Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

I read an article in the sports section of the Guardian after Jones beat John Ruiz arguing that he was the best heavyweight on the planet. The authour had Lewis at 3 behind Jones and Holyfield. Incredibly they concluded that Jones would have more chance against Lennox Lewis than he would against Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson.

 

What?

Lewis was miles beyond Morris and Willard.

Dempsey was 184.

If a great big man should be expected to beat a great little man, then a great behemoth heavyweight should be expected to beat a great undersized HW.

I have always asserted that "styles make fights" and did in fact consider styles in this match-up, but have arrived at the conclusion that it is a nonfactor here. The size differential is monstrous and it isn't like Lewis wasn't skilled.

 

I tend to think that every ounce counts up to 200 lbs and beyond that diminishing returns start to set in.


Dose anybody here think that Lewis was the most effective heavyweight puncher of all time?

Dose anybody even think that he was the hardest puncher of all time?

The fact is that nearly all the best punchers of history have been comparativley small heavyweights.

 

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

In a way--I think you are correct about the size of the population generally increasing because of nutrition and better medical care, etc, but I don't think necessarily produces a better heavyweight division. What I mean is that the heavyweight division a couple of generations ago was about 170 lbs to 220 lbs with a few giants above that. It has gradually increased to about 210 lbs to 260 bls with a few giants above that. Would the bigger men of today prove too big for the fighters of generations past? I think so. Do they have the talents, other than size, on the whole of the smaller men of the past? Is the competition as severe? I think not. Why? Probably Marciano-Frazier put his finger on it. He posted a while back that he thought that the human body has an optimal size, probably maxing at 6' 2" or 6' 3" and around 200 lbs and as you go above that you lose athleticism, even if in many sports these huge men have the advantage and can dominate.

Getting concrete, I just watched Liston & Machen a couple of days ago. I do not see this level of skill, stamina, movement, all around athleticism, etc, in modern heavyweights, even if perhaps the best modern heavyweights would prove too big for Liston and certainly Machen.

 

Jones didn't think though, that's why he chose Ruiz and not Lewis. A much easier fight and a very sensible one. The writer in question must have been asleep for a year or two- he rated Holyfield second, despite being well outpointed by Chris Byrd in his previous fight.

 

You think David haye will stay under 200 when he steps up to heavyweight?

 

Haye's probably weighed 215 at fight time in his last two anyway. He's big.

 

I have no doubt that on average, a 6'5 man is less co-ordinated than 6'1 brother.

However, a boxing match is an incredibly complicated battle of assets.

For instance, did Carnera's co-ordination or athleticism even compare to a master boxer's like Loughran? Not at all, but it didn't matter: Carnera beat him anyway. As some assets decrease, other assets like strength, power and the ability to tire an opponent (he has to move more) increase, which is some big men can be succesful.

I disagree there. Chris Byrd is very similar to Machen only a bit bigger. His resume is much better yet he was totally helpless against Wladimir Klitschko. Liston is very slow despite being not much over 200lbs; his athletic level is not even comparable to guys like Lewis. Compare his finishing, telegraphed barrage against Williams to for instance finishes like Lewis/Golota, Lewis/Botha, Lewis/Ruddock, etc. I'm not too impressed by Liston's movement, either. It was always in a straight line and he was clueless on how to cut the ring off against Clay.

 

Well, he certainly did not waste punches no.

I think he hits as hard as anyone who ever laced them on.

How is that a fact?

To make a random top12, no specific order:

Tyson
Lewis
Marciano
Louis
Dempsey
Liston
Shavers
Klitschko
Foreman
M. Baer
Tua
Morrison


How many of them weigh under 200lbs? Two: Dempsey and Marciano.
That's 2 out of 12.

 

Well the question applies to Spinks, Holyfield or whoever, but just say Haye weighed 200 at fight time vs maccarennelli. Do you think his team will still see that he puts between 1 & 2 stone on to compete more successfully at heavyweight? Now why would they do this if each and every 'ounce'* over led to apparent 'diminished returns'?




* Ounce. what a joke.

 

I disagree.
Liston tended to hurl some of his punches, but he was accurate and educated in where he delivered them.
I thought Lewis was quite scrappy in lots of his finishes too, against Ruddock for example. Beautiful right hand to score the first knockdown, but the rest were relatively hurried clubbing punches if I remeber rightly.
Against Grant is a prime example of less-than-polished finishing. But there's nothing wrong with that, we cant really nitpick over aesthetics. When these guys are out to kill a wounded foe they might look a bit raw.

Liston's first knockdown of Williams (in the 2nd fight) was a tremendous combination, finishing with a fluid left that landed flush on a moving target. Liston was moving forward at great speed himself while delivering. This is athleticism.

 

I expect Haye to weigh 220-230.

I dont agree with janitor's statement about diminishing returns.
I think it depends somewhat on the height and frame of a man, and his style, where the diminishing returns start.

I think a man of Jack Dempsey's dimensions and athleticism would get better and better up to 215 or thereabouts.

 

I've never been able to understand this reasoning or seen any scientific proof to back this up. Where did this magic 200lb number come from. certainly if there was science behind it it wouldn't be such a nice convenient rounded number. Why does it follow that if an elite fighter weighting 190lbs fights an elite 160lber that this 30lb difference matters enormously, but if someone is 240 fighting someone 210, it magically doesn't matter. I find it almost impossible to fathom that Lewis' 50lb advantage over Dempsey, along with his reach advantage and most importantly he ability to fight like the big man he is, wouldn't matter.

 

Six of the men you listed are 6' 1'' or less.

If you rounded your list off to the best six then nearly all of them would be under 6' 1''.

It is an unavoidable fact that most of historys best heavyweight punchers were 5' 1'' to 6' 1''.

 

the scientific reasoning is called the cube rule.

If you triple every dimension of an animal it has 27 times its previous weight but only 9 times its previous strength. Therfore there must come a point in a fighter where the payoff for the increased size dosnt carry the bulk.

If bigger really was better all the way then the division would be dominated by men the size of Valuev.