Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

There is a crucial difference ,Dempsey was pre- prime when he lost to Flynn and, Meehan, and post prime when he lost to Tunney.
Lewis was the reigning Champion when he was kod by Rahman and McCall.
See the difference?

 

Most of what you said in this post was sound, but a couple of points have to be made in respect of your observations about Dempsey.

Like many people, you seem to look at him as a smaller version of Tyson. This is not a million miles from the truth but there are some important qualifiers.

Tyson was only better in terms of what birth gave him e.g speed, size, perhaps power.

Dempsey was actualy significantly better in terms of technique. A shadow of what Tyson should have turned into five years after the Spinks fight, if he had retained focus.

His most significant advantage was in terms of infighting, and his ability to throw sustained combinations in close quaters. Tyson was much easier to nulify on the inside.

This might be important!

 

Not so sure about this. Dempsey was open a lot, very open, and squared up often. He also seems to get off balance a bit, especially after throwing the right hand. Tyson threw tighter combo's and had a better right hand.

 

Gene Tunney disagreed with you, he stated Dempsey was hard to nail flush.

 

JM ,I never said that Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon,Jess Willard, Carl Morris, Fred Fulton, Luis Firpo,were any BETTER than Lennox Lewis .Never said that. I only pointed out to a poster who said that because Lennox Lewis was bigger than Dempsey and Joe Louis ,he Lennox could not be flattened by Dempsey or Louis. The big strong boys above who Dempsey and Louis DESTROYED,were just as STRONG and RUGGED as Lewis in size, though not as talented. If Dempsey and Joe Louis tags Lewis the extra
20 or so pounds,means nothing on Lennox's chin. A 195-200 pound heavyweight who has great timing and power in their punches,can ko ANYONE they hit cleanly.. Sometimes weight is a handicap,as you sacrifice
speed and dexterity lugging weight around. This is what made Dempsey and Louis special to me and others. Their ability to be strong for their weight,along with blurring punching speed. So to conclude, being bigger,
doesn't always make you the victor...Cheers....

 

Not really nor do I think it matters. I thought we were using a peak to peak comparison, not a peak Dempsey to a Lewis who wasn't anticlimitized in South Africa. And against McCall, Lewis did get up, he was just counted out. Some say it was a quick call but I'm personally fine with the stoppage.

 

Dempsey knew how to infight!

That is the most critical difference.

 

This I will agree with.

 

I understand you didnt say they were better, but your words implied that if JD and JL could knock these guys out then they could knock Lewis out, and your right too. I was merely pointing out that Lewis is a good bit better than the guys mentioned, and maybe not as gung-ho:good

 

Later Tyson got too squared up and started throwing single punches. Dempsey gets his feet parallel really often even during footage we have of his prime years.

And yes, Dempsey was a very good infighter and had a wicked left hook.

But his guard was often very low coming in and he kept that left out there a long time after throwing his hook.

But who the hell am I to criticize an alltime great? Results are what counts. However, given the footage available, I would not rank Dempsey above Tyson skill-wise, in their respective primes.

 

It matters in so far as Flynn's and Tunney's names were mentioned ,I pointed out that Dempsey was not prime when he lost those fights,whereas Lewis was prime when he was kod by MCall and Rahman.
You say Lewis lost to Rahman ,because he was not acclimatized?
Last time I looked Rahman was American, so it was an equal playing field, he just got nailed.

 

S, splitting hairs...Were Dempsey to fight these guys in a fantasy fight,Jack Kearns and Teddy Hayes,both great tacticians would develop a plan for whoever the opponent was. And vice versa ! But Jack Dempsey was versatile. He had great legs and the ability to go side to side, moving his head were he hurt, and his bigger foes were much, much slower in hand and foot. Unlike a Tyson or Joe Louis, Dempsey could MOVE if the occasion warranted...Some posters don't understand that the more weight you lug around, the slower you are. Ali was the exception ,but at his best weighed 215-20. Dempsey had an inordinate amount of strength for his weight,and
was VERY strong from the waist up. And yes, Dempsey had a much more
varied ability to move from danger than the heavy legged Tyson. That is a great difference between two mammoth punchers,and one other thing about Dempsey. He was the greatest natural rough and tough infighter of any heavyweight. Just a mean SOB in close quarters...Cheers S.

 

LEwis wasn't acclimatised because it was at altitude and he flew in late, Rahman spent weeks at altitude acclimatising. Lewis was also 35 against Rahman, Dempsey was only 32 himself against Tunney

Tyson is a better infighter than Dempsey with the superior uppercut, actually he's better at everything

When did his defence work against Tunney or Firpo or Brennan, he might have looked to box for 10seconds and then as always he comes rushing in with his hands down throwing wide hooks and he gets put on his ass again

 

No I didn't mean to insinuate all put him down, but Brennan did catch him with some good shots. Dempsey showed good defence at times but defence is about consistency