall maximum amount of force that any human can generate.

The increments between "levels" of power change by tiny amounts in real terms at the very top of the scale (think of the % of total weight added to a bench press with progress, huge at low levels, tiny at the highest levels).



This is weird to understand, but going from 175lb fighters up to 190lb fighters seems to be a big step and often leaves durable lightheavyweights as undurable when facing heavyweights (or better put, cruiserweights). Even if there is just a few % of increased power, it happens to be just enough to crack that threshold. Nature works in a funny way.


Dempsey hits harder than all other men of around 190lbs (arguably).

Lewis is a very hard hitter at 230lbs.

If all of this is true, how much difference can there be between their hardest punches? When we say Dempsey "punches above his weight", what do we mean?


See above. And i don't know if you box yourself or have, but i can absolutely guarantee you that there is HUGE difference between fighting a natural 190lb'er and a 230lb'er. In terms of punching power, but in everything; it drains your energy because you have to keep moving, you lack power to really keep them off you and planting your feet becomes a dangerous thing knowning that your head will be taken off by a counter if it lands. Etc etc.


I don't know where you got the quote "Dempsey punches aboves his weight" from, but it either alludes to the fact that he was able to knock out the old and skillless fighters from his time who were above his weight, or it means that he has the punch of a bigger man than himself.

Fine, but in that respect, Lewis also punches above his weight, as his power is much better than your average 240lb guy. This is why i would always (barring styles or other exceptions) take a great bigger fighter over a great small fighter: even if the smaller guy punches above his weight, so does the bigger guy (because he's great too) so he will always be left at an advantageous position.



I would use a similair argument concerning chin. If size is a precluding factor, why is it that Audley Harrison has such a bad chin? I would argue that the Sprott shot that dropped Harrison would not have dropped the smaller Archie Moore. Your thoughts?



Size helps but obviously does not tell then entire story. Audley has one of the worst chins p4p.
By the way, Audley was not knocked out by a 185lb fighter.
The view is distorted, many people say "well these 200+lb fighters get knocked out just as much". Yes, but they're not fighting 190lb opponents. No wonder. No one claims middleweights are just as durable as welterweights because they get knocked out just as often as welterweights.


I will make one sidenote. It appears so that durability does not improve as much as punching power when you go up beyond 210lb.

Why do i think this?


If you look at the entire weight spectrum, you will find that the smaller the boxer is, the less likely he is to knock his (equally sized) opponent out.
Even the big punchers at flyweight, bantamweight and lightweight rarely have more than 80% Knockouts. Tommy Hearns, one of the if not the best puncher (in both terms of power and ability to land) of all time, still had a fare share of opponents that went the distance. At heavyweight, opponents seem to drop like flies against big puncher. "One punch can change the fight" is usually stated about heavyweights.

This is also one of the reasons that the heavyweight division is traditionally more popular than lower ones.

Small guys simply don't have the punch to hurt their opponents in the way big guys do. Duran was a mean SOB at 135lb but still had to grind most of his opponent down.

Durability does not increase as power or strength does when you go up in size. This is even true in nature. When a normal, healthy human adult falls down while running, he may lose a few teeth or have a slight concussion. When a Tyrannosaurus runs at 35 km/h and falls, it is not likely to survive. By comparison, when you drop an ant off the Eiffel tower, it will survive easily. I may be drifting away a bit here, but you get the point. I think durability does not go up as much as power does.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]

Dempsey was better then Holyfield and could have easily had a steroid built physique. Dempsey was a better hitter and faster.


What makes you think that Dempsey was better than Holyfield. And why do you automatically characterize gowing form weighing 190 Lbs to 210 LBS as using steroids?

[quote]You did use the world “avoid” Again do you realize that how many top “black contenders” were Dempsey’s own sparring partners?

So what? Did any of them get title shots?

[quote]And now he’s supposed to face them somehow despite the politics? Do you not realize the amount of race riots these fights create?

Hmmmm.... Didn't seem to stop Jim Jeffries from fighting black men over a decade earlier when such issues were likely to stir up more trouble.




Lewis beat Vitaly by cuts, his win, fine but he was losing otherwise and the least he could have done is given Vitaly a rematch but he backed out .


A champion is not necessarily required to give a rematch to a challenger if the victory was legitimate. There was no controversy surrounding the Klitschko fight. Vitali's face was cut open wider than the Grand Canyon, and just because he did well for a few rounds against a 38 year old Lewis doesn't exactly make my hair stand up. Lennox retired at 38 after dominating an entire division, and beating all of its best fighters over a decade. Dempsey retired at 32, leaving behind names that he did not meet and with more losses and draws. Yet you seem to think that Lewis was guilty of an incomplete legacy? Dempsey's legacy is no where near as great as Lewis's and nor should he be picked to beat him head to head..............Period...................

[dmt]

[quote=dmt][quote=mr. magoo][quote=dmt]


What makes you think that Dempsey was better than Holyfield. And why do you automatically characterize gowing form weighing 190 Lbs to 210 LBS as using steroids?



So what? Did any of them get title shots?



Hmmmm.... Didn't seem to stop Jim Jeffries from fighting black men over a decade earlier when such issues were likely to stir up more trouble.





A champion is not necessarily required to give a rematch to a challenger if the victory was legitimate. There was no controversy surrounding the Klitschko fight. Vitali's face was cut open wider than the Grand Canyon, and just because he did well for a few rounds against a 38 year old Lewis doesn't exactly make my hair stand up. Lennox retired after Dominating an entire division, and beating all of its best fighters over a decade. Dempsey retired leaving behind names that he did not meet and with more losses and draws. Dempsey's legace is no where near as great as Lewis's and nor should he be picked to beat him head to head..............Period...................becuase people wanted the fight due to Johnson's hatred. It's after the Jeffries fight that
Race riots really began

I would really have liked to see how many losses and draws Lewis would have had had he fought under the same conditions as Dempsey did

[mr. magoo]

I would really have liked to see how many losses and draws Lewis would have had had he fought under the same conditions as Dempsey did



So would I. It would have been nice to see two undefeated heavyweight champions in boxing history. :good

[dmt]

So would I. It would have been nice to see two undefeated heavyweight champions in boxing history. :goodundefeated under those conditions? Wow that's an amazing prediction. So a teenage Lewis starts off with no amateur experience, has no proper managemtn behind him, is underfed and has little food with him for days, e\yet he somehow goes undefeated. Wow he must be a god then :good

[McGrain]

This is weird to understand, but going from 175lb fighters up to 190lb fighters seems to be a big step and often leaves durable lightheavyweights as undurable when facing heavyweights (or better put, cruiserweights). Even if there is just a few % of increased power, it happens to be just enough to crack that threshold. Nature works in a funny way.

This might be true and it might not be true, but what is generally true has a way of being very little use when your talking about men in the top .1%, the elite of the elite.



See above. And i don't know if you box yourself or have, but i can absolutely guarantee you that there is HUGE difference between fighting a natural 190lb'er and a 230lb'er. In terms of punching power, but in everything; it drains your energy because you have to keep moving, you lack power to really keep them off you and planting your feet becomes a dangerous thing knowning that your head will be taken off by a counter if it lands. Etc etc.

I have boxed, but not to any kind of level. However this does give me a little insight here. We were a pretty loose club and everybody mucked in. I was one of the bigger guys but I was in with heavier guys. I absolutely agree with what you say about finding it draining, most especially in clinching, and having to constatntly, "re-cut" the ring (my term - basically moving less smoothly than is normal, changing direction etc., in an effort to avoid close quarters) but I don't agree with you about power. The hardest i was hit, the hardest hitter at our wee club was a 160lb guy. I'm not offering this up as evidence - it doesn't allow for technique, for the fact that we were just a bunch of average joe's and that guy was probably a bit special - just saying.

I also agree that there will be a difference between 190 and 230 as a general rule. But i also believe that Dempsey approaches punching power about as hard as a human can punch - in that type of neighbourhood, the upper echelon of hard hitting boxers. So Lewis can't be THAT far ahead of him.

What happened to Willard at the hands of Dempsey should not have been allowed to happen. But that category of injuries is a part of boxing legend now. You box, or have boxed, you've worn bag mitts similair to the gloves that Dempsey wold have worn. Rendering that type of damage on a human without a baseball bat isn't easy, never mind with gloved fists. Lewis could do it. There are many who couldn't. As far as I am concerned Dempsey's great power is proven. He didn't outlast Willard (not a great fighter, but a proffesional one) he beat him to within an inch of his life.


I don't know where you got the quote "Dempsey punches aboves his weight" from, but it either alludes to the fact that he was able to knock out the old and skillless fighters from his time who were above his weight, or it means that he has the punch of a bigger man than himself.

It means that he punches at a weight higher than that of 190 - he punches like a bigger man. If he punches like a pro boxer of 210 or 220lbs and Lewis punches like a pro boxer of 230lbs, where is the space for the difference in power that you speak of?

Fine, but in that respect, Lewis also punches above his weight, as his power is much better than your average 240lb guy. This is why i would always (barring styles or other exceptions) take a great bigger fighter over a great small fighter: even if the smaller guy punches above his weight, so does the bigger guy (because he's great too) so he will always be left at an advantageous position.

I agree with you that Lewis is enormously powerful (though I think he beats Dempsy for reasons other than this), but I don't accept your more general point. There are many examples of great smaller fighters punching harder than great bigger fighters, and you know them.

I see size as being no different from great power, quickness or ring generalship - something for the opponent to try to overcome. An advantage, but no more than that. And like other advantages, it needs to be utilised properly (Lewis uses his size beautifully - people in General sometimes speak about it like it's a way to run him down :lol: ).



Size helps but obviously does not tell then entire story. Audley has one of the worst chins p4p.

Size helps, sure - it allows for literally more area to absorb a punch for one. But I would say that "at and around" the weight, the distance between the fighters brain and skull is a far more important factor.

I will make one sidenote. It appears so that durability does not improve as much as punching power when you go up beyond 210lb.

I agree with this and with your excellent wider analysis. I haven't re-posted it here because you are firing out some long posts today my friend.

[mr. magoo]

undefeated under those conditions? Wow that's an amazing prediction. So a teenage Lewis starts off with no amateur experience, has no proper managemtn behind him, is underfed and has little food with him for days, e\yet he somehow goes undefeated. Wow he must be a god then :good

Jeffries retired undefeated before returning to the ring to fight Johnson. The prospect of Lewis having as good or better of a career than Jeffries is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility.

Oh...I almost forgot....:good

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]It is a big deal because Tunney was a former light heavyweight and even as a lightheavyweight he did not hit hard.


A puncher like Tunney can drop almost anybody on their but if they get them right. A little power goes a long way when you have good technique.

I would say incidentaly that he probably hit harder than Holyfield.


But mind you, Dempsey retired at the age of 33. Lewis retired at the age of 37, and his last opponent was not a former light heavyweight but a 6'7 250lb fast, iron chinned man who had won 31 of his 33 fights by KO.


And had never beaten a ranked contender.


No, i don't think Dempsey punches near as hard as Lewis does. It's like saying Julian Jackson punched as hard as Marciano did. When you have two great punchers, those 50 lbs of natural muscle is definitly gonna make a difference. Lewis proved his punch against skilled 230+lb fighters throughout his entire career, Dempsey proved it against two big unskilled, old oafs.


I honestly dont think that Lewis would have disposed of Fulton, Morris, Willard or Firpo as quickly as Dempsey did.

Regardless of who hit harder I think that Dempsey was certainly the more efective puncher and finisher.


The same holds for the punch-resistance department. Dempsey's best punchers are a joke. Lewis faced something like 12 punchers, each of which was a harder puncher than Dempsey's top1 puncher faced. No comparison.


I could make the case that Willard and Firpo hit harder than anybody Lewis ever faced.

Again, it's like saying Tunney has a better chin than Ali because Hagler was never floored,

No it is not. The top punchers Dempsey faced were in the same ballpark as the top ones Lewis faced in terms of power if nothing else.

It is a little crass to say Dempsey never fought a superheavyweight.

Oh shit he did.

Well they dont count because they look like skiless oaft on a 1920s era film. You can make any fighter look bad with a camera from that era.


Willards, of course. Would rather be a p4p great puncher at 150lb or at 185lb? Or at 185lb or at 245lb? A no-brainer.


Being a pound for pound puncher at 245 lbs is like being a tall midget.

Smaller heavyweights are far better punchers pound for pound.


0. He never fought 10 and 4-round jokes for the heavyweight championship of the world, though.

And this is relevant to my argument...... how?


Because any fighter in Dempseys era with championship aspirations would be training for a 20 round fight and this was reflected in their training regimes.


I merely stated that there have been several fighters over 210lb succesful at 15 rounds, so it's simply not true that Dempsey was 185-192lb because of the 15 round limit.


Over 210 lbs yes but how many over 220?

Much less in a 20 rounder.


I don't. Rahman is nothing great but his skills far, far exceed Firpo's.


His skills far exceed Ruiz's but he still lost to him.


On top of that, let's look at the circumstances.

Dempsey was knocked down twice. Once out of the ring and helped back into the ring by thirds. Could he have made it back on his own? Maybe, maybe not. Official rules state he should've been disqualified.


Lets say that Firpo had won the title on a DQ. He would have been a luaghing stock. It is highly unlikley that he would have been seen as a credible champion.


What would've happened had the referee who stopped Lewis when he was up after 6 seconds and clearly ready to continue, evident from the fact that he had a "what the fuck?"-expression when the referee stopped it?
He would've waved the fight off when Dempsey layed outside the ring.


Here I concour. I think the Ramhan loss is far more damaging than the McCall loss.


If you for some reason consider the wild swinging Firpo more skillful than Rahman, then we can look at accomplishments. Rahman still outclasses Firpo in that department.


I just wouldnt bet a penny on Ramhan winning.

I dont think you really have a verry good idea how good or bad Firpo was based on the film you have seen either.


By the way, Byrd left his training camp against Klitschko at 203lb and lifted/ate himself up to 213lb after that.


Byrd walks the street at 190 lbs.

Dempsey for contrast fought at 190lbs but walked the streets at around 210.

See how things have changed?


And how can you call Foreman a lean 210 pounder?? He never fought at that weight, he was 217lb at his lightest and carried 230lb without much problems. You are clearly looking at things through a wishful-that-they-were-smaller glasses.


It was you who raised the figure 210 lbs. I merely made the point that in terms of build and training regime Ali, Foreman et al are a lot more like Dempsey than they are like Lewis or Holyfield.

[ChrisPontius]

I have only quoted the parts that i don't agree with or have a comment on to save space:



I also agree that there will be a difference between 190 and 230 as a general rule. But i also believe that Dempsey approaches punching power about as hard as a human can punch - in that type of neighbourhood, the upper echelon of hard hitting boxers. So Lewis can't be THAT far ahead of him.


I don't think Dempsey approaches the maximum of human punching power for a boxer (though p4p he probably does).
We can't really argue over this; you think about it your way and i have my own views.

I can only say that Lewis is much more proven in scoring knockouts over bigger, talented men.



I agree with you that Lewis is enormously powerful (though I think he beats Dempsy for reasons other than this), but I don't accept your more general point. There are many examples of great smaller fighters punching harder than great bigger fighters, and you know them.


Maybe i used the wrong words, but i will restate: I believe a big, talented puncher (not 'fighter', but 'puncher' - a fighter with specific talent for punching) will be a more dangerous puncher than a smaller, but p4p equally talented puncher.

For example, i believe that Tyson is a more dangerous puncher than Marciano simply because he has 30lb on him, despite that p4p they are both great punchers and scored a roughly equal amount of one-punch-KO's over opposition off roughly both their own size.



I see size as being no different from great power, quickness or ring generalship - something for the opponent to try to overcome. An advantage, but no more than that. And like other advantages, it needs to be utilised properly (Lewis uses his size beautifully - people in General sometimes speak about it like it's a way to run him down :lol: ).



Good point. :good

I also liked the term of "re-cutting". I hadn't given it a name, but i know exactly what you mean. Sometimes the ring can become a really small place.

[rydersonthestorm]

So firpo and willard hit harder than mike tyson and vitali i am not sure about that mate.
I think everyone agree's that lewis wasn't the goat, however while most people are excepting that dempsey etc are great fighter's, number 4 on my list alot of guys speaking for the old pro's seem to want to denegrate lewis who proved to be a great champion and the best heavyweight of the past couple of decades.

[janitor]

Jeffries retired undefeated before returning to the ring to fight Johnson. The prospect of Lewis having as good or better of a career than Jeffries is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility.

Oh...I almost forgot....:good

Jeffries had much more favourable career conditions than Johnson or Dempsey. He had a amateur experience and good financial backing from day one. Even so he is a bit of an enigma.

If you are going to make Lewis fight under the same conditions as Dempsey in his early career then there is not a chance in hell that he or anybody else goes undefeated.

[mr. magoo]

[=janitor]
and had never beaten a ranked contender.


There were quite a few quotes in your response to Chris that I would have liked to address, but for now, i think I'll just stick to this one.

Prior to facing Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko had beaten Herbie Hide, Larry Donald, Vaugn Bean, Timo Hoffman, Obed Sullivan and Ed Mahone, all of whom were ranked fighters, and some of them were title fights or title eliminators.

[janitor]

Old school advocates commonly like to point out that Dempsey had 27 first round knockouts, but what few of them ever address is that 14 of those Ko's came against men who had 0's in the win column.

I should not have to explain to you that fighters of this period could get as far a commonwealth champion or title prospect before any of their fights apear on boxrec.

[janitor]

There were quite a few quotes in your response to Chris that I would have liked to address, but for now, i think I'll just stick to this one.

Prior to facing Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko had beaten Herbie Hide, Larry Donald, Vaugn Bean, Timo Hoffman, Obed Sullivan and Ed Mahone, all of whom were ranked fighters, and some of them were title fights or title eliminators.

Were any ranked when he fought them?

[rydersonthestorm]

Lewis didn't fight in those condtions and dempsey did, how are you to know what would happen, have you gone back in time with lewis and done this, the answer is no please just stick to stuff you can prove or give reference on not pure speculation.

[janitor]

So firpo and willard hit harder than mike tyson and vitali i am not sure about that mate.


Punch for punch they might well have done.

Willard did break Bull Youngs neck with an uppercut.

Firpos party trick was killing bulls by punching them in the kidneys.

I dont think these guys were short on power.

[janitor]

Lewis didn't fight in those condtions and dempsey did, how are you to know what would happen, have you gone back in time with lewis and done this, the answer is no please just stick to stuff you can prove or give reference on not pure speculation.

Mate it is physiologicaly imossible to be consistently sucessfull at a world level unless you can make it your 9-5 job and have a high calorie intake.

You need to train about twelve hours a day to fight at a world level. If you are working as a coal heaver the previous day or going for long periods without food you will never get verry far.

A big man like Lewis would be less competitive than most.

[rydersonthestorm]

Come on mate tyson is a top 20 all time great with a big arsenal of punch's and vitali is a huge puncher, i suspect tyson and vitali have greater accuracy and combine this with there power make them better puncher's. You use the same logic for dempsey etc so you have to apply it when saying lewis didn't face punchers as good as firpo and willard.

[janitor]

Come on mate tyson is a top 20 all time great with a big arsenal of punch's and vitali is a huge puncher, i suspect tyson and vitali have greater accuracy and combine this with there power make them better puncher's.

Undoubtedly.

My argument is that Dempsey is proven against fighters with top end power if not technique. His cin is proven vs the Ramhans and McCalls of this world.

[dmt]

and first round ko's don't measure greatness, i didn't ever claim that

[mr. magoo]

Were any ranked when he fought them?

I'm guessing that they had to have been given, that some of those fights were world title eliminators or title fights.

See for yourself

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. A puncher like Tunney can drop almost anybody on their but if they get them right. A little power goes a long way when you have good technique.

2. I would say incidentaly that he probably hit harder than Holyfield.

3. (VITALI) And had never beaten a ranked contender.

4. I honestly dont think that Lewis would have disposed of Fulton, Morris, Willard or Firpo as quickly as Dempsey did.

5. Regardless of who hit harder I think that Dempsey was certainly the more efective puncher and finisher.

6. I could make the case that Willard and Firpo hit harder than anybody Lewis ever faced.

7. No it is not. The top punchers Dempsey faced were in the same ballpark as the top ones Lewis faced in terms of power if nothing else.

8. It is a little crass to say Dempsey never fought a superheavyweight.

Oh shit he did.

9. Well they dont count because they look like skiless oaft on a 1920s era film. You can make any fighter look bad with a camera from that era.

10. Being a pound for pound puncher at 245 lbs is like being a tall midget.

11. Smaller heavyweights are far better punchers pound for pound.

12. Because any fighter in Dempseys era with championship aspirations would be training for a 20 round fight and this was reflected in their training regimes. Over 210 lbs yes but how many over 220? Much less in a 20 rounder.

13. His skills far exceed Ruiz's but he still lost to him.

14. Lets say that Firpo had won the title on a DQ. He would have been a luaghing stock. It is highly unlikley that he would have been seen as a credible champion.

15. Here I concour. I think the Ramhan loss is far more damaging than the McCall loss. I just wouldnt bet a penny on Ramhan winning.

16. I dont think you really have a verry good idea how good or bad Firpo was based on the film you have seen either.

17. Byrd walks the street at 190 lbs. Dempsey for contrast fought at 190lbs but walked the streets at around 210.

See how things have changed?

18. It was you who raised the figure 210 lbs. I merely made the point that in terms of build and training regime Ali, Foreman et al are a lot more like Dempsey than they are like Lewis or Holyfield.

1. Tunney isnt a puncher

2. You'd be wrong

3. Wrong, Holyfield is leagues above Tunney in raw power

4. I thin Lewis would make short work of them (if he decided to turn it on), Now I don't think Dempsey would dispose of Rudduck, Golota, Botha, Tyson as fast as Lewis did

5. What is this based on Lewis was nearly always an incredibly effective puncher against much higher levels of opposition and when he smelt blood it was usually over.

6. You'd be wrong, Tua, Tyson, Rudduck, McCall, Rahman, Morrison, Vitali, Bruno (who tested higher than Foreman) were blatantly bigger punchers than Willard and Firpo who both were less athletic, less muscular, less explosive with worse technique

7. No Dempsey did not face near the punchers Lewis faced in the above list

8. He fought big men, but he didnt face a Good Big Man, as a whole Dempseys comp was poor.

9. Its not the film its the level of skill/athletiscism/muscularity. Willard had a degree of skill but was slow like mollasses and probably shot

10. Lewis punches above his weight with his explosivity he was much bigger puncher than say a Willard or Firpo for a 230-250lber. Hence P4P punching ability

11. USually but Lennox is the P4P punching exception, his level of athleticism with his punches is better than Marcianos. Dempsey may have been somewhat better P4P but 50lbs of muscle makes Lewis the far far bigger puncher.

12. No they were smaller because they had poor nutrition and there was a limited number of good big men. Harry Wills weighed 210-220, Johnson weighed 210, Ali and Foreman weighed 210-220 in their primes fighting 15 round fights.

13. Wasn't Holyfield 38 and had 7 shades of bruises knocked out of him before he lost to Ruiz? And that could have gone to Holyfield

14. Would have been a quick rematch

15. Both are damaging no doubt, Lennox was in his physical prime against McCall and 35 against Rahman. Both are avenged losses.

16. I maintain Firpo is less skilled than anyone Lewis fought in championship bouts

17. Byrd is a completely different type of boxer, who slaps and runs BUT he weighs 200lb fyi. Also has about 4 gifts and 1 lucky win against Vitali, he was never top draw. Dempsey would be fat at 210 if thats true, you dont lose muscle for fights. For contrast Lewis would be 270-280 walking the streets - the size difference remains. Yes Dempsey would be as strong as Byrd at HW BUT thats not saying allot and Byrds very defensive but Dempsey would look to engage

18. In what way?

[rydersonthestorm]

Have you seen lewis now he is more like 300 plus pounds without training he is a beats of a man,

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher][quote=janitor]

1. Tunney isnt a puncher


Depend who you ask.

Tunney had problems with brittle hands throughout his early career which influenced his style. When his hands were sorted out he became quite a punishing puncher. Dempsey described him as a verry effective puncher.

At the end of the day though a master boxer will always punch well above their power and will not need a lot of powere to be a punishing hitter. I distinctly remember James Toney stagering Sam Peter for example.

It is certainly not out of the question to say that Tunney hit harder than Holyfield.

[rydersonthestorm]

Your a fool, read the thread before you make stupid comments, and calling him chinnox makes you out to be the troll that you are. Not one person in the thread has said he was the goat, it was just speculation.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
[quote=PowerPuncher]

Depend who you ask.

Tunney had problems with brittle hands throughout his early career which influenced his style. When his hands were sorted out he became quite a punishing puncher. Dempsey described him as a verry effective puncher.

At the end of the day though a master boxer will always punch well above their power and will not need a lot of powere to be a punishing hitter. I distinctly remember James Toney stagering Sam Peter for example.

It is certainly not out of the question to say that Tunney hit harder than Holyfield.

Tunney is a puncher at HW in the way Mayweather is a puncher at 147/154. They are both effective, land flush and are accurate. Both have brittle hands. Mayweather staggered Delahoya but isn't a massive puncher either. Neither base their game on power

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
4. I thin Lewis would make short work of them (if he decided to turn it on),


He would have to go some to match Dempseys performences.

I am not certain that he could dispose of me faster than Jack Dempsey put away Fred Fulton. No top 5 fighter in the world has ever been put away so decisively before or since.


Now I don't think Dempsey would dispose of Rudduck, Golota, Botha, Tyson as fast as Lewis did


With Ruddock and Golotta it is hard to say whether Dempsey could have matched Lewis's performences.

I don't think that Dempsey would need eight rounds to put away the version of Tyson that Lewis fought. Four would be ample.


5. What is this based on Lewis was nearly always an incredibly effective puncher against much higher levels of opposition and when he smelt blood it was usually over.


Dempsey was a more complet all round ofensive machine and he did not need to smell blood for it to be over in seconds.


6. You'd be wrong, Tua, Tyson, Rudduck, McCall, Rahman, Morrison, Vitali, Bruno (who tested higher than Foreman) were blatantly bigger punchers than Willard and Firpo who both were less athletic, less muscular, less explosive with worse technique


I dispute that they were blatantly harder punchers. Power is almost imposible to compare in any event.

Your argument that they hit harder because they were more muscular is frankly ridiculous. By that standard I guess Chris Byrd hits harder than Jack Dempsey.

But more athletic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not one of these guys went over 20 rounds in their entire career. To claim that they were more athletic is silly.


8. He fought big men, but he didnt face a Good Big Man, as a whole Dempseys comp was poor.


I would say that is rather a subjective statment. You could make a strong case that it compared favourably to other all time greats.


9. Its not the film its the level of skill/athletiscism/muscularity. Willard had a degree of skill but was slow like mollasses and probably shot


Yes and Charlie Chaplin really walked like that.


10. Lewis punches above his weight with his explosivity he was much bigger puncher than say a Willard or Firpo for a 230-250lber. Hence P4P punching ability


They might have both hit harder than him for all you know.

11. USually but Lennox is the P4P punching exception, his level of athleticism with his punches is better than Marcianos.

I am far from convinced. In fact I am incredulous at this claim.

How exactly could you argue that Lewis was a better athlete than Marciano?


12. No they were smaller because they had poor nutrition and there was a limited number of good big men. Harry Wills weighed 210-220, Johnson weighed 210, Ali and Foreman weighed 210-220 in their primes fighting 15 round fights.


You seem to argue that the distence had no effect on their training regimes at all. Common sense alone should tell you that this is not the case.

Why don't you compare some training regimes of fighter from diferent eras. Say Jim Jeffries to Evander Holyfield. You will quickly see the diference.


13. Wasn't Holyfield 38 and had 7 shades of bruises knocked out of him before he lost to Ruiz? And that could have gone to Holyfield


I was talking about Ramhan.


14. Would have been a quick rematch


Quick in more ways than one I suspect.


16. I maintain Firpo is less skilled than anyone Lewis fought in championship bouts


I could argue that he was better than Briggs and suport it with film.

17. Byrd is a completely different type of boxer, who slaps and runs

My point is that Byrd bulks up for fights and Dempsey trims down. The difference between their training regimes is striking.

Put Byrd in Dempseys era and he might be a light heavyweight.


18. In what way?


Weightlifting is new. It came in around the 90s and roadwork has been in decline since the end of the 45 rounders.

There is probably more diference in terms of training regime between Larry Holmes and Evander Holyfield than there is between Jim Corbett and Larry Holmes.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. He would have to go some to match Dempseys performences. I am not certain that he could dispose of me faster than Jack Dempsey put away Fred Fulton. No top 5 fighter in the world has ever been put away so decisively before or since.

2. With Ruddock and Golotta it is hard to say whether Dempsey could have matched Lewis's performences.

3. I don't think that Dempsey would need eight rounds to put away the version of Tyson that Lewis fought. Four would be ample.

4. Dempsey was a more complet all round ofensive machine and he did not need to smell blood for it to be over in seconds.

5. I dispute that they were blatantly harder punchers. Power is almost imposible to compare in any event. Your argument that they hit harder because they were more muscular is frankly ridiculous. By that standard I guess Chris Byrd hits harder than Jack Dempsey.

6. But moreathletic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one of these guys went over 20 rounds in their entire career. To claim that they were more athletic is silly.

7. I would say that is rather a subjective statment. You could make a strong case that it compared favourably to other all time greats.
Yes and Charlie Chaplin really walked like that.

8. They might have both hit harder than him for all you know.

9. I am far from convinced. In fact I am incredulous at this claim. How exactly could you argue that Lewis was a better athlete than Marciano?

10. You seem to argue that the distence had no effect on their training regimes at all. Common sense alone should tell you that this is not the case.

11. Why don't you compare some training regimes of fighter from diferent eras. Say Jim Jeffries to Evander Holyfield. You will quickly see the diference.

12. I was talking about Ramhan (against Ruiz)

13. I could argue that he (Firpo) was better than Briggs and suport it with film.

14. My point is that Byrd bulks up for fights and Dempsey trims down. The difference between their training regimes is striking. Put Byrd in Dempseys era and he might be a light heavyweight.

15. Weightlifting is new. It came in around the 90s and roadwork has been in decline since the end of the 45 rounders. There is probably more diference in terms of training regime between Larry Holmes and Evander Holyfield than there is between Jim Corbett and Larry Holmes.

1. No he wouldn't put away Fulton that quickly but Fulton was VERY chinny.

2. Its very unlikely, Golota was thought of as number 1 in the world by many after chasing Bowe into retirement and was destroyed in 1 with ease. Rudduck was top 3 or 4.

3. I think Tyson may still beat Dempsey at the age of 35 because Tyson retained his speed, power and strength. If Dempsey jumps straight in with no regard for tactics against Tyson he may well be ko'ed. Lewis was sensibly taking his time with Tyson (also Lewis was 36 and past prime too).

4. Dempsey was reckless, Lewis was not. As mentioned being reckless leaves you open to being ko'ed against a boxer puncher of Lewis calibre

5. Actually power comes directly from the muscles. Powerpunching is the art of using more of your bodys muscles and leaverage. Byrd was frankly poor at this while Dempsey was a master of powerpunching. He also had more natural strength than Byrd. Hence he hit harder - Tua/Tyson/Rahman/McCall/Morrison all used better technique than Firpo/Willard. They did this by using more leaverage, had more bodyweight behind their shots, and were msucularly stronger

6. Athleticism is about explosive strength/speed not about stamina. Thats completely different. Willard/Firpo were poor atheletes plain and simple

7. Willard and Firpo are not good big men. Both had less skills than the equally big Bruno/Golota/Rudduck for example. I don't think Willard is quite cracking my top60 despite the been in the right place at the right time against Johnson- LITERALLY

8. Willard & Firpo with no technique/athleticism/muscle hit harder than Lennox Lewis :lol: Now your grasping at straws

9. Because Lennox is simply faster and more explosive than Maricano. He also used a greater leavage in his punches than Marciano using his body more fluidly

10. Some top HWs still do long distance running. Lennox did 10mile runs himself.

11. Obviously I was asking the training differences from Lennox to Ali/Foreman to Dempsey. Its obvious modern routines make better use of weights, do more pad work etc.

12. Rahman was 1 of those hot and cold and showed up at 270lbs for this 1. Ruiz is underated - he beat so many ranked fighters for a reason - his jab and grab is very effective and his jab is excellent.

13. Briggs is leagues better than Firpo when it comes to skills. Briggs can throw combinations, throw all the punches properly etc while Firpo can not. Briggs was a pretty massive hitter too. No I'm not calling Briggs a great HW he wasn't he lacked stamina and left himself wide open. Against Lewis he was prime and had much better stamina

14. Yes but Byrd is an exception and he wasn't truly successful in the modern era. He could make 175 and was probably the same size as Tunney. Like Tunney he could give Dempsey all kinds of problems stylistically.

15. Weight lifting came to prominance in the 70s and only some fighters used it. Pad Work is a newer phenomenon. Holyfield/Lennox still did allot of old school training despite the supplementation of weights & pad work

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
2. Its very unlikely, Golota was thought of as number 1 in the world by many after chasing Bowe into retirement and was destroyed in 1 with ease. Rudduck was top 3 or 4.


I understand how this pair were held in high regard when Lewis beat them and they are tremendous victories.

I do not think it is in any way out of the question that Dempsey puts these guys away in the first two rounds. Golotta was always mentaly unstable and Ruddock might have lost a bit.

3. I think Tyson may still beat Dempsey at the age of 35 because Tyson retained his speed, power and strength.

Unlikley I think. Even at his peak Dempsey would be hell of an obstacle for Tyson to face.

I understand that Lewis fought safety first and that is why Dempsey woyuld make a quicker job.


4. Dempsey was reckless, Lewis was not. As mentioned being reckless leaves you open to being ko'ed against a boxer puncher of Lewis calibre


Reckless?

He could be.

It depended on the oponent. Against Willard he was cautious and measured. Against Firpo he rushed straight in and it nearly cost him.

I suspect that he would respect Lewis enough to stay out of harms way.

5. Actually power comes directly from the muscles. Powerpunching is the art of using more of your bodys muscles and leaverage.

Sure. It has to be noted however that many all time punchers are not particularly defeloped. Power is partly a neuromuscular thing.


Tua/Tyson/Rahman/McCall/Morrison all used better technique than Firpo/Willard. They did this by using more leaverage, had more bodyweight behind their shots, and were msucularly stronger


How exactly do you think their punching technique was better than Willards?

I am hearing their technique criticised by many but no details.


6. Athleticism is about explosive strength/speed not about stamina. Thats completely different. Willard/Firpo were poor atheletes plain and simple


In that case they were excelent athletes. They both had power in bucket loads if nothing else.


7. Willard and Firpo are not good big men. Both had less skills than the equally big Bruno/Golota/Rudduck for example. I don't think Willard is quite cracking my top60 despite the been in the right place at the right time against Johnson- LITERALLY


I think that Willard had as many technical tools as Bruno. I would be prepared to justify that on a comparison of footage.

I would also suggest that Firpo was no worse technicaly than Oscar Bonavena. Again I can justify it with film.


8. Willard & Firpo with no technique/athleticism/muscle hit harder than Lennox Lewis :lol: Now your grasping at straws


Mate the only way you can tell how hard sombody hit is to get hit by them.

You cannot tell which of two fighters of similar size hit harder by their physical apearence and punching style on film. That is just nonsense.

It is perfectly possible that Tony Galento hit harder than Lennox Lewis.


9. Because Lennox is simply faster and more explosive than Maricano. He also used a greater leavage in his punches than Marciano using his body more fluidly


Marciano definitely sat don on his punches better than Lewis and had far better stamina. I would say he was at least as fast as well.

As a pure athlete Marciano is arguably without peer among the heavyweights.


10. Some top HWs still do long distance running. Lennox did 10mile runs himself.


It is much less prevalent than it was. 3 miles is more the norm these days.

Back in the days of the 45 rounders many top heavyweights were doing 14, 16, 18, 20 miles.


12. Rahman was 1 of those hot and cold and showed up at 270lbs for this 1. Ruiz is underated - he beat so many ranked fighters for a reason - his jab and grab is very effective and his jab is excellent.


I would hate to hear all the nasty things you would say about him if the only footage of him was shot with a jerky 1920s era camera. He would probably look comical.


13. Briggs is leagues better than Firpo when it comes to skills.
Briggs can throw combinations, throw all the punches properly etc while Firpo can not.


By the same logic he must be leagues better than Charley Burley or George Foreman.


14. Yes but Byrd is an exception and he wasn't truly successful in the modern era. He could make 175 and was probably the same size as Tunney. Like Tunney he could give Dempsey all kinds of problems stylistically.


No doubt.

15. Weight lifting came to prominance in the 70s and only some fighters used it.

I cannot think of any heavyweight champions that I know to have used it pre Holyfield. Perhaps you can?

[My dinner with Conteh]

I promised myself I wouldn't click on this thread because i'll only get exasperated...the first thing I see "...and Charlie Chaplin really walked like that" in response to criticism of Big Jess. So are you saying Willard just acted that clueless and inept? :lol:

[ChrisPontius]

To everyone here making long posts: it's really simple, just put a /quote for each quote that you write (with the brackets) so that it won't get messed up.






A puncher like Tunney can drop almost anybody on their but if they get them right. A little power goes a long way when you have good technique.

I would say incidentaly that he probably hit harder than Holyfield.


I have to disagree here, on both accounts. Ali (in his prime) was a lighting quick punches who landed sharp punches on any opponent and while they never saw them coming and were suprised, they were rarely knocked down. Why? Because Ali was not a hard puncher. Neither was Tunney, at lightheavyweight. Nor at heavyweight.

Holyfield knocked Bowe down, knocked Mercer down and knocked Tyson out. He proved that he was able to hurt and in some cases finish very durable, big heavyweights. Tunney did not even fight a 200+lb heavyweight in his entire life, let alone hurt one. Well, outside of that 5'7 fat guy Heeney.



And had never beaten a ranked contender.

Johnson, Sanders and Williams were ranked contenders. That's 3-2 (3) if we include the losses. Like i said, his record is deceiving because of injuries.


I honestly dont think that Lewis would have disposed of Fulton, Morris, Willard or Firpo as quickly as Dempsey did.


I honestly do think so. Question is could Dempsey get rid of Ruddock, Golota, Grant and Rahman as quick as Lewis did? He never proved himself against big talented men like that.


Regardless of who hit harder I think that Dempsey was certainly the more efective puncher and finisher.


He is certainly more agressive, no doubt there.



I could make the case that Willard and Firpo hit harder than anybody Lewis ever faced.


Why is that? Willard killed a man. Well that's nice, but take into account that people back then fought under shit circumstances. Not to mention that they were fucking sadists. Have Lewis fight those lightheavies and cruiserweights with small gloves and sadistic referees and i wouldn't be suprised if someone was put to sleep forever as well.

And that story of Firpo knocking out a bull...... well that's impressive, but Duran is most definitly a hard puncher, he knocked out a horse!

....

Anyway, even if we agreed that Willard and Firpo punch as hard as some of Lewis' hardest punching opponents, take into account:

1. Firpo and Willard both had absolutely horrible delivery. Firpo telegraphed his punches like hell and Willard wasn't exactly fast either. Say what you will about Briggs (for instance), shitty defense, no stamina, but his hands are fast as hell, as well as heavy. Ruddock, Golota, Tua, Klitschko, Tyson, Grant, Bruno etc all had much, much better boxing skills and therefore better ability to land their punches.

2. Willard never landed much on Dempsey and while this speak positive about his defense, it does not guarantee that he could take his punch

3. Firpo did land his best punch and what happened? Dempsey was knocked down twice, once out of the ring and was helped back in by thirds.

4. Even if Willards and Firpo punched as hard as Lewis' opponents, Dempsey then faced 2 punchers, whereas Lewis faced about 10. Who is more proven?


So it doesn't exactly speak well about Dempsey that the one 200+lb puncher, whom i am not impressed by, that managed to land on him, knocked him down twice, once out of the ring.



No it is not. The top punchers Dempsey faced were in the same ballpark as the top ones Lewis faced in terms of power if nothing else.

It is a little crass to say Dempsey never fought a superheavyweight.

Oh shit he did.

Well they dont count because they look like skiless oaft on a 1920s era film. You can make any fighter look bad with a camera from that era.


He fought 2 punchers over 200lb, the one who landed knocked him down badly. The top punchers that Dempey faced in my opinion are not in the same ballpark as Lewis', and even so, Lewis faced about 10, not 2.




Being a pound for pound puncher at 245 lbs is like being a tall midget.

Smaller heavyweights are far better punchers pound for pound.


I don't really know what you mean with being a tall midget.
A tall midget suggests that you are the largest(as in most skillful) of all small guys. Lewis was the most skillful and talented of all small guys. Meaning he's p4p very skilled AND has great size to go with it.


Because any fighter in Dempseys era with championship aspirations would be training for a 20 round fight and this was reflected in their training regimes.


How often do i need to repeat this? Dempsey fought 15 , 12 and 10 rounds often enough, and didn't all of a sudden become a 216 lb Mike Tyson.
And vice versa, Mike Tyson didn't all of a sudden become a scrawny 190lb fighter when he was scheduled to fight 15 rounds.



His skills far exceed Ruiz's but he still lost to him.


I wouldn't say his skills exceed Ruiz's that far. His boxing technique may, but Ruiz has a few "skills" of his own to win fights. Ugly, but effective.




Lets say that Firpo had won the title on a DQ. He would have been a luaghing stock. It is highly unlikley that he would have been seen as a credible champion.


It was in fact Dempsey who was laughing stock, i have read newspaper articles basically calling him a cheat on how he retained the title.
There would definitly be a rematch and i doubt Firpo would have the luck of knocking him out of the ring again, but give him credit here. Knocking Dempsey down on itself was not luck.



I just wouldnt bet a penny on Ramhan winning.

I dont think you really have a verry good idea how good or bad Firpo was based on the film you have seen either.


Why are you so confident about Firpo's chances when Rahman easily accomplished more? I don't understand how you can perceive Firpo to more skilled either, he swings like most guys that come in the gym for the first time, thinking they're Mike Tyson.



Byrd walks the street at 190 lbs.

Dempsey for contrast fought at 190lbs but walked the streets at around 210.

See how things have changed?


Does he? Why would he walk the streets at 190lbs if he finished training camp (=losing weight) at 203lb? Maybe he did in his early 20's but that's about it. And Lewis walks the streets around 300lbs. So i don't really see your point.

Not to mention that no one on the planet gave Byrd a chance against Lewis. Look how he was completely dominated by Wladimir twice, who is as close to Lewis copy as you'll get.


It was you who raised the figure 210 lbs. I merely made the point that in terms of build and training regime Ali, Foreman et al are a lot more like Dempsey than they are like Lewis or Holyfield.

No, you stated that Foreman was a 210lbs fighter, not me.
At any rate, Ali and Foreman could carry 220lb without carrying much fat. Lewis carries 245lb without much fat and Holyfield carries 212lb without much fat. Dempsey carries 190lb without much fat. I don't see the comparison really.

[ChrisPontius]

I promised myself I wouldn't click on this thread because i'll only get exasperated...the first thing I see "...and Charlie Chaplin really walked like that" in response to criticism of Big Jess. So are you saying Willard just acted that clueless and inept? :lol:

The funny thing is that Dempsey does look good despite the bad film, but when Willard looks bad, all of a sudden it's the film that's wrong, not him.

[Vanboxingfan]

More than any other type of sportsfan, most boxing folk are at once torn between their inability to imagine the true reality of the past and the uncontrollable desire to compare boxers across eras. It's a nasty combination, one that tends to favor what is most recent.

It's that kind of historial relativism that makes me appreciate those historians who have taken the time to tell us just how bad, how strong, how good, and how talented the people who lived beyond our own days were.

Why would I jest? Dempsey is #7 all-time on Ring Mag's "100 Greatest Punchers of all Time." Lewis is #33. Dempsey could take a punch; Lewis was near glassy. Why WOULD'T I give an interesting historical edge to one of the all-time best punchers against one of the weaker chins in heavyweight history?!

While we're at it, Joe Louis is #1 on the puncher llist!

Dempsey was a puncher's puncher. I don't personally like him as a boxer, but I recognize what he was and what his talents were. He was a great puncher. Lennox has a poor chin. 6 might have been an overestimation, but I won't knock it down by much. I realize how good the greats were.

Nothing about being more recent than the greats from the past takes that reality away.

I'm a huge Dempsey fan but that Ring list, which I have, is a p4p list. Certainly Lewis hit harder than Dempsey in an absolute sense.

[Vanboxingfan]

I don't see the point. The New York Times also reported that Rosie Ruiz won the Boston marathon in 1980. What's the point in denegrating an entire source for discrete items?

Did you write for Ring Magazine? Are you better than their writers? Are you a better historian than Gerald Early or Stanley Crouch? Have you written more on boxing than Oates? Tell me what your point is, exactly.

If you want to cite the Ring Magazine writes, I have a Ring magazine at home that picked a prime Lewis over a prime Foreman.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. I understand how this pair were held in high regard when Lewis beat them and they are tremendous victories.

2. I do not think it is in any way out of the question that Dempsey puts these guys away in the first two rounds. Golotta was always mentaly unstable and Ruddock might have lost a bit.

3. Unlikley I think. Even at his peak Dempsey would be hell of an obstacle for Tyson to face.

4. I understand that Lewis fought safety first and that is why Dempsey woyuld make a quicker job.

5.Reckless?He could be. It depended on the oponent. Against Willard he was cautious and measured. Against Firpo he rushed straight in and it nearly cost him.

6. I suspect that he would respect Lewis enough to stay out of harms way.

7. Sure. It has to be noted however that many all time punchers are not particularly defeloped. Power is partly a neuromuscular thing.

8. How exactly do you think their punching technique was better than Willards?

9. I am hearing their technique criticised by many but no details.

10. In that case they were excelent athletes. They both had power in bucket loads if nothing else.

11. I think that Willard had as many technical tools as Bruno. I would be prepared to justify that on a comparison of footage.

12. I would also suggest that Firpo was no worse technicaly than Oscar Bonavena. Again I can justify it with film.

13. Mate the only way you can tell how hard sombody hit is to get hit by them. You cannot tell which of two fighters of similar size hit harder by their physical apearence and punching style on film. That is just nonsense.
It is perfectly possible that Tony Galento hit harder than Lennox Lewis.

14. Marciano definitely sat don on his punches better than Lewis and had far better stamina. I would say he was at least as fast as well.

15. As a pure athlete Marciano is arguably without peer among the heavyweights.

16. It is much less prevalent than it was. 3 miles is more the norm these days. Back in the days of the 45 rounders many top heavyweights were doing 14, 16, 18, 20 miles.

17. I would hate to hear all the nasty things you would say about him if the only footage of him was shot with a jerky 1920s era camera. He would probably look comical.

18. By the same logic he (Briggs) must be leagues better than Charley Burley or George Foreman.

19. I cannot think of any heavyweight champions that I know to have used it pre Holyfield. Perhaps you can?

1. Agreed

2. Not sure its a tall order to finnish Rudduck and Golota so fast - Tyson could not match it with either

3. Going toe-toe with Tyson is usually a pretty bad idea stylistically

4. We'll have to disagree on Tyson-Dempsey, maybe if Dempsey utilised modern day methods and had an extra 20lbs of muscle but even then a tough ask

5. I found him reckless against Willard

6. Dempseys style led to a kill or be or be killed type fight usually. Then again it also led to I'll try and kill you but you'll side step at through a counter and move out of harms way type fight with Tunney

7. Disagree, punchers are quite often bigger men using bigger muscles and structures. The smaller big punchers (like Dempsey) generate power by quickly turning on every muscle in the body to generate power. Lennox is 1 of the first breeds - BIG and turns on EVERY muscle into the punch - thats why hes 1 of the first true super heavies that are any good. Golota/Vitali could not turn on as much power into the punch as Lennox. HOWEVER LENNOX USED POWER SHOTS SPARINGLY FOR THE MOST PART. He would be very tactical with using power shots.

8/9. Lennox for example would sit on his punches, ie lunging with the left leg when throwing the straight right hand, turning his waist into shots. Basically applying powerpunching rules. Willard and Firpo were more arm punchers not using their full bodies into the punching motion

10. Athlete=Strength*SPEED*Leverage - Willard and Firpo were pretty damn slow.

11. No Bruno had a better jab than Willard. A better right hand. In a PSI Punchign Power test in the 80s Bruno, Foreman, Tyson all had their power tested for the right hand. Brunos was the most powerful. Bruno had good footwork for the first few rounds, he was just tense and had stamina issues later on in fights. And he was unlucky he fought in a murderous era.

12. I think Bonavena was probably a better powerpuncher, but being more skilled than him is no great feat is it?

13. Sorry BUT Bullshit. I can tell Pepp doesn't hit as hard as Tyson. Like wise I can tell when Lennox uses his whole body at great speed, utilising a huge amount of muscle mass it is a damn site more powerful than Willards sloppy slow arm punches that use far less bodymass

14. Lennox turned far more bodymass utilising his whole body in his punches. Marciano had better stamina. Lennox occasionally switched off in fights and pawed away with the jab but when he wanted or needed too he'd throw lights out punches

15. Athlete = Speed*Strength*Leverage- marciano had average speed, excellent strength and good leverage. Many were great at all 3. Now in terms of a Stamina Athlete Marciano was fantastic - speed hes clearly lacking

16. Sorry thats bullshit. If a genuine HW does 14-20miles they will great broken feet VERY fast. Not even 130lb Marathon runners do 20miles daily because of the impact it has on bones. They may have done the occasional 14-20miles.

I'm 200lbs, 6'0 of solid muscle and have done a 5miniute mile, which is very fast for my size. Suffice to say I'm fit but if I run over 6miles I'm likely to break bones in my feet.

Bare in mind training is full of bullshitting. 'Yes I benched 500lbs' (when he really benches 200lbs), 'Yes I ran 20 miles' (when he really ran 3miles).

17. Dempsey looked excellent on film, Firpo/Willard did not and would not on modern film, regardless of missing frames. Willard I concede has elements of good skill but not compared to the fighters I've listed.

18. No I actually am an admirer of Foremans punchign technique, he had the strongest foot plant I've seen at HW and this generated amazing force. I think Foreman has underated technique but obviously had nightmares with movers.

19. Well actually Chins/Press Ups/Dips are all forms of resistance training which is a variety of weight training so to some extent most have done it. Inclined Presses are more compatible to Punching than Press Ups and Dips because they follow the natural punching pathway more.

Tyson did an element of weight training, it would not be a suprise if he used steroids. Especially after prison when he used the services of Chad Nicols a reputed steroid guru & nutritionist to bodybuilders. It also would not be suprising if Tysons physchological issues did not stem from the side effects of steroid use.

I'm not sure about the ins and outs of past champions regimes. I wouldn't be suprised if Foreman lifted weights and find it likely Shavers and Lyle would have done.

[McGrain]

Firpos party trick was killing bulls by punching them in the kidneys.

Jesus, sounds like a horrible party. Can you imagine? "I brought some wine..."

[McGrain]

I have only quoted the parts that i don't agree with or have a comment on to save space:

:lol:

Yeah. Do you remember that Liston-Ali thread? Where I was using two posts to respond to some of your stuff.


Maybe i used the wrong words, but i will restate: I believe a big, talented puncher (not 'fighter', but 'puncher' - a fighter with specific talent for punching) will be a more dangerous puncher than a smaller, but p4p equally talented puncher.

There is no arguing with this of course - it's entirely accurate. But it does assume that Dempsey and Lewis punch the same % above their respective weights, which is unlikely to be the case; I agree that there is no more to be said about this but it does seem a shame - I don't think there is that much water between our positions.

For example, i believe that Tyson is a more dangerous puncher than Marciano simply because he has 30lb on him, despite that p4p they are both great punchers and scored a roughly equal amount of one-punch-KO's over opposition off roughly both their own size.

In raw terms you are right but I would say something more about this. Firstly, everything Marciano threw had a greater overall % of Marciano's total punch power commited to it making him dangerous for one reason (that everything he throws is very hard and commited) and Tyson is technically better, which makes a bigger difference - in my opinion - than size does. It's an important point that we haven't touched upon. A technically proficient fighter with 6/10 power will generally score more KO's than a technically miserable fighter with 8/10 power (crude and perhaps not entirely accurate, but you understand what I mean).

[Dempsey1238]

:lol:

Yeah. Do you remember that Liston-Ali thread? Where I was using two posts to respond to some of your stuff.




There is no arguing with this of course - it's entirely accurate. But it does assume that Dempsey and Lewis punch the same % above their respective weights, which is unlikely to be the case; I agree that there is no more to be said about this but it does seem a shame - I don't think there is that much water between our positions.



In raw terms you are right but I would say something more about this. Firstly, everything Marciano threw had a greater overall % of Marciano's total punch power commited to it making him dangerous for one reason (that everything he throws is very hard and commited) and Tyson is technically better, which makes a bigger difference - in my opinion - than size does. It's an important point that we haven't touched upon. A technically proficient fighter with 6/10 power will generally score more KO's than a technically miserable fighter with 8/10 power (crude and perhaps not entirely accurate, but you understand what I mean).

Than why did Tyson has the lower ko percent than the Rock?

[rydersonthestorm]

Perhaps becuase he fought bigger and stronger fighter's as opposed to the guys marciano face.

[McGrain]

Than why did Tyson has the lower ko percent than the Rock?

The answer to your question is answered in the post you quoted:

Everything Rocky threw he threw at 80% commitment is what I said.

Obviously the figure is not going to be spot on but you get the idea. Everything he threw he threw with bad intentions.

[Dempsey1238]

thought the post ment the more technically puncher got the higher percent, than the cruel puncher. I was sure the post ment that.

[PowerPuncher]

The answer to your question is answered in the post you quoted:

Everything Rocky threw he threw at 80% commitment is what I said.

Obviously the figure is not going to be spot on but you get the idea. Everything he threw he threw with bad intentions.

No Rocky didn't, you can't throw 80% commitment on all your punches for 1 thing because you'd be off balance. Marciano threw allot of medium power punches that were solid and painful but not devastating. fighters rarely utilise 80% of their punching power

If Rocky threw 80% commitment on his punches he'd have allot more early round KOs.

Truth be told Marciano is not as big a puncher as hes given credit for. The amount of 1 punch KOs and the long time he takes to get kos testifys to this

[McGrain]

thought the post ment the more technically puncher got the higher percent, than the cruel puncher. I was sure the post ment that.

I consider Tyson a better puncher than Marciano. Do you dispute that?

[McGrain]

No Rocky didn't, you can't throw 80% commitment on all your punches for 1 thing because you'd be off balance. Marciano threw allot of medium power punches that were solid and painful but not devastating. fighters rarely utilise 80% of their punching power

If Rocky threw 80% commitment on his punches he'd have allot more early round KOs.

Truth be told Marciano is not as big a puncher as hes given credit for. The amount of 1 punch KOs and the long time he takes to get kos testifys to this

Yeah, putting the figure upon it was a stupid thing to do.

Everything Marciano threw was hard. That's what I mean.

[Dempsey1238]

I consider Tyson a better puncher than Marciano. Do you dispute that?


Yes, Marciano broke bones in the arms, sheer off Layne's fronth teeth.

[Nemesis]

If you want to cite the Ring Magazine writes, I have a Ring magazine at home that picked a prime Lewis over a prime Foreman.

and your point is :huh

[JimboDs]

By the way, this is the second thread about Lewis that reached 15+ pages within no time. Interesting.

I can't say I'm shocked that a post arguing for the most recent (real) HW champion as the greatest of all time spurs a good deal of heated discussion.

It's really inevitable. HW boxing has a very rich history in the U.S. and it's natural that Americans will take issue with such claims. There's certainly a degree of bias, but it works both ways. I don't doubt a lot of Europeans are biased against American fighters as well (or biased in favor their best HW to date).

The case for Lewis is always the same general argument:

Fantasy Matchups

'Lewis will beat x,y,z great heavyweight because they never had to face a skilled HW of Lewis' size and would be at a disadvantage.'

Well, I see several questions/problems arising here.

First of all, that statement works both ways. Lewis never faced a fighter with the kind of offensive talent that Dempsey, Frazier, or prime Tyson possessed. He also never fought a HW with the stamina and work-rate of Marciano. I'm not looking to get caught up in a fantasy argument because they're never really all that productive. People have their favorite fighters and that's that usually. However, I will say that I think the majority of posters (myself included a good deal of the time) do not take the proper time to give a thorough analysis when it comes to fantasy fights and examine all angles. I haven't looked very hard, but I have yet to notice anyone sitting on loads of v-cash.

Also, how one defines GOAT significantly influences one's opinions. Should there be some type of relativism used, or do we go purely on who we think would win an elimination tournament if someone managed to invent a time machine?

Personally, I don't put a whole lot of stock in fantasy match-ups. Judging a fighter's greatness purely by who he could beat in his prime is a seriously lacking analysis in my opinion. I think equating a fighter's prime with his greatness is an extremely flawed approach.

I'm not saying that I don't think Lewis had a great career. He did, but based on a lot of different factors, I wouldn't rate him as an all-time great.

I think that you have to take a lot of factors into account when measuring greatness and it's certainly not a perfect science. I also think that there has to be some contemporary relativism mixed into the equation as well. Lewis can't win just because human beings are getting bigger.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Perhaps becuase he fought bigger and stronger fighter's as opposed to the guys marciano face.



Of course. Marciano just feasted on Light heavies and has-beens... Tyson just fought has-beens. :D

[roxyboxy]

It is when you have two athletes who's athleticism and competition levels are so far apart, that they aren't even in the same league.


Not everyone agrees. They certainly are within the same league.

[roxyboxy]

There is a huge difference between 6'5", 230 Lbs and 6'0", 190 Lbs.

Not to mention, size is only part of the equation. Lewis would kill Dempsey.


It's such broad-blanketed statements that I disagree with. There's more nuance in this matchup.

[McGrain]

Yes, Marciano broke bones in the arms, sheer off Layne's fronth teeth.

Tyson injured people too.

When I watch Rocky I see a very hardworking hard punching fighter throwing a lot of pretty hard punches. But as far as the likelyhood of any given combo KO ing an opponent I would pick Tyson as the more likely to score the knockout.

[rydersonthestorm]

Yeah but most of those hasbeens where pretty big and strong as oppose to 175-190 pound fighters :))

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yeah but most of those hasbeens where pretty big and strong as oppose to 175-190 pound fighters :))


No way. Don't you know that the lighter you are the far stronger you are. Roberto Duran never knocked anyone out at lightweight, it's only when he moved up to welter and middle he was sparking everyone. :p

[rydersonthestorm]

Just like kelly pavlik can ko god :)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Just like kelly pavlik can ko god :)


Pavlik KO 1 Klitschko.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Not everyone agrees. They certainly are within the same league.



Be smart. Be safe.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[roxyboxy]

Be smart. Be safe.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I really did live in the wrong era.

Holy hell, those are some sweet bells! And the hair!

Uh. Um. That came out wrong.

He's kinda got a Broadway Joe thing going on, or vice versa.

Back atcha: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mr. magoo]

Pavlik KO 1 Klitschko.

Do ya think? :lol:

[rydersonthestorm]

It wouldn't even last 1 round wlad would know that pavlik could ko god and not even turn up.

[NickHudson]

Someone observed the rate at which this thread has grown. The reason is obvious, the comment that Lennox is the GOAT is highly debatable. If the thread was Ali is the GOAT, nothing would happen except for the occasional, 'I agree' or 'correct.'

Anyhow, assuming this thread has not completely burnt out, here are my 3 main reasons why Lewis is definitely NOT the GOAT.

1) Quality of opposition defeated: '99 Holyfield is worse than '64 Liston, '74 Foreman and '73 Frazier) - therefore Lewis is inferior to Ali (and others).

2) Quality of opposition lost to: '94 McCall and 2001 Rahman are worse than '73 Foreman and '74 Ali - therefore Lewis is inferior to Frazier (and others).

*Marciano never lost, including to fighters better then '94 McCall and 2001 Rahman e.g. '52 Walcott and '51 Louis.

3) Manner of losses: One punch KO's are the most denigrating of losses. Compare how Tyson lost his title to Douglas, he went down in flames, looking for openings right to the end, despite one of the worlds worst sustained pummelings. Therefore, Lewis is inferior to Tyson.

Of course, you have to stack the 3 criteria up, and I hope some posters will have the energy to do this. Ali is better on all criteria, other ATGs such as Louis, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson, Foreman and Holmes are better on 1 or 2 criteria.

Postscript: In Lennox's favour - he aged well and had very good longevity, the total losses of 2 is very good, and he was a nice fella who did a good PR job for boxers. Plus he is non-American. But all this falls woefully short of GOATness...

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
2. Not sure its a tall order to finnish Rudduck and Golota so fast - Tyson could not match it with either


To be honest if you take any all time greats best two destructions it is going to be a tall order for another ATG to repeat them on a given day.

3. Going toe-toe with Tyson is usually a pretty bad idea stylistically

Going toe to toe with Dempsey was also a bad idea and if we are matching a shell of Tyson against a peak Dempsey full of piss and vinegar there is only going to be one outcome.


4. We'll have to disagree on Tyson-Dempsey, maybe if Dempsey utilised modern day methods and had an extra 20lbs of muscle but even then a tough ask


It is worth noting that Ray Arcel who saw both in action picked Dempsey to walk through tyson in two rounds.

Not saying he would but it is going to be a tall order for Tyson.


5. I found him reckless against Willard


The Willard fight was a measured destruction. He circled to set Willard up and only came in when he had created an opening. His punches were so efective because they were perfectly set up and thrown with absolute comitment.

Given that his entire prize purse was riding on a first round knockout he took his time.


6. Dempseys style led to a kill or be or be killed type fight usually. Then again it also led to I'll try and kill you but you'll side step at through a counter and move out of harms way type fight with Tunney


As stated Dempsey only rushed straigt in like Tyson hif he was sure he could get away with it. Otherwise he aplied a more subtle aproach.

Sounds ridiculous but Dempsey Willard was subtle.


7. Disagree, punchers are quite often bigger men using bigger muscles and structures. The smaller big punchers (like Dempsey) generate power by quickly turning on every muscle in the body to generate power. Lennox is 1 of the first breeds - BIG and turns on EVERY muscle into the punch - thats why hes 1 of the first true super heavies that are any good. Golota/Vitali could not turn on as much power into the punch as Lennox. HOWEVER LENNOX USED POWER SHOTS SPARINGLY FOR THE MOST PART. He would be very tactical with using power shots.


Sure. It must be taken into acount however that some smaller heavies like Dempsey and Marciano threw almost nothing but power shots in some fights. So even with Lewis there are some diminishing returns setting in.

8/9. Lennox for example would sit on his punches, ie lunging with the left leg when throwing the straight right hand, turning his waist into shots. Basically applying powerpunching rules. Willard and Firpo were more arm punchers not using their full bodies into the punching motion

I could give you Firpo to some extent. He did most of his work on the inside throwning shots to the head. Quite like Oscar Bonavena. However he did ocasionaly sit down on one when he had feinted a good opening. One punch he throws at Brenan that mises he has clearly comited everything to.

Willard sat down on his shots when he wanted to go for the finish or catch sombody coming in.


10. Athlete=Strength*SPEED*Leverage - Willard and Firpo were pretty damn slow.


If this logic was valid then Floyd Patterson would be the hardest puncher of all time. The fact is that some monster hitters rely on speed eg Louis Tyson, and some do not eg Liston.

11. No Bruno had a better jab than Willard.

He flicked it better but that is not the same thing. Willard landed power jabs more sparingly from the outside.

A better right hand. In a PSI Punchign Power test in the 80s Bruno, Foreman, Tyson all had their power tested for the right hand. Brunos was the most powerful.

Willard was unable to take part in this test


Bruno had good footwork for the first few rounds, he was just tense and had stamina issues later on in fights. And he was unlucky he fought in a murderous era.


Willard had good footwork for the first 25 rounds and had superb stamina later on in fights.

Both are fighters that rely on jab defence and right hand in the context of diferent eras and Willard is the better of the two.


12. I think Bonavena was probably a better powerpuncher, but being more skilled than him is no great feat is it?


No but he was sucesfull in the toughest era in the history of the heavyweight division. Those south american fighters are a little rough around the edges but their style works.


13. Sorry BUT Bullshit. I can tell Pepp doesn't hit as hard as Tyson. Like wise I can tell when Lennox uses his whole body at great speed, utilising a huge amount of muscle mass it is a damn site more powerful than Willards sloppy slow arm punches that use far less bodymass


No you can't

Nobody yet has found a wasy to determine which of two punchers hits harder based on the size of their biceps and technique on camera and I doubt that you will be the first. Believe me many have tried.

The two hardest punchers in the history of the welterweight division are probably Tommy Hearns and Joe Walcott. You couldn't fingd two more diferent fighters physicaly.

16. Sorry thats bullshit. If a genuine HW does 14-20miles they will great broken feet VERY fast. Not even 130lb Marathon runners do 20miles daily because of the impact it has on bones. They may have done the occasional 14-20miles.

That is what fighters like Maher, Fitzsimmons and Jeffries did while training for a title fight. I asure you it is verry well documented. I can show you their training regimes if you want.


I'm 200lbs, 6'0 of solid muscle and have done a 5miniute mile, which is very fast for my size. Suffice to say I'm fit but if I run over 6miles I'm likely to break bones in my feet.


Might just be a problem with your feet. Not everybody is built for runing these kind of distances. I know I am not.


Bare in mind training is full of bullshitting. 'Yes I benched 500lbs' (when he really benches 200lbs), 'Yes I ran 20 miles' (when he really ran 3miles).


In alot of cases it is coroborated by independent sources such as journalists atending trainig camp. Bib Fitzsimmons advised his protiges to run 14 miles a day.


17. Dempsey looked excellent on film, Firpo/Willard did not and would not on modern film, regardless of missing frames. Willard I concede has elements of good skill but not compared to the fighters I've listed.


They will not look excelent but you will start to see hiden elements to their game.

I could show you a film where Gene Tunney looks awsome and an earlier film where he looks awfull.


18. No I actually am an admirer of Foremans punchign technique, he had the strongest foot plant I've seen at HW and this generated amazing force. I think Foreman has underated technique but obviously had nightmares with movers.


He threw a few arm punches as well. I think that if it was filmed with a Charlie Chaplin era camera it would be verry easy to dismiss as crude.


19. Well actually Chins/Press Ups/Dips are all forms of resistance training which is a variety of weight training so to some extent most have done it. Inclined Presses are more compatible to Punching than Press Ups and Dips because they follow the natural punching pathway more.


Some fighters have toyed with chin ups. Archie Moore used them extensively. Many top fighters of the pre war era and beyond did no resistence training at all as far as I can see.

Inclined preses are good for developing power but then so is hitting the heavy bag.


Tyson did an element of weight training, it would not be a suprise if he used steroids. Especially after prison when he used the services of Chad Nicols a reputed steroid guru & nutritionist to bodybuilders. It also would not be suprising if Tysons physchological issues did not stem from the side effects of steroid use.


I could certainly believe it but still we are talking late 80 early 90s by the time bulking up is the fashion.


I'm not sure about the ins and outs of past champions regimes. I wouldn't be suprised if Foreman lifted weights and find it likely Shavers and Lyle would have done.


I don't know about those three. I certainly have no sources suggesting that a champion before the late 80s used weights.

[dmt]

Popwerpuncher, if u belive that a 35 yr old Tyson could beat a peak Dempsey, then sorry, u r being very biased.

[janitor]

The funny thing is that Dempsey does look good despite the bad film, but when Willard looks bad, all of a sudden it's the film that's wrong, not him.

It is a matter of degrees. If you watch Dempsey in real time or late in his career he looks a lot better than early in his career in the unedited film.

I could show you two films of a given fighter where they looked superb in one and prety amateurish in an earlier film.

So yes the quality of the film is an issue. You can't get round it.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]I have to disagree here, on both accounts. Ali (in his prime) was a lighting quick punches who landed sharp punches on any opponent and while they never saw them coming and were suprised, they were rarely knocked down. Why? Because Ali was not a hard puncher. Neither was Tunney, at lightheavyweight. Nor at heavyweight.


If you are right then you have just made the case that Tunney was a hard puncher because he knockea a lot of people down and out.

In practice though master boxers like Walcott and Charles score a lot of knockdowns because they are unpredictable.


Johnson, Sanders and Williams were ranked contenders. That's 3-2 (3) if we include the losses. Like i said, his record is deceiving because of injuries.


The whole point of boxing is to inflict injuries. A stopage due to cuts or even a torn rotator cuff is as valid as a stopage due to a broken jaw.

As for Johnson, Sanders and Williams they were ranked but that is a prety sorry reflection on the state of the division. Williams should never have been ranked and Johnson is borderline at best.


I honestly do think so. Question is could Dempsey get rid of Ruddock, Golota, Grant and Rahman as quick as Lewis did? He never proved himself against big talented men like that.


But you see he did.

You just say that any big men he beat dont count so it is a loose loose situation. Some of Lewis's big talented men look awfull enough without the Charlie Chaplin era film.

I am going to have to call you more directly on this since your thesis depends on the asumption that all the big men Demmpsey beat don't count. I suggest you post some footage and give a breakdown of how this is so.

So you would put money on Lewis to get rid of Fred Fulton or Carl Morris in under a minute?

That would be quite a gamble.

Why is that? Willard killed a man. Well that's nice, but take into account that people back then fought under shit circumstances. Not to mention that they were fucking sadists. Have Lewis fight those lightheavies and cruiserweights with small gloves and sadistic referees and i wouldn't be suprised if someone was put to sleep forever as well.

Bull Young was not much smaller than Willard and look at the way he was killed.

I have not personaly been able to find another instence of a mans neck being broken with an uppercut in a profesional fight.


Anyway, even if we agreed that Willard and Firpo punch as hard as some of Lewis' hardest punching opponents, take into account:

1. Firpo and Willard both had absolutely horrible delivery. Firpo telegraphed his punches like hell


since most of them were thrown on the inside it would have been verry hard to time and predict them. Firpo was verry much a mauler type of fighter who relied on hooks and uppercuts in close.

I would also add that both Willard and Firpo feinted prety well. An art entirley alien to most of the talented big men Lewis fought.


Say what you will about Briggs (for instance), shitty defense, no stamina, but his hands are fast as hell, as well as heavy. Ruddock, Golota, Tua, Klitschko, Tyson, Grant, Bruno etc all had much, much better boxing skills and therefore better ability to land their punches.


Willard clearly had better defence than Briggs and better overall boxing skills. He was probably a much more complete package than Frank Bruno.

Some direct comparisons here would be interesting.


4. Even if Willards and Firpo punched as hard as Lewis' opponents, Dempsey then faced 2 punchers, whereas Lewis faced about 10. Who is more proven?


What makes you think that These are the only two punchers Dempsey faced?

Carl Morris was a heavy hitter of 220lbs

Fred Fulton was a knockout artist well over 200lbs with range and good boxing skills.

Gunboat Smith although small was probably the equal of Herbie Hide as a puncher.

Bill Brenan was not exactly feather fisted.

Billy Miske was something of a knockout artist as well.

Dempsey beat at least 6 noted punchers over 200 lbs (I exclude Dan Flyn who was not noted as a puncher) and had an aditional 7 wins over fighters known as punchers (Bill Brenan came in at 197 for one of their fights and often came in over 200).

He fought 2 punchers over 200lb, the one who landed knocked him down badly.

You seem to be obsesed with the figure 200lbs. It is almost as if you would give Dempsey more credit for taking Hasim Ramhan's punches than you would for taking those of Joe Louis at 197lbs. Being hit by a 199lb puncher can feel a lot like being hit by a 200lb puncher.

A 175lb puncher who knows how to set up their punches id worth half a dozen Hasim Ramhans.


I don't really know what you mean with being a tall midget.
A tall midget suggests that you are the largest(as in most skillful) of all small guys. Lewis was the most skillful and talented of all small guys. Meaning he's p4p very skilled AND has great size to go with it.


I mean that bigger fighters are by definition worse pound for pound. Being the best superheavyweight pound puts you quite near to the bottom of the pound for pound pyramid.


How often do i need to repeat this? Dempsey fought 15 , 12 and 10 rounds often enough, and didn't all of a sudden become a 216 lb Mike Tyson.
And vice versa, Mike Tyson didn't all of a sudden become a scrawny 190lb fighter when he was scheduled to fight 15 rounds.


Presumably they trained for the key career fights that would define their sucess. 12 rounders in tysons case, 20 rounders in Dempseys.

You seem to have trouble accepting that the distence of fights had any bearing on training regime.


I wouldn't say his skills exceed Ruiz's that far. His boxing technique may, but Ruiz has a few "skills" of his own to win fights. Ugly, but effective.



It was in fact Dempsey who was laughing stock, i have read newspaper articles basically calling him a cheat on how he retained the title.


I think whoever had walked away with the title that day would have been exposed to criticism.

Regardless of the outcome the fight leaves little doubt who the better fighter was. Today Dempsey would have won by TKO in the first round due to the three knockdown rule.


There would definitly be a rematch and i doubt Firpo would have the luck of knocking him out of the ring again, but give him credit here. Knocking Dempsey down on itself was not luck.


there was a lot of luck.

If Dempsey had taken that blow in ring centre he would not have been knocked out of the ring and hit his head on a typewriter.

If journalists lifted Dempsey back into the ring without prompting from him or his corner so the foul was theirs not his.

If Firpo had fought Dempsey 100 times that is probably the best he could have managed.


Why are you so confident about Firpo's chances when Rahman easily accomplished more? I don't understand how you can perceive Firpo to more skilled either, he swings like most guys that come in the gym for the first time, thinking they're Mike Tyson.


He has the power to take Ramhan out and the style to put the hurt on him. I think it would be a pick em fight especialy with a liberal reff.


Does he? Why would he walk the streets at 190lbs if he finished training camp (=losing weight) at 203lb? Maybe he did in his early 20's but that's about it. And Lewis walks the streets around 300lbs. So i don't really see your point.


My point is that Byrd is a modern fleshing out of Gene Tunney and that Lewis is a modern fleshing out of Fred Fulton for want of a better comparison. Same type of fighter under a verry diferent training regime.


No, you stated that Foreman was a 210lbs fighter, not me.


I stated that three seperate fighters were 210lbs so it is going to be an approximation. I will say 215 if you wnat but you are being more than picky.


At any rate, Ali and Foreman could carry 220lb without carrying much fat. Lewis carries 245lb without much fat and Holyfield carries 212lb without much fat. Dempsey carries 190lb without much fat. I don't see the comparison really.


The comparison is that Dempsey is built like a sprinter at 190 (a weight which Hollyfield fought at) while Holyfield is built like a weightlifter at 210.

Will you not even acknowledge the diference between Dempsey and the heavyweight version of Holyfield in terms of training practice?

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]Because Holyfield was 215lbs of ripped to the bone muscle with less bodyfat than dempsey.


Are you saying that if the cruiserweight Holyfield had fought Lewis that he would just have been crushed?

That the muscle he aded in the gym made the diference between a competitive fight and Holyfield geting swept aside in a couple of rounds?

Are you saying that the cruiserweight Holyfields chin would just have folded under Lewis's power?

If the answer to the above is no then your argument that Lewis would sweep aside any 185lb fighter with ease is manifestly contradictory.

[rydersonthestorm]

Well if he didn't have the extra strength and muscle, lennox would have just shifted him all round the ring, at 190 he ws not strong enough to match up with lewis.

[ChrisPontius]

Are you saying that if the cruiserweight Holyfield had fought Lewis that he would just have been crushed?



Yes, i believe he would've.


And guess what, so did Holyfield. Because he knew he needed the extra weight to compete with the big boys and added it.


Bowe-Holyfield I was at the time seen as a case of a big skilled man beating a smaller skilled man, simply as that.

Holyfield added another 10lb and beat Bowe in the rematch.




As to your other post, i think it's going nowhere. If you keep insisting on Firpo and Willard being more skilled than the punchers than Lewis faced, calling Willard better technically than Bruno and Firpo more skilled than Rahman (as bad as he is), calling Billy Miske, a freaking lightheavyweight with a 33% knockout ratio (!!) a "knockout artist", then i'm afraid nothing can convince you, except for taking off rose colored glasses.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Yes, i believe he would've.

And guess what, so did Holyfield. Because he knew he needed the extra weight to compete with the big boys and added it.


So how do you see this fight going?

Cruiser Holyfield vs Bowe and Lewis

[janitor]

Well if he didn't have the extra strength and muscle, lennox would have just shifted him all round the ring, at 190 he ws not strong enough to match up with lewis.

Willard had the strength to shift Dempsey around the ring and did but look how much good it did him.

[rydersonthestorm]

Yes but lewis already beat holyfield when he had more weight, so a smaller holyfield is in big trouble. Also lewis used is size to his advantage as you have already said he is the best super heavyweight ever.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]
As to your other post, i think it's going nowhere. If you keep insisting on Firpo and Willard being more skilled than the punchers than Lewis faced,


Not all of them. But they could do a few things that they couldn't.

calling Willard better technically than Bruno and Firpo more skilled than Rahman (as bad as he is),

I argued the former but not the later.

Willard is a more complete package than Bruno.

Ramhan is more skilled than Firpo in most respects but could well loose to him.

calling Billy Miske, a freaking lightheavyweight with a 33% knockout ratio (!!) a "knockout artist",

Billy Miske (who was a cruiserweight at his peak) started out his career as a Tunney style boxer but morphed into a knockout artist later in his career as his health declined. Look how his knockout rate changes at the begining of 1920.

[My dinner with Conteh]

little man syndrome.

[janitor]

little man syndrome.

This seems to be the crux of your counterargument.

Did Mickey Walker have little man syndrome?

[McGrain]

little man syndrome.


How important is size to you?

To me, it matters, but it's just another significant thing for an opponent to get over. Like a world class jab or great cutting skills.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I was talking about you.

[My dinner with Conteh]

How important is size to you?


When a fighter has a better boxing skills and outweighs a fighter by 40 pounds and is in very good shape, it's extremely important. Yes, in short: a good big un beats a good little un as has been well documented. Of course a good little un (Dempsey) can beat an average big un (Willard) and great little uns can overcome good big un's.

Little un's are best adopting a stick and move approach (like Griffith did with Tiger and Tiger did with Torres) or they'll come unstuck far more than they'd be successful. This is obvious, really.


ps. I don't mind discussing this with you or some others, but not that midget. :good

[rydersonthestorm]

What happned to your points about holyfield janitor?

[janitor]

What happned to your points about holyfield janitor?

I would suggest that the cruiserweight Hollyfield-

A. Would probably beat the heavyweight Holyfield.

B. Would not do as well against the Bowe and Lewis as the heavyweight version but would be highly competitive against them.

C. Might not have lost to Michael Moorer.

D. Would not have had heart problems.

E. Would have beaten Tyson both times.

[mr. magoo]

If Dempsey were to fight Lewis, it wouldn't be as though he were facing a big journeyman or bum. He would be squaring off with a very talented natural heavyweight with better than average boxing ability, chin, power, stamina and ring generalship. Lewis would also have nearly 5 inches and as much as 40 to 50 Lbs in weight. Dempsey was an aggressive fast starter with very fine tuned puncher's skills. I simply don't see him being very effective against Lewis though.

[McGrain]

Little un's are best adopting a stick and move approach (like Griffith did with Tiger and Tiger did with Torres) or they'll come unstuck far more than they'd be successful. This is obvious, really.

Griffith, though, was surprised at how well he did in the clinches, and remarked upon it. Moving throught the entire fight seemed the greater of the two evils to him though, and I think I understand why. Tiger almost always caught and decisioned those guys (or was astonished when he failed to do so). Moving was only a part of that fights equation.

[McGrain]

If Dempsey were to fight Lewis, it wouldn't be as though he were facing a big journeyman or bum. He would be squaring off with a very talented natural heavyweight with better than average boxing ability, chin, power, stamina and ring generalship. Lewis would also have nearly 5 inches and as much as 40 to 50 Lbs in weight. Dempsey was an aggressive fast starter with very fine tuned puncher's skills. I simply don't see him being very effective against Lewis though.

I pick Lewis, but I think the deciding factor is Lewis' infighting skills, especially against smaller men, not size as a deciding, or even major factor.

[mr. magoo]

I would suggest that the cruiserweight Hollyfield-

A. Would probably beat the heavyweight Holyfield.

B. Would not do as well against the Bowe and Lewis as the heavyweight version but would be highly competitive against them.

C. Might not have lost to Michael Moorer.

D. Would not have had heart problems.

E. Would have beaten Tyson both times.


This seems like a thinly veiled attempt at trying to imply that 190 pound Dempsey would do just as well or better in a modern heavyweight division as Holyfield actually did.

Am I correct?

[mr. magoo]

I pick Lewis, but I think the deciding factor is Lewis' infighting skills, especially against smaller men, not size as a deciding, or even major factor.

Fair enough,

[janitor]

This seems like a thinly veiled attempt at trying to imply that 190 pound Dempsey would do just as well or better in a modern heavyweight division as Holyfield actually did.

Am I correct?

No. It is a naked and shamlesly unveiled atempt to imply that 190lb Dempsey would have dominated a modern heavyweight division.

[mr. magoo]

No. It is a naked and shamlesly unveiled atempt to imply that 190lb Dempsey would have dominated a modern heavyweight division.

I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

[janitor]

ps. I don't mind discussing this with you or some others, but not that midget. :good

If you are a midget and have rose coloured vision do you qualify for a disability alowence?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Griffith, though, was surprised at how well he did in the clinches, and remarked upon it. Moving throught the entire fight seemed the greater of the two evils to him though, and I think I understand why. Tiger almost always caught and decisioned those guys (or was astonished when he failed to do so). Moving was only a part of that fights equation.


But Griffith deliberatly changed his fighting style when taking on Tiger, based on two previous fights at middleweight when he was more aggressive: Carter and Don Fullmer, which he lost, one by easy knockout. Tiger then changed his style when taking on Torres. Both with success. Why? Well, it's obvious.


ps. Also, when fighters jump up in weight, they more often than not actually weigh around the same as their opponent (as we all know of course), whereas Dempsey would be outweighed by 30-40 pounds. That's a huge difference against a fighter of Lewis's calibre.

[rydersonthestorm]

lol, i like your posts and respect you defending the older fighter's but i think a all time great lewis with his size advantage is a favourite against most all time great heavyweights and defo smaller ones like dempsey and marciano.

[janitor]

I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

For whatever it is worth Ray Arcel was of the same opinion.

[McGrain]

But Griffith deliberatly changed his fighting style when taking on Tiger, based on two previous fights at middleweight when he was more aggressive: Carter and Don Fullmer, which he lost, one by easy knockout. Tiger then changed his style when taking on Torres. Both with success. Why? Well, it's obvious.

I think that Griffith-Tiger is a very interesting fight to pick, probably the most interesting. Griffith did utilise traditinal methods for moving up that you've described, but he also didn't run from the type of confrontation that some othere might have (especially v a monster like Tiger). Of course Griffith is a unique case - a WW with the upper bod of a MW, if you like.




ps. Also, when fighters jump up in weight, they more often than not actually weigh around the same as their opponent (as we all know of course), whereas Dempsey would be outweighed by 30-40 pounds. That's a huge difference against a fighter of Lewis's calibre.

Dempsey is another interesting case. I have to tell you that i feel Dempsey would have a very serious chance against heavier opponents, even Lewis, because of his style. Rhthym breaking, difficult to time, in and under with great power.

When it comes down to it, for me Lewis-Demspey wouldn't be decided primarily by size, more by the overall package that was Lewis (who was really good at fighting big).

[mr. magoo]

For whatever it is worth Ray Arcel was of the same opinion.

With all due respect to Ray Arcel,

he trained a lot of fighters from the early part of the 20th century, making him likely to be more partial towards those men.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Popwerpuncher, if u belive that a 35 yr old Tyson could beat a peak Dempsey, then sorry, u r being very biased.


He isn't. Dempsey doesn't match that well against modern greats and that's that. He's too small- and, as has been well-documented on here, I am clearly no fan of Tyson. You'll notice that Dempsey is one name that finishes lower and lower on all-time great lists as the years go by... except by fellas who are about 100 years old and were awed by him in the 1920s- and midgets. :good

[janitor]

lol, i like your posts and respect you defending the older fighter's but i think a all time great lewis with his size advantage is a favourite against most all time great heavyweights and defo smaller ones like dempsey and marciano.

I am in no doubt that Lewis was an all time great and top 10 all time heavyweight.

He was none the less beatable by other top 10 heavyweights including some that were under the cruiserweight limit. Remember we are talking about the real maestros of heavyweight boxing here.

Joe Louis is an obvious example of a heavyweight under 200lbs who could beat anybody because his asets were so comprehensive. Would you honestly put down money against Louis beating anybody?

Even if we go smaller we still find fighters who not only have the punching prowes to take him out quickly but the mobility to implement it. I am not just talking about Dempsey. I would honestly give Sam Langford a good shot at knocking out Lewis.

[janitor]

He isn't. Dempsey doesn't match that well against modern greats and that's that. He's too small- and, as has been well-documented on here, I am clearly no fan of Tyson. You'll notice that Dempsey is one name that finishes lower and lower on all-time great lists as the years go by... except by fellas who are about 100 years old and were awed by him in the 1920s- and midgets. :good

Could it be that the midgets who actualy saw him fight are dying off?

As the years go by people become less able to acurately asess him because there are less people who have seen him or fought him.

You should not hold it as any vindication that this limited stock concour with your revisionis theories.

[mr. magoo]

He isn't. Dempsey doesn't match that well against modern greats and that's that. He's too small- and, as has been well-documented on here, I am clearly no fan of Tyson. You'll notice that Dempsey is one name that finishes lower and lower on all-time great lists as the years go by... except by fellas who are about 100 years old and were awed by him in the 1920s- and midgets. :good

I agree,

Even a 35 year old Tyson was still demolishing full sized modern heavyweights in Andrew Golata, Lou Savarese and Frans Botha. Not to mention, took some of Lewis's better shots for at least 8 rounds and even rocked him at one point. I firmly believe that This was likely more than Dempsey would accomplish, and especially considering that he was done by age 32.

[janitor]

With all due respect to Ray Arcel,

he trained a lot of fighters from the early part of the 20th century, making him likely to be more partial towards those men.

You always have to watch out for that with a trainer. That dosnt however mean you should ignore them entirley.

Arcel maintained that Dempsey, Louis and Ali were the three best heavyweights he had ever seen up untill his death.

While he declined to choose between them he said that Dempsey was the most complete of the three and the best ofensive puncher he had ever seen.

[mr. magoo]

You always have to watch out for that with a trainer. That dosnt however mean you should ignore them entirley.

Arcel maintained that Dempsey, Louis and Ali were the three best heavyweights he had ever seen up untill his death.

While he declined to choose between them he said that Dempsey was the most complete of the three and the best ofensive puncher he had ever seen.

Could very well have been the case.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think that Griffith-Tiger is a very interesting fight to pick, probably the most interesting.


I thought i'd pick one where the little guy did well, I could have picked Monzon-Napoles and said "Here's what generally happens when good big un meets good little un'. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

Could very well have been the case.


Fighters, trainers, fans and the like always vote for the guy from their era. Just like a fan from the 1980s would do. However, when it comes down to it: a good big un wins out far more often than not, boxing history has shown us that.

[mr. magoo]

Fighters, trainers, fans and the like always vote for the guy from their era.

I agree.

This is why I've always felt that Nat Feischer's ratings were biased. If he were living today, I'm not so sure he'd have Lennox Lewis or Muhammad Ali in his top 5.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I agree.

This is why I've always felt that Nat Feischer's ratings were biased. If he were living today, I'm not so sure he'd have Lennox Lewis or Muhammad Ali in his top 5.


He wouldn't. Although I'm interested when he compares, say, fighters from 1912 to ones from 1925 (for example) because they're close enough eras.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Again, I can respect old timers (despite their oft bias) in rating, say, Greb above Robinson, as we know there's a limit (e.g. 160 pounds). But it's clearly different for heavyweights.

[mr. magoo]

Again, I can respect old timers (despite their oft bias) in rating, say, Greb above Robinson, as we know there's a limit (e.g. 160 pounds). But it's clearly different for heavyweights.

I here what you're saying.

In all honesty, like all fight fans I have the tendency to be a bit biased myself. I'm often partial to fighters like Ali, Holmes, Tyson, and Holyfield over that of Lewis, Bowe, and Klitschko. Nevertheless, I try my best to give every champion of every era his rightful dues and keep in mind that they're all unique. It has taken some time, but I'm finally starting to appreciate Wladimir Klitschko for his accomplishements. I think he may actually turn out to be a well rememberered fighter in a few decades, assuming that he continues to win now.

[ChrisPontius]

So how do you see this fight going?

Cruiser Holyfield vs Bowe and Lewis

Like Holyfield-Bowe I but this Holyfield not lasting the difference. And he won't have the succes in outjabbing Lewis like he had against Bowe.

I agree that he would not have likely had those "heart" problems against Moorer and Bowe III without bulking up, but so be it.


Oh, and a 190lb Holyfield definitly gets obliterated by Tyson.
The main reason that Holyfield beat Tyson was because of physical strength. Everytime Tyson came close during the first 5 rounds, Holyfield would duck and tie Tyson up, push him back, etc. Do you honestly believe that a 190lb Holyfield would be as strong as the 212lb weight trained Holyfield? He also seems to be more durable and punched a little bit harder.

All essential against Tyson, because he did take a lot of hard shots during the first 6 rounds. The knockdown seemed to turn the tide a bit.

[dmt]

He isn't. Dempsey doesn't match that well against modern greats and that's that. He's too small- and, as has been well-documented on here, I am clearly no fan of Tyson. You'll notice that Dempsey is one name that finishes lower and lower on all-time great lists as the years go by... except by fellas who are about 100 years old and were awed by him in the 1920s- and midgets. :goodHe was not. Dempsey has slipped on lists but so has many others. In 50 years time people might lower Ali. He wasn't too small to compete with modern greats and he has a chance vs anyone at his best. The fact that people belive Jones could beat Dempsey and Marciano is clearly a joke. He had all the talent to compete with anyone.

[mr. magoo]

He was not. Dempsey has slipped on lists but so has many others. In 50 years time people might lower Ali. He wasn't too small to compete with modern greats and he has a chance vs anyone at his best. The fact that people belive Jones could beat Dempsey and Marciano is clearly a joke. He had all the talent to compete with anyone.


Why in your opinion, is it a joke that Roy Jones could beat Dempsey?

[McGrain]

Why in your opinion, is it a joke that Roy Jones could beat Dempsey?

Jones is vulnerable to pig punchers. It's unlikely you'll find a bigger one between 180 and 190. Dempsey is also a good composite puncher, accurate, unpredictable and aggressive. Jones astounding reflexes might keep him alive early, but he'll get hit very hard in the face at some point and probably won't recover.

I'm not one for OTT pronouncements BUT - Jones has literally no chance.

[dmt]

Why in your opinion, is it a joke that Roy Jones could beat Dempsey?Yes it is. I know Jones was a great fighter from middle to light-heavy but he does not beat Dempsey or Marciano for that matter. Again if someone said a modern great like Lewis could beat Dempsey, then fine, that's reasonable. But to try to make Roy into some sort of all time great heavy who could take Dempsey or Marciano is clearly not logical. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's fine and i know alot of the old timers are biased but many modern fans are biased too. I guess everyone is biased to a certain extent, some more so then others. And while a prime Tyson may be able to beat Dempsey, a 35 year old one does not. You are entitled to what you belive, fine, i can respect that.

[mr. magoo]

Yes it is. I know Jones was a great fighter from middle to light-heavy but he does not beat Dempsey or Marciano for that matter. Again if someone said a modern great like Lewis could beat Dempsey, then fine, that's reasonable. But to try to make Roy into some sort of all time great heavy who could take Dempsey or Marciano is clearly not logical. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's fine and i know alot of the old timers are biased but many modern fans are biased too. I guess everyone is biased to a certain extent, some more so then others. And while a prime Tyson may be able to beat Dempsey, a 35 year old one does not. You are entitled to what you belive, fine, i can respect that.

I didn't say that I believed anything in my last post. I'll repeat my question: Why in your opinion, is it a joke that Roy Jones could beat Dempsey?

[dmt]

I didn't say that I believed anything in my last post. I'll repeat my question: Why in your opinion, is it a joke that Roy Jones could beat Dempsey?yes, it is. He has no chance, that's what i believe.

[mr. magoo]

yes, it is. He has no chance, that's what i believe.


Apparently, there are some language barriers here.

WHY do you feel that it's a joke?

Does that clear things up?

[dmt]

And 6'1 190 lb is no midget. So he was 15 pounds lighter then Frazier, i will agree that it's a pretty big difference but not so much. Anyone who thinks that because of their size Dempsey or Marciano could not compete in the modern era needs to re think.

If u think logically, the only 6'4 plus 230 lb great is Lewis who has a great case to be an atg top 10 and is so in my book. On the other hand Bowe is one who is top 20 or 30. Other then that the likes of Vitaly, McLine, Peter, whoever will not go down as all time greats. Again size is an advantage but not to the extent people make it out to be.

When i see big slow heavyweights lumbering around (not Lewis or Bowe since they had skill) i really wander the beatings they would have taken from past greats even if they were cruisers like Dempsey, Louis, or Marciano

[dmt]

Apparently, there are some language barriers here.

WHY do you feel that it's a joke?

Does that clear things up?Because he does not have the power to knock Dempsey out or the agression, and while he could do well for a few rounds, he does not have the durability to stand up to Dempsey, it's as simple as that IMO. And he cannot escape him for the entire fight.

I respect Roy's abilites and he was a gifted fighter but he doesn't beat Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, or Frazier as it has been repeatedly claimed on here

[mr. magoo]

I don't know why I keep wasting my time.

[dmt]

I don't know why I keep wasting my time.i guess we disagree on so much there is no need to argue, we just think completely differently, that's fine.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=dmt]Because he does not have the power to knock Dempsey out or the agression, and while he could do well for a few rounds, he does not have the durability to stand up to Dempsey, it's as simple as that IMO. And he cannot escape him for the entire fight.



So are you more or less saying that the key factor is size and strength in this matchup?

[dmt]

[quote]


So are you more or less saying that the key factor is size and strength in this matchup?no offense but if we keep going on this, this debate will not go anywhere. I think i've posted in this thread long enough and i've gotta go. I am too tired to argue anymore.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=mr. magoo]no offense but if we keep going on this, this debate will not go anywhere. I think i've posted in this thread long enough and i've gotta go. I am too tired to argue anymore.

Agreed

[McGrain]

So are you more or less saying that the key factor is size and strength in this matchup?


Composite punching for me.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Like Holyfield-Bowe I but this Holyfield not lasting the difference.

Why should it not last the distence?

It is not like Holyfield will sudenly become china chined.

Ironicaly he might do better because he would rely more on outboxing Bowe but would be faster and would not tire down the line.


I agree that he would not have likely had those "heart" problems against Moorer and Bowe III without bulking up, but so be it.


And hopefully he would have farthered less ilegitimate children as well.


Oh, and a 190lb Holyfield definitly gets obliterated by Tyson.
The main reason that Holyfield beat Tyson was because of physical strength. Everytime Tyson came close during the first 5 rounds, Holyfield would duck and tie Tyson up, push him back, etc. Do you honestly believe that a 190lb Holyfield would be as strong as the 212lb weight trained Holyfield? He also seems to be more durable and punched a little bit harder.


You make two asumptions

1. Hollyfield needs to be stronger than Tyson to neutralize him in the clinches.

2. Hollyfield will be weaker than Tyson at 190lbs.

Neither is necisarily the case. There are a lot of cases of much smaller fighters neutralizing larger fighters in the clinches and preventing them from neutralizing them.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Like Holyfield-Bowe I but this Holyfield not lasting the difference.


Yes of course. Holy realised the main thing he need to do to beat Bowe was put on extra poundage (by hook or by crook ;) ), that's why the rematch was different. In the first fight he was hurt badly, trading with a much heavier guy proved fatal.

[rydersonthestorm]

I would bet my life that a 212 pound holyfield is stronger than a 190 pound one otherwise why would he have put on the muscle to fight guy's like tyson and bowe. Come on mate be realistic if it wasn't in his intrests to do it holyfield would not have put 20 pounds of muscle on.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I would bet my life that a 212 pound holyfield is stronger than a 190 pound one otherwise why would he have put on the muscle to fight guy's like tyson and bowe. Come on mate be realistic if it wasn't in his intrests to do it holyfield would not have put 20 pounds of muscle on.


It's getting embarrassing isn't it. Despite what Holyfield's team thought, they must have made all the wrong decisions, you know with their years of experince working with fighters that put on weright to challenge other fighters. They obviously knew nothing. :lol:

[rydersonthestorm]

I respect that guys views on alot of stuff but saying a 190 pound holyfield is stronger than a 212 pound holyfield is just insane, it's not like put on 20 pounds of fat, holyfield was one of the best conditions fighters ever.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I respect that guys views on alot



I don't. He's exasperating. He obviously knows his stuff and his opinion when comparing fighters from the 1920 and 1930s, etc is valid. But he simply has 'little man syndrome'. Honestly, I was going to start a thread under a new pseudonym called "Jimmy Wilde vs Vitali Klitschko". Knowing he'd come on and say "...if Wilde couls stay away for four rounds....etc etc." He's that bad. I knew just by his posts he was obviously a small fry (I know a bloke exactly like him: Appo. It really is uncanny). He's the same.

[ChrisPontius]

Why should it not last the distence?

It is not like Holyfield will sudenly become china chined.



Not china chinned, but seeing as to how easily he got hurt by Bowe in their first fight, despite outlanding Bowe by something 2:1, i don't want to imagine what happened if he was even smaller. However, we KNOW what happened when he was a little bigger: he beat Bowe.




Ironicaly he might do better because he would rely more on outboxing Bowe but would be faster and would not tire down the line.



This statement makes it clear to me that you've never boxed. And that is not to disrespect you or anything, but: you seem to think "well if he's lighter he'll need to move less weight so he'll tire less fast".
Which is 100% true.



.... if you're shadow boxing.

When you're fighting a guy who has 30 lbs on you, it tires you out insanely fast, you need to be focused at all time, move in and out really quick, watch out to be cornered, notice that two of your punches do less than one of his to you , etc....
If you're fighting someone that much bigger then it pays off to bulk up yourself because you have the above stated problems to a smaller extend.
Why do you think Chris Byrd bulked up? To look more intimidating?



You make two asumptions

1. Hollyfield needs to be stronger than Tyson to neutralize him in the clinches.

2. Hollyfield will be weaker than Tyson at 190lbs.

Neither is necisarily the case. There are a lot of cases of much smaller fighters neutralizing larger fighters in the clinches and preventing them from neutralizing them.

This is again not putting things into perspective.

You're used to Tyson being bossed around in the clinches.

But he did it for a reason: because he was a small guy. He was always fighting 6'3-6'5 230lb opponents which obviously makes him look (and be) less strong. He choose to rest and not waste energy on wrestling a bigger guy around that leans on you.
So just because they did it you assume a lightheavyweight or cruiserweight can do it. Well, i strongly doubt that. I'm sure i don't need to remind you how many seconds an all time great, undefeated light heavyweight lasted with him. Compare that to the succes Tunney had against Marciano. He had only a 10lb weight step to overcome, Spinks had a 40lbs gap. That tends to take something out of you durability and power wise.

[ChrisPontius]

I did have a good laugh in this thread though.




Yet again, a Dempsey fan says "No, Jack Dempsey was waay to big, RJJ has ZERO chance with him" etc. That's a 15lbs weight advantage.



Then Lewis has a 45lbs weight advantage on Dempsey, but instead of having 3 times the "zero chance" that Roy Jones has, Dempsey will knock Lewis out because he knocked out a 37 year old skill less Willard, etc.....

[roxyboxy]

Regardless, I still think Willie Shoemaker has a chance against Dempsey.

And that is all.

[Luigi1985]

I did have a good laugh in this thread though.




Yet again, a Dempsey fan says "No, Jack Dempsey was waay to big, RJJ has ZERO chance with him" etc. That's a 15lbs weight advantage.



Then Lewis has a 45lbs weight advantage on Dempsey, but instead of having 3 times the "zero chance" that Roy Jones has, Dempsey will knock Lewis out because he knocked out a 37 year old skill less Willard, etc.....


There is also a limit, otherwise we could also say that Lewis would be too weak pysically against Valuev or so. At a weight, I say spontaneous ca. 200 lbs, upward, there aren´t that many differences like in the lower weights, where every lbs are important...

[PowerPuncher]

There is also a limit, otherwise we could also say that Lewis would be too weak pysically against Valuev or so. At a weight, I say spontaneous ca. 200 lbs, upward, there aren´t that many differences like in the lower weights, where every lbs are important...

Yes but Valuev is a D Class fighter, what if it was a 7-0 Lennox Lewis against a 6-5 Lennox?

[Luigi1985]

Yes but Valuev is a D Class fighter, what if it was a 7-0 Lennox Lewis against a 6-5 Lennox?


A D-Class fighter? Don´t overact so much, he has a good combination of skills, he´s very big, very heavy, pysically strong, very good stamina for such a big man, and he throws a lot of punches, he wouldn´t be a walk in the park, whether for a small ATG like Marciano, or for a big ATG like Lewis...

[PowerPuncher]

A D-Class fighter? Don´t overact so much, he has a good combination of skills, he´s very big, very heavy, pysically strong, very good stamina for such a big man, and he throws a lot of punches, he wouldn´t be a walk in the park, whether for a small ATG like Marciano, or for a big ATG like Lewis...

Valuev doesn't punch his weight though. I think Lennox would KO him. Marciano may have had a few problems because of the height but if Changaev beats him so does Marciano. Changaev is a bit of a modern Marciano/Quarrey type fighter. I think he looks 1 of the best of todays bunch.

Valuev probably lost to ancient Donald and Ruiz too.

[PowerPuncher]

Not china chinned, but seeing as to how easily he got hurt by Bowe in their first fight, despite outlanding Bowe by something 2:1, i don't want to imagine what happened if he was even smaller. However, we KNOW what happened when he was a little bigger: he beat Bowe.

This statement makes it clear to me that you've never boxed. And that is not to disrespect you or anything, but: you seem to think "well if he's lighter he'll need to move less weight so he'll tire less fast".
Which is 100% true.

.... if you're shadow boxing.

When you're fighting a guy who has 30 lbs on you, it tires you out insanely fast, you need to be focused at all time, move in and out really quick, watch out to be cornered, notice that two of your punches do less than one of his to you , etc....
If you're fighting someone that much bigger then it pays off to bulk up yourself because you have the above stated problems to a smaller extend.
Why do you think Chris Byrd bulked up? To look more intimidating?

This is again not putting things into perspective.

You're used to Tyson being bossed around in the clinches.

But he did it for a reason: because he was a small guy. He was always fighting 6'3-6'5 230lb opponents which obviously makes him look (and be) less strong. He choose to rest and not waste energy on wrestling a bigger guy around that leans on you.
So just because they did it you assume a lightheavyweight or cruiserweight can do it. Well, i strongly doubt that. I'm sure i don't need to remind you how many seconds an all time great, undefeated light heavyweight lasted with him. Compare that to the succes Tunney had against Marciano. He had only a 10lb weight step to overcome, Spinks had a 40lbs gap. That tends to take something out of you durability and power wise.

Good post. And I can tell you Holyfield became allot stronger on his move to 190-205 and will have got allot stronger again moving from 205-215. Were talking about 30%-40% increases in raw strength

[NickHudson]

I've mentioned this before, but it hasn't sunk in so I will have another go.

The way animals change due to increased size is part of an interesting field of biology called scaling.

Due to scaling effects a 7 0 version of Lennox (i.e all else equal, same dimensions relative to each other) would be less mobile, slower and have less stamina than the 6 5 version. This is not my opinion, it is a statement of biological fact. Consequence: the 6 5 version most likely beats the 7 0 version.

If thisis the case, why do we have weight divisions to protect the smaller fighters?

As Luigi pointed out earlier, below (approx) 200 lbs, a smaller fighter's superior speed and mobility is not quite enough to handle the deficits in strength, reach and durability. Therefore, a 160 lb fighter cannot beat a 180 lb fighter of equal ability.

Above 200 lbs this rule stops applying so cleanly, because the equal ability proviso stops being meaningful. The 240 lb guy is necesarily slower than the 200 lb guy, there is nothing you can do about it. It is an unavoidable law of nature. Elite 100m sprinters are always less than 15 stone, its a fact of life. Its the same with boxers, they stop being able to move their bodies so well.

The HWs with the greatest combinations of strength and mobility (Johnson, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson) all have very similar weights, around 200-220 lbs.

This is an absolutely striking observation, and it is a product of inflexible scaling laws. There is just no way that a 300lb guy can move as fluidly as a 200lb guy, assuming it is a scaled up version of the same man, and not two completely different fighters.


Yes but Valuev is a D Class fighter, what if it was a 7-0 Lennox Lewis against a 6-5 Lennox?

[PowerPuncher]

I've mentioned this before, but it hasn't sunk in so I will have another go.

The way animals change due to increased size is part of an interesting field of biology called scaling.

Due to scaling effects a 7 0 version of Lennox (i.e all else equal, same dimensions relative to each other) would be less mobile, slower and have less stamina than the 6 5 version. This is not my opinion, it is a statement of biological fact. Consequence: the 6 5 version most likely beats the 7 0 version.

If thisis the case, why do we have weight divisions to protect the smaller fighters?

As Luigi pointed out earlier, below (approx) 200 lbs, a smaller fighter's superior speed and mobility is not quite enough to handle the deficits in strength, reach and durability. Therefore, a 160 lb fighter cannot beat a 180 lb fighter of equal ability.

Above 200 lbs this rule stops applying so cleanly, because the equal ability proviso stops being meaningful. The 240 lb guy is necesarily slower than the 200 lb guy, there is nothing you can do about it. It is an unavoidable law of nature. Elite 100m sprinters are always less than 15 stone, its a fact of life. Its the same with boxers, they stop being able to move their bodies so well.

The HWs with the greatest combinations of strength and mobility (Johnson, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson) all have very similar weights, around 200-220 lbs.

This is an absolutely striking observation, and it is a product of inflexible scaling laws. There is just no way that a 300lb guy can move as fluidly as a 200lb guy, assuming it is a scaled up version of the same man, and not two completely different fighters.

Sorry but this is bollox, there are no scaling laws when it comes to. A 7'0 Lennox would have more muscle mass and would be stronger more durable, with much greater power and maybe just as fast. No yes his stamina would suffer, but no more between the difference of 150lbs-200lbs - its simple maths

And there is no 200lb magic number and no scientific argument for that figure. You've plucked this out the air to support your argument.

If 200lbs was the magic number then why did Evander Holyfielf purposely add 15lbs of muscle to go from 200-215. Why did Moorer purposely bulk up to 210-220? Why did 230lb Lennox Lewis bulk upto 240lbs? Are you saying you know better than all these fighters and their trainers?

Why is no 200lb HW competitive today?

[janitor]

I would bet my life that a 212 pound holyfield is stronger than a 190 pound one otherwise why would he have put on the muscle to fight guy's like tyson and bowe. Come on mate be realistic if it wasn't in his intrests to do it holyfield would not have put 20 pounds of muscle on.

I dont doubt that the 215 pound Holly is stronger than the 190lb version but is a 215lb Tyson necisarily stronger than the 190lb Holly.

[rydersonthestorm]

I think a 215 pound tyson is srtonger than 190 pound holyfield, you have to remember that 25 pounds of muscle is alot and tyson isn't a body builder he was a prime conditioned athlete who had that amount of muscle for a reason.

[janitor]

This statement makes it clear to me that you've never boxed. And that is not to disrespect you or anything, but: you seem to think "well if he's lighter he'll need to move less weight so he'll tire less fast".
Which is 100% true.

.... if you're shadow boxing.

When you're fighting a guy who has 30 lbs on you, it tires you out insanely fast, you need to be focused at all time, move in and out really quick, watch out to be cornered, notice that two of your punches do less than one of his to you , etc....
If you're fighting someone that much bigger then it pays off to bulk up yourself because you have the above stated problems to a smaller extend.
Why do you think Chris Byrd bulked up? To look more intimidating?


But historicaly many fighters have taken the oposite aproach when fighting a larger oponents and come in light. Billy Conn for example against Joe Louis.

Now would Conn have been better off bulking up to say 200lbs which would have reduced his speed but given him more strength to handel Louis in the clinches?

If you were preparing Conn for that fight today what would you have him do?

[PowerPuncher]

I dont doubt that the 215 pound Holly is stronger than the 190lb version but is a 215lb Tyson necisarily stronger than the 190lb Holly.

YES, Holy put a tonn of strength on when moving from 190-205 if you research it. HE would have put an awful lot more in going from 205-210. This means more durability, power and strength in the clinches.

[PowerPuncher]

But historicaly many fighters have taken the oposite aproach when fighting a larger oponents and come in light. Billy Conn for example against Joe Louis.

Now would Conn have been better off bulking up to say 200lbs which would have reduced his speed but given him more strength to handel Louis in the clinches?

If you were preparing Conn for that fight today what would you have him do?

You'd have him add weight the way RJJ and Holyfield did. Neither were harshly effected in the speed and stamina departments

Lets remember a 193lb RJJ took Ruiz best right hand. Could a 175lb RJJ do that?

Back then adding 10-20lbs of solid muscle and maintaining muscle seemed impossible - not today

[janitor]

I think a 215 pound tyson is srtonger than 190 pound holyfield, you have to remember that 25 pounds of muscle is alot and tyson isn't a body builder he was a prime conditioned athlete who had that amount of muscle for a reason.

It is certainly plausible that you could have a 190lb power lifter who could bench press more than a 215lb power lifter. Perhaps heven a 160lb powerlifter pressing more than the 215lb guy. Strength depends on a lot of things other than muscle mass. I know a skinny little guy of 5' 7'' who benches 300lbs.

Not saying it is so but it is theoreticaly possible that Holyfield was stronger or strong enough to neutralize Tyson in the clinches at 190.

[rydersonthestorm]

The whole point is that holyfiled wasn't going for speed and that he wanted to tie tyson up in clinches, it isn't the same for all boxers but in his case he was putting on muscle to help him clinch with tyson.

[rydersonthestorm]

It is possible but do you honestly think a 190 pound holyfield would be strong enough to do what he was doing to tyson at 212 pounds.

[PowerPuncher]

It is certainly plausible that you could have a 190lb power lifter who could bench press more than a 215lb power lifter. Perhaps heven a 160lb powerlifter pressing more than the 215lb guy. Strength depends on a lot of things other than muscle mass. I know a skinny little guy of 5' 7'' who benches 300lbs.

Not saying it is so but it is theoreticaly possible that Holyfield was stronger or strong enough to neutralize Tyson in the clinches at 190.

This is absolute limit strength of only 1 muscle group, which is different to clinching strength. You can't draw on all your strength for the duration of a fight when clinching only a percentage of it - otherwise you'd collapse after 30-60seconds.

Winky Wright probably can't bench much (less than 180lbs) but he pushed Mosley all around the ring. Mosley could bench 300lbs and deadlift 500lbs.

[PowerPuncher]

There is more to strength than maximal weight. But if you add 20lbs of muscle it usually always helps

Lets also not forget Holyfield wasn't so strong until Tyson tired after the 5th round

[janitor]

It is possible but do you honestly think a 190 pound holyfield would be strong enough to do what he was doing to tyson at 212 pounds.

I am mindfull that a lot of much smaller fighters have been verry efective in getting their way in the clinches against much larger fighters.

I don't think that Joe Louis was stronger than Primo Carnera in a literal sense but he still had his way in the clinches. Jess Willard was strong enough to shove Jack Dempsey around the ring but it did not do much good.

[ChrisPontius]

But historicaly many fighters have taken the oposite aproach when fighting a larger oponents and come in light. Billy Conn for example against Joe Louis.

Now would Conn have been better off bulking up to say 200lbs which would have reduced his speed but given him more strength to handel Louis in the clinches?

If you were preparing Conn for that fight today what would you have him do?

For several reasons he didn't bulk up:

1. You can't take an option that isn't there. Conn simply could not bulk up because back then, the knowlegde, know-how, nutrition, etc simply was not there yet.

2. He did not have to make an as big leap in weight as modern lightheavyweights or middleweights need to.

3. This is not relevant for Conn's case, but i'll make the point anyway because it is revelant for the bigger picture:
Not every fighter can bulk up succesfully. Only two men have been able to do it with consistent success in the last 30 years of the sport. And even they have mediocre records against skilled superheavies of their time: 1-4 (Holyfield) and 3-3 (Byrd). Not every frame can take the extra bulk and retain flexibility, speed and stamina.

4. What you say isn't entirely true. While Conn didn't, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran, to name a few, did bulk up even if it was only 10lbs.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]
Not every fighter can bulk up succesfully. Only two men have been able to do it with consistent success in the last 30 years of the sport. And even they have mediocre records against skilled superheavies of their time: 1-4 (Holyfield) and 3-3 (Byrd). Not every frame can take the extra bulk and retain flexibility, speed and stamina.


OK


4. What you say isn't entirely true. While Conn didn't, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran, to name a few, did bulk up even if it was only 10lbs.


With far greater sucess I would submit. For every smaller fighter who has had sucess against 220lb+ oponents by the Byrd route there are several who have done it by the Conn route.

Now consider that Tunney et al usualy came in 10lbs more in catchweight fights anyway.

[janitor]

For several reasons he didn't bulk up:

1. You can't take an option that isn't there. Conn simply could not bulk up because back then, the knowlegde, know-how, nutrition, etc simply was not there yet.


So why did he come in significantly lighter against Louis than in his previous and subsequent fights where he weighed over 180lbs ?

Do you not think there was perhaps some strategy to reduce weight to maximize speed?

I would also add that it would have been possible to bulk up to some extent heven then. All it really takes is pasta. People just didn't.

[ChrisPontius]

So why did he come in significantly lighter against Louis than in his previous and subsequent fights where he weighed over 180lbs ?

Do you not think there was perhaps some strategy to reduce weight to maximize speed?

I would also add that it would have been possible to bulk up to some extent heven then. All it really takes is pasta. People just didn't.

I guess indeed he choose the strategy that you described. Maybe he just couldn't carry the weight good enough but could afford to do so against lesser opposition. Still he got knocked out though.

[ChrisPontius]

With far greater sucess I would submit. For every smaller fighter who has had sucess against 220lb+ oponents by the Byrd route there are several who have done it by the Conn route.


Not in eras when big men were larger in numbers and able to defeat their smaller counterparts.

[janitor]

Not in eras when big men were larger in numbers and able to defeat their smaller counterparts.

You might be surprized how many big men there were in some earlier eras. It is by no meabs a lineal progresion towards more bigger men. There are ups and downs.

Tommy Loughran for example defeated two ranked heavyweights who were over 6' 7'' and 250 lbs to get his shot at Carnera.

[Vanboxingfan]

You might be surprized how many big men there were in some earlier eras. It is by no meabs a lineal progresion towards more bigger men. There are ups and downs.

Tommy Loughran for example defeated two ranked heavyweights who were over 6' 7'' and 250 lbs to get his shot at Carnera.

Perhaps, but skilled big men like Lewis and Wlad have definately changed the landscape with respect to there now being skilled superheavies.

In reference to the subject of the post. I certainly think Lewis could be the GOAT in a H2H sense (range would be anywhere from 1-4) , not in terms of career accomplishments though (4-7) . Put them together and he cracks in the top 5 in my book.

[janitor]

[quote=Vanboxingfan]Perhaps, but skilled big men like Lewis and Wlad have definately changed the landscape with respect to there now being skilled superheavies.


We have to recognise Lewis as something new because he is the first superheavy to dominate an era. He is a verry well rounded package.

I would not say that superheavies with good boxing skills are a new development. There have always been prototypes of Lewis with good skills.

I will tell you one who was a prety impresive package and it might surprize you.

Big Bill Tate!

He was extremely mobile, had a good jab and overall skills. His style is quite reminicent of Larry Holmes of all people.

In reference to the subject of the post. I certainly think Lewis could be the GOAT in a H2H sense (range would be anywhere from 1-4) , not in terms of career accomplishments though (4-7) . Put them together and he cracks in the top 5 in my book.

I would say that on acomplishments Lewis is no higher than 3 and no lower than 12. In other words prety darn good.

Head to head I do not think he has a strong case for the No1 spot but on his best day I would shudder to put any other ATG against him.

[rydersonthestorm]

Can they not ban clowns like that thad spencer

[Vanboxingfan]

[quote]


We have to recognise Lewis as something new because he is the first superheavy to dominate an era. He is a verry well rounded package.

I would not say that superheavies with good boxing skills are a new development. There have always been prototypes of Lewis with good skills.

I will tell you one who was a prety impresive package and it might surprize you.

Big Bill Tate!

He was extremely mobile, had a good jab and overall skills. His style is quite reminicent of Larry Holmes of all people.



I would say that on acomplishments Lewis is no higher than 3 and no lower than 12. In other words prety darn good.

Head to head I do not think he has a strong case for the No1 spot but on his best day I would shudder to put any other ATG against him.

I think we're on the same page here. With respect to the head to head discussion, I think he has a decent case to be rated in the top 4 but as you mentioned I'd shudder to put any other ATG against him, meaning we don't really know what the outcome would be, this is why I tried to use a reasonable range of where I think he'd be placed if these mythical fights could actually be made. And you do have me wanting to learn more about Big Bill Tate. I've heard the name but don't know him well enough to put it into context. I know something about the old time fighters, having acquired a Dempsey DVD and buying the Burn's inspired Jack Johnson book and DVD on PBS.

[janitor]

And you do have me wanting to learn more about Big Bill Tate. I've heard the name but don't know him well enough to put it into context.

All that survives of him is this record and a rather impresive clip of him sparring with Dempsey.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

On boxrec his win loss ratio is unimpresive but either most of his record is missing or he was fighting the black dynamite crew from his pro debut. Which ever is the case he did split series with the best of the black dynamite crew.

The opening scene of this clip is Dempsey sparring with Tate.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Zakman]

It's threads like this that demonstrate just how absurdly overrated Lewis is by some boxing fans.

You can't be the GOAT when you get taken out in the early rounds twice by ordinary fighters in championship fights, or when you only fought the other great fighters of the era when they were past their best (and in Tyson's case, done).

Lewis isn't even the best fighter of the era, let alone of all time!

[Amsterdam]

It's threads like this that demonstrate just how absurdly overrated Lewis is by some boxing fans.

You can't be the GOAT when you get taken out in the early rounds twice by ordinary fighters in championship fights, or when you only fought the other great fighters of the era when they were past their best (and in Tyson's case, done).

Lewis isn't even the best fighter of the era, let alone of all time!

I'm curious as to how many times you've repeated this on here in your 2 and a half year run.:yep

[Zakman]

I'm curious as to how many times you've repeated this on here in your 2 and a half year run.:yep

Wouldn't even BEGIN to be able to tell you!! :lol:

[mr. magoo]

It's threads like this that demonstrate just how absurdly overrated Lewis is by some boxing fans.

You can't be the GOAT when you get taken out in the early rounds twice by ordinary fighters in championship fights, or when you only fought the other great fighters of the era when they were past their best (and in Tyson's case, done).

Lewis isn't even the best fighter of the era, let alone of all time!

I don't think that Lewis is the G.O.A.T either, but in all fairness, you really can't just sum up his whole career with the McCall and Rahman Losses. Lewis probably beat more ranked contenders than just about any heavyweight champion in history with the exceptions of Ali and Louis. He also avenged both of his only two losses, and keep in mind one of those defeats was a result of a possible premature stoppage while the other came when he was 35 years old. Again, I'm not making excuses for the guy, nor claiming that he was #1, but anyone who's willing to be honest and subjective can clearly see that was at least one of the greatest of all time.

[Robbi]

I can't think of a single one who would be dumb enough.

Bowe matches up better against others H2H rather than an ATG list.

I'd loved to have seen Lewis v Bowe around 1993. Not too sure Lewis was seasoned enough to deal with Bowe then. He was nowhere near the complete fighter he eventually became under Steward during the late 90's.

[Vanboxingfan]

Wouldn't even BEGIN to be able to tell you!! :lol:

Well given your post count it's gotta be over 15,900 times. Hell sometimes I think I've read every damn one of them..:lol:

[NickHudson]

Your comparison of Douglas and Bowe is right on one level, in that the Tyson fight (for Douglas) and the Holyfield I fight (or Bowe) were sensational single performances.

However, it is misleading in a very important regard. Douglas lost fights left, right and centre throughout his career and was a HW champ for just one fight. His defence was one of the most pathetic in history, even worse than Lewis's to McCall.

On the other hand, Bowe never lost a fight in his entire career, except for the debatable razor thin points loss to Holyfield in the second fight of their trilogy.

I actually believe Bowe to have won that fight in the 12th round when the fight was hanging in the balance - but that politics intervened.

After all, you can't have a lucrative trilogy when the score is 2-0, only when it is 1-1...

Bowe was great for a short time, very inconsistent, brilliant for one fight against Holyfield, as was Buster Douglas(against Tyson), why not include him?

[Zakman]

Well given your post count it's gotta be over 15,900 times. Hell sometimes I think I've read every damn one of them..:lol:

Thanks, Van - it's nice to know my work is, uh, appreciated.:lol:

Seriously, though - ya gotta admit some of these guys are WAY over the top in their overrating of Lewis. Top ten I could see a case for - I don't agree, but a case can be made.

Top five or greatest of all time?? Now that's ABSURD overrating - which is exactly why I point out every time I run across this stuff exactly WHY Lewis isn't even the best of his own era, let alone of all-time.

[rydersonthestorm]

I feel your the worst poster on esb, and should learn abit about boxing before you post again.