Tyson was bigger, faster, hit harder, and was more difficult to hit. Probably had the better chin, too. Certainly the more proven one. I'd say 5 rounds. Reading reports and hyperbole about a fighter is fine and all, but when you can see each man on film and they're of a similar style, and one is so apparently superior (and he is), then it isn't exactly a difficult fight to call.
sure they were old but they knew more about boxing than all of the posters here put together , with but few exceptions
Nice little lie there, shame you've been caught out Posts were made at 09-09-2014, 07:58 AM and 09-09-2014, 08:10 AM. You lying little pos Heres the linke to prove it http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=516748&page=2 :hi:
I like Dempsey too Burt. But this is a mismatch. Dempsey isn't going to stay on the outside and jab his way to victory. And if the man who was KO'd by Jim Flynn and knocked out of the ring by Luis Firpo tries to slug it out with the one who survived the artillery of Jim Smith, Razor Ruddock and Frank Bruno along with having about 30 lbs in weight on him, he'll lose badly.
Yeah but take back Tyson to Dempsey's era or vice versa and how do you know he'd have 30lbs in weight on him?? These mythical fights are stupid and pure speculation which ever way you look at it, you've got to go with how they fought against men of their time and Dempsey was definitely as devastating as Mike if more so.
Here's how we fix that.... We simply DON'T.. If someone wants to post a mythical match up then they have to be content with pairing them up exactly as they were in their own periods, rather than trying to morph either of them into a totally different person than they were.
Tyson was born in poverty, which only got worse when his father died and his mother moved the kids to Brownsville. He was not exactly the beneficiary of first rate health care and an exemplary diet. Essentially, he grew up in a different era than many of his contemporaries a few miles away. I don't see how he is going to be a whole lot smaller were he born 70 years prior.
Proportionately they were just as dominant in their own respective eras. But if we compare their dominance in a non proportionate manner, then Tyson was more dominant. Mike had no prior losses before winning the title. He wiped out an entire division ending with Michael Spinks prior to his 22nd birthday. He had more world title fights in roughly half the time that Dempsey accumulated his, ducked no one, and didn't sit for long periods of time without defending. All these things happened and secured Tyson's legacy before the Douglas loss making mentioning of it irrelevant. Dempsey didn't even fight his best challenger in Wills. Mike's superior dominance is clearly defined.
Good post. I think the age thing although impressive is pretty meaningless as Tyson was fully developed at such a young age. We still don't know to this day if the Flynn knockout was actually genuine, what we do know is Dempsey avenged that defeat by a knockout and was never demolished like Tyson was against Douglas shattering his invinciblity.