Lennox Lewis vs Jack Dempsey

In fairness, the evidence is from 1952 with Carroll repeating info given to him from men who would have seen Fulton about 30 years earlier and I assume would have seen Louis, for example. That does not mean it is correct, but I don't think I would dismiss it as blithely as you do.

I would add that every observer at the time scored Firpo for being crude as hell. Films prove they were correct. Why are they necessarily wrong if they say Fulton by contrast had skills.

 

Just curiously, what do you think of Tunney's footwork and jab?

 

What? Didn't he fight in pubs?

 

Both must have been at least good enough to take care of Dempsey.. we both know who won!

 

Hey VanBoxing,

I think your post below is most reasonable.

In general term the scaling laws, one of which was outlined by Janitor, are an inviolable fact of biology, via the influence of physics.

But you are correct to ask for the reference that specifies the 200lb figure!!

Having said this, my guess is 200-215lb is probably right on the money, based on my observations of the strength and mobility of athletes from a range of performance sports - but of course I can't actually prove it.

You may pick a slightly different figure, but I challenge you to find one much different from 200-215lb based on an analysis of big, highly mobile sportsmen from a range of sports:

boxers (Ali 6 3 215lb; Tyson 5 11, 210lb)
100m sprinters (Asafa Powell 6 3, 194lb; Carl lewis 6 2, 175lb)
rugby players (Offiah 6 1, 200lb)
gridiron (Sanders 5 8 , 200lb; Payton 5 10, 200lb; Sayers 6 0, 198lb)
basketballers (Jordan 6 6, 216lb)
---------------

With very rare exceptions (notably Jona Lomu and to a lesser extent Earl Campbell) once you go above these figures, visible mobility and stamina issues start to set in.

With specific regard to this thread, Lennox Lewis is not one of these exceptions. He is visibly slower and less mobile than Dempsey and other smaller HWs like Tyson and Ali. Hence the 'diminishing returns' that have been alluded to.

As for references: if you wish to dig in further - the classic biological scaling book is Schmidt-Nielsen's "Scaling: why is animal size so important."

If you dont have time for that, the basic idea in a pargraph can be found at this link under the sub-heading Effect of scaling properties on Biology:

http://dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

Cheers,

Nick.

PS I dont personally believe Dempsey would beat Lewis...just commenting that in essence Janitor is correct with his observations.

 

I'll take bets on janitor and senya

 

So how many men are around as big as Valuev that give a damn about boxing?

I do agree about diminishing returns, but i'd set the mark a long way from where you would i think and would also make allowances for the odd exception to the rule.

 

It's on Wiki

 

:rofl:yep

 

I don't recall out and out saying he was wrong, but references would be nice, which you seemed to have provided it, which is much appreciated.

I accept that challenge and will direct you to hockey and football.

I'm a hockey fan and beyond a doubt the defenseman have gotten bigger. The ones who win the Norris trophey now tend to be significantly bigger than they were 20 years ago. Most are well above 6" and 200lbs with the elite being Pronger who is about 6'5" and about 225, other players, notably power forwards often top 230 or more. Many football positions, such as linebackers etc. generally scale 275+ or more. Certainly running backs are upwards of 230 or bigger and I don't think anyone would honestly question their athleticsm. In basketball, you can point to Jordan, and I'll point to Shaquille. Boxing you point to Ali and Tyson, I'll point to Lewis and Wlad, who if nothing else their accomplishments are more recent

So I don't buy this upper limit theory. Dimishing returns, sure, but I think when all things are factored in size can be an advantage. As several posters have mentioned I don't see any sub 200lb belt holders at the moment and I'm not expecting any to materialize. Smaller generally means there's a speed advantage, which in boxing matters a lot, but if that's all that mattered, we'd have Cruiserweights taking over the heavyweight belts. I suppose what's being inferred but not said directly is that 200-215 fighters possess a desireable combination of speed and power such that they can over come the slower but more powerful guys in the 240+ range.


But in all sports there are exceptions, the best Hockey player in the world was by most accounts Gretzky and he was only about 180lb and under 6'ft.

Now as to your reference with animals it points out that elephants can only lift about 25% of their weight, while I'm sure ants can lift thousand of times more than they weigh. But in absolute terms an elephant can lift a hell of a lot more than an ant. So while Dempsey may be able to punch harder for his weight than say Lewis, as could PAC, in absolute terms Lewis' punch is harder than both, at least in my opinion it is. And it's also my contention that Lewis' size (size = weight, reach etc) advantage negates Dempsey's superior speed. One could also point out to the Lewis -Tua fight to see what the difference is between to fighters who may punch with similar power except for the difference in size.

 

Who said i read any of the post?



Whatevers in there can't be 1/10 as bad as some of the shockers janitor is whipping up.