Dempsey - Lewis

[dempseyfire]

C'mon, if you fight Tua, Ruddock,Morrison, Bruno,Tyson, Mercer etc. you are going to get hit sometimes. Mercer in particular hit Lewis with a lot of good shots.
Neither Briggs nor Tua ever had Lewis in serious trouble.
Yes, Lewis got stunned a few times in his career, but who hasn't?
As for Shavers, well most others fighters probably would have been knocked out by the shot that Shavers hit Holmes with. Holmes had a very good chin. I'm not saying that Lewis had as good of a chin as Holmes. I'm just saying that Lewis had a decent chin.

Of course we don't know which shot was better between Shaver's and Rahman, but Rahman's seemed to land more flush. It's not just about how hard the punch was, but where it lands. Rahmans landed perfectly.
Rahman didn't land a shot like that against Holyfield. Regardless, I'm not saying Lewis had as good of a chin as Holyfield anyway.

I doubt that Steward thought Lewis had that weak of chin. He saw that Tyson was ready to go and told Lewis to take him out.

Dempsey got dropped by Tunney. While Tunney was an underrated puncher, there is no way that it was as hard of a shot that Rahman hit Lewis with. Dempsey also got stopped by Flynn who wasn't in Lewis' league as a puncher. Dempsey also was seriously hurt by Gunboat Smith. No one says that Dempsey had a glass jaw because overall he proved he didn't. (This is the same for Lewis.) However, Dempsey could be hurt by a great shot. Lewis would certainly be capable of knocking Dempsey out.

I will agree with you Lennox showed some balls in the Mercer fight and that that fight showed he did not have a glass jaw. But he was still stunned several times and I scored that fight a draw (or if anything a 1 pt win for Ray).
Show me anytime when Ruddock, Morrison, or Tua ever landed anything big? They did not. Those fights were not wars. Lewis took one decent shot from Tua but didn't receive any follow-ups bc the Samoan was too slow and short.
Briggs def. had Lennox in serious trouble . . .the commentators (English!!!) even thought there was a possibility of a first round knockout.

Lewis didn't have a glass jaw but among HW champs, he surely had one of the weakest.

Yeah, but the fact that Lewis was able to dominate fighters like Morrison, Tua and startch Ruddock shows that he could have done a simular thing to Dempsey... Lewis didnt have a great chin but he by no means had the worst chin of the champs, look at all the times Louis was down and against much lighter fighters, same with Dempsey, he was hurt numerous times during his career... Lewis had the skills to outbox dempsey, but also the power to hurt him too... Dempsey would be in there with a shout though... I'd favour Dempsey early or Lewis late...

Ummm no. Ruddock was a plodding mess with no left jab and devoid of any boxing smarts. He was simply a tough guy with a great left uppercut. Morrison was good offensively but hit a wall after 4 rounds and had awful defense. Tua was a slow plodding fat guy with a big punch . . .awful footwork, poor work-rate.
Dempsey was twice the fighter these guys were. A top notch chin (the Flynn aberration KO was vs an already injured Dempsey), awesome power, incredible speed of foot, excellent handspeed, excellent stamina . . .you are going to compare him to David Tua or Tommy Morrison??? Get real . . .

[Ezzard]

With Haye having gone from Dempsey proportions to slaying big heavies does anyone feel that the size disparity is no longer such an issue?

[mrbassie]

what rules would they be fighting under, what size gloves, going to a neutral corner or not etc.?

[theone]

John L. put it perfectly. Just because Haye could pack on the pds and be effective doesnt mean Dempsey could have. If Dempsey had fought even semi comfortably over 200 even at the tail end of his career it would have been evidence that he may have been effective fighting at a higher weight in his prime...but he didn't.
Judging this fight by how effective these guys actually looked in their prime I dont change my opinion that Lewis would destroy Dempsey within the first 2 rounds.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Risky fight for Dempsey, but I couldn't honestly make him the underdog. A lot of people go on about the size difference, & the fact that Lewis was better than any big man Dempsey fought, but what about the speed (& to a lesser, though still significant extent) & durability difference? Speed especially would kill here. Dempsey would land at some point, & to whoever it was who said Rahman & McCall hit harder than Dempsey because they're heavier, give yourself an uppercut.

[Ezzard]

Shannon Briggs’ left hook had Lewis stumbling around so Dempsey]’s could finish the fight.

I don’t believe Lewis had a china chin. He could be hurt and he could be KO’d. The main issue is that on the rare occasion he did get put down he didn’t get up. Probably had poor recuperation.

I think the idea that this is a mismatch is misguided. The post-McCall Lewis took very few risks. I doubt he’d come out swinging.

[The Great John L]

John L. put it perfectly.

Why thank you very much.

[man]

no chance whatsoever for dempsey. nill. nothing.
lewis starts slow, so it won't be over in two. but
not more than four.

[Goodnight, Irene]

no chance whatsoever for dempsey. nill. nothing.
lewis starts slow, so it won't be over in two. but
not more than four.

Those unaware of history are doomed to repeat it.

[NazNaci1]

Much as I admire Lewis, it has been proved that he can be caught and KO'd.

If a McCall or Rahman can land one, single KO bomb, add to that Grant and Briggs also rocked him with their wild onslaughts, I have to strongly believe that a fast, aggressive, bobbing and weaving Dempsey is not only going to land but land more often than those guys.

Dempsey was more than a brawler, he actually knew to fight on the inside, where Lewis's holding might not be as effective at containing him, not to mention Dempsey could take a punch and punch very, very fast and hard himself.

Interesting match up.

[man]

no chance whatsoever for dempsey. nill. nothing.
lewis starts slow, so it won't be over in two. but
not more than four.

Those unaware of history are doomed to repeat it.

i might be utterly mistaken and, as they say, "i've been
wrong before". but i share ali's belief that the dempsey
era lacks the tools against the technically more advanced
boxers. to me the modern age started with tunney, but he
was small, so dempsey had a chance. but from louis onwards
i do not see him having any chance. louis was technically
modern and bigger. though i give dempsey a chance against
marciano, who was technically not great and not big
either. but against a technical superb fighter who tops him
by 50 to 60 pounds, like lewis? please. nooo way. dempsey
had to little footwork and too little defense. and i think lewis
was just to careful to run into a big dempsey swinger.

no guys. this is not an interesting fight. dempsey - marciano yes.
dempsey - lennox no way.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Please explain to me the, "technical," developments you speak of.

[Ezzard]

Please explain to me the, "technical," developments you speak of.

Rahman and McCall must possess the technical developments...

[Alex]

It's worth considering that the Dempsey who took a three-year layoff from the ring was a different fighter from the dynamo who dismantled Jess Willard.

I'd pick the Dempsey of 1919 to KO Lewis within a few rounds, but the slower, older Dempsey who lost to Tunney twice I could well see finishing second.

Those who've mentioned Dempsey's KO loss to Flynn should bear in mind that it's highly likely he 'threw' that fight. The future world champ was in dire financial straits at the time and, if I remember rightly, he later admitted to taking a 'dive' for some easy and much-needed cash.

The Tunney knockdown was at the most a flash one-second knockdown, possibly due to Dempsey being off balance. He was up at once and, apparently unhurt, immediately marauded into Tunney.

Those who claim that Dempsey couldn't have hit as hard as the gigantic heavyweights who Lewis fought simply because he'd be a cruiserweight today are missing the point. Dempsey was not an ordinary 185lb/190lb fighter - he had a punch like a two-tonne truck! Outside of Marciano, there's probably no one in ring history around his weight who hit nearly so hard.

Bodyweight is only one factor in making a heavy hitter - speed and timing are two more, and Dempsey had the last two in abundance.

As someone else said, I think Dempsey blowing up to 220 lbs, were he around today, would work against him. His speed and mobility were key to what made him such a deadly fighter, and both would suffer if he piled on weight.

As for today's heavyweights being technically superior to the oldtimers - I can't see much evidence to support that in the fights I've seen in the last couple of decades!

[The Great John L]

Please explain to me the, "technical," developments you speak of.

I anxiously await this as well. Having recently re-watched the Lewis-Klitschko fight, the most startling thing I noticed was the poor balance and conditioning of both guys. Although there was decent action, both appeared quite clumsy with stilted footwork. Both did throw decent jabs on occasion, but seldom threw multiple jabs, and Lewis seemed unable to throw punches in combination.

Perhaps these are representative of the "technical" developments mentioned?

[man]

Please explain to me the, "technical," developments you speak of.

to me it is several things in all departments.
lack of jab. very wide and often square stand.
footwork, or lack thereof, no bouncing, flat
flooted, but not in a positive way. throwing
single punches and wide swings. no feinting.
lack of body movement and head movement
as defensive tools.

to me he was the classic "non boxer"-puncher.
his fights against tunney show best what i mean.
dempsey is one dimensional. tunney is flexible.
coming from different angles, bouncing, throwing
combinations and so forth. to me demspey is
like the old tyson. relying on power and power
only.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLLOByFy ... re=related

[The Great John L]

to me it is several things in all departments.
lack of jab. very wide and often square stand.
footwork, or lack thereof, no bouncing, flat
flooted, but not in a positive way. throwing
single punches and wide swings. no feinting.
lack of body movement and head movement
as defensive tools.

to me he was the classic "non boxer"-puncher.
his fights against tunney show best what i mean.
dempsey is one dimensional. tunney is flexible.
coming from different angles, bouncing, throwing
combinations and so forth. to me demspey is
like the old tyson. relying on power and power
only.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLLOByFy ... re=related

Thanks for the reply.

So, do you really believe that there is more feinting in "modern" boxing than there was in prior eras? I really think this is almost a lost art among modern HWs. And I'm really struggling with the mention of the lack of body and head movement, as even the semi-retired Dempsey that fought Tunney seems to me to show more head and upper body movement than any HW in recent memory. In fact, even though drastically diminished, he still showed decent footwork, albeit much slower than the younger pre-layoff Dempsey.

A few things to remember with the Dempsey-Tunney fights are that Dempsey had been semi-retired and inactive for about 3 years prior, and Tunney was a superb fighter. Few HWs in history could have matched him for foot movement and combination punching.

[man]

Thanks for the reply.

So, do you really believe that there is more feinting in "modern" boxing than there was in prior eras? I really think this is almost a lost art among modern HWs. And I'm really struggling with the mention of the lack of body and head movement, as even the semi-retired Dempsey that fought Tunney seems to me to show more head and upper body movement than any HW in recent memory. In fact, even though drastically diminished, he still showed decent footwork, albeit much slower than the younger pre-layoff Dempsey.

A few things to remember with the Dempsey-Tunney fights are that Dempsey had been semi-retired and inactive for about 3 years prior, and Tunney was a superb fighter. Few HWs in history could have matched him for foot movement and combination punching.

i don't pretend to be a boxing expert. i am far from ...

i was referring to style-changes over time, not specific
fighters in the current era. if i see tunney, louis, ali,
holmes, evander, early tyson, lewis, klitschkos ... to me
they have something in common which dempsey lacks.
there are others at any era that of course do not represent
what i mean here. yet i believe with tunney something
new entered. even jack johnson, who moved a lot, to
me moved in a different way than what seems to be highest
end hw boxing today.

i looked at the willard fight again. yes, he bounces and
looks way better than against tunney, but i still feel i
watch someone from an old era, a feeling i do not have
with tunney.

[The Great John L]

i don't pretend to be a boxing expert. i am far from ...

i was referring to style-changes over time, not specific
fighters in the current era. if i see tunney, louis, ali,
holmes, evander, early tyson, lewis, klitschkos ... to me
they have something in common which dempsey lacks.
there are others at any era that of course do not represent
what i mean here. yet i believe with tunney something
new entered. even jack johnson, who moved a lot, to
me moved in a different way than what seems to be highest
end hw boxing today.

i looked at the willard fight again. yes, he bounces and
looks way better than against tunney, but i still feel i
watch someone from an old era, a feeling i do not have
with tunney.

Well, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a boxing expert.

Let me suggest that perhaps you are referring more to the style differences between Dempsey and Tunney. There are certainly a myriad of examples of 20's era and earlier fighters who exhibited much more sophisticated movement and tactics than virtually any currently active fighter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would beat a fighter that used Dempsey’s style. In fact, I think what may confuse many is the fact that because there were more fighters, gyms and trainers in past eras, there was also a much more diverse range of successful styles. Are there any current HWs that fight using the bobbing and weaving that Dempsey and Frazier used during their acreers? I would expect that any modern HW would have trouble even preparing for a Dempsey or Frazier because there aren’t any fighters who could mimic them to any degree.

While Dempsey at his best may seem crude, he fought in that style because it worked. It's not a popular style, because few can emulate it, and those that can are unable to do it for more than a few rounds before exhaustion set in. Frazier fought in a similar manner because it worked for him and he was willing to do the work so that he could fight with great intensity for 15 rounds. Both used the jab sparringly, but both also brought constant pressure and intensity. Few HWs of any era could have dealt with the intensity, especially any fighter who had never encountered a similar style.

[dempseyfire]

Dempsey was not just a superbly conditioned, durable puncher with speed. Fighting today he'd be by far the most skilled fighter north of welterweight save maybe Hopkins. Dempsey was a master at judging distance, great at feinting, knew when and where to place punches; there is even footage of him in sparring before the Carpentier fight that shows him sticking and moving as an outside fighter, showing he could fight in multiple styles. Yes, the super aggressive style he employed carries with it some risks, but that goes for any aggressive fighter, be they Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano or Tyson. But of that group, the most skilled overall in the art of boxing was Dempsey. Make no mistake, he was FAR from a crude fighter. In fact, along with his mastery of catch wrestling, Dempsey would probably easily be a MMA champ today as well as heavyweight champion in boxing.

[man]

Well, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a boxing expert.

i often sense - especially in the "boxers of the past" section -
that it is time to shut up. they talk about harry greb's opponents
as if they were their cousins and i further sense some of them do
not even have to dig into the database to do so ... :) ...

[orbtastic]

I have Dempsey's "how to fight tough" book from the 40s. I'm not sure if he wrote it or whether he was just used a vehicle for war time propaganda, but reading the book you get the impression there was far more to his toolkit than just his boxing moves. It's quite an eye-opener (literally).

[The Great John L]

Well, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a boxing expert.

i often sense - especially in the "boxers of the past" section -
that it is time to shut up. they talk about harry greb's opponents
as if they were their cousins and i further sense some of them do
not even have to dig into the database to do so ... :) ...

Well I hope that you continue to post your opinions. I thought we were having a pretty decent exchange.

BTW, I'm in the Dempsey camp with this matchup, but see it more as a very tough one to determine. Dempsey had a very good track record with larger opponents, but I don't think any of them were quite at the level of Lewis. A 50+ pound weight advantage does mean something in boxing when both guys are quality fighters. Not everything, but it certainly would have helped a skilled fighter like Lewis who knew how to use his size.

Oh yes, and as far as I know I'm not related to Greb or any of his opponents.

[man]

Well I hope that you continue to post your opinions. I thought we were having a pretty decent exchange.

absolutely. the quality of the dialogue is overall really
amazingly respectful and positive. given this is a forum
on the art of punching others into their faces this is quite
remarkable ... :) ...

[The Great John L]

Well I hope that you continue to post your opinions. I thought we were having a pretty decent exchange.

absolutely. the quality of the dialogue is overall really
amazingly respectful and positive. given this is a forum
on the art of punching others into their faces this is quite
remarkable ... :) ...

Well, it can get rather testy in here at times. Unfortunately I can get a little short when posters just get too ridiculously over the top about some fighters.

This has been a good exchange because while I’m in the Dempsey camp, it’s very easy to understand why some would favor Lewis. Despite the decline in boxing talent over the past decades, it’s pretty clear that Lewis is a perfect example of what many call a “modern” HW. He’s large, strong and skilled. Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to name any others.