Who would have won, the Mike Tyson who beat Trevor Berbick or the Jack Dempsey who beat Jess Willard

Agreed. Tyson against the much lighter Dempsey isn't at eye level.
A more appropriate match would be Michael Spinks.

 

Dempsey.

 

Here I would have to disagree.

Tyson is better in terms of what nature gave him i.e Size, power, speed, but Dempsey was a more polished offensive fighter.

His defense was a bit more unpredictable, and he was a much better inside fighter.

 

Dempsey's defense was worse because he got hit more often. An unskilled Firpo knocked him out the ring, Tunney won pretty much ever round against him, Sharkey was outboxing him, Brennan hurt him, he got ko'd in a round by Smith

And no Tyson's uppercut inside and bodypunching is a more potent arsenal than anything Dempsey had. Also Tyson's short reach meant he gets more leverage at close proximity. The Francis fight is a prime example how lethal Tyson's uppercut and bodyshots were at close range.

This content is protected

 

Tyson would do to Willard what he did to Berbick , BUT Dempsey wouldn't do to Berbick what he did to Willard. Berbick could actually use the ring and box a bit unlike Willard.

I might take Jack 6-8 to dispatch of Trevor. Mike did it in two and he would probably do Willard in two also.

 

I know you are merely trolling but some of the dolts here are probably taking your arguments to heart.

Davis was a nobody who was KO'd 11 times in his total of 35 fights.

Lodge had a listed record of 3-5. He would end his career having been KO'd 15 times in 35 fights.

Those are exact Ruddock facsimiles.

 

What leads you to believe I'm trolling?

 

My charitable, Christian heart is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Dempsey

 

Tyson's head movement was a bit more predictable.

If you look at Dempsey, say against tate, he was much harder to time.

Dempsey also slipped a lot more punches against Tommy Gibbons, than Joe Frazier did in the FOTC.

Michael Hunnicut has worked out the averages for both.

That is not actually infighting that you are seeing there.

That is more mid range fighting.

When Dempsey fought Firpio, he hardly threw anything that traveled more than 18'' in the entire fight!

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious about that not being infighting. Dempsey can't actually punch as short as those uppercuts and bodyshots because his reach is longer

Dempsey dominated Gibbons because they were both primarily left hookers and Dempsey's was obviously heavier. Dempsey is open against jabs and right hands in a way Tyson is not. Tyson has the much more complete defense against better opposition.

 

I have to favor Mike Tyson. Just a more polished professional

 

Yes I am deadly serious.

an infighter is somebody like Armstrong, or Frazier, who literally works within a tight space.

Holyfield also had a longer reach than Tyson, but he still tore him up on the inside, because Tyson couldn't work within the space provided.

Having short arms does not make you an infighter.

It is about being able to load up punches in a very compact space.

Gibbons was not just a left hooker by any means, he was a complete technical boxer.

The point is not just that Dempsey dominated him, but that he was very successful in avoiding his punches.

Tyson did show good head movement, but he was a bi more predictable.

 

So, you are considering Dempsey's performance against a sparring partner as indicative to how he would perform against Tyson?

Perhaps this is because Frazier was fighting the greatest (and fastest) heavyweight who ever lived and Dempsey was fighting a lightheavy who never had a single meaningful victory at heavyweight.

Sorry, I just have to stop here. You are not even arguing in good faith. This is ridiculous.

 

Yet at many times Tyson is within a very very tight space. Holyfield didn't beat Tyson because of in-fighting, Tyson got the better of in-fighting for the most part. He got the better because he timed Tyson outside and had better stamina.

The more you repeat 'Tyson's head movement was predictable' doesn't make it true. None of his opponents in his prime could time him bar Douglas.

Gibbons didn't have a straight right hand or much of a jab and was quite allot smaller than Dempsey IIRC