Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

I am not pushing weight at all. I have said many times weight is the last thing to look at in the hwt division. My point was whether Ali or Dempsey great skill and fighting heart is what to look at. Ali at 206 would embarrass any of the hwts named and I use Ali as a more recent example. Dempsey had ATG skills, will to win, speed and crushing punching power. These attributes are bestowed upon very few fighters in a lifetime.

 

This chin argument makes almost no sense to me.

Let's say Lewis who fought 44 fights was hit roughly 5 clean times a fight to his chin, which by any measure is a ridiculously low number.

So you him being hit cleanly 220 times, by the likes of Tua, Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali, Mercer etc. So of those 220 clean times he was hit in the chin he went down exactly twice.

That's less than 1%. and even if you say well he fought 44 times and lost twice because of his chin, that's still 2/44 = 4.5%

So a fighter has between a 1%-4.5% chance of stopping Lewis based on his record, and yet people basis their whole prediction, on this occurring.

It's bizarre.

 

What you are pushing is when the comparison is between Holyfield and Tyson all of a sudden facts matter.

Yet with Lewis, who was down twice during his entire career and likely was hit cleanly during his career literally 100's of times, and went down twice, representing about a 1% chance of being knocked out, or less, that piece of factual knowledge gets tossed out the window.

 

Yes, he would beat Dempsey because he is a better heavyweight as demonstrated in his record. He toiled against the best an extrememly deep division had for over a decade, no extended time off, no powderpuff challengers in his biggest fights, and a slew of extremely hard punching and proven challengers. In his era, I don't think Lennox would have been able to achieve the sustained dominance over the best in the division were he 6-1 and 188. I think that is a factor. But he beats Dempsey primarily because he is better.

 

Define what you mean by better here.

How would you go about deciding whether Gene Tunney or Rocky Marciano was better?

 

Let's say Lewis isn't better but he's not a lot worse, his reach, height, weight and power advantages would more than negate Dempsey's skill advantage.

If they were the same size, I'm sure the vast majority of posters, likely even myself, would pick Dempsey to win.

But when you're fighting someone who is somewhat less skilled but not a whole lot, and that fighter knows how to maximize the use of his size, reach and yes, power advantages, and has a history of beating punches, it all adds up to him being favoured to win if they ever fought. It boils down to a very good big man being a great smaller man.

 

He's better because he beat a better crop of heavies and a lot more of them. He didn't sit on his ass for years at a time. He didn't limit his fighting to complete hype jobs, light heavies or victims of his best challengers. He stands as more proven and "better" heavyweight.

 

In general this logic holds true, but the smaller great man can prevail in some circumstances.

Stylistic considerations still apply, and there are certain attributes that can act as equalizers, such as the smaller man being an exceptional finisher.

I submit that Dempsey has proven himself adept enough at demolishing good but not great super heavyweights, that a deeper stylistic ****ysis is needed to dismiss him here.

 

None of this proves that he would win.

 

No, it proves he is better.

I am saying that quality, not style, is the main factor in this match-up.

If you seriously think that Dempsey would come out to Lewis and do what he did to an old, rusty amateur in Willard- without doubt one of the very worst to be called champion- then I don't see how this conversation can even be constructive.

 

And here it is.

I reviewed the Mercer compubox stats and Mercer landed a total of 223 punches of which 134 where jabs, leaving 89 which were power shots. If you assume about 1/2 of those were headshots that's 45 in this fight alone. If necessary I can do the same for the Tua fight, Vitali fight, Tyson fight, Morrison fight, and any fight that provides this information, and I guarantee that the result is going to be that no matter how anyone spins this, it essentially means Lewis was hit in the head literally hundreds of times in his career and only two punches finished him.

Style wise, which is pretty much all you have left, I would argue that Tyson in the first round of their fight, and Tua both went into their fights with Lewis with pretty much the same strategy that Dempsey would try and employ.

Statistically speaking your argument amounts to you praying Dempsey lands a home run punch.

 

I am not saying that Dempsey would dispose of Lewis the way he disposed of Willard, I am saying that his win over Willard lends weight to the idea that he could beat Lewis.

In order for this debate to be constructive, we need to move beyond "Lewis wins because he is bigger".

 

And we have to get past the idea that Dempsey is likely to knock Lewis out, because I proved how unlikely that scenario is, so than that leaves Dempsey trying to win on points, not something I'd be hanging my hat on.

 

Firstly I will say, that this is the best post of the thread so far.

I agree that Lewis had a better chin than often given credit for, but the guys that he was taking punches from were just punchers.

Dempsey was a finisher.

Where Rahman got his opportunity with an element of luck, Dempsey would be looking to manufacture his opportunity, and if he hurt Lewis he would not let him off the hook.

Forget Tua, he is nothing like Dempsey. A shot Tyson arguably took the first round against Lewis, suggesting that it might have been an interesting fight a few years ago.

I agree that if it goes to the cards, Lewis should be favored.

 

Dempsey was a finisher primarily in an era when the knocker was able to stand right over the knocked as the count proceeded.

You know who was also a really good, mean and dirty finisher? Lenny.