Holyfield vs Dempsey

The fact that members of this board pick a fighter in Gibbons who really had zero notable performances in the heavyweight ranks to defeat likely the strongest and most powerful champion in the division's history illustrates how far adrift the reasoning is here. It seems the purpose of discussion here is more to preserve some mythic canon rather than to rationally evaluate fighters on their merit and ability.... just saying...

 

**** well put seamus

 

The only match that may be worth considering is Sharkey against the corpse of Douglas...as for everything else...

 

Nobody can prove for sure who would win in the greats of the past against the modern greats, that's why we continue around and around, we all love it.

If a time machine was invented I believe the folks on here betting slips would read different to their opinions on this forum, I feel very few would put their hard earned money on the greats of the past....

 

Don't let the trolls bother you Burt. Holy field and Dempsey are two of my favorite fighters. Both had guts and plenty of it. I think Dempsey by ko at anytime but u til then it would be a war.... Holyfieeld gives every heavyweight ever a war. Thank s

 

Holyfield was the bigger man. Taller, longer reach, thicker neck, bigger chest, bigger arms (biceps/triceps)... and this was before he moved to Heavyweight.

I do think it would be a good fight but I also think that Holyfield would win.

 

Thanks louis, but it aint fun to poke recieve derisive fun at my "age" especially
by neophytes who would never say this to their dad or older relatives..
I am on several boxing sites and only on this forum do I receive this vitriol. maybe it's time to pack it in, though I will miss some decent and
respectful posters...ciao...

 

And don't let the fact that Holyfield beat much better opponents (and even Black ones!) interrupt your favorite stories.

 

Judging the greatness of a boxer can't be purely limited by their track record. It's not the end all, be all.

I don't think anybody here has an agenda. Burt is just expressing his observations. Which in my opinion, holds tremendous credibility.

 

My friend... I usually agree with you. But not now.hoyfield was a rat gym,he took roids he trained weights , he had better food than dempsey in the 10s and 20s etc. Still dempsey weighed 190 pounds at 24.and he weighed 185 at 21. At age of 23 evander was a skinny lhw weighing 176 pounds.even at cruiser evander had more muscular mass than dempsey and he was taller,so jack had clearly bigger heavier frame,he was naturally bulker with huge fists.robust craneun.dempsey could carry more weight than he did.he was naturally "bigger" than holyfield,his bones were thicker

 

Sir, you are so consumed with bias or hatred for my opinions that you even attack me for an opinion on this thread Holyfield vs Dempsey which I NEVER EXPRESSED....You are a scoundrel and shameless and trying to put words in my mouth to attack me. I may be not a spring chicken anymore, but I try to be civil on this site, but you don't deserve
civility when you lyingly put words in my mouth relative to who would win between Dempsey and Evander on this thread which I never uttered.
Adieu to you...

 

Again you bring race into any issue...And damn lies about me even
though I NEVER posted an opinion of Dempsey vs Holyfield on this thread..I admire them both, tough decent men.

 

And you wrote a drama when nobody told you anything...