View Full Version : Jack Dempsey vs Lennox Lewis in their prime


sonnyboyx2
09-30-2009, 02:11 PM
who would win this fight and how would it unfold, Lewis at 6ft 5ins and 236lb against Dempsey at 6ft 1 1/2ins and 205lbs. Both men in their ultimate prime, please state how you think this fight would unfold and not just give the name of who you think would win.

Stoppage
09-30-2009, 06:09 PM
Lennox Lewis would win. Why?

Because there's a big difference in how people fought during Lewis' time and during Dempsey's time. The newer fighters could much easily beat the older fighters of the 1920's. Lewis would knock Dempsey out after keeping him away with his jab.

Bright-Eyes
09-30-2009, 06:50 PM
Are you going to turn this thread into another attempt at discrediting Lennox Lewis?

Kid McCoy
09-30-2009, 09:40 PM
Lewis was nothing but a glass-jawed hypejob who only took on has-beens, journeymen and exposed fighters (and ducked everyone else). Dempsey would beat Lewis easier than he beat Willard. :)

Infern0
09-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Dempsey would be lucky to leave the ring alive

Mr Boxing9
09-30-2009, 09:48 PM
Dempsey would be lucky to leave the ring alive

Get your head out of Lewis ass damn. Lewis was knocked out by Rahman and McCall, two fighters were't in the same league as Demspey and both didnt much no wear near as hard as a prime Demspey either.

sleazyfellow
10-01-2009, 01:45 AM
As much as I love dempsy, theres no way he could even get close to Lewis. Lewis is no Jess Willard, his jab and right hand would put Dempsy out early with the way he trys to get in close.

Dempsy was listed as being 190 most of the time TC, not 205.

RightCross94
10-01-2009, 02:18 AM
Dempsey gets steamrolled here. Both a technical and size mismatch.

Obama
10-01-2009, 03:34 AM
Lewis will be ahead in the fight until he gets brutally KOed. Dempsey may have to cheat to accomplish this, but he'd get away it.

Orrr, maybe Lewis finishes a 12 rounder and takes the decision. Who knows. 15 round tho? Hmmph.

RightCross94
10-01-2009, 03:50 AM
Oh and Dempsey was only about 180-85

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 04:14 AM
Dempsey would be lucky to leave the ring alive
There have always been big men in the heavyweight division and the All-Time greats fought them with success. Jack Johnson fought a whole string of very big "great white hopes" before finally losing to 6' 6 " Jess Willard. And Johnson was much past his prime.

Jack Dempsey fought Firpo at 6' 2 ", Willard at 6' 6 ", Fred Fulton 6' 4 ", and Carl Morris at 6' 4". Of them all, the smallest, Firpo, is the only one who gave him any trouble. The fact is, Dempsey preferred the bigger men, finding them slower and easier to hit. And lest someone cry that Lewis is better than any of the Manassa Mauler's big opponents, I must painfully point out that Lennox was knocked out twice by single punches from smaller men. On the other hand, Lennox-sized Jess Willard suffered a jaw broken in seven places, a smashed nose, knocked out front teeth, cracked cheek bone, and broken ribs before his seconds threw in the towel. Any one of the punches that did that damage must have been equal or greater than the single KO punches of McCall and Rahman, just based on damage inflicted.

In Lennox Lewis's only loses, KO losses at that, it has been smaller men, Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall, both 6'2 ", who turned the trick. And against 6' 2 " Evander Holyfield he has looked less than impressive. This is significant in a discussion of the merits of the heavyweight champions of the past verses the best of the pro-wrestler size super-heavyweights, because many of the great heavyweight champions were very close to the size of Rahman, McCall, and Holyfield. And, they fought and beat men of the size of Lennox Lewis. In fact, across the board, they beat them with ease.

To those who say this is a new era of super-heavyweights and the smaller men of legend would need to find other means of employment besides the heavyweight division today, I would point out that if the best super heavyweight so far has been Lennox Lewis, and I believe it has been, then the greats of another time should hold on a second before filling out their unemployment forms.

Lewis's nemesis can be profiled as someone with power at around 6'2" or someone with great skill and decent power at even less. Who fits in that range? At 6'2"to 6' 3" we would find James Jeffries, Max Baer, Jimmy Braddock, Ali, Foreman, Norton, and Holmes. At 6'1" we bring out Jim Corbett, Jack Johnson, Dempsey, Schmelling, Louis, and Liston. At the very short 5' 11" of Tyson, we could put in Rocky Marciano, Patterson, and Frazier. I challenge anyone who calls himself a true fan of the sport and its history to declare that these men wouldn't have done as well or better than the men of similar size Lewis has fought. And remember that in the case of McCall and Rahman, better isn't necessary; just do as good.

Equilibrium
10-01-2009, 04:26 AM
I have a lot respect for old school fighters. But some people on here tend to like old school fighter so much that they make them sound like invincible gods.

The fact is boxing has evolved. The technique, the rules, the equipment and the training has evolved. Emphasis on technique. Some old school fighters had great technique for their time and would still be considered to have good technique nowadays. I'm thinking of guys like Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis.

But Jack Dempsey wasn't one of those guy, he won with pure aggression. Wide swinging hooks, he kept his hands low and didn't have much in terms of defense.

So all in all, i think Lewis would mop the floor with Dempsey.

I know some of you guys are going to not agree, but unlike you i don't live in the past, i live in the real world.

Obama
10-01-2009, 04:36 AM
Oh and Dempsey was only about 180-85

I was going to mention that but I said **** it after I saw everyone was picking Lewis to win already.

Also, the McCall fight shouldn't be used against Lewis in predicting this h2h matchup. He clearly was out of shape for the fight. He was filming Ocean's 11 instead of giving a **** about training for some nobody.

mickey malone
10-01-2009, 04:49 AM
Lewis would hand out a systematic & one sided beating, to end the fight inside 6 rounds.. The bigger guys beaten by Dempsey never did much.. Only one of them was a world champ (Willard) & none of them would have lasted more than 3 rounds with Lewis..

Some people rant on about Lewis avoiding fighters, while Dempsey never even fought the best in his division.. 7 defenses in 7 years says it all really, & I don't recall Jack reclaiming the title after getting beat twice by Tunney, who was only a light heavyweight..

To even suggest him being in the same league as Lewis is pure poppy****!

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 06:17 AM
I was going to mention that but I said **** it after I saw everyone was picking Lewis to win already.

Also, the McCall fight shouldn't be used against Lewis in predicting this h2h matchup. He clearly was out of shape for the fight. He was filming Ocean's 11 instead of giving a **** about training for some nobody.
Amazing how excuses for Lewis defeats are always used and accepted yet when the fact is mentioned that Mike Tyson was heavily sedated in the Lewis fight it is `Not Acceptable`...When the fact is mentioned that Andrew Golota was tranquilised in his dressing room after suffering a panic-attack only minutes before he was due to go out and face Lewis, it is ignored and brushed under the carpet...Tommy Morrison suffering from the HIV virus is ignored when his defeat to Lewis is questioned, Oliver McCall being in a Drug-Rehab up to 48hrs before his return fight with Lewis is ignored and the old line trumpeted "Lewis avenged his defeat"
but Lewis making a film is a valid excuse, if Pacquiao loses to Cotto then his `making a movie` will be a valid excuse for defeat..

Obama
10-01-2009, 06:23 AM
Amazing how excuses for Lewis defeats are always used and accepted yet when the fact is mentioned that Mike Tyson was heavily sedated in the Lewis fight it is `Not Acceptable`...When the fact is mentioned that Andrew Golota was tranquilised in his dressing room after suffering a panic-attack only minutes before he was due to go out and face Lewis, it is ignored and brushed under the carpet...Tommy Morrison suffering from the HIV virus is ignored when his defeat to Lewis is questioned, Oliver McCall being in a Drug-Rehab up to 48hrs before his return fight with Lewis is ignored and the old line trumpeted "Lewis avenged his defeat"
but Lewis making a film is a valid excuse, if Pacquiao loses to Cotto then his `making a movie` will be a valid excuse for defeat..

You make good points, I don't ignore those excuses either. Well, save the Tyson one. He was simply over the hill. Lewis doesn't deserve a lot of credit for it regardless of any excuses.

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 06:40 AM
I have a lot respect for old school fighters. But some people on here tend to like old school fighter so much that they make them sound like invincible gods.

The fact is boxing has evolved. The technique, the rules, the equipment and the training has evolved. Emphasis on technique. Some old school fighters had great technique for their time and would still be considered to have good technique nowadays. I'm thinking of guys like Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis.

But Jack Dempsey wasn't one of those guy, he won with pure aggression. Wide swinging hooks, he kept his hands low and didn't have much in terms of defense.

So all in all, i think Lewis would mop the floor with Dempsey.

I know some of you guys are going to not agree, but unlike you i don't live in the past, i live in the real world.

i also live in the real world and Boxing today is in dire-straits compaired to yesteryear, we dont have the great knowledgable trainers that were around in the past, fighters today dont do roadwork like they did in the past, todays fighters only have a quarter of the career fights compaired to the fighters of the past, the only thing that is better today is the amount of cameras used to film a fight, as many as 50 cameras are used at ringside so as the viewer can see from almost every angle, where in the old days one camera (flicker-film) was used from the back of the arena, so obviously a film today looks far superior than it did 100 yrs ago, but men are men they was born 100 yrs ago with a set of knackers just like we are today, as for technique i suggest go and watch Dempsey vs Sharkey and tell me Dempsey had no boxing technique, Dempsey rolled, bobed & weaved and was a devastating puncher, Jack Dempsey was the most aggresive fighter in Heavyweight history, that there is no doubt about, Dempsey fought 7 fights in 7yrs because his fights were extravaganzas, the whole world wanted to see a Dempsey fight.... Lets not forget that Lennox Lewis was not hard to hit, even a heavily sedated Mike Tyson landed punches on him, Frank Bruno landed almost at will as did Ray Mercer, Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko, to claim Dempsey would not hit him is ridiculous,

Ryn0
10-01-2009, 06:42 AM
Lewis wins, much like the Tua fight except more competitive. He may stop Dempsey if he drops him (ala Firpo)

And I'm pretty sure Dempsey never weighed 205....

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 07:17 AM
Lewis wins, much like the Tua fight except more competitive. He may stop Dempsey if he drops him (ala Firpo)

And I'm pretty sure Dempsey never weighed 205....
makes little difference what weight Dempsey was even if he weighed 190lbs. guys smaller than Lewis always gave him trouble, Butler 5`11, lasted 5rds, Tua 5`10 went the full 12rds, Ocassio 5`11 went the full distance Tyson 5`11 sedated went 8rds...Rocky Marciano at 5'10 " did fight 6' 5" Pat Connolly, 6' 5" Johnny Shkor, and 6' 4" Carmine Vingo. Connolly didn't last a round while Shkor was able to survive until the 6th before being KO'd. Vingo was almost killed by Marciano, spent days in a coma, and was never able to fight again.

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 07:54 AM
Lewis would hand out a systematic & one sided beating, to end the fight inside 6 rounds.. The bigger guys beaten by Dempsey never did much.. Only one of them was a world champ (Willard) & none of them would have lasted more than 3 rounds with Lewis..

Some people rant on about Lewis avoiding fighters, while Dempsey never even fought the best in his division.. 7 defenses in 7 years says it all really, & I don't recall Jack reclaiming the title after getting beat twice by Tunney, who was only a light heavyweight..

To even suggest him being in the same league as Lewis is pure poppy****!
There was only 1 championship belt up for grabs in those days not the huge amount that is on offer today.. Those big men whom Dempsey fought all fought Hall of Fame fighters, so they are NOT tomato cans like you seem to insinuate..Those fighters would no-doubt be champions or `live contenders` today with all the title on offer just like Nicolay Valuev.
Dempsey defended his title 7 times in 7yrs but that was because a Dempsey fight was a World event and a far greater and bigger sporting event than anything Lennox Lewis has ever taken part in.

mickey malone
10-01-2009, 08:31 AM
There was only 1 championship belt up for grabs in those days not the huge amount that is on offer today.. Those big men whom Dempsey fought all fought Hall of Fame fighters, so they are NOT tomato cans like you seem to insinuate..Those fighters would no-doubt be champions or `live contenders` today with all the title on offer just like Nicolay Valuev.
Dempsey defended his title 7 times in 7yrs but that was because a Dempsey fight was a World event and a far greater and bigger sporting event than anything Lennox Lewis has ever taken part in.
Yes a huge amount, & Lewis won the lot..

Had Dempsey been around in the 90's, he'd have probably been 2nd tier.. In other words, beating the likes of Hyde, Bent, Morrison etc for the WBO title, but Lewis would be a bridge too far..
The guys Jack fought were'nt tomato cans, just fringe contenders.. When you compare the quality of the 90's to the barron spell of the 20's, it should hit home...

RightCross94
10-01-2009, 09:06 AM
There was only 1 championship belt up for grabs in those days not the huge amount that is on offer today.. Those big men whom Dempsey fought all fought Hall of Fame fighters, so they are NOT tomato cans like you seem to insinuate..Those fighters would no-doubt be champions or `live contenders` today with all the title on offer just like Nicolay Valuev.
Dempsey defended his title 7 times in 7yrs but that was because a Dempsey fight was a World event and a far greater and bigger sporting event than anything Lennox Lewis has ever taken part in.

Look, Dempsey was a great fighter, but Lennox would absolutely destroy him. not only does he have a big advantage in the technical skills department, but he also possesses a 50-60 odd lb weight advantage, and a height and reach advantage I'm not going to bother calculating. Dempsey may have a slight chance of a freak knockout, (he did hit very hard) but honestly Lewis was undermotivated for the Rahman loss and I think he was a touch green when McCall knocked him out, and he learned and grew from those losses. I think Dempsey bravely comes out doing the only thing he knows how to do, and Lennox sticks him and pushes him back with hard jabs, and pulverizes him with a big right. Dempsey gets up, and is promptly lined up and dropped again, as i said, complete mismatch.

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 09:22 AM
Look, Dempsey was a great fighter, but Lennox would absolutely destroy him. not only does he have a big advantage in the technical skills department, but he also possesses a 50-60 odd lb weight advantage, and a height and reach advantage I'm not going to bother calculating. Dempsey may have a slight chance of a freak knockout, (he did hit very hard) but honestly Lewis was undermotivated for the Rahman loss and I think he was a touch green when McCall knocked him out, and he learned and grew from those losses. I think Dempsey bravely comes out doing the only thing he knows how to do, and Lennox sticks him and pushes him back with hard jabs, and pulverizes him with a big right. Dempsey gets up, and is promptly lined up and dropped again, as i said, complete mismatch.

yeah.. Then Lennox runs up Mount Everest, scores 6 goal for United in the Manchester derby, swims the English channel doing backstroke and lowers the world 100m record to 0.01 :rofl:

mickey malone
10-01-2009, 09:24 AM
Look, Dempsey was a great fighter, but Lennox would absolutely destroy him. not only does he have a big advantage in the technical skills department, but he also possesses a 50-60 odd lb weight advantage, and a height and reach advantage I'm not going to bother calculating. Dempsey may have a slight chance of a freak knockout, (he did hit very hard) but honestly Lewis was undermotivated for the Rahman loss and I think he was a touch green when McCall knocked him out, and he learned and grew from those losses. I think Dempsey bravely comes out doing the only thing he knows how to do, and Lennox sticks him and pushes him back with hard jabs, and pulverizes him with a big right. Dempsey gets up, and is promptly lined up and dropped again, as i said, complete mismatch.
Good analysis! My thoughts entirely...

Kid McCoy
10-01-2009, 09:25 AM
Sonnyboy, when was the last time a Dempsey-sized heavyweight dominated the division?

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 09:37 AM
Sonnyboy, when was the last time a Dempsey-sized heavyweight dominated the division?
Tyson, Holyfield,

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Look, Dempsey was a great fighter, but Lennox would absolutely destroy him. not only does he have a big advantage in the technical skills department, but he also possesses a 50-60 odd lb weight advantage, and a height and reach advantage I'm not going to bother calculating. Dempsey may have a slight chance of a freak knockout, (he did hit very hard) but honestly Lewis was undermotivated for the Rahman loss and I think he was a touch green when McCall knocked him out, and he learned and grew from those losses. I think Dempsey bravely comes out doing the only thing he knows how to do, and Lennox sticks him and pushes him back with hard jabs, and pulverizes him with a big right. Dempsey gets up, and is promptly lined up and dropped again, as i said, complete mismatch.

Jess Willard held greater height and weight advantages.. Lewis also held huge height and weight advantages over Rahman & McCall

mickey malone
10-01-2009, 09:56 AM
yeah.. Then Lennox runs up Mount Everest, scores 6 goal for United in the Manchester derby, swims the English channel doing backstroke and lowers the world 100m record to 0.01 :rofl:
Well on a humorous note, perhaps if Jack Dempsey had ever fought a 240lb BLACK fighter, it would have been like when Manchester United once wore Grey as their away strip.. The players wern't used to it, got confused, & ended up conceeding a hat full!

Ziggy Stardust
10-01-2009, 11:02 AM
I have a lot respect for old school fighters. But some people on here tend to like old school fighter so much that they make them sound like invincible gods.

There are plenty of people who make the current crop of fighters sound like invincible gods. Why is that ok?

The fact is boxing has evolved. The technique, the rules, the equipment and the training has evolved. Emphasis on technique. Some old school fighters had great technique for their time and would still be considered to have good technique nowadays. I'm thinking of guys like Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis.

While a case can be made regarding technique and the turn of the century fighters even then a blanket statement is inaccurate. The truth is there hasn't been any huge breakthrough in boxing technique in decades. You can see fighters from the 40s fighting exactly the same way people do in this era. Some (Jersey Joe Walcott comes to mind) were more technichally proficient than anyone from today.

There is kind of a cult of "progress" around today that assumes that everyting improves exponentially with each generation. They've been misled by technological advancement and mistakenly extend it to every aspect of life. The truth is not everything improves with the passing years. Some things (boxing included) came to their fullest extent of significant knowledge long ago and there isn't anything major to discover left. Others have had knowledge regress as those fields became less and less important to mankind over the passing years (combat with swords for example is irrelivant in the modern world). Also bear in mind that just because people do something differently today doesn't mean they do it better ie. Wlad's way of fighting may be different from Ali's but that doesn't make it a better way of fighting.

But Jack Dempsey wasn't one of those guy, he won with pure aggression. Wide swinging hooks, he kept his hands low and didn't have much in terms of defense.

So all in all, i think Lewis would mop the floor with Dempsey.

Mike Tyson patterned his own style of fighting after Dempsey's. Are you one of those that think Lennox "mops the floor" with a prime Tyson? I certainly don't. I think it's a competive matchup and the idea that Lewis steamrolls Tyson is absurd.

I know some of you guys are going to not agree, but unlike you i don't live in the past, i live in the real world.

The past is part of the real world ie. it's different from fiction/fantasy. The past actually happened and had real human beings participating in it. You may say you live in the "now" but if that's the case how does that differentiate you from the lower species? Animals live in the "now" having no concept of the past and lacking the ability to conceive of the future. Aren't you limiting yourself? Unless man lives in the past, present, AND future he isn't fulfilling his intellectual potential and can't be said to be any different from the wild beasts.

Poet

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 11:11 AM
There are plenty of people who make the current crop of fighters sound like invincible gods. Why is that ok?



While a case can be made regarding technique and the turn of the century fighters even then a blanket statement is inaccurate. The truth is there hasn't been any huge breakthrough in boxing technique in decades. You can see fighters from the 40s fighting exactly the same way people do in this era. Some (Jersey Joe Walcott comes to mind) were more technichally proficient than anyone from today.

There is kind of a cult of "progress" around today that assumes that everyting improves exponentially with each generation. They've been misled by technological advancement and mistakenly extend it to every aspect of life. The truth is not everything improves with the passing years. Some things (boxing included) came to their fullest extent of significant knowledge long ago and there isn't anything major to discover left. Others have had knowledge regress as those fields became less and less important to mankind over the passing years (combat with swords for example is irrelivant in the modern world). Also bear in mind that just because people do something differently today doesn't mean they do it better ie. Wlad's way of fighting may be different from Ali's but that doesn't make it a better way of fighting.



Mike Tyson patterned his own style of fighting after Dempsey's. Are you one of those that think Lennox "mops the floor" with a prime Tyson? I certainly don't. I think it's a competive matchup and the idea that Lewis steamrolls Tyson is absurd.



The past is part of the real world ie. it's different from fiction/fantasy. The past actually happened and had real human beings participating in it. You may say you live in the "now" but if that's the case how does that differentiate you from the lower species? Animals live in the "now" having no concept of the past and lacking the ability to conceive of the future. Aren't you limiting yourself? Unless man lives in the past, present, AND future he isn't fulfilling his intellectual potential and can't be said to be any different from the wild beasts.

Poet

well documented post with excellent and accurate points made throughout

mrboxer
10-01-2009, 11:58 AM
lewis would destroy dempsey,even if lewis was 70 and he fought dempsey at 25 he would kayo him within the first round,dempsey in todays game would look like a jr middleweight,he is overrated and would not even be in the top 100 of anydivision:boxing:

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 12:07 PM
lewis would destroy dempsey,even if lewis was 70 and he fought dempsey at 25 he would kayo him within the first round,dempsey in todays game would look like a jr middleweight,he is overrated and would not even be in the top 100 of anydivision:boxing:

i was wondering when `Mr Entertaiment` would apear :rofl:

mrboxer
10-01-2009, 12:16 PM
lewis at the age of 70 would not only be able to beat dempsey he would beat any heavyweight champs in their primes from that era via 1st round kayo:boxing:

Kid McCoy
10-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Tyson, Holyfield,

Tyson was not the same size as Dempsey and Holyfield never dominated the division.

Joe2608
10-01-2009, 01:16 PM
Size difference was way too big and Lewis is too intelligent.

sonnyboyx2
10-01-2009, 01:48 PM
Tyson was not the same size as Dempsey and Holyfield never dominated the division.
Dempsey was taller than Tyson, Holyfield was undisputed heavyweight champion of the world 1990-92

Ziggy Stardust
10-01-2009, 02:14 PM
As per usual this is turning into a war between the size whores on one side and everyone else on the other :ugh:

Poet

Kid McCoy
10-01-2009, 07:35 PM
Dempsey was taller than Tyson, Holyfield was undisputed heavyweight champion of the world 1990-92

2" taller and about 25lbs of muscle lighter. Holyfield's run from 90-92 encompassed wins over Douglas, Cooper, Foreman and Holmes, who were hardly terrors of the division. He was dominant at cruiser but not heavy, where he was always hot and cold. His record against the best superheavies he faced, Bowe and Lewis, is 1-3-1. Not exactly inspiring.

Infern0
10-01-2009, 07:41 PM
There have always been big men in the heavyweight division and the All-Time greats fought them with success. Jack Johnson fought a whole string of very big "great white hopes" before finally losing to 6' 6 " Jess Willard. And Johnson was much past his prime.



Blah Blah Blah, by your theory Carl Froch would be able to beat Lewis lmao

Yes Lewis was a big man, but he was a big man with Skill.

Bigmacpoper
10-01-2009, 08:12 PM
TOLEDO, Ohio, July 5,-In the first statement he has made since becoming the heavyweight champion of the world.Jack Dempsey announced today that he will draw the color line. He will pay no attention to negro challengers, but will defend his title against any white heavyweight as the occasion demands.Dempsey said tonight that he would not fight against for seven or eight months at least.

Dempsey says that when he has finished his proposed theatrical engagments he will take on anyone who wants to challenge for the title. He will follow the demands of the sporting public in his fights, for he does not believe in disappointing the people who pay for the game.

His statement that he has drawn the color line means that Jack will pay no attention to any challenges which might come from Harry Wills, who is just now the king-pin of the black heavyweights.

Mugwump
10-01-2009, 09:21 PM
Dempsey with his aggression and power would be a threat. No doubt about it. But Lewis was always at his best when he felt threatened by a fighter. I'm sure he'd box very cautiously for the first three or four rounds, looking to keep Dempsey out of range with the jab and then tie him up and lean all over him if he did get inside.

Dempsey would be in a frustrating position. Lewis jab (whilst underused during his career) was pretty effective and heavy. Far too heavy for Dempsey to keep taking round after round. And when he closes the distance he's forced into a wrestling match with a guy maybe fourty pounds heavier. That would sap the strength of any fighter.

Around the fourth or the fifth Lewis has got his aim and away go the big bombs. Dempsey would do well to last more than two rounds.

RightCross94
10-02-2009, 01:38 AM
Tyson, Holyfield,

Umm, both those guys weighed over 200 lbs, Dempsey was barely 185. Plus, they had good skills. Not saying Dempsey had no skills, but he was definitely lacking compared to most other great HW's.

RightCross94
10-02-2009, 01:40 AM
Tyson was not the same size as Dempsey and Holyfield never dominated the division.

Ermm, he beat 6 contenders, won the undisputed title, and defended it for 2 years....how is that not domination.

Plus he won it back.

RightCross94
10-02-2009, 01:44 AM
2" taller and about 25lbs of muscle lighter. Holyfield's run from 90-92 encompassed wins over Douglas, Cooper, Foreman and Holmes, who were hardly terrors of the division. He was dominant at cruiser but not heavy, where he was always hot and cold. His record against the best superheavies he faced, Bowe and Lewis, is 1-3-1. Not exactly inspiring.

He was well, well past his best when he fought Lewis, plus he was still competitive with him. He fought stupid vs Bowe the first time, then followed the gameplan better and beat him in the 2nd fight. The 3rd fight he had no legs, was past prime and suffering from Hepatitis.

Ok, who were the terrors of the division then?

sonnyboyx2
10-02-2009, 03:44 AM
Blah Blah Blah, by your theory Carl Froch would be able to beat Lewis lmao

Yes Lewis was a big man, but he was a big man with Skill.
where was these skills when he fought from 92-02 did he show them against Bruno, McCall, Butler, Fortune, Grant, Botha, Jackson, Tua, Morrison who was all on the downside of their career`s... Lennox Lewis needed 8rds to get rid of a "Heavily-Sedated"Mike Tyson.. Lennox Lewis was `nothing special` he was a British/Canadian thing`and will be remembered as the only heavyweight champion who took a belt out of the garbage can and refused to fight the No1 contenders so was stripped of the belt.

Lewis fans go on about this "Great-Jab" of Lewis, when and against who did he show us this imaginary great jab? Frank Bruno easily out-jabbed Lewis.

Lewis was poleaxed by 2 journeymen who was no better than sparring-partner material, yet Lewis fans claim their man could beat Legendary fighters like Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Dempsey, Marciano & Joe Louis.. these Lewis huggers are exactly the kind of people who know nothing about this great sport, they are still in "playground mode" my dad is bigger than your dad, my brother is 14yrs and yours is only 12yrs blah blah blah

sonnyboyx2
10-02-2009, 03:47 AM
Dempsey with his aggression and power would be a threat. No doubt about it. But Lewis was always at his best when he felt threatened by a fighter. I'm sure he'd box very cautiously for the first three or four rounds, looking to keep Dempsey out of range with the jab and then tie him up and lean all over him if he did get inside.

Dempsey would be in a frustrating position. Lewis jab (whilst underused during his career) was pretty effective and heavy. Far too heavy for Dempsey to keep taking round after round. And when he closes the distance he's forced into a wrestling match with a guy maybe fourty pounds heavier. That would sap the strength of any fighter.

Around the fourth or the fifth Lewis has got his aim and away go the big bombs. Dempsey would do well to last more than two rounds.

which fight of Lennox Lewis can i watch so as to see this mythical Great Jab that will keep the most ferocious champion in history Jack Dempsey at bay... i look forward to your reply

Equilibrium
10-02-2009, 04:12 AM
There are plenty of people who make the current crop of fighters sound like invincible gods. Why is that ok?



While a case can be made regarding technique and the turn of the century fighters even then a blanket statement is inaccurate. The truth is there hasn't been any huge breakthrough in boxing technique in decades. You can see fighters from the 40s fighting exactly the same way people do in this era. Some (Jersey Joe Walcott comes to mind) were more technichally proficient than anyone from today.

There is kind of a cult of "progress" around today that assumes that everyting improves exponentially with each generation. They've been misled by technological advancement and mistakenly extend it to every aspect of life. The truth is not everything improves with the passing years. Some things (boxing included) came to their fullest extent of significant knowledge long ago and there isn't anything major to discover left. Others have had knowledge regress as those fields became less and less important to mankind over the passing years (combat with swords for example is irrelivant in the modern world). Also bear in mind that just because people do something differently today doesn't mean they do it better ie. Wlad's way of fighting may be different from Ali's but that doesn't make it a better way of fighting.



Mike Tyson patterned his own style of fighting after Dempsey's. Are you one of those that think Lennox "mops the floor" with a prime Tyson? I certainly don't. I think it's a competive matchup and the idea that Lewis steamrolls Tyson is absurd.



The past is part of the real world ie. it's different from fiction/fantasy. The past actually happened and had real human beings participating in it. You may say you live in the "now" but if that's the case how does that differentiate you from the lower species? Animals live in the "now" having no concept of the past and lacking the ability to conceive of the future. Aren't you limiting yourself? Unless man lives in the past, present, AND future he isn't fulfilling his intellectual potential and can't be said to be any different from the wild beasts.

Poet

First i do agree that some people give current fighters too much praise and act like fighters from years past too little. But the opposite is also true, if you don't beleive me just look at sonnyboyx2's posts.

On the technique part, you simply cannot tell me that the way Dempsey fought would work for any fighter nowadays. I am aware that Tyson inspired his style on some of the things Dempsey did, but you have to admit that Tyson and Cus D'Amato made it much better. I need to put emphasis on the word "inspired". Because i think Tyson had his own style. For the record, no. I don't beleive Lewis would beat a prime Tyson, i actually think Lewis would get knocked out by a prime Tyson.

As far as the "i live in the present" line. It was just my way of saying that i am realistic. Jack Dempsey was a great champion for his time and i have nothing but respect for the man. However saying that he would still be the best against some of the greatest modern heavyweights is just living in the past and refusing to admit boxing is not the same sport it was 80 or even 40 years ago.

RightCross94
10-02-2009, 05:25 AM
well documented post with excellent and accurate points made throughout

You are right in saying it was a good post, it was.

But what annoys me is these matchups always turn into a ****fight of "old vs new"....can't it just be a simple head to head matchup ?

Truth is, Lennox kills Dempsey. But it's also extremely likely that Ray Robinson would have schooled Carl Froch and Ko'd Jermain Taylor.

Kid McCoy
10-02-2009, 10:35 AM
Ermm, he beat 6 contenders, won the undisputed title, and defended it for 2 years....how is that not domination.

Plus he won it back.

So three title defences over two years against moderate opposition equates to dominance? Sure he won the belt back a few times, although he only held part of the title thereafter and had to keep winning it back because he kept losing it.

Btw, I wasn't accusing Holyfield of ducking anyone from 90-92. He fought what was there, the opposition just wasn't that great. It wasn't really what I had in mind when I asked for the last time a Dempsey-sized heavyweight dominated the division for Sonnyboy to be so sure of him picking him over Lewis.

Dynamite Kid
10-02-2009, 11:11 AM
sonnyboyx2 + Lewis thread =throffing at the mouth.

I love your passion sonnyboyx2 :lol1:

Ziggy Stardust
10-02-2009, 12:52 PM
First i do agree that some people give current fighters too much praise and act like fighters from years past too little. But the opposite is also true, if you don't beleive me just look at sonnyboyx2's posts.

On the technique part, you simply cannot tell me that the way Dempsey fought would work for any fighter nowadays. I am aware that Tyson inspired his style on some of the things Dempsey did, but you have to admit that Tyson and Cus D'Amato made it much better. I need to put emphasis on the word "inspired". Because i think Tyson had his own style. For the record, no. I don't beleive Lewis would beat a prime Tyson, i actually think Lewis would get knocked out by a prime Tyson.

As far as the "i live in the present" line. It was just my way of saying that i am realistic. Jack Dempsey was a great champion for his time and i have nothing but respect for the man. However saying that he would still be the best against some of the greatest modern heavyweights is just living in the past and refusing to admit boxing is not the same sport it was 80 or even 40 years ago.

A well thought out reply! I certainly will agree that there are some posters who believe the old-timers are always better. The difference is that on the whole they tend to be a lot less obnoxious than most (not all) of the "present day blows away yesterday" crowd. That's why I respond most often to their posts. My personal view is that while the Heavyweight division has historically had it's ups and downs (unrelated to the passing of time), for boxing as a whole no era is inherently superior to another. Every era has produced it's share of greats and just because the Heavyweight division is threadbare at a given point in time doesn't mean the lower weight classes aren't producing great fighters. Case in point: In the 80s the Heavyweight division was pretty poor but look at what the Welters and Middleweights produced.

As far as Tyson and Dempsey, I think the connection runs a bit deeper than simply "inspired". I think "patterned" is a more accurate term. While Tyson's style of fighting was tweaked to better fit his own unique strengths and weaknesses I'm not so sure it was made "better". Dempsey was a better in-fighter than Tyson for example, while Mike preferred to fight at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. Every fighter is a unique individual and I don't think there are any "exact matches". For the record I think Tyson Vs. Lewis is a terrific matchup and I'd favor Mike to win a 10 fight series 6 to 4. I don't see Tyson having it all his way any more than I see Lennox "mopping the floor" with Mike as some posters have made out.

Boxing may well not be the same sport it was 40 years ago but "not the same" doesn't equal "better". Watch Joe Walcott's fights for example: He did a lot of things that might be considered something of a "lost art" today. He had a lot of tricks of the trade that you only see Hopkins and Toney (both of whom watched Walcott heavily and took notes) doing which is the key to their success in recent years. There's quite a bit that current fighters could learn about technique from those old-timers.

PS. Keep posting in this section! You're a damn good poster and we need people like you with all the trolls we have running around. Green K given!

Poet

Mugwump
10-02-2009, 05:30 PM
which fight of Lennox Lewis can i watch so as to see this mythical Great Jab that will keep the most ferocious champion in history Jack Dempsey at bay... i look forward to your reply

Who said anything about a "Great Jab"? LARRY HOLMES had a great jab. Lennox Lewis had an above average one (when he could be bothered to use it properly), which - coupled with the massive weight and size differential - would be enough to turn The Most Ferocious Champion in HIStory into a *****cat.

Equilibrium
10-02-2009, 06:45 PM
A well thought out reply! I certainly will agree that there are some posters who believe the old-timers are always better. The difference is that on the whole they tend to be a lot less obnoxious than most (not all) of the "present day blows away yesterday" crowd. That's why I respond most often to their posts. My personal view is that while the Heavyweight division has historically had it's ups and downs (unrelated to the passing of time), for boxing as a whole no era is inherently superior to another. Every era has produced it's share of greats and just because the Heavyweight division is threadbare at a given point in time doesn't mean the lower weight classes aren't producing great fighters. Case in point: In the 80s the Heavyweight division was pretty poor but look at what the Welters and Middleweights produced.

As far as Tyson and Dempsey, I think the connection runs a bit deeper than simply "inspired". I think "patterned" is a more accurate term. While Tyson's style of fighting was tweaked to better fit his own unique strengths and weaknesses I'm not so sure it was made "better". Dempsey was a better in-fighter than Tyson for example, while Mike preferred to fight at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. Every fighter is a unique individual and I don't think there are any "exact matches". For the record I think Tyson Vs. Lewis is a terrific matchup and I'd favor Mike to win a 10 fight series 6 to 4. I don't see Tyson having it all his way any more than I see Lennox "mopping the floor" with Mike as some posters have made out.

Boxing may well not be the same sport it was 40 years ago but "not the same" doesn't equal "better". Watch Joe Walcott's fights for example: He did a lot of things that might be considered something of a "lost art" today. He had a lot of tricks of the trade that you only see Hopkins and Toney (both of whom watched Walcott heavily and took notes) doing which is the key to their success in recent years. There's quite a bit that current fighters could learn about technique from those old-timers.

PS. Keep posting in this section! You're a damn good poster and we need people like you with all the trolls we have running around. Green K given!

Poet

I agree that Joe Walcott was a great heavyweight. I think he was ahead of his time, he had great technique and fought very intelligently. I have only seen some little snippets of him fighting because sadly older fights are hard to come by even on the internet.

Another great heavyweight from the past was Joe Louis, he's in my top 5 favorite fighters ever. He is a great example of a guy who's technique and skills are timeless, he may have been a little light compared to todays heavyweight, but i firmly beleive that Joe Louis could have been a champion in any era of boxing. The way he throws those crisp accurate punches still amazes me to this day.

And thank you, you're a good poster as well. Most people on this site can't have an intelligent argument without it turning to name calling. I visit this section a lot, i just don't post most of the time. :)

Bushidō
10-02-2009, 06:53 PM
I'm sorry but this is a mismatch no matter what. Lewis would destroy him

STILL_DETOX
10-03-2009, 10:31 PM
r u ****ing serious? i should report this post

General Zod
05-15-2010, 10:20 AM
Are you going to turn this thread into another attempt at discrediting Lennox Lewis?
lmao:rofl::rofl:

MonsieurGeorges
05-16-2010, 06:46 AM
i also live in the real world and Boxing today is in dire-straits compaired to yesteryear, we dont have the great knowledgable trainers that were around in the past, fighters today dont do roadwork like they did in the past, todays fighters only have a quarter of the career fights compaired to the fighters of the past, the only thing that is better today is the amount of cameras used to film a fight, as many as 50 cameras are used at ringside so as the viewer can see from almost every angle, where in the old days one camera (flicker-film) was used from the back of the arena, so obviously a film today looks far superior than it did 100 yrs ago, but men are men they was born 100 yrs ago with a set of knackers just like we are today, as for technique i suggest go and watch Dempsey vs Sharkey and tell me Dempsey had no boxing technique, Dempsey rolled, bobed & weaved and was a devastating puncher, Jack Dempsey was the most aggresive fighter in Heavyweight history, that there is no doubt about, Dempsey fought 7 fights in 7yrs because his fights were extravaganzas, the whole world wanted to see a Dempsey fight.... Lets not forget that Lennox Lewis was not hard to hit, even a heavily sedated Mike Tyson landed punches on him, Frank Bruno landed almost at will as did Ray Mercer, Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko, to claim Dempsey would not hit him is ridiculous,

great post. green k