Have you noticed there's a correlation between size and speed. As Ali aged he got older, yes fighters who typically fight at cruiserweight, or lower, and likely going to be faster than Superheavyweights, but they also give up significant power, weight, height and reach advantages. When did Lewis show problems against swarmers all of a sudden? Who were these swarmers that gave Lewis trouble? Tua, Tyson? Look I'm a huge Dempsey fan and I don't get much joy out of slamming him, and P4p he's one of the best heavyweights ever, but I'm not picking him on a H2h match over Lewis, Tyson, Foreman, Ali, Holmes, or Wlad. Against fighters his own size, such as Louis, Marciano and Frazier, sure I could see him winning these fights, but in boxing size matters, especially if it's coupled with power and skill. And if I were going to pick him over one of the guys I've listed it would probably be Tyson.
Yes, I'm also in the following two camps: 1) that comparing guys from a hundred years apart is fairly pointless. It's nearly a completely different sport now. 2) Good cruiserweights rarely beat good superheavyweights. To think of 190 pound guy bombing out Lewis is a real stretch of the imagination....not impossible, but highly unlikely.
I'm sort of in the middle with this particular argument. I respect the fighters of yesterday, particularly Dempsey, and I have no problems with people ranking them better in terms of their legacy, who they fought, how many times they defended their titles etc. And I understand how because Lewis was KO'd twice, it's easy to project that this would impact every mythical fight that one wants to use, as a basis of why he would loose. But I think it's a faulty argument because it doesn't take into account how often he was hit cleaning. The Vitali fight is a perfect example, he was hit flush, several times in the 2nd round, against a 6'7" 250lb fighter, and not only did he stand up to this, he rallied and took over the fight in the next few rounds. And skills aside, it the fighters were the same size, I wouldn't have a problem with picking the older fighters to beat the new fighters, I think if anything the skill level has declined somewhat. But once you start factoring in the huge size difference, the weight difference, the reach difference, and yes the power difference, then these factors all amount to a potentially more skilled fighter having an uphill battle against fighters of Lewis' stature who are not the 6'3",- 6'-5" unskilled slugs of yesterday. But instead are Olympic gold mentalists, with plenty of power, good jabs, think in the ring, and in Lewis' case has a devastating upper cut. Yes there maybe a ***** in his armour, but if you want to factor in the Flynn result and the fact that Firpo had Jack down twice and only the audience saved him from losing that fight, you can argue the same about Jack.
I think heavyweight boxing took a quantum leap when Joe Louis came along.his technique was light years ahead of the likes of Max Baer He may have been known as shufflin' Joe but even his footrwork was sublime.
Louis was a unique talent prior to his era and until this very day. Louis was and is one of a kind as a hwt.
The closest person to Dempsey Lewis fought was a shot Tyson. Lewis didn't look too hot in the first 30 seconds of the fight, where Mike was Mike. He was flailing desperate uppercuts, and hopping around the ring with no balance. A prime Dempsey would befuddle Lewis. Boxing has way more depth than just weight. Dempsey speed and style more than negate Lewis size advantage.
I don't know what fight you were watching, but Lewis beat the hell out of Tyson in the first round. Tyson went to the corner and said that he was hurt. He was CLEARLY manhandled and if that fight would have continued in that exact vein, Tyson would have been upper cutted into oblivion. If anyone thought otherwise than why didn't Tyson just continue fighting on the inside?? As for weight, no it's not the whole story but it's one reason why middleweights aren't fighting heavyweights.
Yes it did, and then it took an equivalent quantum leap backward, after he was gone. Joe Louis was not the crest of a new era, he was a standout. Perhaps the same was true of Jack Dempsey, in a very different way?
I realize that, and I'm not even trying to argue who won that round because to me it's meaningless, but the blueprint for the fight was established in the first round and it was established by Lewis. And the manner in which Lewis fought, which was not only to fire back when hit but then deliver his own punches, particularly upper cuts would, in my opinion given any version of Tyson trouble. Admittedly he became a bit more tentative during the fight, he said it was because he hurt his hand, but at the beginning he made it very clear that he wasn't going to be intimidated by Tyson and in fact was deducted points for fouling. I'm actually surprised he doesn't get more accolades for this fight. Not because he had a live opponent in the ring, Tyson was basically shot, but the game plan he executed against Tyson was extremely well thought out. If nothing else, Manny deserves more credit than he got for the strategy employed, at least that's my opinion.
Interesting comments from both of you. On some level it makes sense, the dominate fighter of his generation, raises the bar, the difficulty of course is trying to get others to follow, sometimes certain athletes come along and do things which can't be replicated. Ali is a great example of that, (in hockey it would be Gretzky, B-ball perhaps Jordon)
You could imagine a scenario where Tyson thought: I am going to lose and I am here for a big pay day, so I will go out and get a good first round, in order to save some face.