Tyson versus Dempsey

Yeah, he could theoretically fall on you.

 

Put it this way.

A lot of people here play Willard down, and I would be verry interested to see him up against some of the fighters that they consider to be good contenders.

There might be a fair few surprizes.

 

Jess Willard was coming off 3 years inactivity and was probably not in the same shape as he had been against Jack Johnson when he faced Dempsey.
(He was in better shape than he'd been against Moran though, admittedly)

Dempsey was superb against Willard.
But no way was Jess at his best.

 

I think this is a fair point actually. Still, the exact same is true for Dempsey, when he faced Tunney, Flynn and Weeman.

And to be fair, Tyson was tested - and passed with flying colors - against literally every top ranked heavy around during his first reign, except for Holyfield. The same cannot be said about Dempsey before, when or after he was champion.

 

I just realized I called the bloke "Weeman". Not gonna edit it for aesthetic reasons. :yep

 

True of Dempsey when he fought Tunney.
I don't think anyone was heralding Dempsey as a great fighter before he lost to Flynn. The fight was hardly covered, certainly wasn't even of world significance.
And Meehan didn't beat him badly.

 

Yeah, I liked that too.

 

True. The press, and information in general, wasn't as widely spread. For instance, I've seen Dempsey being described as "a relatively unknown fighter from (...)" in reporting the Dempsey-Fulton fight in 1918. Of course, there are undoubtably other reports that state the opposite.

My point is, though, that Dempsey was only one/two years away from his penultimate peak when he lost to Flynn and Meehan. If he never fought them, then certainly there wouldn't be many people here picking a near-peak Dempsey to lose to them. But he did anyway.

And yes, the same thing is true about Douglas.

 

In YEARS Dempsey was only 2 years away from his peak when he lost to Flynn, but in terms of seasoning and career progress he was way off. It renders the defeat more or less meaningless, IMO. It doesn't diminish Dempsey's greatness.
For Meehan, the same reasoning does not apply. Meehan defeating him in 1918 did tarnish a peak Dempsey.

 

IMO and from the way Dempsey ever spoke - I don't think Dempsey even considered it a real fight at the time - he spoke about it more as tho it was almost somebkind of sideshow bit of fun for the navymen - it sounds to me as tho he wouldn't have cared less or even understood whether people might have even considered it a blot on his record years later - the way he spoke about it was as tho it was just some 4 round exhibition - certainly didn't seem particularly bothered about it?? I think people need to see that little run around as was it was at the time and not some kind of real fight as it clearly was not viewed as such or fought as such

 

When he fought McCall, Lewis was already considered by many as the world's best heavyweight.
He was WBC champion of the world.
He was a world elite fighter, and a successful modern athlete with years of careful management and training behind him.
He was already a 'household name' in boxing terms, and clearly established with significant victories under his belt.

I don't compare him to a manager-less hungry and obscure fringe fighter like the 1917 Dempsey, because the differences are just too great and too obvious.

 

I agree. It was a 4-rounder, and for charity.
Still, since a decision was at stake, so Dempsey should have done better.