Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

Sure, a difference of 50 lbs means more between 140-190 than between 190-240, but that doesn't mean that those 50 lbs are insignificant in any way.

Besides, not only has the physique of boxers evolved since the 1920's, but also their technique. Does anyone truly believe that fighters as crude as for example Willard, Carnera and Baer would be among today's top contenders, never mind being actual lineal champions?

 

Carnera was very shape, muscular and well trained in the 30s, today he would look even more impressive. For a man of his size he had pretty good technique, and a very good jab, who used his reach and size pretty well. And Baer was a fighter, who had great power, and that combinated with good stamina and very good if not great chin is always dangerous...

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is simply an urban myth of sorts, with a small grain of truth in it.

Yes ants are extraordinarly stong for their size and weight compared to humans, but Show me ONE study that support the premise that these diminishing returns all of a sudden magically appear at the 200lb mark, far more so than weights less than that.

Just one and I'll gladly buy into your assertion that it size magically stops mattering once you cross the mythical 200lb mark. To me, absent any scientific proof, it's a hypothesis I'm not prepared to blindly agree with and it doesn't even sound remotely logical to me.

 

Well I googled "the cube rule" and didn't find anything remotely backing up this assertion. The closest thing I got was someone on wind turbines, and the laws of diminishing returns as it applies to Economics.

Care to direct me to a website.

 

Canera had no skill. he pushed his punches and his opponents. he may have had strength, but he was an untalented boxer as they come. i believe even willard was better.

baer had power, but next to no skills. when he threw his haymakers he virtually fell over his own feet.

i have his fight with king levinski (the second one) on film. its filmed outside on a clear and sunny day.
so i got a VERY clear idea on what his and his opponents abilities were like.

both resembled a couple of drunken sailors in a bar. if i had to sum up their efforts and abilities with a single word, it would be "STUMBLEBUMS"!

 

At least he KO´d many ranked contenders and good fighters like Bearcat Wright, Sharkey, Schaaf, Neusel, Campolo, etc., so it shows he had also solid power. It would also help if you watch some footage of him except only the Baer- fight...

 

I don't agree. Carnera make Valujev look like a prime Muhammed Ali. The title fight between Carnera and Baer is the worst I've seen in terms of technique. They don't even look like pro boxers, they're so sloppy. Baer did look better against Schmeling, though.

 

But let´s not forget Carnera fought some elite fighters like Louis, Baer, Sharkey, etc., against bums and mediocre fighters he looked also impressive, let Valuev fight a man like Baer or Louis and you will see how foolish he would look...

 

Valujev would destroy Baer. That jab would turn Baer's face into musch in a couple of rounds if he hadn't been KO'd by then, which he probably would have been.

Don't get me wrong, I think today's HW-division is about as interesting as watching paint dry, but Baer, taken directly from the 1930's, still wouldn't be competitive against its top contenders.

 

I agree with the first half of your post, but a fight between two Loughrans would be a masterful display of skill and athleticism. A bout between two Carneras would be clumsy, oafish, with a great deal of tugging and wrestling. But Carnera beats Loughran on sheer size--and for a man his size, Carnera is fairly skilled.

As for Byrd, I don't think he had anything like the lateral movement of Machen. Both were elusive with good head movement, but I think Machen has a noticable edge. Wlad handled Byrd easily, but I would like to see him fight someone who displayed more lateral movement. The difference between Wlad and Liston is that Liston pushed forward while Wlad stands off at a distance. To beat Wlad you would have to rush him.
I agree with your criticisms of Liston--both his jab and his right are really slow--but he does have good basic boxing skills, can move straight ahead or straight back fairly well, and has impressive stamina. The Machen fight was fought at a good clip for the entire twelve rounds. I doubt if Wlad could fight 12 rounds at that pace.

Lewis is by far the most impressive big boxer I have seen. I think he handles Liston fairly easily.

 

where is Zakhman with his objective analysis?

 

Dempsey by KO.........

 

Excuse me, for Willard, we are not talking about a small elk.
A good sized deer is @200 pounds.
A great once in a life time trophy dear might go 250 pounds.
The deer would have been gutted before carrying it back to camp...

And Dempsy fought out of the crouch....like Marciano and Byrd.
Dempsy was either knocked out or took a dive in the first few seconds of a fight by Fireman some body or another....not going to go look it up.

But against Gunboat Smith he woke up in the cabin apologising for losing, and was told he'd won. He'd been knocked silly, but not out.
He said Fripo fogged him real good, not that you noticed though.

Meehan were the California legal 4 rounders.

 

But there is obviously diminishing returns as size gets bigger. How many 130 lber's were able to beat the best middleweights. How many 160 lber's were able to beat the best 190 lbers. This is pretty rare. It is nowhere near as rare for a 180 to 190 lb man to have been able to beat the best 210 or up men. It is common historically.

 

Read any book on biomechanics or the effects of increasing body mass on animals.