Why does size matter?

Dempsey had a harder time with Carpentier than he did Fulton.

 

Then you don't know boxing history too well now do you. They were champs for a reason. Fighters trained down in weight for a reason. They didn't throw a high amount of punches each round for a reason.

So you think 240lb Lewis would last 45 rds with 4 oz gloves? Ok buddy.

Lewis would be a sitting duck against Fitzsimmons. With 4 oz gloves his defense is out the window. Fighting outside in 90 degree heat yeah he's a goner. Why do you think super heavies were rare before 15 rdrs became against the rules?

 

He would beat corbett but not Fitzsimmons in the 1890s. Bring Fitzsimmons to the 1990s and he doesn't do very well either.

 

He might be even more dangerous. 6ft 190 lb Lewis with a 84" reach would be a nightmare I'm sure. Dempsey might not even land. I don't know why you insist on these irrational match ups tho. Why don't we cut of Dempsey's leg while we're at it?

How would Ali have fared against Liston if we shoved his own foot up his ass and blind folded him?

 

You think that Lewis would fight exactly the same in the 1890s as he did in the 1990s that sums up about all the boxing you know.

 

Against Dempsey perhaps. Look at Sam Langford, he had a long reach but was only 5'7". Extremely short for a heavyweight who are upwards of 6'-6'2" in his time. Arm Length is more important that overall reach and better yet height.

If we put Lewis in against a less physical upinyourface fighter like Dempsey, say Tunney then 245lb 6'5" Lewis would win.