Tyson versus Dempsey

Partly because of that. But people who are coming on this board raving about how he was in '88 are often basically reverting back to that .... but it's an even more extreme version of what people were saying at the time.

In 1988, it was generally "he's good enough now for us to say he has a chance to become the greatest ever in a few years time"
Now, it's "in 1988 for a short time he was one of the top 2 or 3 greatest head-to-head, at least"

Also, he was estimated so highly that even on an off-day or running at 50% he should see off the challenge of a Buster Douglas or an old past-prime Holyfield.

 

It's more like

Spinks vs Carpentier
Holmes vs Willard
Ruddock vs Firpo


I know who Im putting my money on.

 

No he didn't fall short, his accomplishments still remain unbeaten. He was the youngest heavyweight champion and the last to unify all titles separately. A feat that has yet to be eclipsed. Regardless of how closely you followed Tyson your opinion of him is often times incorrect and in the minority.

 

I read an article or two like that too, post-Michael Spinks fight.
But generally I think Tyson was seen as still a work in progress. Certainly, a lot of stock was put in the Spinks win.
But many writers and veteran observers were holding out on a proper assessment until they could witness Tyson's mettle tested.
A few thought Holyfield might be the man to test Tyson. But Douglas came along with his own test - and Tyson failed.

 

Dempsey...Jack came back from outside the ring and came back to KO Firpo in 1923...
Tyson never got off the floor to come back and win a fight...never mind from outside of the ring.....

 

Being knocked out of the ring by Firpo is not necessarily an accomplishment worth noting for Dempsey. He was hit with some wild, crude bombs in that fight, including a right hand the second he rushed out to meet Firpo which rung his bell while the bell was still ringing.

Firpo was better than an overhyped "bum", he did actually have some ability even if it's not evident in the Dempsey bout, but he was not a top fighter either. A hundred year old Willard and a Bill Brennan who went onto be KO'd by a practically dead man are not overly impressive wins.

 

My "opinion" is that he got beaten up badly and knocked out by fighters we ALL thought he would beat - based on our estimation of his ability, and the general line on him from the start.

I would even go as far as to call it a FACT.
We overrated him.

 

In other words, I have my own opinions and can argue my case.
Therefore, I'm sort sort of mischievous rhetorician. :roll:

I don't believe there are any absolute truths in most of these boxing debates here, (even if I'm quite forthright with many of my opinions) and that irks a lot of people here, I'm sure.
I suspect some people here (not you) are interested in building some sort of canon of orthodoxy of opinions.
I'm all for a bit of pluralism.

 

Thats not what you said before but yes Tyson got beat like almost all former greats by fighters they were expected to beat. As long as you believe your right about the other stuff that's all that counts

 

Everyone has their own "extremes" or "unique" position. It's only when it's not your view that it's a little crazy or extreme.