Tyson versus Dempsey

Yeah but your talking about general perception. Although Lewis was knocking guys out his skillset was still perceived as raw and unrefined by many "boxing people" and that was well documented. That's why it only took an average fighter and a simple gameplan to exploit it.
Same goes for Tyson really, he was still looking powerful and destructive but he was using poor technique. You will say it was all Mathis that caused him to look bad but even against Bruno he was making a lot of technical mistakes.

 

He wasn't anywhere near the peak of his powers. His results before, and for a while after, show that.

He might have been well-fed for all I know. That's not what I have read. But he might have been fine as far as food or physical well-being are concerned. It's not the relevant aspect of this study at all though.
What is relevant is his demonstrated ability and position in the prizefighting world.

 

I agree that Lewis improved and became more refined.

(The degree to which he did so, and the timeline of progress, I seem to differ slightly with lefthook on. But that's unimportant regarding by criteria for considering results as counting in the overall legacy stakes.)

Everyone here, I assume, draws the line somewhere when considering the period for which to study a great fighter's career greatness.

I assume most of you don't put any stock in a fighter getting KO'd in his pro debut, or as an amateur. And I assume most of you don't count fights that happen in the horrible washed-up period of fighters who carry on fighting far too long (eg. Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Young, Evander Holyfield).
So, there must be an acceptable period somewhere between those two points where we take it as the RELEVANT career.
I've said where I draw the boundaries. If there's a better, fairer way, I'm all ears.

The problem with too much dissection of the "improvement" issue, is we end up at the extreme of running the risk of narrowing down a fighter to one single "peak" fight.
Take Joe Louis, for example - I tend to think he showed improvements right up to 1942, but I don't discount any of his performances that happened when he was a top fighter from 1935 onwards.
On the other hand, I give guys like Dempsey, Armstrong, Liston, Schmeling even, a free pass for losses that happen before they are established as top level contenders.

We all draw the lines somewhere. I'm the only one here saying where I draw them - and getting accused of double standards for it.

 

A fighter may have reached their physical best but it's not until they learn how to apply their craft that they become truly great. That applies to all of them win or lose.

 

This basically says "Dempsey was a badly managed fighter just fighting for meals unless proven otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt". A very odd position, but not uncommon when it comes to Dempsey.

 

I don't think losses should be dismissed or ignored, under any circumstances. Fights - wins and losses - should always be viewed in the proper perspective, of course. But I don't think it's fair to erase any losses from the record books of history because said boxer hadn't reached his peak (or fame) yet.

Take Schmeling. He has quite a few bad losses early on. This is definitely not something that prevents him from ranking high, but it does indicate to me that durability is not his strongest point - something that re-surfaced later in his career.

Tyson was as far away from his peak when he got knocked out by Douglas as Dempsey was when he was stopped by Flynn - two years away from peak performance.

Under your rules, Schmeling's early career is exactly as good as Ali's or Johansson's rise. I think that's extremely unfair: the latter two boxers should get credit for surviving these early career tests. Losing is not a disaster, but can never be fully ignored, either.


And you still have to explain to me how someone with more than 50 professional fights goes from being a novice, whose losses don't count (1917), to an ATG, with performances accordingly great and impressive (1918-1919).. :bart

 

I can do that and save Unforgiven the ink: That someone was named Dempsey.:!:

 

OK, so you all disagree with me, but I've explained where I draw the line. It's my criteria.

ChrisPontius is the only other one here who has clearly said where he draws the lines, in that he doesn't disregard any losses whatsoever, but he also implies that losses should be put into context ...

To be fair to McGrain and lefthook31, genuinely seem to hold a difference of opinion on Lennox Lewis.
Personally, I have not enough evidence to assume his improvements made him a completely different fighter to the same extent as you do. It's a matter of degrees.
For example, Frank Bruno in 1993 fought very well and in my mind would have given a 1998 version of Lewis a bloody hell of a fight.
A 1998 Lewis does no better against Ruddock.

Some of Lewis's results 1991 - '93 are just too good for me to disregard.

Whereas that's not necessarily the case with Dempsey.

ChrisPontius asks :

I don't need to explain. The record book shows it.
The details of his progress are well-documented, but obviously everything biographical ever written about Dempsey will probably be dismissed by you and others here as "mythology". (It's funny, because reports and inside stories of other historical fighters are rarely thrown away half as readily as those on Dempsey.)

Having said all that, seeing as Dempsey's alleged progress was unfathomably meteoric, I'm absolutely willing to doubt it myself and from now on I will include Dempsey's loss to Flynn as relevant to his overall rating.

:deal

 

Unforgiven, you only have to look at his record to get your proof. I dont think there is any difference between the fighters he faced in his first title reign and his second.

1. He didnt fight Mcall the same way when he was given the rematch and easily outboxed him..

2. He clearly used strategic gameplans against certain fighters to exploit their weaknesses, Grant, Golota, Tua etc.

3. First run into contention, two "name" wins, two title defenses before being stopped by Oliver Mcall

4. Second run four fights two "name" wins NINE title defenses before losing to Rahman.

I think that shows a pretty clear consistent improvement against a comparable level of opposition.

 

1. Well, you can certainly argue he definitely improved a lot to go from LTKO2 McCall to WTKO5 !
But you could also argue that McCall regressed some too in the closing of that gap.

(For the postors here who put much stock in Dempsey's loss to Flynn, such argumentation would kill their case.
Dempsey went from LKO1 to WKO 1 within a year ! )

2. The Grant and Golota "game plans" look not much different from the Ruddock performance from where I'm sitting.
Lewis impressed me with his mature boxing style as early as the Mason fight. I would say he had a plan there.
Of course, he had improved by the time he fought Tua, ten years later.

3 & 4 - absolutely agree, he was more consistent, and he knew how to beat McCall in his later incarnation.
But I would also speculate that IF he had been pitted against many of those later opponents instead of McCall, a longer run would have been achieved.
I don't see Botha, Golota, Akinwande, Mavrovic or Grant knocking any version of Lewis out with one punch.
The order in which he faced those men must be some sort of factor too.

As I've said, the Bruno of 1993 would have given Lewis of 1998 hell, and the later version of Lewis wouldn't have done any better against Ruddock.
In my opinion.
Specific opponents force different results - you can't just reduce them all down to "the same level of opposition".
Also, you conveniently stop shy of the Rahman defeat, where amateurish habits and sloppiness were apparent.

Like I said, we agree with the fact that Lewis IMPROVED and became more POLISHED and REFINED.
But we disagree on the degree to which he did, and the degree to which that influenced his results/performances.

 

I was using his losses to show a string of consistency between thats all, it had nothing to do with the Rahman fight. Mcall regressed? Cmon...

Ruddock would have never mentally crumbled like Grant and Golota did. Thats why Lewis fought them the way he did, yet he boxed cautiously against Mcall in the rematch. Before Emanuel Steward Lewis thought he could knock everyone out like he did against Ruddock.