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

On the topic of the fight, one thing which needs to be considered, given that everyone seems to be intent on making this a slugfest with action aplenty, is how each fighter might react to a knockdown. If this is indeed an out and out shootout, you would expect Dempsey to hit the floor, but you would also expect him to get up and keep swinging. How would Tyson be expected to go if this turns into a Louis Angel Firpo style slugfest. Can Tyson climb up from the Canvas and return fire like Dempsey did? Or does his chances of victory rely solely on him getting to Dempsey before Dempsey lands big on him?

Either way this is a good close fight between too great fighters. Maybe, just maybe, it is the greatest match up that could ever be made.

 

1. Look at the film, the jabs of Holmes/Whitaker and it being used. Dempsey didn't use the jab its a weakness in his style. Tunney was 1 of the pioneers with the jab and it dominated Dempsey

2. Lateral movement as a whole is better amongst the best HWs/boxers of today, Jack Johnson for instance lacked lateral movement. Dempsey did not have better head movement than Tyson, he was caught more while facing lower quality opposition.

Its easy to quote Corbet when there is no film of film, its widely acknowledged he wasnt as a good as Johnson who neither had an impressive jab or lateral movement, but Im sure if there were no film of him you'd try to convince me otherwise

3. Fighters with great reactions/height like Jones/Ali/Vitali can get away with half or low guards by shot slipping. Dempsey did not have great reactions and was regularly hit because of his low guard. So were many others of the era, its a stylistic weakness unless you have ultra fast reactions

4. Show me a pre-1920s fighter who could throw combinations as precise and fast as Tyson and Jones Jr or even Holyfield. Dempsey with his wild swinging frankly has more in common with Mayorga than those 2 men. Dempseys pace/ was new for HW boxing, combinations were the exception rather than the rule then.

5. Well high about a high guard, circling to the right/left, shoulder rolling and even head movement and shot slipping wasnt nearly as advanced as a Whitaker/Loche.

Footwork, balance, movement have all seen big improvements over the decades and have declined in the last decade or so

6. Who are the fastest boxers of all time? Jones, Leonard, Ali, Meldrick Taylor, Mosley, Pacquaio, Patterson notice a patern none are pre-50s.

Heres a challenge find me pre 40s fighters who are faster than todays fastest of Jones Jr, Mosley, Pacquaio, Dawson, Dirrell. You won't find pre 40s fighter than those men, boxers are simply faster and sharper today

 

Firpo is an unskilled weight lifter and had Dempsey nearly out. Dempsey was faster than Firpo and a better boxer, but Tyson is faster than Dempsey and would land first, he'd also land the jab which would back Dempsey up and set up combinations to the head and body. Tyson had faster more accurate punches and would land more, he would also hit harder because unlike Firpo he actually new how to punch. It may be unlikely Dempsey gets up and if he does you can be pretty sure Tyson would be all over him. Dempsey's body also looks soft and weak, hows he going to handle Tyson's body punching? I could see a body punch KO here

 

For the record, i havent predicted a winner yet.

The question is, how does Tyson react in the case of Dempsey landing big, and dropping him and hurting him. Is tyson able to come back and land big after he is dropped, or does his hope of winning rely solely on outclassing Dempsey and being good enough to avoid Dempseys heavy arterial.

 

Dempsey used the jab almost the exact same way that Tyson used it. Tunney beat Dempsey with the jab, but Lennox Lewis beat Tyson just as easily with the jab also. Neither is Dempsey or Tyson is likely to jab like that to face the other, but if they were, you would have to back Dempsey more, with his height advantage and the fact that he does have a better outside game than Tyson. I think it is irrelevant though. What do Holmes and whittaker do with the Jab that is so different to what Tunney and Gans do with a jab? There are plenty of other examples.

So which current boxers are the great example of lateral movements?

So, Vitali has ultra fast reactions now? What about David Haye, is he a freak of nature reaction wise? Dont you think it is a safe bet that some of the older fighters themselves had pretty decent reactions?

you seem to forget that there is only a limited amount of film of fighters in the 20s and every single one looks super fast because the film is sped up too fast (or at times super slow). You cannot compare the two speeds. But before i give this a go, why doent you show me a post 1990 heavyweight who had faster hands and better combinations than Jones or Tyson.

A high guard, you mean like John L Sullivans? Circling to the right or left, you mean like the way Corbett describes doing in his fight with Sullivan? Head movement and shot slipping, you mean like young griffo used to do when he avoided punches without stepping off his handkerchief (or do you think that he used magic orsome better way).

Since Footwork, balance and movement is so improved, why does someone like say former world champion Hasim Rahman look so unbalanced in the ring at times.

Well Sugar Ray Robinson debuted in 1940. I am guessing your pretty glad that wasnt a year earlier but their must have been a big change in that year. Incidentally, Tunney is probably the fastest heavyweight outside of Ali.

 

Tyson would win with an early rounds KO. He was faster, bigger, he had a harder punch and had a better defense.

 

Haven't read the thread, but if forced to, I'd pick Tyson. Having said that I love Dempsey and would be routing for him. I just think Tyson's a bigger version of Dempsey in many respects and that extra 20-30lbs becomes a factor.

 

Between Dempsey and Tyson? Dempsey is taller and has a greater reach.

I doubt it happens, but if Dempsey hurts and drops Tyson, Tyson is in serious ****. Dempsey would be fully aware of the danger Tyson poses and would go at Tyson with everything he had.

 

Fully agreed.

 

So Tyson is the naturally heavier man, but not the taller man. Let's at least have some balance here.

 

The part about the law of diminishing returns is true, but it only kicks in at LHW in the sense of a negative derivative, if you will. That is, adding extra weight is going to help, but 10 extra pounds does not do as much at LHW as it did at middleweight. And it does even less at CW. But the point of where adding extra weight doesn't translate to functional strength/power at all can be as high as 250lbs, although this obviously differs a lot per boxer.

My point is that there's still a very big difference in terms of power and strength between a natural, in shape 215lbs hitter like Tyson and a 190lbs hitter like Dempsey. It would be foolish to suggest that Tyson has reached the point where the added weight doesn't help him compared to a 190lbs'er.

Anyone who has boxed or sparred knows that there's a huge difference between being in the ring with a 190lbs guy and a 220lbs guy.

It is a historic thing. Dempsey was the Tyson of his day. But today's Dempsey is bigger and stronger. In Jack's time, the average height was several inches shorter and in-shape heavyweight that scaled over 200lbs were rather rare. There was barely any talent over 210lbs. When one did come along - Jeffries, Johnson - they ruled supreme.

Tyson comes from and had to compete with a huge talent pool over the 210lbs. Most of Dempsey's opponents could or have competed at LHW. This cannot be said about Mike's opposition. A guy like Firpo, whose skills are absolutely horrible, got to the absolute top by his extraordinary physical strength and size only - and nearly stopped Dempsey despite a huge disparity in skill level. In Tyson's day, the only extraordinary thing about Firpo would be his Spanish accent and Tyson was facing guys like him who could actually box.


As for Tyson's height, it's actually an advantage here. Close combat always favors the shorter, stronger boxer while the tall, lankier fighter has the advantage on the outside in jabbing, sticking and moving. But Dempsey is going to do none of that because he never did. He's going for the KO but so is Tyson. One drives an F40 and the other a Veyron. Take your pick. My heart says the F40 but rationally thinking, the Veyron takes it.

 

1. Now you either dont know what a jab is or your lying, either way it makes a joke of your post. Dempsey didn't throw a jab. Tyson doubled and trippled the jab outjabbing taller/rangier opponents to compare the 2 is laughable.

Dempsey never proved himself against a good jabber, Tyson beat many excellent great jabbers in Holmes/Thomas/Tubbs/Bruno etc etc.

2. Faster snappier jabs that are doubled and trippled while using lateral movement

3. Plenty have lateral movement today, dont you watch boxing?

4. Vitali and Haye aren't greats but Vitali has the height and Haye the speed/reactions. They have both paid for their hands down defense though, Vitali against Lennox and Haye against Mormeck

5. I take that as admitting today's fighters are faster, they clearly are if you allow for the film being sped up. I'm not suggesting boxing today is at its peak I'd say it has declined since the 80s/90s

6. I ask you to produce film from 40 years of boxing and the best you can do is pretend the boxers prior to this filmed timed employed techniques that they suddenly stopped using with the invention of motion picture recording rather convenient. And as for Corbett he looks about as skillfull as John Ruiz from the footage we have of him

7. Because Rahman doesn't represent the best of our era and started boxing late, having said that he'd look like a genius in 1890.

8. Tunney the second fastest HW? Faster than Patterson? Jones Jr? Tyson? Holmes? Charles? Conn? Holyfield? Maybe faster than a couple of those but not most of them.

I think Tunney is indeed a great and 1 of the pioneers of boxing

BTW RObinson wouldnt nearly be the fastest today either