Simple Question: Which Fighter Was Better? Dempsey or Tyson?

I don't see Tyson getting KD'd by the likes of Flynn or Firpo, tho.

 

Forget Flynn. It was a fix or a fluke. But Firpo! You do know that he was called the Wild Bull of the Pampas, while the Herculean Bonavena is referred to as the Baby Bull of the Pampas in comparison. Yes, Firpo could knock down Tyson.

 

I hate to derail a thread but if I understood it correctly, the reason we don't get giant insects / arachnids is because their system of breathing is far inferior at larger sizes than lungs. Spiracles / book lungs would not diffuse oxygen fast enough to keep the creature alive. It would suffocate.

 

Well, that's just as weird, imo. Because there's usually a huge disconnect that cannot be bridged.
For example, heavyweight ATGs have never had the same amount of fights as some of the more prolific ATGS at lower weights, and that's largely due to the nature of heavyweight fighting (though it's also partly financial)

That's fair enough.
But my starting point would be to compare fighters of equal weight.

I give heavyweights a lot of credit because a lot of them do defeat heavier opponents as a matter of routine. By acknowledging that, it leads me the wonder, for example, how Holyfield would have done against Lewis if he were scaled up to equal weight, etc.
OR, if that's too science fiction, just give the smaller man some credit because he's at a proper disadvantage.

Likewise for Tyson, likewise for Dempsey, etc.

Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Bob Fitzsimmons ... they all get p4p credit for beating or performing well against heavier fighters of quality.

Yeah, but on the off chance that it isn't, I'd pick it to beat 220 versions of Tyson and Dempsey in one night.

 

You're correct.

 

Well to be honest I would still compare fighter's resumes etc. than trying to find some middle ground when it comes to size or weight.
I just cannot fathom how that can be objectively achieved.

But there is nothing more to say really. We just see things differently here I guess.

 

Dempsey wouldn't wake up for a week if Lewis hit him.

 

Couldn't have said this better myself. Unforgiven's posts are getting more absurd by the minute. He was a fine poster but his days are numbered.

 

Firpo is as skilless a heavyweight as has been filmed at the championship level. Tyson would never feel his vaunted power.

And at 6-2, 216, he was fairly average sized for Tyson's era, so all that ballyhoo of him being some exotic giant just doesn't fly in a more enlightened era.

 

But The modern Firpo would be 6'6" and 250 pounds

 

Ok, so how do you compare Tyson and Dempsey ? For the purposes of this thread title, "Which fighter was better ?", what do you do ?
Do you treat them as if they are the same weight/division or do you acknowledge that 188 and 220 are considered different divisions when assessing the question ?
Even if 188 was heavyweight in Dempsey's day, we know well it wasn't heavyweight in Tyson's day.

I see a lot of people answering the question with "Bigger, stronger, more powerful" etc.
Tyson is better because he's 30 pounds heavier. Ok, that's as deep as anyone wants to go on this. Is that it ? If that's it, that's fine. Tyson is better than Ray Robinson, Harry Greb and Marvin Hagler too.

 

dempsey was the better street fighter, tyson was the better boxer

 

dont forget the modern marciano being like david tua :rofl

 

So, by the same token, Dempsey shouldn't be judged as a heavyweight then. He's a 188 cruiser (which in Tyson's era was an ordinary cruiser, and nowadays not even that, probably a light-heavy) and he's fighting heavyweights such as Firpo and Willard.

 

Ali never got up from floor to win a fight he was losing either.

Not did Lennox Lewis.

Shall we assume Dempsey beats them as well?