Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

Well I didn't want to say that but it seems blatantly obvious to me.:yep

 

I agree. He was also more proven against big men(sure, you can debate their quality). If Rocky had beaten a few championship caliber 210-220lb guys, he would rank much higher than he does on here, do you think?

 

I don't think Marciano could rate any higher than he does with some posters, to them he can not only defy the laws of physics but, also the laws of logic.

 

In your world do you just put TKO - 5 ,and KO - 4 out of your mind then? Funnily enough, neither wanted a rubber match. As the saying goes revenge is sweet.:good

 

So on the basis that 2 guys both weighing more than 230 KO'd Lewis with one shot, the 190 Jack Dempsey also has a good chance?

You'll forgive some of us for believing Lewis faced harder and faster punchers than Dempsey on plenty of occasions, and not only came through, but knocked most of them the f**k out, I hope.

 

Certainly Dempsey could achieve it on the basis of him being a truly great puncher and Lewis, while not made from glass, not being the sturdiest of champions. The reverse scenario of Lewis drumming Jack with uppercuts is another distinct possibility.

 

Two feasible scenarios.:good

 

Yes quite frankly.

Being big does not in itself, make them murderous punchers, or elite finishers.

 

(Not to mention that those guys, unlike Dempsey, also had reaches comparable to Lewis')

 

If if went down to toe-to-toe then Lewis lands uppercut after uppercut on Dempsey, eventually Dempsey flies out the ring.

If Dempsey decided it would be a good idea to fight on the outside, he gets stopped quite quickly from that 1-2 combo, with Lewis leading of the jab and ruining up Jack's face in the process.

 

They will ALWAYS comment on it and in truth these threads generally last for weeks or even months longer than ones which are far more practical. The reason? Because this forum is loaded with people who fancy themselves as being capable of creating arguments where they already know arguments shouldn't exist. Would you pick the British Navy of a 100 years ago to sink the British fleet of today? No. Of course not. But unlike topics that are much more black and white in nature, boxing is easier to find loop holes which enable people to argue the inarguable even if its all bull sh*$. For example. If I wanted to make a case for Bob Fitz beating Lewis I could absolutely do it and do it by pointing out such facts as " he was a three division champion who punched like a mule, was well accustomed to beating men much larger, fought during a time when men went 20 or more rounds, used smaller gloves, etc." But at the end of the day and in reality it comes down to one thing... Better athletes who were forged through the process of evolution.. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. Truth is if Fitzs and Lewis were rejuvenated into their respective primes tomorrow neither you nor I would bet a pint of beer on Fitz winning... Not even a cheap one..

 

The difference here is Dempsey was faster of hand and foot, more elusive, with a longer reach and is proven against tall ranked men. Marciano was slow afoot, slow into range and liable to cut and his tiny 68" reach means he is inflicting diddley squat punishment until he has already taken shots to get in range . That's my position, and I'm sure you will agree whole heartedly.

BTW after Dec 1918 Dempsey never weighed less than 188lbs. His average weight for defences was 190.25lbs

 

Dempsey would have to be favored more than Marciano but that isn't really saying a lot.