Dempsey 1919 vs Tyson 1989: What would happen?

You ever seen Joe Calzaghe fight?

Dempsey made a book on hitting. I think he knew plenty well how to hit. Tyson was his biggest fan by the way and he knew something about boxing.

The problem for Dempsey in this match-up isn't that he couldn't hit, but that he could be hit too. Tyson is bigger and if he is able to keep the fight at mid-range, he'd win. That's Tyson's ideal range. If Dempsey can make it an infight and a brawl, he would stand a good chance. Tyson was not a great infighter even if he is made out to be such.

 

Let's not bring up Tyson's head movement and footwork at age 29 against Holyfield.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlAS8dgc5cY[/ame]


This doesn't really look so bad in comparison:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tMBpsRgTU[/ame]

 

Boxing isn't that black and white. In running it's on record who is faster because it's far more measurable than boxing is.

Well I believe Garrincha to be a better player than any of those with the slightly possible exception of Messi, and he played in the 50's.

Cheers for the laugh.

 

Yes, and he hit much better then Dempsey.

He was a good hitter FOR HIS TIME. So now we don't accept that the sport of boxing has evolved over the years? Look at those old videos you posted and at new videos of boxer. Are you telling me you don't see a difference in the way the moved, hit, ducked in the ring? Look at the sizes and conditioning of boxer then and now. And don't tell me Willard was big man. He didn't move like a modern HW.

 

Calzaghe hit better than Dempsey. Who are you kidding?

This content is protected

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So4fmOwRxqA[/ame]

1:10

 

I'll give you that anyone in boxing has the punchers chance. But 9 out 10 time the bigger and more skilled guy wins. Todays fighter are bigger and, more importantly, a lot more skilled.

1. He was born in 1933. Started playing football in 1953. So he's not from the 30's.
2. Have you seen him play? Not live but videos. He was great for his time but his dribbles now seem ordinary. This is like Leonidas (he was from the 30's) inventing the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_kick"]bicycle kick[/ame]. Sure, it was great at that time but now it's not that big a deal.

:deal You know it's true.

 

Yeah, that's a fair analysis. :goodYou got me big boy.

BTW, in that video you can see what I mean by movement in the ring. They just stand there. And it wasn't anything. It's something normal for a top modern boxer.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ge2oCEH6NI[/ame]

Yes, he hits better then Dempsey.

 

"They just stand there". Have you ever seen Jack Sharkey box outside of that video I just posted? Holyfield and Tyson "just stood there" too, much more flat-footed than either Dempsey, Tunney or Sharkey did.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYz_e9WnGjc[/ame]

1:30

I wouldn't say he's just standing there.

 

Double Jay-Officially the biggest mong that has come around on this site for a while.

Come back at me you little ****, make my day :deal

 

I agree with you fully, in every other sport we all agree that the athletes of real far back eras like 1919 for example are no match for the modern athlete but when it comes to boxing some act as if its impossible that modern advances have took place.

I would beat the **** out of Jack Dempsey and I don't say that or mean that in a trolling manner.

 

Do you think nobody looks at the way older boxers moved in ring and tried to copied it and, dare I say, improved it? You know, over time.

Tell me, do you think the technique of boxer has improved over time, is the same, or is worse?

 

atschatschatsch

This is not sprinting we're talking about, it's fighting. It's no myth that they had it tougher "back in the day". At the beginning Dempsey didn't fight for a paycheck, he fought so he'd have something to eat every once in a while.

We're talking about a sport where a fat old George Foreman who had begun to box in the 1960's regained the heavyweight title in the 1990's. A punch and a granite chin is all it takes to beat a better athlete.

 

I agree that tougher condition builds stronger characters. And I ALWAYS said they have a punchers chance. But the 70's (he became a pro in 69, he wasn't really a 60's fighter) aren't the 10's-30's. And when he fought in the 90's he wasn't a fighter "from the 60's" anymore. He had the same training conditions and methods as the 90's boxers. He was just older.

 

Today's techniques have not so much "evolved" as they have been modified to fit the modern rules of 12 round fights and bigger gloves.

I'd say that the likes of Gene Tunney and Jack Sharkey were already master-boxers and there was little to improve from what they did. They could do it all. Likewise Dempsey was just about the perfect aggressor and pressure fighter. Boxing had plenty of time to evolve as it had been around since the 1700's (and earlier).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs45EQEHmDs[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkgm5C7Xvfc[/ame]

 

Just as a reminder Foreman said Lewis was the GOAT. And so did Ali. Why is that? Why not and older fighter?