Why wont old timey fans see sense???

Why do you even care what they think?

 

This is the part of your argument where everyone in the know stops taking you seriously.

How exactly do you conclude that boxing and track & field are comparable? Are you saying that boxing, like track & field, is almost solely reliant on athletic ability?

For what it's worth, I'd favour Lewis over Dempsey, by KO no less. However, I'd favour someone like Frazier over Lewis, as I think that's about the worst possible styles matchup Lewis could come against. Nothing to do with eras.

Who favoured Dempsey over Lewis, anyway? I post in the Classic all the time and I've yet to see this.

 

cool avi thats based on when Luis Firpo knocked Dempsey through the ropes what a slugfest that was

 

Never mind, just saw the thread. You embarrassed yourself, and you don't even know why. And it's not because you favoured Lewis over Dempsey (most people would). You just don't seem to understand the basics of the human body and, if this thread is any indication, the vast differences between what makes a man in a sport like boxing and what makes a man in a sport like track and field, football, basketball, etc.

 

I partly agree, on fighters before 30s at least, but its not like some people here claiming 70s fighters were nothing and today fighters would murder them, all this talk based on todays training and stuff, for example SRL, Hagler were at their peak 25 years ago and i dont see any fighter today that could beat them, not a single one. But on thos from 100 years ago i agree more than anything boxing technique evolved to much, and these old time fighters did make to much mistakes.

 

The old gramps in the classic forum hurt your feelings. Do you wanna talk about it?

 

I dont favor every modern fighter over every classic guy

some greats of then could be some greats of now

I would have a very hard time seeing Dempsey beat Lewis

Now I could possibly see a guy like Joe Louis be capable of beating Lewis but even that could be a stretch

 

That's fine if you think Lewis is better than Dempsey, but you continue to embarrass yourself with the argument that boxers today are better than yesterday because of they're better athletes. Skills in boxing have not evolved. This is truly one sport in which the name of the game is the same, and always will be.
Yes, the elite today have better nutrition and conditioning methods, but that in no way means they're any better trained, or any more skilled than previous boxers. It truly is a sport in which you CAN compare eras.
Both men at their best, Lewis probably does beat Dempsey, but he doesn't beat "Louis", who he's also much bigger than.

 

Dempsey would get knocked out in 2 against Lewis. The way people boxed back then made them look like cavemen. If you even tried that sort of style in sparring these days the coach would probably stop you in the first minute and not let you spar again until you prove you can maintain a proper guard and throw straight punches

 

There are too many intangibles in boxing for fights to be purely decided by size. If that was the case, Valuev would have beaten Haye, who could fight under 200lbs but obviously it didn't work out that way. I honestly feel that if that fight hadn't happened, people on here would think Valuev would have stopped Haye, purely because of the size difference.

In reality though, size doesn't matter and history proves that. The very best heavyweights are usually 210-230lbs and that's about it. Once you go beyond that, it takes a special fighter to be any good.

Skils are the most important thing, followed by intangibles. If a fighter has them, I will always favour them over a fighter who has size, which is the least important.

As for Lewis vs. Dempsey, size shouldn't really come into the argument. Lewis hit harder, was stronger, was a better boxer and would likely stop Dempsey.