The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

[PowerPuncher]

Beat Every man he faced avenging all his losses
Always

3 Top 10 HWs of all time

Holyfield - slightly past prime but Lewis was also past his physical prime at 33 and there was only a 3year age gap. Lewis completely dominated. Holyfield was fresh of beating Tyson & Moorer, which are 2 of his best wins. Holyfield trained for this fight like a demon and was in terrific shape showing great stamina.

Tyson - Past prime but Lennox was the older man and also past his prime at 36, but still showed flashes of his brilliance against Golota and retained his speed and power but was completely dominated

Bowe - KO'd Bowe in the Olympics, Bowe blatantly ducked him as a champ

Other Great Wins

Golota - VERY UNDERATED WIN. Many rated Golota as NO1 in the world after he twice dominated Bowe. This is important, Golota was considered the best in the world at this time and had chased the ATG BOwe into retirement. Result - 1st round KO

Vitali - Vitali went on to be considered the man in the division. Throughout his career he lost very few rounds, had a Lewis was old at 37yo past his prime, looking slow, overweight and lacking stamina. Lennox was also training for an easy defense against Johnson. Lennox pulled off a stoppage win and came back from being hurt.

Rudduck - The man who just went 19rounds with a near prime Tyson compeltely decapitated in 2 rounds.

Rahman 2 - after it seemed a 35yo Lennox was past prime. He dominated and scored a stunning KO

Briggs - The linear champion destroyed

Grant - the 'heir aparent', big powerful with decent skills. Destroyed by Lennox and probably never the same again.

Other Excellent Wins

Bruno - future WBC Champ, massive power (made iron chinned McCall go into a shell after tasting it), great jab, Lennox had to turn the fight around and did so.

Morrison - massive power, near prime, fresh of beating Foreman and Rudduck, top5 HW, systematically outboxed and destroyed

Akiwande - huge HW, top10 HW, decent skills, DQ'ed for holding which was brought about from fear of Lennoxs power

Mason - 35-0, no5 in the world, Lennox finnished his career

Tucker - 49-1, still a top 10 HW in a strong division having recently beaten prime McCall and Norris, his only loss to a prime Tyson, completely dominated by Lennox being knocked down multiple times

McCall 2 - avenging his loss, yes McCall may not have been at his best but only started crying after it was onbvious it would be a long painful night.

Mercer - a tough style match up against a top6 HW in the world. Lennox toughed out a win when he was really up against it. Biased Americans claim Mercer won, but Lennox won 6 rounds clearly in the 10 round scrap.

Total Number of Champions (Including Linear & WBO) - 14

Biggest HWs of all time

From 6'3-6'7 (220-250) - Vitali Klitchko, Akiwande, Golota, Bruno, Biggs, Rudduck, Tucker, Bruno, Grant, Briggs

Not only tall but most were muscular beasts that could box and had high workrates. They would make Willard look like a wimp.

Biggest Punchers of all time

Tua, Tyson, Vitali, Rudduck, Morrison, Rahman, McCall were massive punchers and a few are top10 of all time powerwise

Highest Workrates of all time

Tua set punchstat record against Ibeauchi Holyfield had a very high workrate
Vitali threw a huge amount of punches per round.

[PowerPuncher]

PART 2 - Lennox Greatest Skills of All Time

Power - maybe the hardest hitter of all time? Took out many many durable opponents with 1 shot and beat many top HWs in the first round.

Size and Strength - All Lennoxs opponents commented on his strength, he was 6'5 with a huge arm span.

Technique - punching technique was perfect and footwork was excellent

Right Hand - best of all time, for power, reach, technique - amazing right

Uppercut - amazing destructive uppercut, few ever through it better at HW and Lennoxs height made it all the more effective

Jab - very good and used to brilliant effect, not as good as Holmes but better than most HWs. Completely controlled most opponents

Hooks - Lennox didnt see the need to engage with the hook and risk eating an opponents hook. He didnt use it very often but when he threw it, it was destructive and a KO blow

Ring Strategy - usually excellent, Lennox would out think his opponent, not take unnessary risks, outbox,

Defense - Lennox had a very tight defense

Chin - Lennox had a Great Chin - he took some of the biggest shots in HW history without going down, see this video:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Speed - excellent speed for a big man

Workrate/Stamina - very good stamina for such a big man, possibly a slight weakness but it was still excellent

[rydersonthestorm]

Good points but what are you on about with bowe being a top ten heavy, he in no way is a top ten heavyweight on the all times list and lewis didn't fight him apart from in the olympics (so you can't really count it). I think lewis match's up well with every other heavyweight and has the size and skill to beat any top 10 fighter on a good night but i would still have to put him behind ali and louis in an all time list.

[PowerPuncher]

Bowe isnt a top 10 HW for me, I think I had him around 16 BUT many have him in their top10s

[rydersonthestorm]

I accpet that some people might have him in their top ten, but running scared from lewis and the loss to evander as well as not exactly fighting and beating the top guys at the time puts him quite far away from the top ten in my book, infact i would struggle to have him above top 20. He had the talent to be top ten but didn't do enough with it in my book. In regards to your other points i think you make a good arguement for lewis to be goat but with ali#''s resume and wins and joe louis overall skillset i still have him on number 3 on my list.

[dmt]

Bowe is a pure waste of talent. I do not belive that Bowe's loss in the Olymmpic counts as Lewis's professional legacy as Bowe was far less experienced, but Bowe did duck him

[roxyboxy]

Wait, you're saying Lewis is the greatest heavyweight of all time?

Not even remotely close. There are just too many points above to pick apart.

[PowerPuncher]

Wait, you're saying Lewis is the greatest heavyweight of all time?

Not even remotely close. There are just too many points above to pick apart.

Please try, welcome to the forum

[PowerPuncher]

Bowe is a pure waste of talent. I do not belive that Bowe's loss in the Olymmpic counts as Lewis's professional legacy as Bowe was far less experienced, but Bowe did duck him

Lewis-Bowe Olympic Final is the only thing we have to go on because of the duck. 2 greats in an olympic final is something good to see. Bowe had fantastic ability, but there are so many who could have been greats had they dedicated themselves, ie, Buster Douglas

[dmt]

i have him in my top 10, great fighter

[roxyboxy]

Ok, here are some thoughts. I have some work to do, but this'll be a welcome break.

While I think there's some good categorical thinking in it, your analysis suffers from a lack of 1. historical perspective and 2. proportionality in argument. If I were to rephrase the argument, I'd call it "Lewis: GOAT in the last 10 years", which of course isn't "All Time".

I always admired Lewis for his ability to speak thoughtfully, for his mastery of boxing, and for his natural sportsmanship. He was a truly great boxer who held his own time and again against some of the better heavyweights in his era. One of the main problems is that "heavyweights of his era" don't include the true all-time greats, like Ali, Louis, Moore. But that's just the relatively modern era. What about Jim Jeffries and Dempsey? Marciano would have given him a vicious run.

The interesting aspect to the debate is probably a comparison of the great boxers in the era. To say that the boxers of the 90s could have competed with the boxers of the 70s is a compelling twist, and I do not think they can.

So, take the argument a step further. Who is the greatest heavyweight in each decade? What happens when a Dempsey fights a Lewis? Or when Joe Louis steps into the ring with Lewis?

Sometimes the "would would win out of 10 times" model helps the imagination.

For me, the GOAT is a tossup between Ali and Louis. To me, you simply cannot compare the ranks in those two eras with the ranked contenders of Lewis's. They were much, much better. I don't put Bowe in the same class, for example.

My GOAT's are Joe Louis, Dempsey, and Ali.

So, here's my off-the-cuff thinking in a "best of 10" model versus Lewis:
GOAT 1: Joe Louis v. Lewis, best of of 10: Louis wins 8
GOAT 2: Ali v. Lewis, best of 10: Ali wins 7
Dempsey v. Lewis, best of 10: Dempsey wins 6
Moore v. Lewis, best of 10: split w/ wildcard going to Lewis
Marciano. Lewis, best of 10: split
Foreman v. Lewis, best of 10: in primes, edge to Foreman
Tyson v. Lewis, best of 10: in their primes, you tell me...
Liston v. Lewis, best of 10: Liston wins 6
Frazier v. Lewis, best of 10: Fraziers wins 6

My conclusion:
1. Here's my list of heavyweights definitely more deserving of GOAT than Lewis (in partial order):
a. Ali
b. Joe Louis
c. Jack Dempsey
d. Jack Johnson, but the difference in eras is very problematic.

2. Here's my list of heavyweights that were simply better than Lewis, but not deserving of GOAT status (in no order):
a. Foreman
b. Marciano
c. Frazier
d. Liston
e. Jeffries

[mr. magoo]

I can certainly see a good argument for Lewis being a top 5 all time great with his comp list and overall acheivements, but GOAT is being oftly generous.

For one thing, 44 pro fights is not that many when you compare him to many of his peers at the top. In addition, having losses to some of the men that he did and a controversial win over a 35 year old Ray Mercer, who hadn't won a fight nearly 3 years, hurts him as well. He definately deserves to be around #3 or #4, but #1 is a bit out of reach.

[PowerPuncher]

1a. Ali
1b. Joe Louis
1c. Jack Dempsey
1d. Jack Johnson, but the difference in eras is very problematic.

2. my list of heavyweights that were simply better than Lewis, but not deserving of GOAT status
(in no order):

a. Foreman
b. Marciano
c. Frazier
d. Liston
e. Jeffries

Initially I'll look at their legacies

1A. Ali - good pick BUT had problems with certain styles

1B. Louis - great fighter, poor comp, and fought much smaller men.

1C. Dempsey - TERRIBLE COMPETITION. 1 of the worst levels of competition of any great HW champ, he also didnt fight the best fighters of his era

1D. Johnson - decent comp but all very small men and basically middleweights and light heavyweights. He struggled allot too

2A. Foreman - Only held his title for 3fights and couldn't deal with boxer and movers to save his life. Both an Old Ali and Jimmy Young beat him in his prime and he went life and death with

2B. Marciano - took advantage of a weak era and older fighters. He only had title fights against 5 fighters. Getting Kd'ed by old Walcott and old light heavyweight Moore and arguably losing to LaStarza first time takes away from.

2C. Frazier - fought 2 ATGs 5 times in Ali and Foreman. He lost 4 of those contests. He also had a problem with punchers.

2D. Liston - fought 1 ATG and lost miserably to Ali twice.

2E - Jeffries - limited ability and ducked Jack Johnson

[PowerPuncher]

GOAT 1: Joe Louis v. Lewis, best of of 10: Louis wins 8
GOAT 2: Ali v. Lewis, best of 10: Ali wins 7
Dempsey v. Lewis, best of 10: Dempsey wins 6
Moore v. Lewis, best of 10: split w/ wildcard going to Lewis
Marciano. Lewis, best of 10: split
Foreman v. Lewis, best of 10: in primes, edge to Foreman
Tyson v. Lewis, best of 10: in their primes, you tell me...
Liston v. Lewis, best of 10: Liston wins 6
Frazier v. Lewis, best of 10: Fraziers wins 6

Joe Louis v. Lewis - tough 1, 7-3 to Lennox Lewis - Louis was always open to right hands and Lennox had maybe the best Straight Right in history. Louis did well against big men but Lewis was great at dominating smaller men with his jab and range.

Ali-Lewis - 5-5 - Ali had problems with jabs and 1-2s and Lennoxs was excellent. Ali did find a way to win and would counter beautifully. 10 very close fights, going either way.

Dempsey-Lennox - Lennox wins 9-1 - Lennox was very good at dealing with smaller men and Dempsey would lounge in taking massive counters. I think dempsey may pull off 1 KO with his combo of speed and power but be ko'd most times.

Marciano-Lennox - Lennox 10-0 - Marciano is made for Lewis. Small, easy to hit, weaker, not the best chin. If Moore/Walcott kd Marciano then Lewis knocks him out 10 out of 10

Foreman-Lennox - Lennox 8-2 - Lennox just needs to box and move against the crude Foreman who had problems with men who could box. Foreman was a beast and may be able to pull of a couple of upset KOs if they fought 10 times

Tyson-Lewis - 7-3 Tyson - very hard to pick and could go either way. Prime Tysons speed, relentlessness, power and combinations would shift the balance in his favour but Lennox could possibly dominate the way there fight went

Liston-Lewis - 9-1 Lennox - Lennox is far the better boxer, far faster, better technician, bigger, stronger and hit harder. Liston was a formidable foe and may be able to pull off 1 lucky KO if they fought 10 times

Frazier - Lennox - 10-0 Lennox - Frazier got pummelled by Foreman twice and Lennox would do the exact same thing and nto only that he could also outbox and punnish him.

Did you actually put Archie Moore in with Lennox Lewis? 10-0 to Lennox all by early KOs

[Luigi1985]

Joe Louis v. Lewis - tough 1, 7-3 to Lennox Lewis - Louis was always open to right hands and Lennox had maybe the best Straight Right in history. Louis did well against big men but Lewis was great at dominating smaller men with his jab and range.

Ali-Lewis - 5-5 - Ali had problems with jabs and 1-2s and Lennoxs was excellent. Ali did find a way to win and would counter beautifully. 10 very close fights, going either way.

Dempsey-Lennox - Lennox wins 9-1 - Lennox was very good at dealing with smaller men and Dempsey would lounge in taking massive counters. I think dempsey may pull off 1 KO with his combo of speed and power but be ko'd most times.

Marciano-Lennox - Lennox 10-0 - Marciano is made for Lewis. Small, easy to hit, weaker, not the best chin. If Moore/Walcott kd Marciano then Lewis knocks him out 10 out of 10

Foreman-Lennox - Lennox 8-2 - Lennox just needs to box and move against the crude Foreman who had problems with men who could box. Foreman was a beast and may be able to pull of a couple of upset KOs if they fought 10 times

Tyson-Lewis - 7-3 Tyson - very hard to pick and could go either way. Prime Tysons speed, relentlessness, power and combinations would shift the balance in his favour but Lennox could possibly dominate the way there fight went

Liston-Lewis - 9-1 Lennox - Lennox is far the better boxer, far faster, better technician, bigger, stronger and hit harder. Liston was a formidable foe and may be able to pull off 1 lucky KO if they fought 10 times

Frazier - Lennox - 10-0 Lennox - Frazier got pummelled by Foreman twice and Lennox would do the exact same thing and nto only that he could also outbox and punnish him.

Did you actually put Archie Moore in with Lennox Lewis? 10-0 to Lennox all by early KOs


Sorry, but your list is full with double standards. Marciano not the best chin, he was knocked down by Moore and Walcott, can you immagine what Lewis would do? We can it also turnaround, when McCall and Rahman both KO´d Lewis with one punch, can you immagine what Marciano would do? Or that Frazier would lose 10 times against Lewis, etc., I don´t know

[roxyboxy]

I understand your basic reasoning, but I think you massively, grossly underestimate and misunderstand the quality of fighters we're talking about here. Put aside your interest and love for Lewis for a second and think about him objectively. For example, do you honestly in your heart of hearts think Lennox Lewis could beat Joe Louis SEVENTY PERCENT of the time?! Seriously? That's not happening on this planet, not even close. You think Joe Frazier wouldn't even beat Lewis A SINGLE TIME?! Not even ONE TIME? C'mon. Be real. I'll give you another example: I don't like Jack Dempsey. I was never a fan of his or his fights, but you have to recognize what a nasty fighter he was. If you even have a suspect chin -- and Lewis's chin is more than suspect -- you have to give even just a couple of fights to one of the great all-time punchers.

I can appreciate fandom, but there's no reason I should abide such a silly overestimation of a very, very good heavyweight. You simply can't say he'd win "all" or "very nearly all" of Best of Ten matches with most of the people above. In reality, it's much, much closer than that. Those are some ridiculously great fighters. Also, Moore's in there because of his amazing record of knockouts. Anyone who can knock out that many people can certainly knock out a heavyweight with a questionable chin ONE time.

I stand by my comments. Lewis is one of greats of his era. Greatest of All Time? Certainly not. There's quite a line ahead of him.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Dempsey v. Lewis, best of 10: Dempsey wins 6


Surely you jest?

[roxyboxy]

Surely you jest?


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.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Do you think Dempsey would be 7 and Lewis 33 if Dempsey was British and Lewis American? No, me neither. Dempsey wouldn't stand a chance with a fighter that heavy and skilled who could punch their weight. As a pound-for-pund puncher he may rate ahead of Lewis, but head-to-head he'd be mashed.

[mr. magoo]

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.

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 don't see how Dempsey beats Lewis on any day or in any century.

Dempsey spent most of his career fighting under the 200 pound mark, and likewise, defeated very few men who ever exceeded that same mark. He only defended his belt 6 times within a 7 year period, which is attrocious, and furthermore, only fought a total of 4 black men in his entire career, none of whom were rated. He also gets an obsurd amount of credit for having set the record for most first round KO's, when in fact, a lot of these wins came against winless or near winless opposition.

You can try making a case all you want in regards to Lewis's defeats against Mccall, but the reality of the situation is, Lewis lost but twice in his career and avenged both losses, while Dempsey lost 6 times and drew 11. What's more, is that I'm not even so sure that I'd pick Dempsey to beat Mccall or Rahman.

I'm not claiming that Dempsey doesn't deserve his dues for being great in his day, but there are very few contemporary champions that I'd pick to lose against him.

[roxyboxy]

Here's an interesting sideways question: Do you think Earnie Shavers could beat Lewis one time out of 10?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Here's an interesting sideways question: Do you think Earnie Shavers could beat Lewis one time out of 10?


He probably would. I rate Shavers as a harder puncher than Dempsey anyway, especially with one shot. Of course, Jack has a chance at his best if Lennox has a bit of an off night, but both at their very best- no contest. Get real. Lewis isn't that easy to hit, he's no Jess Willard.

[mr. magoo]

Here's an interesting sideways question: Do you think Earnie Shavers could beat Lewis one time out of 10?

A hard hitter of Earnie's status would always be deserving of a puncher's chance, but I'm not willing to give him the odds in a fantasy matchup on the basis of a lucky punch landing at the right time.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher]Initially I'll look at their legacies

1A. Ali - good pick BUT had problems with certain styles


Who didn't have trouble with certain styles?

1B. Louis - great fighter, poor comp, and fought much smaller men.

How can a fighter who beat eight world champions bee deemed to have fought weak competition?

I also dispute the asertion that Louis fought small fighters. Primo Carnera, Abe Simon and Buddy Baer were clearly superheavyweights.


1C. Dempsey - TERRIBLE COMPETITION. 1 of the worst levels of competition of any great HW champ, he also didnt fight the best fighters of his era


What makes you think that Dempseys competition was terible?

For what it is worth he dominated the largest talent pool of any heavyweight champion.


1D. Johnson - decent comp but all very small men and basically middleweights and light heavyweights. He struggled allot too


Johnson actualy fought a lot of figfhts against larger oponents.

It is just that most of them were not filmed.


2A. Foreman - Only held his title for 3fights and couldn't deal with boxer and movers to save his life. Both an Old Ali and Jimmy Young beat him in his prime and he went life and death with


Is loosing to Ali and Young realy any worse for a legacy than loosing to Ramhan and McCall?

2B. Marciano - took advantage of a weak era and older fighters.

Lewis's best wins were against older fighters eg Holyfield Tyson.

He only had title fights against 5 fighters.

Lewis only had 6.


Getting Kd'ed by old Walcott and old light heavyweight Moore and arguably losing to LaStarza first time takes away from.


These are much lesser blemishes than being knocked out by McCall and Ramhan.

2C. Frazier - fought 2 ATGs 5 times in Ali and Foreman. He lost 4 of those contests.

But he still only lost to all time greats.


He also had a problem with punchers.


No he had problems with Foreman. That is not exactly the same thing.

2D. Liston - fought 1 ATG and lost miserably to Ali twice.

Do you think that Lewis would necisarily have done better against Ali?


2E - Jeffries - limited ability and ducked Jack Johnson


What makes you think that Jeffries had limited ability?


In short your criticisms of the fighters listed are all either unfounded or not particularly damaging.

[roxyboxy]

Do you think Dempsey would be 7 and Lewis 33 if Dempsey was British and Lewis American? No, me neither. Dempsey wouldn't stand a chance with a fighter that heavy and skilled who could punch their weight. As a pound-for-pund puncher he may rate ahead of Lewis, but head-to-head he'd be mashed.

I dont want to burst your bubble, but I don't think the Ring rankings had anything to do with nationality. I understand, however, that many Brits constantly feel the need to defend Lewis, since he's one of the few heavyweights from UK to ever matter, and since only in America could he make the purses he made. Must be a Napoleon complex lol. If Lewis were American, he'd be #33. If Dempsey were from Ivory Coast, he'd be #7. And I don't reduce Lewis because of his nationality. It's only that he's MERELY so good, and that is that.

I also disagree with your relativistic view of pound-for-pound. Stanley Ketchel put Jack Johnson on his ass, not because he was a great pound-for-pound puncher, but because he could put anyone on his ass. You think a guy hovering around 200 pounds (at times above 200) is really significantly less a great puncher -- especially if he's one of history great punchers?

Get a grip. Now, I give your man respect, but you oughtta buck up and think about the history you're dissing with such flippancy. One fact you are totally missing here: Dempsey may have fought poor opponents, but he ALSO fought great opponents, and he is know for having fought a huge range of talent. You're missing the other end of the spectrum, bud.

[janitor]

Get real. Lewis isn't that easy to hit, he's no Jess Willard.

You are right.

He didn't have Willards chin.

[mr. magoo]

I dont want to burst your bubble, but I don't think the Ring rankings had anything to do with nationality.

Are we talking about the same Ring Magazine who predicted Carl Williams to be Larry Holmes succesor?

[roxyboxy]

A hard hitter of Earnie's status would always be deserving of a puncher's chance, but I'm not willing to give him the odds in a fantasy matchup on the basis of a lucky punch landing at the right time.


He was the most feared non-titleholder of all time with all of the attributes of a Lewis-killer!!! COME ON!

I didnt say to give him the odds. I want to know your honest assessment: in ten bouts, how many do you give to whom?

[mr. magoo]

He was the most feared non-titleholder of all time with all of the attributes of a Lewis-killer!!! COME ON!

I didnt say to give him the odds. I want to know your honest assessment: in ten bouts, how many do you give to whom?

I think that if any two guys met 10 times, the underdog would always have a chance of winning at least 1, but that's about all the benefit of the doubt that I'm willing to give Shavers against Lewis.

By the way, it takes more than just a powerful right hand to beat Lewis. Oliver Mccall had some decent boxing skills as well as one of the greatest chins of all time, yet it still took him 5 rounds to beat Lewis, and that was a controversial stoppage. I don't think Shavers has the chin or the right set of skills to last long enough against Lewis to make his own opportunities.

[roxyboxy]

Are we talking about the same Ring Magazine who predicted Carl Williams to be Larry Holmes succesor?


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.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I also disagree with your relativistic view of pound-for-pound. Stanley Ketchall put Jack Johnson on his ass, not because he was a great pound-for-pound puncher, but because he could put anyone on his ass.


For every one example of this kind of thing, there are easily 20 that will contradict it. Some of us just cannot see the likes of Lewis being beaten by a guy who'd be a light at cruiserweight. Amongst loads of examples I could use is John Conteh, who started at heavyweight until Muhammad Ali, as well as others, told him in 1972 that he's "Not big enough to take on guys like me, Frazier and Foreman and to "go down to light-heavy and become a legend". Wise words. This wasn't 1920, if it was he'd have stayed at heavyweight and might have been a champ. 185 pound guys who are there to be hit would have little chance with Lewis.


And yes The Ring are stupidly biased to American fighters by and large, or at least they were. Just look at their Fighter of the Year lists...although they have improved, recently.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You are right.

He didn't have Willards chin.


He wouldn't need it after a 1st round KO. :yep

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.


At least he mightn't take backhanders like some of their writing staff. :good

[roxyboxy]

I think that if any two guys met 10 times, the underdog would always have a chance of winning at least 1, but that's about all the benefit of the doubt that I'm willing to give Shavers against Lewis.



If you're equatinig Shavers with "any guy", I'd have to say the conversation takes an ignorant but abrupt halt right here.

Shavers did not just have a ridiculous right; he had a great left and decent defense. He gives Lennox and much more serious (not to mention fearsome) challenge than "any guy" -- and certainly more than 1 in 10.

[janitor]

Ali
Louis
Dempsey
Johnson
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Liston
Jeffries

Red = Lewis is the underdog
Orange = 50/50 or 60/40 type of fight

[janitor]

He wouldn't need it after a 1st round KO. :yep

I think Lewis would last more than one round here.

Seriously no fighter has ever breathed who would be much better than even money against a prime Dempsey.

[mr. magoo]

For every one example of this kind of thing, there are easily 20 that will contradict it. Some of us just cannot see the likes of Lewis being beaten by a guy who'd be a light at cruiserweight. Amongst loads of examples I could use is John Conteh, who started at heavyweight until Muhammad Ali, as well as others, told him in 1972 that he's "Not big enough to take on guys like me, Frazier and Foreman and to "go down to light-heavy and become a legend". Wise words. This wasn't 1920, if it was he'd have stayed at heavyweight and might have been a champ. 185 pound guys who are there to be hit would have little chance with Lewis.


And yes The Ring are stupidly biased to American fighters by and large, or at least they were. Just look at their Fighter of the Year lists...although they have improved, recently.

Agreed,

and not to mention who gives a shit about what a magazine says. I prefer to do my own research by looking at multiple articles, fight footage, records, statistics, etc. rather than to take to heart the testimony of a periodical who's author is just as biased as the next guy. I used to go see movies based on the critic's ratings. I soon found that I was a lot happier by using my own judgement.

[My dinner with Conteh]

He was the most feared non-titleholder of all time with all of the attributes of a Lewis-killer!!! COME ON!


Was he really? Funny that but the Boxing News preview of Shavers vs Quarry predicts a Quarry KO IN 3. Not that feared then...it also called Lyle over Shavers too, by knockout again. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think Lewis would last more than one round here.


So, when's the next 185 pound dominant heavyweight arriving then?

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think Lewis would last more than one round here.

Seriously no fighter has ever breathed who would be much better than even money against a prime Dempsey.



Seriously, you want to get over your little man syndrome.

[Luigi1985]

Agreed,

and not to mention who gives a shit about what a magazine says. I prefer to do my own research by looking at multiple articles, fight footage, records, statistics, etc. rather than to take to heart the testimony of a periodical who's author is just as biased as the next guy. I used to go see movies based on the critic's ratings. I soon found that I was a lot happier by using my own judgement.


:clap:


I always say I make my own opinions about boxing, when I say for example "Mac Foster is for me personally one of the hardest HW-punchers ever" (rare power), than often people say things like "But in the Ring Magazine, etc.,..." damn, it´s also only a magazine where are most writers biased like every men, most people are biased...

[roxyboxy]

Agreed,

and not to mention who gives a shit about what a magazine says. I prefer to do my own research by looking at multiple articles, fight footage, records, statistics, etc. rather than to take to heart the testimony of a periodical who's author is just as biased as the next guy. I used to go see movies based on the critic's ratings. I soon found that I was a lot happier by using my own judgement.


Well, which is it: do you "not give a shit" about magazines, or do you actually in fact read multiple written sources to "do your research"?

Friend, guess what: reporters who WRITE for magazines do what you do. You're not the only one who researches, reads multiple sources, and uses judgement to form an opinion.

It doesnt sound like you do much research, to be completely frank. I don't know what "taking to heart the testimonial of a periodical" means, to paraphrase you. You mean quotes in a paper?

You mean you never read a great history by an author who wasn't party to the events him or herself? Or that you wouldn't trust one?

[roxyboxy]

Seriously, you want to get over your little man syndrome.


Seriously, the UK will have another decent boxer in about 30 years.

[roxyboxy]

Was he really? Funny that but the Boxing News preview of Shavers vs Quarry predicts a Quarry KO IN 3. Not that feared then...it also called Lyle over Shavers too, by knockout again. :good

Really? I completely change my opinion, then. All vague references consisting of one sentence do that to me.:happy

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well, which is it: do you "not give a shit" about magazines, or do you actually in fact read multiple written sources to "do your research"?

Friend, guess what: reporters who WRITE for magazines do what you do. You're not the only one who researches, reads multiple sources, and uses judgement to form an opinion.

It doesnt sound like you do much research, to be completely frank. I don't know what "taking to heart the testimonial of a periodical" means, to paraphrase you. You mean quotes in a paper?

You mean you never read a great history by an author who wasn't party to the events him or herself? Or that you wouldn't trust one?


Yeah, good post. I respect lots of writers but i like to look at different sources too. I always found the NY Times and Ring more biased towards Americans than Boxing Illustrated were (in the 50s-80s) for example. Of course, Boxing News could be a the same with our fighters but at least they had different categories for Fighter and Fight of the year: i.e. British and World.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Seriously, the UK will have another decent boxer in about 30 years.


I don't give a toss if it ever has a decent heavyweight again. But I do know he'll weight more than 185 pounds.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Really? I completely change my opinion, then. All vague references consisting of one sentence do that to me.:happy


Thought you would. So much for killer Shavers, eh. :yep

[My dinner with Conteh]

I have noticed Dempsey is the one legend that appears to be going down and further down lists as the years go by. At last some sense. :D

[roxyboxy]

Yeah, good post. I respect lots of writers but i like to look at different sources too. I always found the NY Times and Ring more biased towards Americans than Boxing Illustrated were (in the 50s-80s) for example. Of course, Boxing News could be a the same with our fighters but at least they had different categories for Fighter and Fight of the year: i.e. British and World.


I only used Ring magazine's list as an example. In the creation of that list, I would wager that there was more debate and thinking going on among more persons than in this particular post, and so it is a synthesis of knowledge. It certainly wasn't written "by a magazine" since no such thing exists.

I was a professional researcher of history for many years. I know the value in looking at all kinds of sources: primary, secondary, written, oral, graphic, etc.

Every source has a bias. I don't see the NYT as being overly nationalist any more than I see any self-selected sample as being primary. There is simply more boxing and the draw money are in the States.

[roxyboxy]

I have noticed Dempsey is the one legend that appears to be going down and further down lists as the years go by. At last some sense. :D


I don't know. Where are some of those lists?

I would say that it's pretty popular to find fault with the legitimacy of various athletes when the matter of race integration was a factor in their social environment.

[roxyboxy]

Thought you would. So much for killer Shavers, eh. :yep


I never would have compared the two. Shavers had more than 80 pro fights, cooney I think around 30. Shavers should have punched a hole in his chest, but alas.

[roxyboxy]

I don't give a toss if it ever has a decent heavyweight again. But I do know he'll weight more than 185 pounds.


Yeah, I spent some time in London and saw a bunch of them passed out outside of the pubs.

Just give them some gloves and some bus money.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Every source has a bias. I don't see the NYT as being overly nationalist any more than I see any self-selected sampleabeinprimary. There is simply more boxing and the draw money are in the States.


I was referring to some of their scorecards: Leonard over Duran, Antuofermo over Minter. Nah.

[roxyboxy]

I was referring to some of their scorecards: Leonard over Duran, Antuofermo over Minter. Nah.

Sure. Still, those are pretty self-serving examples. But what you're talking about is a larger problem in boxing: ridiculous outcomes.

[janitor]

So, when's the next 185 pound dominant heavyweight arriving then?

Never.

You have to weigh 183 lobs to fight at heavyweight today.

When will a cruiserweight step up to win a belt at heavyweight?

Posibly soon.

[janitor]

Seriously, you want to get over your little man syndrome.

You need to get over your strategy of picking the outcomes of fights based on size difarential with zero analysis of styles.

It is not sound practice.

[rydersonthestorm]

Well i know its abit premature buy david haye is going upto heavyweight after a fight with mormeck, i am not saying he is going to be amazing before anyone starts but with the state of the heavyweights and haye's power and speed it could happen for him.

[janitor]

I don't give a toss if it ever has a decent heavyweight again. But I do know he'll weight more than 185 pounds.

Ironicaly if there is a British heavyweight titleholder in the next four years it probably will be sombody who started their career at cruiserweight.

[McGrain]

In my opinion, Lewis is a reasonable pick at #3 (he's found his way up to #4 on my list) but you have work to do regarding the Ali/Louis legacy to put him any higher.

This work has to be done objectively which would be difficult. It is negative in its natre and pretty shitty work for a forum like this. It would be hard to come across as anything other than a hatchet man - and probably for a very good reason.

[McGrain]

Ironicaly if there is a British heavyweight titleholder in the next four years it probably will be sombody who started their career at cruiserweight.

I think you love Dempsey and overate him because of this.

Would you say that that might be a fair observation or do you feel i'm way off?

[janitor]

I think you love Dempsey and overate him because of this.

Would you say that that might be a fair observation or do you feel i'm way off?

You are way off.

I used to rate Dempsey as much of the forum dose bellow fighters like say Marciano and Frazier based on his paper resume.

As I started to peice together Dempsey the fighter from various sources I gradualy came to the same conclusion as Ray Arcel, that he was the most perfect ofensive machine the heavyweight division ever produced except maybe Joe Louis.

On acomplishment Dempsey could reasonably be ranked in the bottom half of the top 10 but head to head he might well beat anybody. Pound for pound he is totaly off the scale among the heavyweights.

[ChrisPontius]

Thing with Dempsey is that his "most feared fighter" image comes against horrible opposition. Jess Willard? Washed up light-heavy that hurt him Carpentier? Not defending the title for a full 3 years? When he met better opposition he struggled (Sharkey controversial and behind on cards) or lost in one-sided (Tunney) fashion.

That and the fact that Lewis dwarfs him would make me very nervous come fight time if i had put money on Dempsey.



And Lewis' chin is not as glassy as some of you might believe. Put Lewis in with lightheavies, mediocre cruisers and big abominations like Willard and his chin will look like pure steel. Put Dempsey in with big heavyweight punchers like Tua, Klitschko, Bruno, Tyson, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Grant, Akinwande, etc. I'm guessing his chin would look a lot less good. Did you see Lennox Lewis get knocked down by a former light-heavyweight? Sorry but you have to be realistic here and look past the grainy footage and put things in perspective of their time.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Thing with Dempsey is that his "most feared fighter" image comes against horrible opposition.

I personaly think that Dempseys oposition was prety good. Fighters like Miske, Gibbons, and Fulton are solid wins.

Not defending the title for a full 3 years?

This dose indeed hurt his standing.


When he met better opposition he struggled (Sharkey controversial and behind on cards) or lost in one-sided (Tunney) fashion.


Or are these fighters deemed better simply because they got him when he was older.

If Billy Miske had come up against the version of Dempsey that tunney fought in his prime he to could have been champion.


That and the fact that Lewis dwarfs him would make me very nervous come fight time if i had put money on Dempsey.


A lot of people felt the same going into the Willard fight.

And Lewis' chin is not as glassy as some of you might believe.

Agreed

Put Lewis in with lightheavies, mediocre cruisers and big abominations like Willard and his chin will look like pure steel.

Willard could plausibly do to Lewis what Ramhan did.

Did you see Lennox Lewis get knocked down by a former light-heavyweight?

No but then I never saw Dempsey get taken out by a single punch.

[ChrisPontius]

Dempsey was taken out by Flynn.

Indeed he was never taken out by a single punch, but come on. Dempsey faced a pathetic set of punchers over his career.

When Willard or Firpo (who makes Samuel Peter look like Floyd Mayweather) are the best punchers you faced during your career, you know you have a really weak resume on your hands. Firpo even dropped Dempsey twice, by the way.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Dempsey was taken out by Flynn.


This fight is questionable at best.


Indeed he was never taken out by a single punch, but come on. Dempsey faced a pathetic set of punchers over his career.


This is a quite extroardinary statment. Were guys like Willard and Firpo not powerfull punchers if crude?

Were guys like Fulton and Miske not both powerfull and proficient?

When Willard or Firpo (who makes Samuel Peter look like Floyd Mayweather) are the best punchers you faced during your career,

Hardest yes.

Best No


you know you have a really weak resume on your hands. Firpo even dropped Dempsey twice, by the way.


Hang on now.

If those punches had hit Lewis it might just have been goodnight.

[rydersonthestorm]

I like jack dempsey and rate him as one of the best heavyweights of all time but leenox lewis is a terrible match up for him, he is a giant of man with a big arsenal , he could box and his chin was solid(even though some would say different). He is not a big oaf like willard or canera the guys people use to justify the likes of dempsey and marciano being able to comptete with fighter's like lewis. If marciano and dempsey where alive today i doubt they would even be fighting at heavyweight, they would be cruiserweights.
In terms of the lewis loses he wasn't able to slip punch's very well when he lost to mccall, this is a legit loss and he took up with manny afterwards and this didn't happen again. The rahman fight it was obvious lewis hadn't trained properly and only lost becuase of this a motivated lewis destroy's rahman 10/10 times as shown by the rematch.

[janitor]

I like jack dempsey and rate him as one of the best heavyweights of all time but leenox lewis is a terrible match up for him, he is a giant of man with a big arsenal , he could box and his chin was solid(even though some would say different). He is not a big oaf like willard or canera the guys people use to justify the likes of dempsey and marciano being able to comptete with fighter's like lewis.

What you have to ask is how Lewis and Bowe would have fared against Evander Holyfield if he had top end power like Dempsey.

Bowe would have been in big trouble and Lewis could well have droped one. Size dosnt offer you next to no protection against a puncher like Dempsey, Louis or Tyson.

[JimboDs]

Lewis was a solid technician with good hand speed for a big guy. Good right hand as well. He was smart and athletic enough to make mediocre fighters look very bad, but as far as I'm concern he never came into the ring against great heavyweight in or near their prime and dominated them the way some of the other heavyweights who've been mentioned in this thread had.

Lewis having a glassy jaw isn't a question. He had one. In tactical fights, Louis could look like a master, but if someone like Joe Louis or Joe Frazier came into the ring with their conditioning, athleticism, and ferocious agression, I see Lewis crumbling. Obviously, that's an opinion, but I've never seen anything from Lewis to convince me otherwise.

I think GOAT is insanity, top 5 I'm in firm disagreement with, and top 10 is still a stretch as far as I'm concerned. Sorry UK.

[rydersonthestorm]

Your nobody to listen too though, how did lewis have a glassy chin that is utter bullshit, he took countless huge shots that would have koed alot of the fighters and didn't fall then, i would like to see the likes of fraizer,dempsey,marciano and louis take the shots lewis took from vitali and stay standing. Lewis is not the goat but he is easily a top ten heavyweight and to discount this is just nuthugging old fighters. I would like to see your top ten list if lewis aint anywhere near it.
In regards to smokin joe that has to be one of the worst matchups of all time to try and make lewis look bad, getting smoked by foreman hardly makes me confident he could stand up to lewis a bigger guy than foreman with as simular power(at least in the right hand) and superior boxing skills.

[roxyboxy]

Lewis was a solid technician with good hand speed for a big guy. Good right hand as well. He was smart and athletic enough to make mediocre fighters look very bad, but as far as I'm concern he never came into the ring against great heavyweight in or near their prime and dominated them the way some of the other heavyweights who've been mentioned in this thread had.

Lewis having a glassy jaw isn't a question. He had one. In tactical fights, Louis could look like a master, but if someone like Joe Louis or Joe Frazier came into the ring with their conditioning, athleticism, and ferocious agression, I see Lewis crumbling. Obviously, that's an opinion, but I've never seen anything from Lewis to convince me otherwise.

I think GOAT is insanity, top 5 I'm in firm disagreement with, and top 10 is still a stretch as far as I'm concerned. Sorry UK.


This post is a pretty good summation of everything I posted previously. But I don't apologize to the UK. For me, the nationality has zero to do with it. I'm actually a huge soccer fan and have always followed individuals before nations. Any brit out there might be interested in knowing my favorite athlete is keegan -- and I'm from the states!

As I've said ad nauseum, Lewis was great for his era, but he does not in any way stack up to the all-time greats. I'm still floored that there's a guy out there that thinks Frazier wouldnt win a fight against Lewis. That's insane.

[roxyboxy]

Your nobody to listen too though, how did lewis have a glassy chin that is utter bullshit, he took countless huge shots that would have koed alot of the fighters and didn't fall then, i would like to see the likes of fraizer,dempsey,marciano and louis take the shots lewis took from vitali and stay standing. Lewis is not the goat but he is easily a top ten heavyweight and to discount this is just nuthugging old fighters. I would like to see your top ten list if lewis aint anywhere near it.
In regards to smokin joe that has to be one of the worst matchups of all time to try and make lewis look bad, getting smoked by foreman hardly makes me confident he could stand up to lewis a bigger guy than foreman with as simular power(at least in the right hand) and superior boxing skills.

I don't know what "nuthugging" is, but I don't think I'm guilty of it.

I still think you're guilty of what I described in my original complaint: you're really not thinking too deeply or acknowledging how good people from other eras were. it's kind of weird to me. it's as if people walking around think current means best. hardly.

[rydersonthestorm]

Wtf fraizer gets smoked easily by slow but big hitter foreman but he can beat a guy who is more skilled, is larger and hits just as hard, how does that work?
Also just becuase i think lewis is an alltime great doesn't mean i don't rate old boxers, it just means i am a realist the likes of marciano etc are to small to compete with a guy like lewis. I rate the likes of louis and ali way above lewis and conisder guys like dempsey and marciano better p4p fighters but who have they beat to be conisdered better. Newer isn't always better but neither is older, at least i have seen lewis fight and can compare him with other boxers, how many of dempseys etc fights have you seen to compare him with the modern fighters. In fact how many people have seen much of all of these old fighter barring grainy old clips that can't really proove anything either way.

[McGrain]

head to head he might well beat anybody.

I do agree that Dempsey can be rated alongside Louis and Tyson in terms of offence, and I also agree with your general stance on size in the HW division. But I do feel that when you're talking about the absolute upper class it becomes a serious hurdle to overcome.

You won't find anybody on my a top 10 HW list that has anything other than great fighters, people who are equal or close to equal with Dempsey in his very best areas and excel him in others. So here size becomes a serious, serious issue for Dempsey. This isn't ten pin bowling, this is a top .1% fighter up against other top .1% fighters who are going to be almost exclusively bigger than him.

I pick most top HW's to beat Dempsey. I'm talking only about the top ten guys of course.

Pound for pound he is totaly off the scale among the heavyweights.

I agree with this, he's probably #1.

[McGrain]

Size dosnt offer you next to no protection against a puncher like Dempsey, Louis or Tyson.

Certainly it's not substitute for a world class jab or world class in fighting skills.

Of course, when Dempsey is matched with top 10 fighters, he'll be up against guys with attributes like these.

[rydersonthestorm]

Lewis had an excellent jab, as well as size and who can name a 6'5 240+ fighter with the boxing skills of lewis.??

[McGrain]

Lewis had an excellent jab, as well as size and who can name a 6'5 240+ fighter with the boxing skills of lewis.??

No, he's the best ever of his size. He may even be a total freak, time will tell.

[ChrisPontius]

Lewis had an excellent jab, as well as size and who can name a 6'5 240+ fighter with the boxing skills of lewis.??

Wladimir Klitschko comes close, but he's much more fragile than Lewis, overall speaking. He lacks the great uppercut that Lewis had, but has a much better (consistent) left hook to make up for it, offensive-wise.

[McGrain]

Wladimir Klitschko comes close, but he's much more fragile than Lewis, overall speaking. He lacks the great uppercut that Lewis had, but has a much better (consistent) left hook to make up for it, offensive-wise.

There is more to wonder about with that guy. "Fragile" is a fine word for it, but it's possible that that is a symptom of his size, I don't know.

What do you make of his temprament?

[rydersonthestorm]

Also if the guy before think lewis, a guy with a solid to good chin is glass jawed what the hell is wlad .lol

[JIm Broughton]

As great as some of the old time champs were, I have a hard time seeing them dominate a dreadnought like Lewis. Win a few here and there yes. Dominate? Absolutely not. Lewis had the size,strength,skill and intelligence to beat any HW champ from any era. He is light years ahead of men like Willard,Carnera, Max and Buddy Baer or Cooney for that matter and probably too big for Marciano and Frazier who were'nt even six feet tall for chrissakes! Does anyone really think Marciano could even get close enough to do any damage to Lewis being 5'10" with a 69" reach! Even if he did Lewis would simply lean his 6'5" 240lb body on Marciano's 184lb frame and smother him. Likewise with Frazier. His size and ability would also give fellow boxers Ali and Holmes fits. Two men who did not like to be jabbed back at by fighters like Norton,Bugner,Witherspoon,Williams etc.. At his best Lewis would probably break even or hold a slight edge in a series of head to head contests against fellow great HW champs, men who never competed against the combination of size, power and ability that Lennox possesed.

[mr. magoo]

Well, which is it: do you "not give a shit" about magazines, or do you actually in fact read multiple written sources to "do your research"?

Friend, guess what: reporters who WRITE for magazines do what you do. You're not the only one who researches, reads multiple sources, and uses judgement to form an opinion.

It doesnt sound like you do much research, to be completely frank. I don't know what "taking to heart the testimonial of a periodical" means, to paraphrase you. You mean quotes in a paper?

You mean you never read a great history by an author who wasn't party to the events him or herself? Or that you wouldn't trust one?

No I believe you misunderstood,

I clearly said that I prefer to use multiple sources and not just the testimony of one source, which believe it or not, can be just as biased as anything else. From what you're describing, it seems as though you view the Ring Magazine to be the end all be all of boxing knowledge.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more in depth search yourself.

[mr. magoo]

If you're equatinig Shavers with "any guy", I'd have to say the conversation takes an ignorant but abrupt halt right here.


Boy, you sure as hell have a way of taking quotes out of context. By stating that I would give any underdog a chance in a 10 fight series, I wasn't reducing Shavers to being just any guy, and besides if that's the kind of spin you want to put on it, Lewis isn't just any champion either.



Shavers did not just have a ridiculous right; he had a great left and decent defense. He gives Lennox and much more serious (not to mention fearsome) challenge than "any guy" -- and certainly more than 1 in 10.


I've never heard anyone claim that Shavers had a great left. In fact, I don't even know if Shavers had a fuckin' left attached to his body. And good defense? Christ on a crutch man, are we even talking about the same guy? I respect Shavers for his overhand right, and the testimonies of Ali and Holmes as being one of history's hardest hitters. Let's not forget however, that this is the same guy who was beaten in a single round by Jerry Quarry, knocked out in 5 by Ron Stander, and outboxed by journeyman Bob Stallings. If your trying to make a case that Shavers would beat Lewis however the hell many times out of 10 ( a bullshit hypothetical by the way ), just because Mccall did, then I suggest you make yourself some pop corn, grab a box of raisinettes and watch some footage of these guys. Mccall and Shavers had nothing in common with one another.

[roxyboxy]

No I believe you misunderstood,

I clearly said that I prefer to use multiple sources and not just the testimony of one source, which believe it or not, can be just as biased as anything else. From what you're describing, it seems as though you view the Ring Magazine to be the end all be all of boxing knowledge.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more in depth search yourself.


I never said any such thing, or any such thing like it. Using ridiculous statements as a distraction is a poor technique of argument. Stick to the facts about your original statement:

"and not to mention who gives a shit about what a magazine says. I prefer to do my own research by looking at multiple articles, fight footage, records, statistics, etc. rather than to take to heart the testimony of a periodical who's author is just as biased as the next guy. I used to go see movies based on the critic's ratings. I soon found that I was a lot happier by using my own judgement."

You said you read multiple articles. I presume those come from multiple places, one or more of which can be a magazine. I take away from this that you actually DO care about written sources.

Snap out of it. Don't defend the indefensible, just be a lot more precise with your words. Same as before, when you said that Shavers was "any other fighter". If that's not what you mean, DONT sit there and F'in type it out! Type what you mean! Christ.

[roxyboxy]

Boy, you sure as hell have a way of taking quotes out of context. By stating that I would give any underdog a chance in a 10 fight series, I wasn't reducing Shavers to being just any guy, and besides if that's the kind of spin you want to put on it, Lewis isn't just any champion either.




I've never heard anyone claim that Shavers had a great left. In fact, I don't even know if Shavers had a fuckin' left attached to his body. And good defense? Christ on a crutch man, are we even talking about the same guy? I respect Shavers for his overhand right, and the testimonies of Ali and Holmes as being one of history's hardest hitters. Let's not forget however, that this is the same guy who was beaten in a single round by Jerry Quarry, knocked out in 5 by Ron Stander, and outboxed by journeyman Bob Stallings. If your trying to make a case that Shavers would beat Lewis however the hell many times out of 10 ( a bullshit hypothetical by the way ), just because Mccall did, then I suggest you make yourself some pop corn, grab a box of raisinettes and watch some footage of these guys. Mccall and Shavers had nothing in common with one another.


There's nothing "bullshit" about the hypothetical. The idea is that a statistical sample of one is not interesting, or, that it is not as interesting as making more of the match. With one, you acknowledge that anything can happen, and that for the sake of hypotheticals is useless. So, the purpose of a logarithm is to demonstrate an exponent's ratio to a base; in this case, that whatever qualities give someone an edge can be magnified ten times to bring proof to the argument. It's very important to be able to bring something finite like that to a projection.

You're starting to come off like a boorish dullard. Apologies, but true.

[McGrain]

There's nothing "bullshit" about the hypothetical. You're starting to come off like a dullard.


This guy could be HomicidalHank.

[rydersonthestorm]

Funny how he would rather argue and bullshit about over what arguements he and another guy are having, rather than try and have a decent debate which was happening until now.

[mr. magoo]

There's nothing "bullshit" about the hypothetical. You're starting to come off like a dullard.

God,

would someone ban this cocksucking dipshit already. All he's done since his arrival is taken people's quotes out of context and responds with condescending remarks to hide his ineptitude.

[rydersonthestorm]

i didn't think you could ban people on this site, i have seen stupid amounts of insults and fighter bashing so i think he is more likely to be given great accolades than banned.

[roxyboxy]

This guy could be HomicidalHank.

And you could be an artless twat.

[roxyboxy]

i didn't think you could ban people on this site, i have seen stupid amounts of insults and fighter bashing so i think he is more likely to be given great accolades than banned.

I'm usually offended by people I respect or by those who at least possess some kind of basic grasp of English. You're harmless.

[McGrain]

And you could be an artless twat.

I didn't think Americans said "twat".

You live, you learn.

[roxyboxy]

God,

would someone ban this cocksucking dipshit already. All he's done since his arrival is taken people's quotes out of context and responds with condescending remarks to hide his ineptitude.

I should be banned because you're a fucking putz?

Silly putz, calm the fuck down and TYPE WHAT YOU MEAN.

[China_hand_Joe]

Lewis is clearly the best H2H hw for me, only Holmes comes close.

[McGrain]

Lewis is clearly the best H2H hw for me, only Holmes comes close.

Let's see the other three that would make up your five.

And do you think Liston is overated in Classic?

[roxyboxy]

I didn't think Americans said "twat".

You live, you learn.

We do!:blurp

[rydersonthestorm]

Well your an american so you can't grasp real english, and in regards to my insults, you should be offended becuase even if i was as dumb as your post's make your appear it would still put me at a level far greater than you could even dream of.
Hotti_killer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
roxyboxy

[rydersonthestorm]

Note he said h2h not all time great list, i would like to see a list of heavyweights that would fair better against a range of boxers than lewis.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=roxyboxy]I should be banned because you're a fucking putz?

Says the dipshit who claims Shavers had a good left and decent defense. :lol: :smh

[roxyboxy]

Well your an american so you can't grasp real english, and in regards to my insults, you should be offended becuase even if i was as dumb as your post make your appear it would still put me at a level far greater than you could even dream of.
Hotti_killer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
roxyboxy

Um, what?
No, honestly. What? I showed this post to a few friends and they cannot make it out either. Are you mad?

I am certainly an American. And further, I am an American who can properly form a contraction, such as YOU + ARE = You're. *You're* free to make that *your* own little formula for success!

P.S. Solely because of you, I'm putting Lennox Lewis even FURTHER down on my all-time list. Look what you did. He's gonna be really mad.

[McGrain]

Note he said h2h not all time great list, i would like to see a list of heavyweights that would fair better against a range of boxers than lewis.


I would pick Liston, Louis and Ali to do better than him against the very best, that would be it.

What do you make of Lewis' chin?

[mr. magoo]

I wouldn't be surprised if this incompetent poster who calls himself roxyboxy didn't know what a jab, hook, or cross was. He probably thought Sugar Ray Robinson made a comeback in his mid sixties to fight Hagler in 1987.

[roxyboxy]

[quote]

Says the dipshit who claims Shavers had a good left and decent defense. :lol: :smh


You, uh, got me, Magoo-goo doll. Now go crack up on those study skills.:hey

[roxyboxy]

I wouldn't be surprised if this incompetent poster who calls himself roxyboxy didn't know what a jab, hook, or cross was. He probably thought Sugar Ray Robinson made a comeback in his mid sixties to fight Hagler in 1987.

That is a wicked attack. You should be ashamed of yourself. For the record:

Jab: The mildest of which have Magoo covering up.

Hook: Something you put a juicy insult on to make Magoo swallow like it's the Last Supper.

Cross: How Magoo feels right now.


P.S. You are constantly redeemed through your avatar.
Bonus: Sugar Ray Robinson was a member of the Four Tops. We all know that.

[rydersonthestorm]

Internet typo's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>your intelligence, it's not a university essay it's an internet forum everbody else thinks your a wanker so why not crawl back into the red neck hole you climbed out from.
To mcgrain
I don't think liston does better as i think he beats 6 out of the 10 all time fighters, were as i think lewis could beat 7/8 of them. I do agree with louis and ali and have already posted this.
In regards to lewis's chin it was good, i don't care for the idiots that make out he had a glass jaw, if you don't train and taunt a fighter to hit you are going to be in trouble even if your david tua etc. He did this with rahman and paid the price, in regards to mccall he should have had the chance to carry on as he was ready to fight at the 8-9 count, still abit unsteady but as the champ he should have been allowed another go. Also i have said earlier that pre manny lewis didn't have the boxing skills of a prime lewis and couldn't slip a punch properly, against a big hitting, tough chinned fighter trained by manny he didn't do well. However lewis avenged both loses and took some big shots in his career without looking like going down so i don't think he has a glass jaw.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

watch the vid and see some of the shots lewis took, glassjaw i call utter bullshit.

[China_hand_Joe]

Let's see the other three that would make up your five.

And do you think Liston is overated in Classic?

Lewis
Holmes
Ali (higher than Foreman this month)
Foreman
Then everyone else seems a bit rubbish, they are all have significant weaknesses, a bit like Foreman.

[rydersonthestorm]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
some nice lewis ko highlights

[mr. magoo]

That is a wicked attack. You should be ashamed of yourself. For the record:

Jab: Roxy's boyfriend does this to him when he sits on his lap.

Hook: How Roxy makes his living in boy's town

Cross: Something Roxy's mother unfortunately failed to do with her legs.



I'd say you hit the nail right on the head Roxy old boy. :good

[roxyboxy]

[quote=hotti_killer]Internet typo's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>your intelligence, it's not a university essay it's an internet forum everbody else thinks your a wanker so why not crawl back into the red neck hole you climbed out from.
quote]


That's so riddled with illiteracy that I feel chilly.

I'm no redneck, however. That's for sure.

[roxyboxy]

I'd say you hit the nail right on the head Roxy old boy. :good


A mother joke! Get the fuck out! LOLOLOLOL. Now that's lame. I was expecting something creative, not friggin' colors and gay jokes.

Speaking of, you're pretty good with that rainbow. Did you copy it from your flag?

[China_hand_Joe]

A mother joke! Get the fuck out! LOLOLOLOL. Now that's lame. I was expecting something creative, not friggin' colors and gay jokes.

Speaking of, you're pretty good with that rainbow. Did you copy it from your flag?

Do you rate Joe Calzaghe mate? Yes or no?

[mr. magoo]

Speaking of, you're pretty good with that rainbow. Did you copy it from your flag?


Hey great comeback there ace.

In case you decided to retire your incredible nack for astute observing, my profile clearly says I'm from the States, which you have so eloquently tuted your horn about since arriving here.

By the way, if this turns out to be another creation of Moral Man, I hope they ban your ass for life this time.

[rydersonthestorm]

We all agree that roxy's a wanker, so lets not feed the troll anymore.

[rydersonthestorm]

Funny how you can't use a simple quote function as well.

[mr. magoo]

I was a professional researcher of history for many years. I know the value in looking at all kinds of sources: primary, secondary, written, oral, graphic, etc.



You may want to start by looking at the description of words like "Periodical"

Here is a link for you to read.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And also some Shavers footage so that you can show us his great defense and left hook:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Enjoy dickhead :finger

[roxyboxy]

Hey great comeback there ace.

In case you decided to retire your incredible nack for astute observing, my profile clearly says I'm from the States, which you have so eloquently tuted your horn about since arriving here.

By the way, if this turns out to be another creation of Moral Man, I hope they ban your ass for life this time.


I have no idea what you are talking about, but I do know what a "knack" is.

[roxyboxy]

You may want to start by looking at the description of words like "Periodical"

Here is a link for you to read.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And also some Shavers footage so that you can show us his great defense and left hook:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Enjoy dickhead :finger


Say, do you mean "definition"?
Thank you for the links.

If I get banned, my guess is you'll get banned, too.

[roxyboxy]

You may want to start by looking at the description of words like "Periodical"

Here is a link for you to read.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And also some Shavers footage so that you can show us his great defense and left hook:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Enjoy dickhead :finger


Say, do you mean "definition"?
Thank you for the links.

If I get banned, my guess is you'll get banned, too. You're no better than I, brotha.

[roxyboxy]

Magoo, I see you're from Chicago. And so practially am I.

[mr. magoo]

Say, do you mean "definition"?
Thank you for the links.

If I get banned, my guess is you'll get banned, too. You're no better than I, brotha.

you're barking up the wrong tree dude.

I've been posting here for nearly a year, and while I've had my battles with other posters, It normally stays pretty tame " brotha ". You on the other hand, have just started posting here and have made quite a few friends in a rather short time. My guess is that you're either an already established member who's starting trouble under a different account, or you're just a newbie who doesn't know when to quit while he's ahead ( not that you ever were ). In either case, I'd say you're well on the way to losing privelages here. You've already managed to lose credibility in the eyes of anyone who made the mistake of reading this thread.

Now run along, and see if you can find any typos in today's periodicals.

[mr. magoo]

Magoo, I see you're from Chicago. And so practially am I.

Yay.....

[roxyboxy]

you're barking up the wrong tree dude.

I've been posting here for nearly a year, and while I've had my battles with other posters, It normally stays pretty tame " brotha ". You on the other hand, have just started posting here and have made quite a few friends in a rather short time. My guess is that you're either an already established member who's starting trouble under a different account, or you're just a newbie who doesn't know when to quit while he's ahead ( not that you ever were ). In either case, I'd say you're well on the way to losing privelages here. You've already managed to lose credibility in the eyes of anyone who made the mistake of reading this thread.

Now run along, and see if you can find any typos in today's periodicals.


You bore me. Have a great day.

[JimboDs]

I love how the argument for Lewis is always "He's a lot bigger than great heavyweight x,y,z and would therefore beat him in a fantasy matchup and is therefore a greater heavyweight".

You're really shitting on past great fighters if you think them incapable of overcoming height/size advantages.

We had a great HW champion recently who was not a natural heavyweight by the name of Evander Holyfield. Unfortunately, he made the (corageous) mistake of standing toe-to-toe with bigger/stronger fighters when he had the skill and athleticism to do otherwise.

[mr. magoo]

I love how the argument for Lewis is always "He's a lot bigger than great heavyweight x,y,z and would therefore beat him in a fantasy matchup and is therefore a greater heavyweight".

You're really shitting on past great fighters if you think them incapable of overcoming height/size advantages.

We had a great HW champion recently who was not a natural heavyweight by the name of Evander Holyfield. Unfortunately, he made the (corageous) mistake of standing toe-to-toe with bigger/stronger fighters when he had the skill and athleticism to do otherwise.

I understand what you're saying Jimbo, and I feel that it has some merit. I have nothing against Jack Dempsey, but I simply can't see him beating Lennox Lewis. It would be one thing if Jack was fighting some big shithead who couldn't box, but Lewis was much more than just a big fighter. He was an all time great big man who possesed many fine attributes and qualities. While I don't consider size to be the end all be all criteria of picking fighters in fantasy matches, you can't ignore that the difference in size dimensions between Dempsey and Lewis would be significant. Not to mention, Jack spent most of his career fighting men smaller than 200 Lbs. Lewis was also a deadly puncher with great tactical skills to compliment it. He over came many great challengers, and did so in a variety of different ways. His chin was well tested against the likes of men like Klistschko, Mason, Bruno, Mercer, Ruddock and Tyson. He went the distance on a variety of occasions and outboxed fighters to win via decision. He lost a couple bouts to lesser fighters, but showed great mental resolve in winning the rematches.

Again, I have all the respect in the world for great champions of the past and believe that some of them were better than Lennox Lewis. Jack Dempsey however, is not one of those fighters who I'd pick to beat him, and for numerous other reasons than just mere size.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Never.

You have to weigh 183 lobs to fight at heavyweight today.

When will a cruiserweight step up to win a belt at heavyweight?

Posibly soon.


So then why did the likes of Holyfield and Spinks decided to add extra weight to their bodies when taking on bigger game. Surely, by your rationale, they should have stayed at their best fighting weight.


ps. And like i've said before if a fighter is a big enough draw it won't matter if he's 185 pounds, they'd still bend the rules accordingly. But this will never happen- ever.


pps. This 'next cruiser' that steps up will likely add 15/20 pounds at least too. Wonder why?

[My dinner with Conteh]

God,

would someone ban this cocksucking dipshit already. All he's done since his arrival is taken people's quotes out of context and responds with condescending remarks to hide his ineptitude.



He has been a mind-numbing bore already. No doubts there. Although his favourite athlete being 'Kevin Keegan' was odd (and seemed a total lie). :huh

[My dinner with Conteh]

[quote]Or are these fighters deemed better simply because they got him when he was older.

Well, are they?



[No but then I never saw Dempsey get taken out by a single punch.



A scenario which is far less likely when a fighter defends his title as sparingly as Dempsey and especially when there's no film of him being twatted. Hey, but he took a dive. Yeah, right. Don't they all. :yep

[janitor]

You won't find anybody on my a top 10 HW list that has anything other than great fighters, people who are equal or close to equal with Dempsey in his very best areas and excel him in others. So here size becomes a serious, serious issue for Dempsey.

I would be verry interested to here who these fighters are who equal or with Dempsey in his best areas. I personaly don't know of any.

Dempsey is not just a 185 lb fighter, not even just a 185 lb all time great like say Rocky Marciano.

He is an aberation. A pound for pound great who belongs with the likes of Duran and SRL not with the likes of Ali and Frazier. Thing is he just hapens to be a heavyweight.

[janitor]

[quote=My dinner with Conteh]So then why did the likes of Holyfield and Spinks decided to add extra weight to their bodies when taking on bigger game. Surely, by your rationale, they should have stayed at their best fighting weight.


Well for one thing they could. Dempsey had to fight over a much greater duration and often against smaller fighters so the disadvantages would have outweighed the advantages.

A puncher like Dempsey is also going to rely less on bulking up than a fighter like Hollyfield or Spinks because he will be the guy on the ofensive.


ps. And like i've said before if a fighter is a big enough draw it won't matter if he's 185 pounds, they'd still bend the rules accordingly. But this will never happen- ever.


Well Dempsey would need to make 193 to fight at heavyweight today. He fought up to 200lbs at his peak so I don't think it would be necesary to bend the rules.

[janitor]

[quote=My dinner with Conteh][quote=janitor]

Well, are they?



I think to a large extent they are as with the grave diggers of any all time great.

If you put the Billy Miske who fought Dempsey before he was champion in with the Dempsey of the Tunney fight he would win verry convincingly. It is even posible to imagine the Fred Fulton who acted as grave digger for Sam Langford doing something similar to an ageing Dempsey.

Tunneys status as Dempseys best oponent singularly hangs on his win over the decrepit Dempsey.

A scenario which is far less likely when a fighter defends his title as sparingly as Dempsey

Without defending Dempseys little sabatical he had as many defences of the lineal title as Lewis and probably fought a similar number of top end fighters.


and especially when there's no film of him being twatted. Hey, but he took a dive. Yeah, right. Don't they all. :yep


If there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that a fight was a dive I do not take it as a given that it was a dive but I do stick a health warning on it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well for one thing they could.


They could but didn't. Obviously advised to put on as much weight as possible without sacrificying too much in speed and movement. However, they had to give up some quickness in reality. Holyfield bulked up to 205 or so and STILL saw fit to put on almost a stone extra when he was well beaten by Bowe. It made sense, he was fighting a much bigger guy and foolishly traded with him. Bad mistake. This was no Willard or Carnera.


[Dempsey had to fight over a much greater duration and often against smaller fighters so the disadvantages would have outweighed the advantages..


Of course, but not against someone that might take him out early.



[A puncher like Dempsey is also going to rely less on bulking up than a fighter like Hollyfield or Spinks because he will be the guy on the ofensive.


Not necessarily, Dempsey was there to be hit more than, say, Spinks. Bulking up is always a good idea for anyone stepping up. Even light middleweights would generally come in around 159 if they were taking on the middleweight champ.

[My dinner with Conteh]

[quote]If there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that a fight was a dive I do not take it as a given that it was a dive but I do stick a health warning on it.


What's the origin of these sources? Books about Dempsey? That's what they're bound to say.

[janitor]

[quote=My dinner with Conteh]They could but didn't. Obviously advised to put on as much weight as possible without sacrificying too much in speed and movement. However, they had to give up some quickness in reality. Holyfield bulked up to 205 or so and STILL saw fit to put on almost a stone extra when he was well beaten by Bowe. It made sense, he was fighting a much bigger guy and foolishly traded with him. Bad mistake. This was no Willard or Carnera.


Yes but Holyfield is no Dempsey. He lacked top end power which is the most crucial factor when steping up.

Bowe would have been a relatively easy nights work for Dempsey due to his somewhat limited defence. I honestly think that Carnera was harder to hit cleanly.


Of course, but not against someone that might take him out early.


I don't think that is a likley scenario.

Not necessarily, Dempsey was there to be hit more than, say, Spinks.

I would dispute that actualy.

Dempsey sliped punches better than Tyson and was extremely mobile on his feet. He circled his oponents to find openings and unlike Holyfield or Spinks he had the arsenal to capitalize on them in seconds.


Bulking up is always a good idea for anyone stepping up. Even light middleweights would generally come in around 159 if they were taking on the middleweight champ.


It is possible that Dempsey could bulk up to say 210 lbs but whether he did or not the result would be the same.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]


What's the origin of these sources? Books about Dempsey? That's what they're bound to say.

Dempseys wife for one thing testified that he took a dive. There is other evidenc as well. Enough to cast doubt. Here is how I look at it-

I work on the asumption that Hagler Hearns was on the level because there is no circumstantial evidence or testimony from either party to the contrary.

I work on the asumption that Johnson Willard was on the level because while Johnson claimed to have taken a dive his testimony is contradictory and not suported by coroborating circumstantial evidence.

I treat fights like Dempsey Flyn, Gans McGovern and Clay Liston II as being suspicious because there is circumstantial evidence from several independant sources that things were not on the level. In short I put a question mark next to them.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Dempsey's wife? Give me a break. No one that might be a bit neautral. Believe what you want believe little man.

[My dinner with Conteh]

[quote]Bowe would have been a relatively easy nights work for Dempsey due to his somewhat limited defence. I honestly think that Carnera was harder to hit cleanly.


You're too exhausting for me mate. Really. :-(

[rydersonthestorm]

It's funny how these old time fighter revisionist's come up with any possible excuse to defend loses by there fighter's but don't give newer fighter's who we have seen these things happen to the same chance. In regars to riddick bowe and carnera, lol i don't like riddick bowe but to say that carnera was harder to it cleanly is scraping the barrel.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]


You're too exhausting for me mate. Really. :-(

Seriously.

Compare any of their performences on film and see who gets taged more often and by a greater proportion of blows. Then consider that the guys Carnera is fighting are often better boxers.

[janitor]

Dempsey's wife? Give me a break. No one that might be a bit neautral. Believe what you want believe little man.

Do you dismiss the posibility that this fight was not on the level?

[Holmes' Jab]

[quote] Bowe would have been a relatively easy nights work for Dempsey due to his somewhat limited defence. I honestly think that Carnera was harder to hit cleanly.

I agree with much of what you say alot of the time, but I disagree with these points.

Bowe's size and strength advantage as well as very good skills would definitely pose Dempsey problems. Dempsey would move straight in at Bowe from the opening bell, but when you're the smaller sized man up against a power puncher (who just happens to have one of the finest uppercuts/inside games in the history of the Division) you're going to have to eat at least some bombs on your way in.

Dempsey never really faced a puncher on Bowe's level. Yes, Bowe's defence was a tad leaky at times but this might be a senario where that wouldn't come into the equation- if Bowe gets to Dempsey first with a sequence of heavy shots, it could be an early finish. If Dempsey makes it past the mid-rounds he has a fine chance, I just don't think he would.

It's fair to say Dempsey ranks higher on an all-time list, but head-to-head I think Bowe might just have his number. :good

[janitor]

It's funny how these old time fighter revisionist's

You call me a revisionist?

If you want to talk about revisionism then I suggest that you look at what people who actualy saw Dempsey fight said about him.

They were singing from my songsheet not yours and continued to do so well into the reign of Mike Tyson.

[rydersonthestorm]

I like dempsey and rate him as the fourth best heavyweight of all time and p4p better than lewis, i don't however think that lewis a 6'5 240+ guy with a great arsenal of punch's and boxing skill is a good match up for dempsey, he may have beaten big fighter's but compared to lewis those big fighter's where bums.

[janitor]

[quote=Holmes' Jab] Bowe's size and strength advantage as well as very good skills would definitely pose Dempsey problems. Dempsey would move straight in at Bowe from the opening bell,

No he wouldn't.

He would be up on his toes circling round Bowe and setting up an opening. When he had set it up Bowe would be hurt like he had never been hurt before.


It's fair to say Dempsey ranks higher on an all-time list, but head-to-head I think Bowe might just have his number. :good


I dont think Bowe would match up well.

He was not just suceptible to getting hit by world class fighters but also mediocre fighters as well. A puncher like Dempsey only needs one chance to put you on queer street.

His record against punchers is shakey to say the least. Herbie Hide nearly had him out of there by his own testimony.

In fact how many punchers did he beat?

[janitor]

I like dempsey and rate him as the fourth best heavyweight of all time and p4p better than lewis, i don't however think that lewis a 6'5 240+ guy with a great arsenal of punch's and boxing skill is a good match up for dempsey, he may have beaten big fighter's but compared to lewis those big fighter's where bums.

Lewis is the best of the big fighters so by definition anybody who has not fought Lewis has not fought a superheavyweight like him.

I would certainly not say that the big fighters Dempsey beat were bums.

Fred Fulton was a large and athletic fighter with good boxing skills seen as the heir aparent to Jess Willard. When Dempsey fought him it was seen as an pick em type of fight but it lasted a matter of seconds.

Jess Willard was limited but was he really any worse than some of the big guys who gave Lewis his hands full like Shanon Briggs?

I would give Luis Firpo an excelent chance of beating Hasim Ramhan head to head.

While these fighters are not great they are the type that must form the bread and butter of a proven record against larger fighters in any era.

[rydersonthestorm]

Do you honestly think hasim rahman would have had any chance against lewis, if lewis had trained for the fight and didn't hang his chin out taunting him. In the second fight lewis battered him and didn't look tired after a couple of rounds. I accept this as a loss but when people say things like dempsey took a dive or he was old etc why do they not take things like this into account with the losses lewis had.
Also i wasn't saying the fighter's dempsey fought where bums, but i think in comparison to lewis the big men dempsey fought where bums.

[McGrain]

I would be verry interested to here who these fighters are who equal or with Dempsey in his best areas. I personaly don't know of any.

OK, let's look, feel free to chime in if you feel i'm missing some area of excellence.

FOOTSPEED DURING A FRONTAL ASSAULT: Tyson probably shades Dempsey.

EVASIVNESS DURING A FRONTAL ASSAULT: Dempsey probably shades Tyson.

HANDSPEED: Patterson, Ali and Tyson all shade him

POWER - HANDSPEED RATIO: Tyson and Louis probably shade him for different reasons.

COMBINATION PUNCHING: Louis and Tyson shade him.

BRAVERY: = with the other bravest fighters to have lived, but no better

[janitor]

[quote=hotti_killer]Do you honestly think hasim rahman would have had any chance against lewis, if lewis had trained for the fight and didn't hang his chin out taunting him.

Perhaps not. But consistency is half the battle.


In the second fight lewis battered him and didn't look tired after a couple of rounds. I accept this as a loss but when people say things like dempsey took a dive or he was old etc why do they not take things like this into account with the losses lewis had.


Being old is not a self inflicted condition and neither is being hungry.

I am not saying that Dempsey took a dive against Flyn I am saying that there is reasonable dout that the fight was on the level.


Also i wasn't saying the fighter's dempsey fought where bums, but i think in comparison to lewis the big men dempsey fought where bums.


To play devils advocate I could say that the big men that Lewis fought were bums compared to Lewis himself.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]
FOOTSPEED DURING A FRONTAL ASSAULT: Tyson probably shades Dempsey.


I think that Dempsey had better overall mobility and made more inteligent use of it. Rather than simply using it as a tool of frontal asult he used it to prevent his oponent setting up on him.

I think this is one particular area where Tyson could have learned from Dempsey.

HANDSPEED: Patterson, Ali and Tyson all shade him

I tend to agree.

Yet still Dempsey managed to edge all three of them in delivery time and predictability due to his ability to throw punches in such a short space.


POWER - HANDSPEED RATIO: Tyson and Louis probably shade him for different reasons.


Hard to say. In terms of delivery technique Dempsey could do things that neither of them could do.

COMBINATION PUNCHING: Louis and Tyson shade him.

I will give you Louis but not Tyson. I think that Tyson was more predictable than Dempsey in his combinations and more telegraphed.

Taking the subtlties of Dempseys artistry into acount there has never really been a heavyweight quite like him.

If guys like Louis and Ali are as good or better then they are as good or better at something verry diferent.

[McGrain]

I think that Dempsey had better overall mobility and made more inteligent use of it. Rather than simply using it as a tool of frontal asult he used it to prevent his oponent setting up on him.

I agree. Here is where comparisons become confusing and perhaps worthless because I would say that Ali had better mobility, Johnson made more intelligent use of space, Tyson had better footspeed - but your position is that Dempsey used them in tandem better than anyone else. How would you say he compared to Langford in the "overall" department?


I will give you Louis but not Tyson. I think that Tyson was more predictable than Dempsey in his combinations and more telegraphed.

I disagree with you. I think that a peak Tyson was every bit as unpredictable as Demspey (especially his body to head attack) and just as difficult to avoid.

I also think that Dempsey was occasionally guilty of over-reaching when he missed. Dempsey's punches look great when they hit, but when he misses he looks over-commited to me. If we are comparing overall offencive packaging Dempsey comes of well, but in this area he is more like Tyson than Louis. Vulnerable to a counter-puncher.

You say that no man is better than 50/50, but I think that the man who came before him, Jack Johnson, may have eaten him alive for this very reason.

[ChrisPontius]

There is more to wonder about with that guy. "Fragile" is a fine word for it, but it's possible that that is a symptom of his size, I don't know.

What do you make of his temprament?

His mental makeup? He'll never be a relaxed fighter like Toney, but he's no quitter either. He always got up and went on to win on several seperate occasions. I recently watched Wlad-Barret, this was a really dirty fight, particularly from Wlad's side. Holding and hitting, butting (Barret's answer), elbows and what not. Barret made it into a streetfight but Wlad knocked him out anyway. A very bloody KO, by the way. A glancing blow raked his eyebrow all the way open and it bled like a fountain, not a pretty sight.




He is an aberation. A pound for pound great who belongs with the likes of Duran and SRL not with the likes of Ali and Frazier. Thing is he just hapens to be a heavyweight.



And so it Lewis. And he's got 50 pounds in natural weight on Dempsey.

How confident would you by in picking a p4p great middleweight over an equally great (p4p) 190lb heavyweight, say Marciano or Schmeling?


Well for one thing they could. Dempsey had to fight over a much greater duration and often against smaller fighters so the disadvantages would have outweighed the advantages.


You see, this is a myth often brought forth by supporters of the sub200lb heavyweights. "They lost the weight because they had to fight harder".

But when you look at Dempsey's ring record you will see that he was scheduled to fight 20 rounds only one time in his career and 15 rounds only seven times in his career. For the 20 rounder he was 185lb, for a 15 rounder 187lb, big deal.

Hell, half of his title fights were over 10 and even 4 rounds! Can you imagine a fighter getting away with that today, aside from leaving the title in a dusty drawer for a full 3 years only to get knocked down twice by a very mediocre, wild swinger, because he's one of the few 210+lb punchers he faced? Not to mention the controversy because he was helped back in the ring. If there was an ESB back then, prepare to read "Dempsey is a fraud", "Dempsey cheated" etc all the time like we still have about Lewis vs Klitschko today.



Ali, Liston, Foreman, Tyson etc all have had their fights scheduled for 15 rounds, did they come down to 190lb? No, they fought for 15 rounds at 210+lb just fine. These are facts, not opinions.


Dempsey was just a smaller man naturally, how hard is that to admit?

[McGrain]

Chris (and anyone else), do you think that Dempsey hits in the same class as big guys like Lewis? Or do you think they hit significantly harder?

Also, do you think Lewis has significantly better punch resistance than Dempsey? Or do you think they are in and around the same class, chin-wise?

[rydersonthestorm]

P4p i think dempsey hit's harder but i think the lewis overhand right and uppercut have alot more power than any of dempsey's shots. In regards to punch resistance lewis walked through some huge and only got dropped by unexpected shots, dempsey got dropped by smaller less powerful guys, i am not now saying dempsey has a weak chin but if he could be dropped by smaller guys than the ones lewis got hit by he might have problems against big hitting, larger fighters.

[Raggamuffin]

He deserves to be mentioned with the ATG but GOAT is ridiculous farfetched

[rydersonthestorm]

i didn't say he had a glass jaw but if people think lewis has a glass jaw wlad has the worst jaw in boxing history.

[mr. magoo]

Wlad´s chin is shaky but far away from glass. Against Purrity his corner threw in the towel after Wlad was totally exhausted - remember he never fought 8 rounds before ant it was his 2nd fight in something like 4 weeks - so Wlad wasn´t koed in that. Against Brewster more or less the same. Brewster was Wlad´s punching ball for 5 rounds before he punched himself out and was stopped while standing. Also not a knockout. Against Sanders he was knocked down a few times but got up every time and was stopped while beeing up. I disagree with everybody who says that Wlad has a glass jaw.


These are all fair assesments. Esecially considering that Purity, Sanders and Brewster were all hard punchers as well.

[PowerPuncher]

Sorry, but your list is full with double standards. Marciano not the best chin, he was knocked down by Moore and Walcott, can you immagine what Lewis would do? We can it also turnaround, when McCall and Rahman both KO´d Lewis with one punch, can you immagine what Marciano would do? Or that Frazier would lose 10 times against Lewis, etc., I don´t know

Firstly Lennox was far harder to hit than Marciano. Lennox is far more likely to tag Marciano first than vice versa

Secondly McCall & Rahman were 6'2 men with 230lbs+++ of solid muscle and were the hardest hitters of their era. Moore and Walcott were sub 200lber punchers, which were good punchers but Lennox probably wouldn't flinch from their shots.

McCall and Rahman (McCall especially) may have been 2 of the harder hitter of all time. And Lennox got up from McCalls shot and was ready to continue. He was past his prime, undertrained, out of stamina and fighting at altitude (which is very hard) against Rahman.

We saw what happened in the rematches

[mr. magoo]

McCall and Rahman (McCall especially) may have been 2 of the harder hitter of all time.


Huh?

[PowerPuncher]

I understand your basic reasoning, but I think you massively, grossly underestimate and misunderstand the quality of fighters we're talking about here. Put aside your interest and love for Lewis for a second and think about him objectively. For example, do you honestly in your heart of hearts think Lennox Lewis could beat Joe Louis SEVENTY PERCENT of the time?! Seriously? That's not happening on this planet, not even close. You think Joe Frazier wouldn't even beat Lewis A SINGLE TIME?! Not even ONE TIME? C'mon. Be real. I'll give you another example: I don't like Jack Dempsey. I was never a fan of his or his fights, but you have to recognize what a nasty fighter he was. If you even have a suspect chin -- and Lewis's chin is more than suspect -- you have to give even just a couple of fights to one of the great all-time punchers.

I can appreciate fandom, but there's no reason I should abide such a silly overestimation of a very, very good heavyweight. You simply can't say he'd win "all" or "very nearly all" of Best of Ten matches with most of the people above. In reality, it's much, much closer than that. Those are some ridiculously great fighters. Also, Moore's in there because of his amazing record of knockouts. Anyone who can knock out that many people can certainly knock out a heavyweight with a questionable chin ONE time.

I stand by my comments. Lewis is one of greats of his era. Greatest of All Time? Certainly not. There's quite a line ahead of him.

Its not unreasonable to say Lennox could win 7 out of 10 against Louis its just the same as winning 2 out of 3. I think Lennox has a huge edge over Louis.

Foreman would beat Frazier 100 out of 100 times - the same goes for Ali against Liston. Lennox can also beat Frazier 10 out of 10 because hes all wrong for Frazier

Lennoxs chin wasn't dented by Tyson, Holyfield - I pick Dempsey to beat him once but Dempsey is more likely to be ko'ed than vice versa. Dempsey has been ko'd in the first and was knocked out of the ring by Firpo.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]I agree. Here is where comparisons become confusing and perhaps worthless because I would say that Ali had better mobility, Johnson made more intelligent use of space, Tyson had better footspeed - but your position is that Dempsey used them in tandem better than anyone else. How would you say he compared to Langford in the "overall" department?


I think that Langford might have been even better than Dempsey in this department based on acounts but all that I can say based on the footage is that he was comparable.


I disagree with you. I think that a peak Tyson was every bit as unpredictable as Demspey (especially his body to head attack) and just as difficult to avoid.


Where Dempsey really scores over Tyson is that his punches are a lot more compact. I would say that Dempsey threw more (higher percentage of) compact punches than any other heavyweight.


I also think that Dempsey was occasionally guilty of over-reaching when he missed. Dempsey's punches look great when they hit, but when he misses he looks over-commited to me.

If we are comparing overall offencive packaging Dempsey comes of well, but in this area he is more like Tyson than Louis. Vulnerable to a counter-puncher.


Valid observations.


You say that no man is better than 50/50, but I think that the man who came before him, Jack Johnson, may have eaten him alive for this very reason.


I think that Johnson Dempsey would be a pick em fight.

Perhaps the worst ofensive fighter for Johnson to counter would be one who did not need much room to get set up. Contemporary opinion was divided on the Johnson Dempsey issue.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]
And so it Lewis. And he's got 50 pounds in natural weight on Dempsey.


Would you rather be an aberation among Jess Willards or an aberation among Rocky Marcianos?


How confident would you by in picking a p4p great middleweight over an equally great (p4p) 190lb heavyweight, say Marciano or Schmeling?


It is not quite the same thing because diminishing returs start to set in above 200lbs. You can only get so big without loosing something.


You see, this is a myth often brought forth by supporters of the sub200lb heavyweights. "They lost the weight because they had to fight harder".

But when you look at Dempsey's ring record you will see that he was scheduled to fight 20 rounds only one time in his career and 15 rounds only seven times in his career. For the 20 rounder he was 185lb, for a 15 rounder 187lb, big deal.


How many 15 or 20 rounders did Lewis fight?

aside from leaving the title in a dusty drawer for a full 3 years only to get knocked down twice by a very mediocre, wild swinger, because he's one of the few 210+lb punchers he faced?

I think that that being knocked down by Firpo is a lot less damaging than being knocked out by Ramhan however you present it.


Ali, Liston, Foreman, Tyson etc all have had their fights scheduled for 15 rounds, did they come down to 190lb? No, they fought for 15 rounds at 210+lb just fine. These are facts, not opinions.


But you did not get fighters bulking up like say Holyfield or Byrd. Ali, Liston and Foreman were lean 210 pounders. Still it is worth noting that Ali came in under 200lbs for some of his early fights.


Dempsey was just a smaller man naturally, how hard is that to admit?


I don't doubt that he was naturaly smaller than Ali, Foreman and Lewis.

Where I get more questioning is when people talk about the new generation of superheavyweights such as Peter Maskaev and Ibragimov.

[dmt]

Do you think Dempsey would be 7 and Lewis 33 if Dempsey was British and Lewis American? No, me neither. Dempsey wouldn't stand a chance with a fighter that heavy and skilled who could punch their weight. As a pound-for-pund puncher he may rate ahead of Lewis, but head-to-head he'd be mashed.then why is it that Holyfield, at 37 who was heavier, twice went the distance with Lewis? Again Holyfield was a natural cruiser and completely over the hill even if he was 20 odd pounds heavier then Dempsey

[rydersonthestorm]

Holyfield is known as one of the toughest fighter's of all time, he hadn't just come up for cruiserweight (already beaten tyson etc), and lewis is only two years younger than evander so the age is not as big a point as you make out.

[PowerPuncher]

I'll come clean and admit I was playing Devils Advocate. I don't rate Lennox as GOAT but he isn't far off and he is underrated. In head to heads hes top 3. Here is my top25 list

My list based on accomplishments (over competition) and dominance

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Jack Johnson
5. Tyson
6. Harry Wills
7. Holmes
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Liston
10. Marciano
11. Joe Frazier
12. Jack Dempsey
13. George Foreman
14. Ezzard Charles
15. James J. Jeffries
16. Bowe
17. Norton
18. Patterson
19. Langford
20. Walcott
21. Gene Tunney
22. Schmelling
23. Sharkey
24. M Spinks
25. Johanssen

[janitor]

btw. Holyfield lost 2 times to Lennox. What´s that for an argument?

Why wasn't this little cruiserweight crushed like Dempsey and Marciano would be?

What if this little cruiserweight had top end power like Dempsey or Marciano and was a few years younger?

What is there in these fights to suggest that an ATG under 200lbs will just get steamrolled?

[dmt]

Chris, Dempsey was down vs Tunney only becuase it was a flash knockdown, or even if it wasn't he was only down for a couple of seconds hardly a big deal. And even if you consider the Flynn ko legitimate, it only happened to him once, not twice. And he only had three years of pro experience up to the point, not years of amateur experience, and 6 years of pro experience when it happened :good

[McGrain]

24. M Spinks

:twisted:

Nice list though. Your top five is quite similiar to my head to head top 5, whatever that tells you...i have Liston higher and Tyson lower.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote] I think that that being knocked down by Firpo is a lot less damaging than being knocked out by Ramhan however you present it. .

Well you think wrong, Firpo was not a boxer he was a circus strong man with zero boxing ability. Rahman at least knows how to punch properly. Not only that Rahman is a physical beast that would be far stronger than Firpo (Rahman bench pressed 550lbs). Not only that Rahman is very athletic, something that no one would ever accuse Firpo of being.

[dmt]

Holyfield is known as one of the toughest fighter's of all time, he hadn't just come up for cruiserweight (already beaten tyson etc), and lewis is only two years younger than evander so the age is not as big a point as you make out.avtually Lewis was a late bloomer, his best performance was vs Rahman in 2001, whereas Holyfild had medical problems and had taken far more punishment. Holyfield was washed up. I still give Lewis credit but indeed if Lewis was so much better, he could have crushed the small bulked up cruiserweight

[janitor]

Chris, Dempsey was down vs Tunney only becuase it was a flash knockdown, or even if it wasn't he was only down for a couple of seconds hardly a big deal. And even if you consider the Flynn ko legitimate, it only happened to him once, not twice. And he only had three years of pro experience up to the point, not years of amateur experience, and 6 years of pro experience when it happened :good

Plus he probably hadn't eaten in the last few days.

The Flyn loss is irrelevant if it was on the level and equaly irrelevant if it was not.

Dose anybody here give Flyn any credit for this win?

[janitor]

Schmeling proved that he could even beat a greater p4p fighter against Mickey Walker.

Jack Sharkey fought Walker with somewhat less conclusive results.

[rydersonthestorm]

Funny how evander is just over 6'2, yet your comparing guys under 6 foot with him as a comparison.

[McGrain]

Why wasn't this little cruiserweight crushed like Dempsey and Marciano would be?

I think the guys who pick Lewis to smash these smaller guys don't take Lewis' sometime mental deficiencies into account. If we look at the first round of Lewis-Tyson, an over the hill Tyson wins it, he bullies Lewis a little bit with aggression. Now Lewis also sets the tone for the win, he hits Mike with two cracking uppercuts and takes all the startch out of him - the old Tyson realises then that the job is to hard.

But a peak Dempsey against even a peak Lewis is a live fight IMO. As far as my top five goes (Ali, Louis, Liston, Lewis, Johnson) i'm happy to pick the other four over Dempsey, that is not hard for me, but I give Dempsey a real live chance v Lewis - Lewis may even be made for him.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

Well you think wrong, Firpo was not a boxer he was a circus strong man with zero boxing ability. Rahman at least knows how to punch properly. Not only that Rahman is a physical beast that would be far stronger than Firpo (Rahman bench pressed 550lbs). Not only that Rahman is very athletic, something that no one would ever accuse Firpo of being.

Firpo was certainly a legit contender at this point. He was crude but sneaky and knew how to feint an oponent into trouble.

I think it quite likley that he could knock Ramhan out.

[McGrain]

Funny how evander is just over 6'2, yet your comparing guys under 6 foot with him as a comparison.

He's an example of someone who's come from a lighter weight to become an ATG in modern heavyweight boxing, so the comparison is valid.

[PowerPuncher]

Why wasn't this little cruiserweight crushed like Dempsey and Marciano would be?

What if this little cruiserweight had top end power like Dempsey or Marciano and was a few years younger?

What is there in these fights to suggest that an ATG under 200lbs will just get steamrolled?

Because Holyfield was 215lbs of ripped to the bone muscle with less bodyfat than dempsey. How do you know Holyfield didn't hit harder than Dempsey/Marciano - he was after all in with bigger more skilled opposition.

If your calling Holyfield a cruserweight because he was once 190lbs does that mean Dempsey is a light heavyweight because he started at 170lbs?

[dmt]

Because Holyfield was 215lbs of ripped to the bone muscle with less bodyfat than dempsey. How do you know Holyfield didn't hit harder than Dempsey/Marciano - he was after all in with bigger more skilled opposition.

If your calling Holyfield a cruserweight because he was once 190lbs does that mean Dempsey is a light heavyweight because he started at 170lbs?Holyfield was a cruiser when he was an adult. Dempsey was a light-heavy when he was an underfed teen. Holyfield was also a light-heavy as a teen, he competed in the Olympics as a light-heavy

[PowerPuncher]

:twisted:

Nice list though. Your top five is quite similiar to my head to head top 5, whatever that tells you...i have Liston higher and Tyson lower.

Yet its ok that Bert Sugar has the similarly accomplished Tunney in his top10 :rofl

Do you have a top25 McGrain? I made a top100 a year ago but need to change quite a few names around

[McGrain]

From record and the films i think they had about equal power. The difference in power between the top guys there is very marginal.

Chinwise i think Lewis fought more very good punchers than Dempsey while beeing floored only twice but than he was also knocked out one time and stopped the other. I think Dempsey had a slightly better chin.

I think you are close to spot on, though Dempsey may not have had a better chin (marginal).

My point is, if this is the case, what huge advantages are left for the bigger guys? If they are not more powerful, if they are not more resistant to big punchers, what is their real advantage?

Lewis is an example of a fighter who is very very good at being big, he uses his size well. Dempsey is a fighter with wonderful rythym breaking head movement. Both of these factors are just stylistic factors to be solved. They aren't deal-breakers, either of them.

[rydersonthestorm]

My point is that he was saying that evander was a simular size to dempsey and marciano as comparison when he was clealry alot bigger.

[dmt]

My point is that he was saying that evander was a simular size to dempsey and marciano as comparison when he was clealry alot bigger.Dempsey was 6'1 with a 77 inch reach, same as Holyfield. So evender took drugs and was 20 lb heavier, not such a huge deal, Dempsey could have done it too.

[McGrain]

Yet its ok that Bert Sugar has the similarly accomplished Tunney in his top10 :rofl

Does seem excessive...

Do you have a top25 McGrain? I made a top100 a year ago but need to change quite a few names around

A hundred is an impressive thing. I haven't been past 20. If I try to go any further than that it gets all mushy.

[rydersonthestorm]

I think evander took drugs, but you can't prove that so that is not valid in any way, mike tyson and david tua where both shorter than dempsey but where alot bigger than him so height and reach etc don't tell the full story.

[PowerPuncher]

Holyfield was a cruiser when he was an adult. Dempsey was a light-heavy when he was an underfed teen. Holyfield was also a light-heavy as a teen, he competed in the Olympics as a light-heavy

Age has no impact. Its your final Lean body Mass. Its like saying Castillo is the same size as Willie Pepp because they both started at the same weight - featherweight (sugar Ray Robinson also started at 126 and fought Pepp in the Ams). Or is Duran is the same size as Jofre because they both started at battamweights.

The fact is having 25lbs of muscle on your opponent gives you a huge advantage all things being equal

According to Dempseys biography he put weights in his pockets to weigh heavier than he was as he was weighing below 175. This must have been for ranked fights - possibly title fights, so he was a light heavyweight in his prime.

[rydersonthestorm]

Also i think you are having trouble with understanding what the word bigger means, it doesn't mean he was taller it means he had more physical mass, bigger doesn't mean the same as taller.

[dmt]

Age has no impact. Its your final Lean body Mass. Its like saying Castillo is the same size as Willie Pepp because they both started at the same weight - featherweight (sugar Ray Robinson also started at 126 and fought Pepp in the Ams). Or is Duran is the same size as Jofre because they both started at battamweights.

The fact is having 25lbs of muscle on your opponent gives you a huge advantage all things being equal

According to Dempseys biography he put weights in his pockets to weigh heavier than he was as he was weighing below 175. This must have been for ranked fights - possibly title fights, so he was a light heavyweight in his prime.he weighed 180 lb, not 175lb. For Fripo he was 192 lb not a light heavyweight

[PowerPuncher]

Dempsey was 6'1 with a 77 inch reach, same as Holyfield. So evender took drugs and was 20 lb heavier, not such a huge deal, Dempsey could have done it too.

The steroids issue is a valid point and this is 1 problem with comparing eras - old school fighters dont have the same technologies. If Dempsey brought the same package at 210lbs it may be different. The 190lb package gets dealt with quite easily though.

Dempsey would not be a MASSIVE puncher as everyone believes in todays HW division.

He would have decent power, but his power is being overated from KO'ing strongmen with no boxing defense. Dempsey wasn't as impressive against the best LHWs of his time so he isn't going to be devastating against skilled Super Heavyweights. He isn't going to get away with lunging haymakers against better fighters - Willard and Firpo made him look good because they were so poor

[PowerPuncher]

Does seem excessive...

A hundred is an impressive thing. I haven't been past 20. If I try to go any further than that it gets all mushy.

I may revamp it and post it in a few days

[PowerPuncher]

he weighed 180 lb, not 175lb. For Fripo he was 192 lb not a light heavyweight

Not if he had weights in his pocket he didnt

[McGrain]

I may revamp it and post it in a few days

It would be worth a look for sure.

Though what seperates 88 from 89 would be beyond me.

If Dempsey had beaten Wills, what would your opinion of him be?

[dmt]

The steroids issue is a valid point and this is 1 problem with comparing eras - old school fighters dont have the same technologies. If Dempsey brought the same package at 210lbs it may be different. The 190lb package gets dealt with quite easily though.

Dempsey would not be a MASSIVE puncher as everyone believes in todays HW division.

He would have decent power, but his power is being overated from KO'ing strongmen with no boxing defense. Dempsey wasn't as impressive against the best LHWs of his time so he isn't going to be devastating against skilled Super Heavyweights. He isn't going to get away with lunging haymakers against better fighters - Willard and Firpo made him look good because they were so poorDempsey was a very hard hitter, no one is arguing Willard and Fripo were any good, but everyone faces their fair shares of weak foes. Did every top fighter Lewis face was great? Grant? Dempsey, between 1918 and 23 fought 32 times, won most of the fights with ko, with fair share of bums ont he list and some good fighters. Although Miske went the distance with him twice, Dempsey then stopped him third time around. Gibbons managed to last the distance but Dempsey was coming straight froma two year layoff. And the only other one to last the distance was Meehan ina 4 rounder.

[dmt]

Not if he had weights in his pocket he didnthe weighed 180 wihout pocket weights. He had no pocket weights for Fripo fight, he looked heavier and had added muscle

[PowerPuncher]

It would be worth a look for sure.

Though what seperates 88 from 89 would be beyond me.

If Dempsey had beaten Wills, what would your opinion of him be?

If he hadn't beaten Wills (a big if because Wills was a skilled big man, not an oath like Willard), top 6. The floored comparison people give for picking Dempsey is 'he did well against big men'. Completely ignoring the fact a past prime Wills easily beat Firpo without getting floored. No Dempsey did well against unskilled slow big men with no defense.

I've probably got Wills slightly too high now I think about it but I think he should be above Dempsey for ranking as the premier HW from 1914-1926 but his legacy is obviously hurt from not beating the other top dog from his era (Dempsey). Wills showed allot more longevity than Dempsey and had far far fights against ranked opposition.

[PowerPuncher]

Dempsey was a very hard hitter, no one is arguing Willard and Fripo were any good, but everyone faces their fair shares of weak foes. Did every top fighter Lewis face was great? Grant? Dempsey, between 1918 and 23 fought 32 times, won most of the fights with ko, with fair share of bums ont he list and some good fighters. Although Miske went the distance with him twice, Dempsey then stopped him third time around. Gibbons managed to last the distance but Dempsey was coming straight froma two year layoff. And the only other one to last the distance was Meehan ina 4 rounder.

Lennox never fought someone with the low level barbaric skills Firpo brought to the table and Firpo isn't landing anything on Lewis any day of the weak.

Grant clearly had visibly more skill than Firpo but he was flawed (in more ways than 1 :hey )

No ones talking about greatness were talking about general boxing skill.

Do you honestly seeing Firpo or Willard getting past the second round if Lennox jumps on them? Lennoxs wins over Golota, Grant and Rudduck are more impressive than these because those 3 had better defense, were faster, more athletic and better boxers

[PowerPuncher]

he weighed 180 wihout pocket weights. He had no pocket weights for Fripo fight, he looked heavier and had added muscle

Yes but a fully hydrated 180 would still be a LHW today (he'd just cut 5lbs of water). Dempsey also wasnt at his best against Firpo

Can we imagine what Lennox would have done to RJJ, Tarver or DM?? Or even Jirov for that matter

[dmt]

Yes but a fully hydrated 180 would still be a LHW today (he'd just cut 5lbs of water). Dempsey also wasnt at his best against Firpo

Can we imagine what Lennox would have done to RJJ, Tarver or DM?? Or even Jirov for that matterAre Jirov, Jones, or DM as good as Dempsey or Marciano?

[rydersonthestorm]

Good points tobkahn i don't think any of us has said that lewis etc would steamroll these boxers, we have just said that with lewis's size and skill set we think he would beat marciano and dempsey etc.

[dmt]

Lennox never fought someone with the low level barbaric skills Firpo brought to the table and Firpo isn't landing anything on Lewis any day of the weak.

Grant clearly had visibly more skill than Firpo but he was flawed (in more ways than 1 :hey )

No ones talking about greatness were talking about general boxing skill.

Do you honestly seeing Firpo or Willard getting past the second round if Lennox jumps on them? Lennoxs wins over Golota, Grant and Rudduck are more impressive than these because those 3 had better defense, were faster, more athletic and better boxersLewis would have stopped both Willard and Fripo, who is arguing otherwise? On the other hand Dempsey is also alot better then old Holyfield, washed up Tyson, rubbish Golota, or Rahman and McCall for that matter. Dempsey would have also smashed Rahman and McCall

[rydersonthestorm]

Roy jones is as good as those fighter's, p4p he was one of the most talented fighter's ever and don't try and bring up taver etc as roy was past it by this point. Again if you include jones's losses from tarver onwards how can you make half the other points you make about suspect loss''s and age etc.

[dmt]

If he hadn't beaten Wills (a big if because Wills was a skilled big man, not an oath like Willard), top 6. The floored comparison people give for picking Dempsey is 'he did well against big men'. Completely ignoring the fact a past prime Wills easily beat Firpo without getting floored. No Dempsey did well against unskilled slow big men with no defense.

I've probably got Wills slightly too high now I think about it but I think he should be above Dempsey for ranking as the premier HW from 1914-1926 but his legacy is obviously hurt from not beating the other top dog from his era (Dempsey). Wills showed allot more longevity than Dempsey and had far far fights against ranked opposition.The same can be said about Marciano, even Louis, Johnson and Jeffries, Wills beat better fighters then them, would u rate him ahead of all of them?

Wills was damn good but no expert who saw him in his prime thought he was better then Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey or Louis and many of these experts had black fighters in their rankings so they werenot racists

[PowerPuncher]

Are Jirov, Jones, or DM as good as Dempsey or Marciano?

Actually I'd say Prime RJJ is up there with Dempsey and Marciano. He'd give either a seriously difficult challenge stylistically

It was meant as a size comparion, but all 3 would have been amongst the better opponents Dempsey and Marciano faced (especially Dempsey)

[dmt]

Roy jones is as good as those fighter's, p4p he was one of the most talented fighter's ever and don't try and bring up taver etc as roy was past it by this point. Again if you include jones's losses from tarver onwards how can you make half the other points you make about suspect loss''s and age etc.Jones is a great fighter in a p4p sense but given his chin, at heavyweight, Marciano and Dempsey would have smashed his head off

[McGrain]

Roy jones is as good as those fighter's, p4p he was one of the most talented fighter's ever and don't try and bring up taver etc as roy was past it by this point. Again if you include jones's losses from tarver onwards how can you make half the other points you make about suspect loss''s and age etc.

I have no objection to your description of him as one of the most talented p4p. That seems reasonable. He was flawed though, so one of the best p4p is up for debate.

[McGrain]

Actually I'd say Prime RJJ is up there with Dempsey and Marciano. He'd give either a seriously difficult challenge stylistically

I think they would both be seriously entertaining fights - until the point where Dempsey or Marciano actually clocked him, at which point you have to start worrying about Jones' health.

[dmt]

Actually I'd say Prime RJJ is up there with Dempsey and Marciano. He'd give either a seriously difficult challenge stylistically

It was meant as a size comparion, but all 3 would have been amongst the better opponents Dempsey and Marciano faced (especially Dempsey)He wouldn't be able to withstand the amount of pressure or power. Gibbons managed to stand up to a rusty Dempsey but took alot of punishment that Jones could never take. And neither could Jones take what Marciano gave Charles.

[rydersonthestorm]

In terms of talent name me ten better boxers than roy jones p4p in any era, i didn't say he was p4p top ten in the rankings but in terms of natural talent he was one of the best of all time. I would have him in the 50 best fighter ever p4p but near the end of it 35-50.

[McGrain]

In terms of talent name me ten better boxers than roy jones p4p in any era, i didn't say he was p4p top ten in the rankings but in terms of natural talent he was one of the best of all time.

I agree.

I would have him in the 50 best fighter ever p4p but near the end of it 35-50.

Arguable I guess.

[dmt]

In terms of talent name me ten better boxers than roy jones p4p in any era, i didn't say he was p4p top ten in the rankings but in terms of natural talent he was one of the best of all time. I would have him in the 50 best fighter ever p4p but near the end of it 35-50.I know he is a top 50 all time p4p fighter but at heavy he is nothing compared to either Marciano or Dempsey

[rydersonthestorm]

When did roy jones ever take any punishment, oh wait when his speed had gone and he was fighint tarver etc prime roy hardly ever got hit never mind took punishment.

[PowerPuncher]

Lewis would have stopped both Willard and Fripo, who is arguing otherwise? On the other hand Dempsey is also alot better then old Holyfield, washed up Tyson, rubbish Golota, or Rahman and McCall for that matter. Dempsey would have also smashed Rahman and McCall

The fact is Dempsey is hyped up on his ability to KO the unskilled Willard and Firpo, when anyone top HW should dispose of both easily.

And no Dempsey is not better in all areas than Vitali, Holyfield, Tyson, Golota, Rudduck, Tua

For starters hes easier to land clean on than those fighters. Secondly he doesn't hit as hard as some of them and

Yes he is better in some areas. But what does he bring to the table that Holyfield did not? Maybe Power - slight edge although Holyfield has underated power (and Lennox has eaten harder punchers), and speed slight edge (but not quicker than Tyson). Everything else Holyfield outdoes him on pretty much.

[PowerPuncher]

Jones is a great fighter in a p4p sense but given his chin, at heavyweight, Marciano and Dempsey would have smashed his head off

Whos to say Marciano or Dempsey would get to land clean? RJJ would certainly beat them to the punch and get in and out punching and not getting punched for at least the early rounds.

He took punches fine in his prime against fighters weighing in as much as Marciano/Dempsey did - yes those 175lbers would weigh 190 on fight night. He also ate flush shots from 230lb John Ruiz (and Ruiz right floored Holyfield).

Yes Dempsey and Marciano both have the chance to stop RJJ late but they may have both got outboxed to UDs over 12/15

[McGrain]

For starters hes easier to land clean on than those fighters.

Why?! Why do you say that!? I would say Dempsey looks really really hard to hit even for a fighter who is properly controlling fear. He's a decent judge of range with horrible and varied head-movement (totally non-rythmic) plus he's a real offensive machine making concentrating on firing back a bit difficult. I think the only way to hit him clean would be via counter-punching. Talking about the Willard guy, you understand.

[rydersonthestorm]

I don't think that dempsey was that hard to hit, i do however think it was hard to hit him with clean flush shots.He did have excellent movement and was elusive for such an offensive fighter.

[PowerPuncher]

The same can be said about Marciano, even Louis, Johnson and Jeffries, Wills beat better fighters then them, would u rate him ahead of all of them?

Wills was damn good but no expert who saw him in his prime thought he was better then Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey or Louis and many of these experts had black fighters in their rankings so they werenot racists

I have Louis and Johnson ahead of Wills because I think overall they have better resumes with Louis displaying more dominance and excellence against his opposition.

You could certainly make a good case to have Wills ahead of Johnson. You can also make a good case to have Marciano ahead of Wills.

The 'experts' may not have been 'racists' as such but to claim they weren't racially biased is another matter, especially in those days. The 'experts' in Alis day didnt put him in the top10 if I remember correctly and he wasn't thought of highly until he beat Foreman.

[rydersonthestorm]

I don't think half of those guys have more natural talent than roy jones jr, also you can't count pep twice mate, he was good but not that good.

[PowerPuncher]

Why?! Why do you say that!? I would say Dempsey looks really really hard to hit even for a fighter who is properly controlling fear. He's a decent judge of range with horrible and varied head-movement (totally non-rythmic) plus he's a real offensive machine making concentrating on firing back a bit difficult. I think the only way to hit him clean would be via counter-punching. Talking about the Willard guy, you understand.

Because hes uses a Floyd Patterson style jump in with a left hook and hop I'm not side stepped and clocked. If Firpo can knock you out the ring you've made a horrible mistake that an elite fighter would punnish you for. Now all fighters make mistakes but thats a pretty bad 1 AND HE MADE IT TWICE IN THAT FIGHT. Lewis leaped in against McCall but McCall needed a far better counter than Firpo would be able to provide. This isn't even looking at how Tunney managed to be able to counter Dempsey so dominantly.

[rydersonthestorm]

Also do you think mccall could have hit a prime lewis trained by manny with that counter, i think lewis either wouldn't have jumped in or would have been able to slip the punch.

[PowerPuncher]

He wouldn't be able to withstand the amount of pressure or power. Gibbons managed to stand up to a rusty Dempsey but took alot of punishment that Jones could never take. And neither could Jones take what Marciano gave Charles.

Loads of fighters pressured RJJ unsuccessfully, he was so hard to hit cleanly in his prime. And if you apply too much pressure it leaves countering opportunities. And RJJ would punnish a man with

The point is RJJ doesn't get hit very often and Dempsey wouldn't be able to hit RJJ often. Gibbons isn't in RJJs league in terms of hitting and not getting hit.

Seriously if Walcott and Charles can win the early rounds against Marciano then RJJ would certainly win the early rounds against him and maybe the decision. And if Tunney can pull off a UD against Dempsey than why not the faster more elusive RJJ?

[McGrain]

Because hes uses a Floyd Patterson style jump in with a left hook and hop I'm not side stepped and clocked. If Firpo can knock you out the ring you've made a horrible mistake that an elite fighter would punnish you for. Now all fighters make mistakes but thats a pretty bad 1 AND HE MADE IT TWICE IN THAT FIGHT. Lewis leaped in against McCall but McCall needed a far better counter than Firpo would be able to provide. This isn't even looking at how Tunney managed to be able to counter Dempsey so dominantly.

It's possible that you have a point, but how do these stategical errors make Dempsey easier to hit clean than the boys you mentioned? If we look at Dempsey's finest moment v Willard he's hardly out of the firing zone once the trouble starts and he doesn't look like someone who'd be easy to hit until the job is as good as done...on his way in, I would say that Dempsey is the hardest HW to hit, bar none. Stationary that is not the case, but he was rarely stationary.

[PowerPuncher]

robinson
pep
griffith
leonard
pep
duran
charles
langford
spinks
ali

None of those fighters have RJJs combination of P4P speed & power.

Some may be better schooled (not all) but in terms of a boxing athlete RJJ is the best boxing has ever seen

[rydersonthestorm]

well i do think pep, robinson and duran might on his level the other i don't agree.

[mr. magoo]

I find it surprising that this thread has survived as long as it has. I would think that we'd have a larger concensus in favour of Lewis over Dempsey.

[rydersonthestorm]

Well from what i have read 90% lewis against 10% dempsey

[dmt]

I find it surprising that this thread has survived as long as it has. I would think that we'd have a larger concensus in favour of Lewis over Dempsey.this is not a thread of Lewis vs Dempsey but about Lewis's legacy.

[PowerPuncher]

It's possible that you have a point, but how do these stategical errors make Dempsey easier to hit clean than the boys you mentioned? If we look at Dempsey's finest moment v Willard he's hardly out of the firing zone once the trouble starts and he doesn't look like someone who'd be easy to hit until the job is as good as done...on his way in, I would say that Dempsey is the hardest HW to hit, bar none. Stationary that is not the case, but he was rarely stationary.

Whenever you throw a punch it leaves you opponent to being hit. The wider and more foreful the punch the more space there is for a counter punch. Dempsey would just be far too aggressive and leave himself far too open to counters.

Whenever you move inside as a boxer you risk been hit. Dempsey was great at slipping the jab to get inside BUT Lennox would trebble his jab. Against a 84 inch reach and 6'5 HW who trebbles the jab it is far harder to get inside. It is also made harder by a tight defense and someone who can throw fast right hand counters or massive uppercuts on the inside like Lennox could do. Lennox would also be the far far stronger man and push Dempsey back whenever he tried to get inside.

The bottom line is Dempsey is going to be far more open to big punches than Lennox is due to his aggressive style leaving him wide open. Lennox will land his power shots, Dempsey won't, which spells Dempsey getting ko'd

[dmt]

The fact is Dempsey is hyped up on his ability to KO the unskilled Willard and Firpo, when anyone top HW should dispose of both easily.

And no Dempsey is not better in all areas than Vitali, Holyfield, Tyson, Golota, Rudduck, Tua

For starters hes easier to land clean on than those fighters. Secondly he doesn't hit as hard as some of them and

Yes he is better in some areas. But what does he bring to the table that Holyfield did not? Maybe Power - slight edge although Holyfield has underated power (and Lennox has eaten harder punchers), and speed slight edge (but not quicker than Tyson). Everything else Holyfield outdoes him on pretty much.Dempsey is ten times harder to nail cleanly then slow and big Vitaly, one dimensional Tua, or eroded Tyson. And Golota :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dmt]

Loads of fighters pressured RJJ unsuccessfully, he was so hard to hit cleanly in his prime. And if you apply too much pressure it leaves countering opportunities. And RJJ would punnish a man with

The point is RJJ doesn't get hit very often and Dempsey wouldn't be able to hit RJJ often. Gibbons isn't in RJJs league in terms of hitting and not getting hit.

Seriously if Walcott and Charles can win the early rounds against Marciano then RJJ would certainly win the early rounds against him and maybe the decision. And if Tunney can pull off a UD against Dempsey than why not the faster more elusive RJJ?Tunney beat an old out of shape Dempsey who had not fought in three years.to even think Jones could beat Dempsey or Marciano is beyond belief, he never could do that

[dmt]

Whenever you throw a punch it leaves you opponent to being hit. The wider and more foreful the punch the more space there is for a counter punch. Dempsey would just be far too aggressive and leave himself far too open to counters.

Whenever you move inside as a boxer you risk been hit. Dempsey was great at slipping the jab to get inside BUT Lennox would trebble his jab. Against a 84 inch reach and 6'5 HW who trebbles the jab it is far harder to get inside. It is also made harder by a tight defense and someone who can throw fast right hand counters or massive uppercuts on the inside like Lennox could do. Lennox would also be the far far stronger man and push Dempsey back whenever he tried to get inside.

The bottom line is Dempsey is going to be far more open to big punches than Lennox is due to his aggressive style leaving him wide open. Lennox will land his power shots, Dempsey won't, which spells Dempsey getting ko'd Rahman and McCall also managed to land power shots. Lewis was also very cautious

[mr. magoo]

Dempsey is ten times harder to nail cleanly then slow and big Vitaly, one dimensional Tua, or eroded Tyson. And Golota :lol: :lol: :lol:

Was Lewis in his prime when he fought most of these men? I believe he was anywhere between 35-38 years of age for the Tua, Tyson, and Klitshco fights. Dempsey was retired by age 32 for Christ's sakes.

[rydersonthestorm]

Why is it beyone belief who did marciano or dempsey fight that was as quick or as strong for his weight as a prime roy jones, roy was hardly ever hit in his prime so why couldn't he outbox

[McGrain]

Whenever you throw a punch it leaves you opponent to being hit. The wider and more foreful the punch the more space there is for a counter punch. Dempsey would just be far too aggressive and leave himself far too open to counters.

I agree that Dempsey is open to counter-punching, the peak version, any version. But in a situation where both fighters are leading he may literally be without peer in terms of elusivness. In the meantime, what price this aggression? Aggression in boxing is rarely wrong and when it is it isn't wrong by much (though I accept it can make all the difference - Foreman-Ali is maybe the best example at this weight). I don't think you can say "Dempsey is easier to hit than Hollyfield becasue he over-comits" (my words) without taking into consideration that a) true counter-punchers are rare rare rare, most guys try to hit a guy who's walking in on them and b) the guy least likely to knock you out is the one that just heard "10". In my eyes Dempsey combination of elusiveness and aggression make him every bit as hard to hit clean as Tyson and possibly more so.

Whenever you move inside as a boxer you risk been hit. Dempsey was great at slipping the jab to get inside BUT Lennox would trebble his jab.

All due respect, I think he may only do that once. When Dempsey was in he was in, in my opinion. I think Lewis would be favourite against Dempsey because of his world class defencive in fighting skills, not because of his jab.

It is also made harder by a tight defense and someone who can throw fast right hand counters or massive uppercuts on the inside like Lennox could do

Another important point. How many good punches could Demspey get of to Lennox's one, and would it be worth it?

Lennox would also be the far far stronger man and push Dempsey back whenever he tried to get inside.

Down rather than back in my view. Lewis would be in able to utilise this move under either ruleset aswell, which is important.

Lennox will land his power shots, Dempsey won't, which spells Dempsey getting ko'd

This situation would indeed see the outcome you've predicted. I lean towards a Lennox win, but I think it's a much rockier road than you've invisaged.

[PowerPuncher]

Dempsey is ten times harder to nail cleanly then slow and big Vitaly, one dimensional Tua, or eroded Tyson. And Golota :lol: :lol: :lol:

Vitali was very hard to hit, and was never down in his pro career. Dempsey got floored by strong men without boxing skills because of his overly aggressive style, which while exciting was flawed

[PowerPuncher]

Rahman and McCall also managed to land power shots. Lewis was also very cautious

Only when Lennox was performing way below par because he was taking them for granted. Rahman and McCall are also far more skilled thanWillard and Firpo

[dmt]

Only when Lennox was performing way below par because he was taking them for granted. Rahman and McCall are also far more skilled thanWillard and FirpoAnd u r comparing Willard and Fripo in terms of skill to Dempsey?

[ChrisPontius]

Chris, Dempsey was down vs Tunney only becuase it was a flash knockdown, or even if it wasn't he was only down for a couple of seconds hardly a big deal. And even if you consider the Flynn ko legitimate, it only happened to him once, not twice. And he only had three years of pro experience up to the point, not years of amateur experience, and 6 years of pro experience when it happened :good

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.



Chris (and anyone else), do you think that Dempsey hits in the same class as big guys like Lewis? Or do you think they hit significantly harder?

Also, do you think Lewis has significantly better punch resistance than Dempsey? Or do you think they are in and around the same class, chin-wise?


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.



Would you rather be an aberation among Jess Willards or an aberation among Rocky Marcianos?


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


It is not quite the same thing because diminishing returs start to set in above 200lbs. You can only get so big without loosing something.


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.




How many 15 or 20 rounders did Lewis fight?



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 think that that being knocked down by Firpo is a lot less damaging than being knocked out by Ramhan however you present it.



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.



But you did not get fighters bulking up like say Holyfield or Byrd. Ali, Liston and Foreman were lean 210 pounders. Still it is worth noting that Ali came in under 200lbs for some of his early fights.


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.


I don't doubt that he was naturaly smaller than Ali, Foreman and Lewis.

Where I get more questioning is when people talk about the new generation of superheavyweights such as Peter Maskaev and Ibragimov.


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.

[PowerPuncher]

Tunney beat an old out of shape Dempsey who had not fought in three years.to even think Jones could beat Dempsey or Marciano is beyond belief, he never could do that

If Walcott who is slower, older than RJJ can nearly beat Marciano than RJJ has a good chance. I think in a series of 3 RJJ would win at least once

Dempsey would be harder for RJJ, but RJJ would certainly give him a very tough challenge - better than any challenger he faced without doubt. And yes Dempsey was past his prime against Tunney but the way he was systematically outboxed is indicative of Dempseys weaknesses. I think RJJ would have a harder time seeing the final bell against Dempsey but in a series of 3 he may actually KO dempsey once.

[ChrisPontius]

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

[dmt]

If Walcott who is slower, older than RJJ can nearly beat Marciano than RJJ has a good chance. I think in a series of 3 RJJ would win at least once

Dempsey would be harder for RJJ, but RJJ would certainly give him a very tough challenge - better than any challenger he faced without doubt. And yes Dempsey was past his prime against Tunney but the way he was systematically outboxed is indicative of Dempseys weaknesses. I think RJJ would have a harder time seeing the final bell against Dempsey but in a series of 3 he may actually KO dempsey once.He is not ever knocking Dempsey out, Lewis may but not Jones, not in a million years

[mr. magoo]

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

These threads wouldn't have to stretch so long if only certain posters used a little common sense. I mean, picking Dempsey over Lewis???

[dmt]

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?

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.

[PowerPuncher]

I agree that Dempsey is open to counter-punching, the peak version, any version. But in a situation where both fighters are leading he may literally be without peer in terms of elusivness. In the meantime, what price this aggression? Aggression in boxing is rarely wrong and when it is it isn't wrong by much (though I accept it can make all the difference - Foreman-Ali is maybe the best example at this weight). I don't think you can say "Dempsey is easier to hit than Hollyfield becasue he over-comits" (my words) without taking into consideration that a) true counter-punchers are rare rare rare, most guys try to hit a guy who's walking in on them and b) the guy least likely to knock you out is the one that just heard "10". In my eyes Dempsey combination of elusiveness and aggression make him every bit as hard to hit clean as Tyson and possibly more so.

2. All due respect, I think he may only do that once. When Dempsey was in he was in, in my opinion. I think Lewis would be favourite against Dempsey because of his world class defencive in fighting skills, not because of his jab.

3. Another important point. How many good punches could Demspey get of to Lennox's one, and would it be worth it?

Down rather than back in my view. Lewis would be in able to utilise this move under either ruleset aswell, which is important.

4. This situation would indeed see the outcome you've predicted. I lean towards a Lennox win, but I think it's a much rockier road than you've invisaged.

1. The price of aggression is HUGE COUNTERS. Anyone can throw a counter punch its just some are better than others. Thats why this fight will not go the 12 and will be unlikely to go past 6 if it happened. Dempsey is too aggressive for this fight to go the 12 or 15.

2. No, Lennox had 60lbs on Dempsey, Dempsey is getting pushed around.

3. The fact Lennox has the greater reach may mean hes far more likely to get more shots off. the tighter more conservative defense also means Lennox wont be tagged as clean

4. Yes it could be rocky road and Dempsey is a tough task where Lennox better show up 100%. Because of the way Dempsey fights whoever wins will win inside 6rounds (maybe in the first 3). I see Lennox as being the more destructive and the more likely to land

[PowerPuncher]

And u r comparing Willard and Fripo in terms of skill to Dempsey?

No I wasnt, I said the fact the primitive Firpo clocked Dempsey twice doesn't bode well against Lewis

[dmt]

1. The price of aggression is HUGE COUNTERS. Anyone can throw a counter punch its just some are better than others. Thats why this fight will not go the 12 and will be unlikely to go past 6 if it happened. Dempsey is too aggressive for this fight to go the 12 or 15.

2. No, Lennox had 60lbs on Dempsey, Dempsey is getting pushed around.

3. The fact Lennox has the greater reach may mean hes far more likely to get more shots off. the tighter more conservative defense also means Lennox wont be tagged as clean

4. Yes it could be rocky road and Dempsey is a tough task where Lennox better show up 100%. Because of the way Dempsey fights whoever wins will win inside 6rounds (maybe in the first 3). I see Lennox as being the more destructive and the more likely to landThat's fine but some people here argue Dempsey is a bum or something, not u but some other idiots

[McGrain]

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.

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).

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?


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?

[mr. magoo]

Picking one atg hw over another isn´t a far stretch.


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.

[China_hand_Joe]

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?

If Moore had been standing in the position Harrison was, as un-alert to the incomming punch, hit in the same place by the same punch, he'd at least have been knocked down for a long count.

[McGrain]

1. The price of aggression is HUGE COUNTERS. Anyone can throw a counter punch its just some are better than others. Thats why this fight will not go the 12 and will be unlikely to go past 6 if it happened. Dempsey is too aggressive for this fight to go the 12 or 15.

Landing a huge conter depends upon:

Cool head, not getting hit by the punch you are countering (if you want to fire properly), not getting knocked out by the original punch, not getting countered on your counter (and remember, Dempsey isn't standing still, just over-reaching) etc.etc. But I agree that countering is the way to get Demspey and I agree that the fight - you're talking about Lewis, right? - would indeed be unlikely to see 12.

2. No, Lennox had 60lbs on Dempsey, Dempsey is getting pushed around.

I've never disputed that - I just don't think that Lewis would neccesarily be in a hurry to push him out, that's all. Lewis is a match for Demspey on the inside in my opinion because of his superior size and great infighting skills. If he keeps pushing Dempsey back my opinion is that Dempsey will repeatedly get inside - triple jab or not - and score. Lewis wants him on the inside, smother him and bully him.



4. Yes it could be rocky road and Dempsey is a tough task where Lennox better show up 100%. Because of the way Dempsey fights whoever wins will win inside 6rounds (maybe in the first 3). I see Lennox as being the more destructive and the more likely to land

I'm assuming Lennox at 100% here. Give me the Lennox of the McCall/Rahman fiasco, or even the Bruno guy and I'll give you Lennox leaving on a stretcher.

[McGrain]

If Moore had been standing in the position Harrison was, as un-alert to the incomming punch, hit in the same place by the same punch, he'd at least have been knocked down for a long count.

But you'd agree that Moore has better punch resistance than Harrison?

[mr. magoo]

That maybe the case between 160 pounds and 200 pounds but the higher the weight the less is the difference. Diminishing returns like Janitor mentioned already.

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.

[dmt]

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.yeah becuase Lewis killed every small man right. No offense but u also argued Holyfield would "easily" beat Louis which is very unrealistic. Again no offense but u just don't seem to be able to understand Dempsey, Louis or other fighters of the era. Given Lewis's style he isn't killng either Marciano or Dempsey

[China_hand_Joe]

But you'd agree that Moore has better punch resistance than Harrison?

Well I personally consider there to be two thing that make up a chin. Some people say it is flesh and bone, but I disagree.

I believe there is structural chin, which results from the fighters atanomy.

And chin resulting from the fighters alertness.


I doubt Moore's chin is structurally much stronger. But Harrison is simply a dopey boxer. Assuming Harrison's level of alertness, I doubt Moore would fair much better at all.

[mr. magoo]

[QUOTE]yeah becuase Lewis killed every small man right.

Along with numerous other big heavy's.


No offense but u also argued Holyfield would "easily" beat Louis which is very unrealistic.

I don't recall making any such claim.

Again no offense but u just don't seem to be able to understand Dempsey, Louis or other fighters of the era.

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.




Given Lewis's style he isn't killng either Marciano or Dempsey


I beg to differ.