Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

What do they say in the lounge, pics or stfu?

 

IMO it´s logical and crystal-clear that 99 % of the people (incl. me) mean, that Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson, etc. first need to bulk up to 210 lbs ca., with modern nutrition, supplements, modern weight training, etc., everyone who stood himself in a ring, knows that weight isn´t everything, but 180 lbs can´t beat a GREAT and SKILLED HW like Lewis...

 

Well im not entirely one of those supporters, I think 190lb greats of the past in fantasy fights shouldnt be given the right to take advantage of modern technology(Like I do) and bulk up intelligently if we are to throw them in the ring vs a modern superheavyweight.


John I talked with Rockys brother personally and Goody Petronelli and both told me if Rocky were fighting today would be around 20-30lb heavier at around 210lb, because his handlers wouldnt throw him in the ring at 185lb. I asked him if rocky cut weight to make 185lb and He told me Rocky had an awful hard time Getting his weight under 190lb by the end of his career, and that he naturally weighed well over 200lb. For whatever thats worth interesting stuff. Dempsey was 6'1 and had a very good frame to put on more weight in appeared, I could see him coming in heavier too.

 

Trouble is, your definition of top fighters as opposed to myself, dinner and Pontius' will be very very different.

 

I'd like to argue, but find it impossible.

 

Well, the ratings are subjective. I cant make sense of top 10 lists. It's all fun though.

I base my prediction of Dempsey-Lewis on their respective styles, strengths and weaknesses. Sure, Lennox had some impressive tools and overall ability and he could use his size to his advantage against a plethora of good and great fighters from history. I just think Dempsey is one who'd turn the tables.

I respect posts that go into detail about HOW Lewis would use his size (mention of his clinching & leaning expertise, and his long uppercuts have been solid points) in this particular match-up.

I agree with a good big man beats a good little man as a generalization. I agree that being 190 pounds is a distinct handicap when competing against a full division of men who average 220.
But these aren't convincing arguments for any SPECIFIC match-up, esp. between two guys who probably both hit hard enough to knock out a bull elephant.

 

Excellent post. I agree. Young kids around this time (middle of decade) were seeing far more fights when boxing on television became an attraction for the first time. Youngsters could start learning techniques by watching their favourite fighters and not just from trainers and coaches from this point onwards.

 

Well yes, you expanded well.

 

I think in this day and age where it is so easy to put on muscle, it becomes a question of why not. That is not to say that without the weight gain it wouldn't work out, it would just be illogical; to not put the weight on.

 

Here is a comparision of the sizes of the Ring rated fighters of 1940 & 1970--weights are actual weight the man fought at that year
1940:
Joe Louis-----6' 2" 203 lbs
Max Baer-----6' 3" 221 lbs
Arturo Godoy--6' 0" 202 lbs
Red Burman---5' 11" 192 lbs
Abe Simon-----6' 4" 256 lbs
Buddy Walker--5' 11" 195 lbs
Buddy Baer----6' 6 1/2" 249 lbs
Pat Comiskey--6' 3" 207 lbs
Otis Thomas---5' 11" 207 lbs
Lem Franklin---6' 2" 204 lbs
Lee Savold---6' 0" 195 lbs

1970:
Joe Frazier-----5' 11" 209 lbs
M. Ali----------6' 3" 213 lbs
G Foreman-----6' 3 1/2" 217 lbs
O. Bonavena---5' 10 1/2" 204 lbs
Jerry Quarry---6' 0" 198 lbs
Mac Foster----6' 2" 210 lbs
Henry Cooper---6' 2" 189 lbs
George Chuvalo--6' 1" 215 lbs
Sonny Liston----6' 0 1/2" 219 lbs
Jose Urtain------5' 11" 195 lbs
Joe Luis Garcia---6' 4" 188 lbs

As you can see, the 1970 group is actually slightly smaller than the 1940 group. The 1940 group is not freakishly large. Five years earlier Carnera and Impellitiere would have been on the list. In 1929, Carnera and Campolo were rated.

I don't know if Liston beating Patterson proves a great deal. Liston was not so much bigger than all kinds of others, such as Jeffries and Baer, as he was better. This was a case of a great big men beating a merely good little man. Patterson came up though the lighter divisions. Prior to stepping into the ring with Liston, the only men of 200 or more lbs he had fought were Rademacher, London, and Johansson, and all of them were quite capable of bringing their weights under 200 lbs in top shape. Liston was the first real 210+ lb fighter Patterson had fought. It is true that some old champions, Jeffries, Tunney, and Schmeling, did not fight big men, but most did. Dempsey, Sharkey, Louis, Charles, and Marciano had all been in with men bigger than Liston and at least Sharkey (Wills and Godfrey) and Marciano (Louis) had beaten skilled fighters of that size.
To get to the rat killing, Patterson fought a miserable fight against Liston. When rocked, Patterson actually reached out with his left hand and grabbed the top rope. When he lost his grip, he reached out and grabbed the second strand. Reaching out and holding onto the ropes is not a top notch survival skill. I think he would have been in trouble against Dempsey or Marciano or Fitz or any other big puncher fighting like that.

You mention steroids. Is it an accident that the superheavyweights have only managed to dominate in the era of steroids and HGH? You mention Holyfield and Moorer being built up, but Lewis and the Klitschkos are pumped with steroids also.

 

One reason is that they can become very rich fighting at 188 or even lower. Roy Jones, Jr has made huge money fighting at lightheavy. That would not have been true generations past where the big money was generally only in the heavyweights.
Jones is an excellent example. It is not like he stepped up and failed. He stepped up and beat Ruiz, certainly a steady contender, and then just moved back down.

 

I dont even know if bulking up would make Dempsey Marciano etc better fighters.

All I know is that they would be made to bulk up for better or for worse.

 

That is one single year in which there were a lot of big heavies around. Take a few other years, or better yet, take an average over the the span between '20-'29, '30-'39 and compare it to '70-'79. Maybe i'll do it later, i'm having dinner soon.

Fair enough.

Well, maybe i gave the wrong impression, but i was not really taking about superheavyweights, but just about 210lbs+ heavyweights.

Let's say, the champions from Liston onward, Ali, Holmes, Tyson et al.


Also, Lewis and Wlad Klitschko have never been caught with steroids and don't have the steroid traps, magical 20lbs of muscle without fat when already ripped gain, etc, that Holyfield and Moorer have.

But you are right, they could be on steroids for all we know.

Then again, i wouldn't be surprised if Norton, Foreman, Liston et al were on steroids as well. They were around since the 50's. Bob Hazelton, one of Foreman's opponents was on them.



But wouldn't you agree that since ~1960, there has been an increase in size of people in general (better nutrition etc), giving rise to an increase in talent at the higher weight regions that was never seen before?

I mean, do you think it's a coincidence that since Patterson, nearly every all time great heavweight weighed over ~210 pounds?

 

I think some people underestimate of how easy it is to bulk up.


Whose to say their bodies can take it?

Why do you think Holyfield was so inconsistent? His body broke down more often than an M16 in Vietnam. Moorer's chin didn't exactly become stronger.

Holyfield and Byrd are both extremely durable which is what kept them in fights with the bigger men. The same goes for Toney, who by the way, had an awful record at heavyweight of 1-1-1-1 with the sole win coming against a shot Holyfield.

There wasn't a single soul on the planet that thought Roy Jones would last 12 with Lennox Lewis, back then or in hindsight.