Some questions about Jack Dempsey and Lennox Lewis

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

 

Lewis easily. We know everything about his opponents. Their ages when they fought him, their records, their fights were freely available to see...basically, Lewis' quality of opposition is an open book.

With Jack, things are different. Most of his opponents (and indeed much of Jack himself) is still unknown, and maybe a handful of fights are available for viewing of both Dempsey and his opponents.

I'd expect the likes of Tua and Holyfield to present Dempsey with a lot to think about, but on the flip side, I can't see anyone on Jack's roster that could seriously trouble Lewis. Maybe Tunney, but he was in my mind too small to make much of an impact against the big Briton. (Or Jamaican, Canuck...whatever.)

In a straight fight between 20's Dempsey and 90's Lewis, I'd pick Lewis and sleep comfortably.
However, bring Dempsey into the modern era where he'd have the benefits of today's conditions and would most likely weigh well over 200 pounds, and it's a much tougher fight. One that Dempsey could certainly win.

Again, Lewis. He accounted for a wide variety of opponents and also fought more of them.

Not really. It's prizefighting and politics always come into it. The cultural climate of Dempsey's day probably would always preclude him from fighting Wills. Incidently, Jack Johnson also drew the colour line (not openly, but he did) yet people always talk about Jack.

With Lewis, I think he was quite avoided by some fighters. I don't buy wholeheartedly into the 'Lewis was ducked' mentality, although what Bowe did can't be interpreted in any other way.

Logically, you'd have to rate Lennox higher. He was champion (although mostly not undisputed) for a longer period, in my eyes faced the better competition and avenged his two defeats.

On the other hand, greatness is not measured by hard, cold numbers neccessarily.
Jack for his time was infinitely more popular and had far more impact on society than Lewis could ever dream of. He was a symbol and an icon of his era, whereas Lewis was just another good fighter.

People talk of boxing's first million dollar gate, the long count, his mauling of Willard etc. with zest still today. Will fans in 2070 be talking of Lewis in the same way? Highly unlikely.
Dempsey had an aura, a mystique, which I think is lost on many people today simply because they weren't around in the roaring 20's.
I can't take anything away from Lennox, but outside of boxing, who gave a crap about him?
Dempsey transcended boxing. Lewis didn't.

 

I'd agree that Dempsey in terms of intrigue is right up there with Louis and Liston. Only really Ali and Tyson are talked about more readily in terms of captivating figures amongst the great heavyweights.


However in this past couple of years I've arrived to the conclusion that the whole "force of nature" asteem some people hold Dempsey is more myth over substance. He was a very good offensive fighter, but less techinically astute and defensively unbreachable than some think. Possessing aura alone doesn't neccessarily mean an automatic pass to the 'top 6 heavyweights ever' reckoning. I mean Lewis and Holmes weren't the most adored and romanticised about fighters of their time, but their careers, skills, fundamentals and legacy for me warrants higher placings than Tyson and especially Dempsey.

 

Very good post, though fof. :good

 

This irks me, Dempsey went unbeaten from 1918-1923 (5years), while Lennox went unbeaten from 1994-2001 (7years) - (Dempsey 3years later being semi retired - I'm not giving Dempsey an unbeaten run of 1923-1926 )

 

Lewis fought (and defended) more frequently, though and of course decimated some worthy top contenders himself: Ruddock, Golota, Morrison, Grant- overhyped in hindsight, but still, Rahman rematch, Morrison. I'm not excusing his losses to McCall or Rahman (although he was hard done by not to be given another chance in the former) but in a way it’s easy to get a bit complacent when having bested everyone in the division and you’re fighting pretty regularly. OK so the very top opponents were probably on the same level, Tunney perhaps best fighter either faced, but Lewis faced some big, strong, hard hitting guys and I think proved himself more over the long haul. A slightly faded Evander or not Lewis beat him (twice) convincingly and took Tyson out by the time Mike eventually signed the contract.


For me Dempsey sat on the title a bit to readily, despite never losing at his very best.

 

They were both named Harry?