Tyson versus Dempsey

I made an assumption about what you thought you were saying but I never underestimate a poster's ability to surprise me with a different viewpoint, so just in case it wasn't a blunder, I thought I'd ":huh" it with, in this instance, ":huh" being a verb. Tyson won a title belt from him and when you implied that Tyson could've gotten "the" title from someone other than Spinks, I was really unsure of what you meant, as the linear champion was quite obviously Spinks.

 

Ok. Clarified then I hope.

 

Well, unless you want to go and break down your interesting use of "empathic"...But, that might be snippy to mention. :tong

 

:huh

I think Spinks is greater than all those fighters put together. Thomas was ranked #1 Heavyweight in the world for a few years.

 

.... and an even less impressive reign, hands down.

 

Yeah, even I will readily admit that defenses against Williams and Bruno don't stack up to Dempsey's run of defences.

 

I think Dempsey was the more finished fighter. I think Tyson's overall completeness gets overrated - he was still very much a work in progress when he started to decline.

Then again, I've argued with people here who say Tyson had better balance than JOE LOUIS, and superior skills.

I can't see how Tyson had the faster feet. I watched Dempsey-Gibbons and Jack is galloping around on his toes the full 15 rounds. Tyson became a heavy-legged plodder at times in his longer fights.
But I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

I first now realized that the question weren't only about pre-title run.

So it's essentially about Tyson's career up to Douglas vs Dempsey's career up to Tunney. Ok.

As Janitor states, some parts are hard to compare. Dempsey's early pro years has no real quivalent in Tyson's career. But if we start from 1918, when Dempsey really started making a name for himself, Dempsey has Gunboat Smith, Miske x 2, Brennan x 2, Fulton, Levinsky, Willard, Gibbons, Firpo and Carpentier as his main scalps (at least name wise). But there were also a loss to Meehan and a draw to Miske during this period.

Tyson main names up until Douglas is Tillis, Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Biggs, Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes, Spinks, Williams and Bruno. He has no losses and only the fight with Tillis was remotely close.

All in all, I'd go for Tyson.

 

I dont know anyone could pick Dempsey to beat a prime Tyson.

 

Hell, you could probably find people here who'd say Fitz would do it.

 

Obviously, Tyson gets overrated on the head-to-head thing more than any other fighter in history.
He's the most overrated fighter in history. And that's a fact.
As good as he was.

I'd pick Dempsey to beat him.
And if majority opinion wants to make Dempsey a huge underdog I'd be completely comfortable with that.

 

In reality it's pretty sensible to bet on Dempsey in a hitting match. Sure he's an underdog, but he's certainly a proven menace with any man in front of him.

But so is Tyson.