Mike Tyson (1988) Vs Jack Dempsey (1919-21) 15 Rd Heavyweight Fight

Tale Of The Tape Jack Dempsey Tyson
Height 6-1 5'11
Weight 192 218
Reach 77 71
Chest/Norm. 42 43
Chest/Exp. 46 45
Waist 33 34
Biceps 16 1/4 16
Neck 16 1/2 19 3/4
Wrist 9 8
Calf 15 18
Ankle 9 11
Thigh 23 27
Fist 11 1/4 13
Forearm 14 1/2 14


Dempsey is taller, has the reach, has a thicker expanded chest (which means more than chest at rest) bigger biceps, foreman..of course tyson kills him on neck and thighs and edges him out on some other measurements...having said all that..if you saw the two men alive and prime and standing next to each other..i dont think you would point to dempsey and say "Oh look how much smaller he is!"

 

If they came along in the same era, I'd slightly favor Dempsey.

Just as they were at their best, I'd favor Tyson, but only a little.

Big strategic question is, should Dempsey try to get Tyson out quick, or try to gradually unravel Tyson with steady inside pressure? I'd go more for the second option.

 

Tyson absolutely destroys him.

Dempsey didn't like speed, didn't like smaller, shiftier guys. He would be absolutely befuddled for the duration that he wasn't unconscious.

 

Dempsey could move around well...me might try to do that as well....

 

Dempsey has little chance, this will end brutal for him while he tries to crawl up off the canvas after a eating a right uppercut, he vomits all over the canvas.

 

How did that "steady inside pressure" work against Tunney? Dempsey got bullied and pushed around by Tunney - he accomplished nothing inside. You got Dempsey confused with Andre Ward? Dempsey's inside skills were woefully lacking, as demonstrated in the fights against Tunney.

 

wtf is this thread 10 pages for?

Dempsey is outclassed here ... few humans that have ever existed on this planet can survive in the ring against the Tyson of '88 where he was literally terror personified

He'd destroy Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, all in the same night

 

tyson got his ass kicked by Kevin ****ing McBride...whats your point about Tunney again?

 

Yes, a horrible loss in his prime.


At an age when he was 7 years older than when Dempsey retired. Tyson was the age of Dempsey when he fought Tunney when Mike fought Botha.

 

Tyson = GOAT

 

So, you are saying that Dempsey was in his prime at 32? Was Tyson in his prime at 32? When he struggled against Botha and pulled the win out his ass?


He had lost to Holyfield a year before that....well not really lost..got knocked the **** out....was Tyson in his prime than?

Do you think the fact that Dempsey had about 76 fights at that point matters at all?


Does the fact that Tunney was about 1000 times better than McBride, or for that matter, Botha matter at all? (yes, head to head Tunney beats the **** out of both on the same ****ing night).


I have a hard time figuring out when you are trolling, or when you are just being stupid....might be the same thing, I don't know.

 

did TysonTalk shut down?:huh

 

I too pick Tyson in this matchup but I wouldn't completely dismiss Dempseys chances. Let's say the fight is a 12 rounder and Jack comes in at a solid 200 lbs not having to worry about a 15 or 20 round fight. I think it could be very interesting for the first few rounds. Jack was taller with a longer reach and moved better on his toes where Mike was more flatfooted but had good head and upper body movement. Maybe Jack decides to stay on his toes and circle like he did against Willard knowing that Mike has good ko power. Who knows? Another point is that Dempsey was very strong. Stronger than Mike? Who can say but I remember watching Dempsey after ko'ing Firpo walking over and scooping the big man up with ease. This was a limp 220 lb man. Jack was no stranger to weight training...or hard manual labor. This gives someone the kind of strength you can't measure in a weight room. One last observation...I remember walking right past Peter McNeely one day at the Corrections office where I work and I was surprised at how much smaller he was than I thought from seeing him on tv and he was taller than Tyson. I'm a little over six feet tall and he came up to my ear. I think Dempsey may not look all that much smaller if the two men stood side by side. With all that being said I still give the nod to Tyson due to his speed and power in close but it would be a barn burner for sure.

 

Good post..and yeah if you look at the tale of the tape chest size, arms....many things are similar with dempsey even being a bit bigger. Tyson does have much bigger legs and neck though (the legs account for the weight advantage I am sure)...

but if you saw the two standing next to each other dempsey might look the bigger guy in some ways...


Tale Of The Tape Jack Dempsey Tyson
Height 6-1 5'11
Weight 192 218
Reach 77 71
Chest/Norm. 42 43
Chest/Exp. 46 45
Waist 33 34
Biceps 16 1/4 16
Neck 16 1/2 19 3/4
Wrist 9 8
Calf 15 18
Ankle 9 11
Thigh 23 27
Fist 11 1/4 13
Forearm 14 1/2 14

 

I don't think much of tale of the tape ever since I read prime Foreman had 15" Biceps meaning mine are bigger. Also from the Tale of the Tapes I've seen of Dempsey his biceps are usually 15", wirst 8" (9" is ridiculous), Chest 41", Thigh 21" and Forearms as 12 1/2", making him out to have measurements of a large light heavy/average cruiser. In any case the size of someone's bicep isn't going to matter Tyson was faster, more skilled, a naturally bigger fellow, more durable, more proven and I'd wager hit harder. He was also better defensively and put his punches togethor better and more accuratley. Hence why I pick him to beat Dempsey.

In any case although Tyson would appear more built next to Dempsey he'd probably look like a midget even with his platform shoes.