Prime Tyson KO's peak Dempsey inside of 4 rds in a thriller.......:deal Tyson too strong and fast of hands for the smaller and weaker Demps.....:scaredas: TYSON! MR.BILL:bbb
Dempsey may weigh 187lbs at his peak, compared to Tyson's 218lbs, but he is 6"1 with 77" reach, so he's bigger than Mike in some ways. Also the old cameras make Dempsey look not his true speed, at his best he was said to have possessed hand speed like a Welterweight.
OK, One more time. This is NOT a head to head match-up. I just want thoughts comparing the 3 year runs I have mentioned... Dempsey 1916-1919, Tyson 1986-1989. Who was the more destructive force on his prime march through the division?
Sorry. That is actualy a much better question anyway. They are both particularly impresive in their pre title runs that ended in them winning the lineal championship. Dempseys early run is a bit spotier, but in some ways he produced the more spectacular demolitions. I have speculated in the past that had they switched eras, Tyson would have possibly made quicker work of some of the slicksters that Dempsey faced, but Dempsey might have closed the deal on Smith and Tucker before the final bell.
That's what I am looking for. And good insight. I don't think Fat Willie Meehan lasts 4 round with peak Tyson. And the big oafs were target practice for Dempsey. Do we discount the first Flynn loss? The Fulton victory is fairly spectacular. I'll think on it some more, both runs are phenomenal.
Janitor, I don't know how you can question Kid Norfolk. He gave a boxing lesson to Billy Miske, who eventually got a title shot. He also beat Harry Greb.
Norfolk certainly wanted a title shot, and he faced off aginst Harry Wills to establish his claim, but he got beaten down. He was essentialy in the shaddow of Wills after that. He subsequently got beaten by Gibbons. In summary, it would have been nice to see Dempsey fight Norfolk, but I don't think he is an outstanding challenger. As for Langford, McVea, and Jeanette, you might as well ask why he didn't fight Peter Jackson.
He certainly could have fought these men anywhere from 1916-1917, and you can throw Jack Johnson's name into that lot too. It would have looked great for Dempsey's resume to get a past his prime hall of fame great on there. In fact, Dempsey actually turned down a fight with Sam Langford in 1917 out of fear.
Firstly, if Dempsey had fought shot versions of Langford, McVea and Jeanette, some people would say "why didn't he fight young prime fighters like Fulton, Miske and Brennan". Secondly, it is not clear whether Dempsey declined to fight Langford out of fear or respect. He idolized Langford, and gave him money when he was old and blind. Perhaps he just thought "I don't want to beat up on a shot version of my idol".
Janitor why is Dempsey's reputation so besmirched today / I canh name most any great heavyweight who avoided for whatever reason, top contenders of their time..They are always overlooked , but the Manassa Mauler always gets the shaft.ALWAYS...Dempsey's career was not perfect and he is now treated like a pariah...Why are other fighters who did not fight everyone never mentioned ? This is why I get so damn annoyed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.. I know as a fact, that Dempsey after he retired, was a great citizen, no scandals, and helped down and out fighters for the rest of his long life.. Jack Dempsey deserves to be held to the same standards as other great fighters...No more, and no less !!
Tyson is a bigger, stronger, more explosive and more athletic version of Dempsey... '86-'88 Tyson by Manslaughter RD 2.