Mike Tyson (1988) Vs Jack Dempsey (1919-21) 15 Rd Heavyweight Fight

To be perfectly fair though, Willard was a stationary, slow, plodding giant. It isn't hard to look like a master boxer with top notch defense against that type of fighter.

I do agree though that Dempsey at his peak had nice skills though. He has the best mobility of any puncher that's ever lived in my honest opinion, but as for his defense being better than Tyson, that's debatable.

I can see Dempsey being a bit of a super heavyweight destroyer, he tended to struggle with the smaller guys that could stick and move moreso than the regular sterotypical heavyweights. Eddie Machen would of been a really tough matchup for any Dempsey.

I have to pick Tyson here, and to be honest I feel as confident with that pick as I can be considering it's Jack Dempsey we're talking about. Tyson is better in the areas that will count most, as in power and chin. Tyson early.

 

For me, the talk about Dempsey's fantastic defense seems like, as very much concerning the man, a myth. I've seen Dempsey against Willard, Firpo, Brennan, Gibbons, Carpentier and Tunney, and the only one of them who seemed to have very big trouble hitting him was Willard. A 37-year old who had been inactive for three years.

Carpentier, for example, got to Dempsey with right hand leads at will, they just didn't bother him any. Even Firpo managed to tag him with wild, crude swings - and Tunney of course used his face for target practice. How on earth can this compare to Tyson? Anyone who believes Firpo would even come close to tagging prime Tyson, much less hurt him, is delusional. No ifs, no butts.

While I don't see Dempsey as a great mid-range fighter (he only looked the part against Willard), I'm much more impressed by his inside work. He had deadly short, compact punches. This much of his legend is true. Don't think it would be enough against Tyson of 1988, though.

Tyson wins by early KO.

 

Read Dempsey's book. He had a very good jab that would be used to stun a guy while coming in. I actually learned my jab from his book.

Neither fighter fights tall. Dempsey is built stylistically for fighting taller fighters IMO, same with Tyson. I think Dempsey is a little more open, though. Dempsey might be able to slip and dance around taller fighters, but Tyson won't play that game. He'll stay in the pocket and look for an opening. If Tyson keeps his distance I think Dempsey is screwed. I think Dempsey's only chance is to close the distance without getting smacked, and then make Tyson brawl. That would of course be a gamble, but I see no other realistic way for Dempsey.

 

Maybe, but to perfectly fair, that is the best way to describe at least 50 percent of Tyson's, and most other modern fighters, opponents.

 

I call the jab a straight punch with the left hand, but maybe that definition has changed with modern improvements or innovations. Why did Dempsey include the jab in his manual, if he never used it. That is ridiculous. Do you think he always lead with his write or something, or only threw a left hook or uppercut?

What about Fulton, Miske, Smith, Levinsky, Kellar.

I will bet Dempsay wishes he would have thought that he should throw his punch faster and with more snapatsch And if only someone had told their older fighters that after they landed the first jab, they could have fired back with a second jab or even a third I bet they never thought of that. Incidentally, the liberal holding rules did probably reduce this tactic a bit. How many triple jabs has John Ruiz been hit with in his career. Actually it may have even reduced combination punching a bit. This is one reason most modern fighters are at a disadvantage against the older fighters. Their skills are not equipped to deal with aspects of the game which have been largely outlawed, although not that relevent to consider against Dempsey or Tyson.

I am only really considering the heavyweight division whne i make that statement. Which of todays contenders excells with lateral movement - Valuev? Areola? Austin? It is the exception rather than the rule.

You are probably right about them not being great, though Vitali may end up great. Point is though, they both reached world champion level witht he low guard, and in your estimation were not great natural talents. I dont, by the way advocate the low guard just pointing out that it is not impossible to succeed with it. And by the way the two fighters i just referred to are probably better described as a one handed low guard because their left nearly always hangs down at the front of their body.

It is impossible to tell. Watching both films together, the older boxers will throw 3 or 4 punches in the time it takes modern boxers to throw 2. If you saw film of Roy Jones throwing 3 or 4 punches in the time it takes vitali Klitchsko to throw one, you could safely say that Roy is faster than Vitali. You can not make speed judgments (one way or the other) solely on the film. But if you did, it wouldnt be close, old timers are much faster.

As a whole though, I would say that older boxers were fitter, faster and more mobile than todays fighters because of the way they trained and their mindset. Todays fighters are slower, but probably stronger again because of training and mindset mostly. Which is better well i am sure most people would go with the strength and power, but i dont think that i would.

Well why dont we start with head movement. Janitor already told you that Dempsey slipped and avoided more punches than Mike Tyson did, statistically. Your response was that this was only because the opponent threw more punches. It take it from this that you have viewed and agreed that slipping and avoid punches was common in the earlier times, since it is plain for all to see (as much as film quality can allow) right there in film.

Well he certainly isnt alone, Sam Peter is another who jumps out, without trying to thing. Rahman wouldnt be considered a genius in any era, that is just stupid. What about Kirk Johnson. Considered a clever boxer type today who reached world title challenging level. He d have been a no hoper, immobile big slugger who couldnt last back in the older days. I doubt hed be remembered or anywhere near a world title. If he was, he would be greatly criticised.

Arguably. So is Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Greb, even Jeffries or Sullivan and plenty of others. Certainly i think those guys are as fast or faster than Holyfield.

A pioneer that coincides with improved quality of filmed world title fights. Very coincidental.

 

We have no way of knowing how fast Sullivan or Corbett or Jeffries really were. Insufficient evidence. There is no film of Greb, and that needs to be considered. It's definitely a bull**** argument that old-timers were slow and immobile -- watching the film you see they were generally very nimble on their feet.

 

It's not a dream fight for me. It's a mismatch. Tyson crushes Dempsey.

 

Tyson has never gotten off the canvas to come back and win a fight..much less get knocked out of the ring and come back and win a fight....I'll take Dempsey in this one..
...SHOULD be a classic!!!

 

Thats beacuse his chin is too solid for him to be knocked down while still being ˙˙in the fight˙˙ so to speak. You must punish him, and punch his head off for most of the fight to put him down. :good

 

You mean that the laws of physics come into play and it dosn't matter little chance the man had against the fantasy Tyson.

He takes too many punches and it is goodnight.

 

Different era's..
H2H it would be impossible to pick Dempsey, IMO.
Tyson by K.O.

 

You are a complete delusional fool and I wont waste anymore of my prescious time trying to explain something to you that little children would understand. Go and jerk off on Dempsey and other oldtimers and leave the rest of us alone in the reality world. :good Oh and Jack Dempsey isnt in the top 20 of the biggest punchers of all times and he's a skinny man who would fall to pieces the minute Tyson charged him it would be a brutual masacer with Dempsey ending up in the hospital. :deal Tyson KO1 (29 seconds) :deal

 

Your seriously quoting the laws of physics now?

 

Guys, 2 years earlier Flynn punched through Dempsey's guard and knocked him out cold within the first 10 seconds of the fight. Dempsey was on his back for at least 20 seconds. Starving or note, I think this is an absolute nightmare stylistic matchup where Dempsey gets overwhelmed and looks not only small but inferior in virtually every category imaginable. That being said, It's not far-fetched for Dempsey to survive a first round slaughter at his best, perhaps rally briefly and make a somewhat exciting fight for a brief inclusion of the fight. Dempsey was a very tough and hard man with some underappreciated skills. But let's not gloss over the reality. Tyson is getting him out of their most likely inside of 3 rounds. There's about a 1-3% chance Dempsey survives to 5 or so rounds and takes Mike in the latter rounds to defeat him.

 

We both believe in the laws of physics we just don't agree as to what they are.

I am afraid they don't mean that a fighter who is 30 lbs heavier necisarily hits harder, or is more durable or physicaly stronger.

They sure as hell don't mean that he has an ealy night or that the fight unfolds to a given script.

If you treat this fight as being that simplistic then you are doing everybody a diservice.