Calling Larry Holmes A Greater HW Than Jack Dempsey?

[BigStereotype]

I don't really know if there is a legitimate argument for saying that Dempsey was better than Holmes. Resume-wise and skills-wise, it's sort of a landslide for Holmes. Jack Dempsey was a vicious, mean son of a ***** and his book (Championship Fighting) is awesome. But I think he gets overrated a little bit. He wouldn't really stand much of a chance against most other great heavyweights simply because of the size. See this? This is me daring somebody to compare Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes to Jess Willard because I already know that it's going to be brought up. Now put Dempsey at Cruiser and you have a BEAST of a fighter, maybe the greatest ever. Him vs. Evander Holyfield at 185 would have been the perfect fight, maybe.

[CarlosG815]

I don't really know if there is a legitimate argument for saying that Dempsey was better than Holmes. Resume-wise and skills-wise, it's sort of a landslide for Holmes. Jack Dempsey was a vicious, mean son of a ***** and his book (Championship Fighting) is awesome. But I think he gets overrated a little bit. He wouldn't really stand much of a chance against most other great heavyweights simply because of the size. See this? This is me daring somebody to compare Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes to Jess Willard because I already know that it's going to be brought up. Now put Dempsey at Cruiser and you have a BEAST of a fighter, maybe the greatest ever. Him vs. Evander Holyfield at 185 would have been the perfect fight, maybe.

I think Dempsey beats Holmes and Lennox and butchers both Klitschko's.

[StarshipTrooper]

Jess Willard

You mean the dude the Klitschkos are clones of? :thinking9:

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

I don't really know if there is a legitimate argument for saying that Dempsey was better than Holmes. Resume-wise and skills-wise, it's sort of a landslide for Holmes. Jack Dempsey was a vicious, mean son of a ***** and his book (Championship Fighting) is awesome. But I think he gets overrated a little bit. He wouldn't really stand much of a chance against most other great heavyweights simply because of the size. See this? This is me daring somebody to compare Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes to Jess Willard because I already know that it's going to be brought up. Now put Dempsey at Cruiser and you have a BEAST of a fighter, maybe the greatest ever. Him vs. Evander Holyfield at 185 would have been the perfect fight, maybe.

Seriously. If you can't get past size there's no point in having any discussions with you about Heavyweights because your mind is closed on the subject.

Poet

[BigStereotype]

Seriously. If you can't get past size there's no point in having any discussions with you about Heavyweights because your mind is closed on the subject.

Poet

Well I wasn't talking about ALL heavyweights. I'm just saying that given a level playing field everywhere else, size is an advantage. That's why there's weight classes. And I think that Lewis and Holmes would both beat Dempsey and their size advantage would have something to do with it. Dempsey clearly beats the Klitschkos, I mean honestly.

[StarshipTrooper]

Well I wasn't talking about ALL heavyweights. I'm just saying that given a level playing field everywhere else, size is an advantage. That's why there's weight classes. And I think that Lewis and Holmes would both beat Dempsey and their size advantage would have something to do with it. Dempsey clearly beats the Klitschkos, I mean honestly.

I think if Holmes and Lewis were to beat Dempsey it would be because of their reach advantage rather than their weight advantage. Reach is the one physical advantage that really is important in boxing. Height is immaterial. Weight is a factor in theory (and the reason for weight classes) not because the bigger man is stronger and harder punching but because in theory a bigger man can absorb more punishment and can use his weight to wear down a lighter opponent. The problem with the really big Heavyweights like Lewis and the Klitschkos is none of them really play a physical game of using their weight to wear their opponents down. It just isn't their game.

Another factor to consider is that the heavier the two fighters are the less weight factors in as a 10 pound weight difference means a lot more to a fighter weighing 120 pounds than it does to someone who weighs 200. It's a much more significant percentage of overall bodyweight.

Poet

[BigStereotype]

I think if Holmes and Lewis were to beat Dempsey it would be because of their reach advantage rather than their weight advantage. Reach is the one physical advantage that really is important in boxing. Height is immaterial. Weight is a factor in theory (and the reason for weight classes) not because the bigger man is stronger and harder punching but because in theory a bigger man can absorb more punishment and can use his weight to wear down a lighter opponent. The problem with the really big Heavyweights like Lewis and the Klitschkos is none of them really play a physical game of using their weight to wear their opponents down. It just isn't their game.

Another factor to consider is that the heavier the two fighters are the less weight factors in as a 10 pound weight difference means a lot more to a fighter weighing 120 pounds than it does to someone who weighs 200. It's a much more significant percentage of overall bodyweight.

Poet

Ok, that's fair, but look at who you're talking about. Lennox Lewis (84"!) and Larry Holmes (81") vs. Jack Dempsey (77"). Lewis would come in at about 240-245 and Holmes at about 220 vs. Dempsey at 185-190! That's a 30 or 50 pound weight difference and that is substantial even if we're talking about blue whales. Let's give Dempsey the benefit of modern nutrition and he would still probably come in at about 205, tops, he just wasn't a behemoth. I just think that Dempsey's ferocity advantage isn't enough to overcome the size advantage and on top of that, I just think those two are better fighters. The size is just icing on the cake.

[StarshipTrooper]

Ok, that's fair, but look at who you're talking about. Lennox Lewis (84"!) and Larry Holmes (81") vs. Jack Dempsey (77"). Lewis would come in at about 240-245 and Holmes at about 220 vs. Dempsey at 185-190! That's a 30 or 50 pound weight difference and that is substantial even if we're talking about blue whales. Let's give Dempsey the benefit of modern nutrition and he would still probably come in at about 205, tops, he just wasn't a behemoth. I just think that Dempsey's ferocity advantage isn't enough to overcome the size advantage and on top of that, I just think those two are better fighters. The size is just icing on the cake.

Fair enough if you think they were just better fighters, though you're likely to get some argument around here over that. I personally have Dempsey at #4 all-time and Holmes at #5: Close enough that if someone thinks Holmes was better I wouldn't quibble over it (unless they think Holmes is "miles" better then I'd have a disagreement).....Lewis is another story though :hah9:

Poet

[sonnyboyx2]

Ok, that's fair, but look at who you're talking about. Lennox Lewis (84"!) and Larry Holmes (81") vs. Jack Dempsey (77"). Lewis would come in at about 240-245 and Holmes at about 220 vs. Dempsey at 185-190! That's a 30 or 50 pound weight difference and that is substantial even if we're talking about blue whales. Let's give Dempsey the benefit of modern nutrition and he would still probably come in at about 205, tops, he just wasn't a behemoth. I just think that Dempsey's ferocity advantage isn't enough to overcome the size advantage and on top of that, I just think those two are better fighters. The size is just icing on the cake.

Dempsey loved fighting "Behemoths" Fred Fulton, Carl Morris & Jess Willard was all as big or bigger than Holmes, Lewis & The Klitschko's and they was all world class rated fighters yet Dempsey destroyed them in the opening round.... Size is nothing and always has been nothing, size & weight do not win fights otherwise Nickolay Valuev would be champion for life, Audley Harrison vs David Haye was an example.. Speed, skill & ability is what win boxing fights.. Dempsey was the most ferocious fighting machine in the history of the sport, it is difficult to think of a fighter who comes a poor second to him in terms of aggression and Holmes, Lewis & the Klitschko's do not have anything in their arsenal that Fulton, Morris or Willard never had in which to keep Dempsey off them and they also don't have world class chin like Chuvalo or McCall... Dempsey by KO

[Greatest1942]

I have Holmes ranked #5 all-time. Remember that while it's true that Shavers and Norton were in their primes in the 70s, Holmes fought them in the 70s. Holmes' prime went from the late 70s to the early 80s and, in fact, most of Larry's best fights were from prior to 1980. Larry's last great fight was Cooney and he was on the slide after that. In fact, the boxing writers were talking about Holmes being clearly past-prime at the time of the Bey fight. The Holmes of 78-82 was a legitimate ATG that only a VERY few greats would have had a reasonable shot at beating.

Poet

Poet do you believe that Shavers was a great fighter? Or that version of Norton anything special. In an interview I read of Norton he said that he had lost his zeal for boxing by the time he faced Holmes. Cooney big puncher what else?

Ranking Dempsey above or below Holmes is subjective, but I think Jack had teh footspeed to catch up with Holmes, and if he does land on HOlmes I don't think he will let him get away like Shavers did.