No he wasn't. But your starting point in a fantasy fight like this, it to look at how each fighter performed against their opponents who were the nearest match, to the other. Fulton and Willard are not as good as Lewis, but they are good enough to demonstrate that Dempsey matched up well against this kind of fighter. We can make a much stronger case for favoring Dempsey over Lewis, than we can for Marciano for example.
The modern Wladimir Klitschko would find his nightmare in Jack Dempsey. His agenda to maintain range, tie you up and the blatant lack of an uppercut are all quirks that would act like slipstreams on Dempsey's marauding style. Lewis is different. There was spite to him, just under the surface but there. He attacked incoming threats and would recognize the importance in hurting the target. His left hand was already half-extended (a Jack Johnson trait) which helped blind and confuse before shooting that heavy jab. Couple this with a chopping right, head-snapping uppercut and Lennox has some good anti-Mauler weaponry. What Jack has is the kind of mobility and creative offence that Lewis has never seen. He also has layers to him; difficult in a clinch, elusive at long range, great at fighting when hurt. If we use the first minute of the Willard fight as a reference you will see a very considered attacker. Using his head as bait, the youthful Dempsey could force Lewis out of position, move inside the right hand and fire a winner. Very hard to call. It would be a first class shootout.
Well not really because Fulton and Willard lacked ability especially Willard. There was a 6 foot 4 215 pound skilled powerful heavyweight whom Dempsey could have fought but didn't. This would have given us a true inclination on how Dempsey would do against big men who could actually fight. Wills was leagues above Willard and Fulton Beating Fulton and Willard proves nothing. Any good 185 pound plus fighter whose over 5 foot 10 would beat those two. In my opinion the 6 foot 2 215 Louis of 1951 beats both Willard and Fulton by decision 12 rounds to 3 unanimously. Louis actually had good fundamentals and knew how to fight unlike Fulton and Willard Bottom line Fulton and 37 year old 4 year layoff Willard weren't good enough. Wills was.
:deal Love it. And agree wholehaertedly. I believe noone witha weak chin withstands the Mauler of Manassa
I am sure Wills was better than Willard. Never saw Fulton (no films of him) so who is to say. However I have studied in great detail the films of Wills that are available and I see absolutely nothing that leads me to believe Dempsey would have had any trouble with him. He had no movement instead just stood in front of opponents in a quasi Jack Johnson style. Wills was no Johnson however. I honestly don't see Wills lasting three rounds with Dempsey.
Are there any other example you envisage of top class fighters going down against a fighter to whom he is giving 31% of his bodyweight to? Sandy Saddler to beat Marvin Hagler perhaps? :yep
This is not a competitive match-up. Lewis by knockout early. This match would be so brutal it would lead to the creation of a superheavyweight division. Comically Jess Willard would be ranked snug within the top 30 of that division
Heavyweights aren't the lighter weights pal. Power and toughness and speed matter and Dempsey had them all. So for you, it is all about the size? Why even comment then? Just put a blanket " bigger fighters will always win" after yr name. What fighter feasted on heavier bigger fighters weighing about 220 256? Gee, it was Jack Dempsey. Maybe a little more research into history and a little less pretentiousness would serve you well.
In boxing weight differences can mean plenty in the lower weight classes. In the hwt division much less so. Dempsey like Marciano could Ko any man at any weight.
Is that absolutely certain? Nope. Ah, I see you've decided to give an answer of your own in place of my more accurate answer and then type a response to that answer. I'm sorry you wasted your time in this way. :think
It's true that diminishing returns on factors like power and punch resistance take affect. It's also agreed, universally, by boxers, coaching and boxers that size at heavyweight matters very very much. It's why fighters moving up use steroids, weight training and traditional training to add bulk. It is why fighters even fifteen pounds heavier than Dempsey achieving success is so incredibly rare - in fact, it just doesn't happen and it hasn't happen in years and years and years. The closest things would be Roy Jones (1-0 at the weight) and Cunningham (who fights at around 210). Byrd is perhaps relevant, but Byrd forced on so much weight he was basically fighting overweight - he favoured 215 when he could very obviously have fought at 205. Why? Because the entire culture of boxing at heavyweight has recognised the importance of size. So allowing that it's not as important as a featherweight versus a middleweight, it's still an enormous factor in the judgement of the sport itself. Dempsey was an astonishing talent - but so was Lewis. Each became the best heavy in the world and are generally ranked by most unbiased observers among the greatest heavies in history (For full disclosure i have Lewis higher than average but Dempsey lower than average, although I rank both great). All I am saying is - when two great fighters meet. And I have to put money down. I'll put my money down against the one giving away 30% of his bodyweight. The one that is almost sixty pounds heavier. The one with the 7" advantage in reach. The one that is 4" taller. Of course, those picking Dempsey will always point towards Dempsey's excellent performances versus taller, bigger fighters. That's understandable, but only Willard was anything like approaching Lewis's size, reach and weight. And Willard was pretty bad. I ranked him in my top 100 at the weight for "greatness" (very much in inverted commas) and as a former champion I believe he deserves that recognition, BUT, compare him with Lewis. Compare the skillsets. The difference between someone like Lewis and someone like Willard is colossal. Huge. A gulf. The difference between Dempsey and some of the "smaller" (again, inverted commas, because there just weren't many small men for him to beat up!) men Lewis thrashed is LESS marked, by which I mean someone like Tua is nearer to Dempsey in class than Willard is to Lewis - clearly, on film. But I STILL wouldn't rush to make these comparisons because Dempsey is so much better than Tua it would be embarrassing for me to do so! And yet, over and again, people picking Dempsey rush to Willard as a comparison to Lewis, or a stylistic foil at least. For me, it doesn't wash. I have no doubt Marco Huck could dominate Willard over twelve. Willard-Demspey was a 12 round fight. I feel confident that Steve Cunningham would have been world champion had he met Willard that day. The class gap between Willard and Dempsey or Willard and Lewis is as big as the size difference between Lewis and Dempsey. Almost.
Here is the first question you posted: To which I answered: The second was: Here, I pointed out I would be unable to answer as: I fail to see how I failed to answer either of your questions and look forwards to your retraction.
