Originally Posted by roxyboxy
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.