In Toledo, Dempsey stood up to the same uppercut Jess Willard used to kill Bull Young. Tyson never killed anybody with his. Tyson himself probably has doubts that he could have taken Jack. Dempsey: "A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." Tyson: Didn't get up against McBride when he could. Holyfield was the same size as Dempsey when he became cruiserweight champion, and he certainly proved perfectly capable of playing with the big boys. I have no problem visualizing Dempsey handling Tyson. Jack could be fantastically dangerous when scared or hurt. When it comes to intangibles, Dempsey has all the advantages.
Funny, i must have missed those moments when a 190lbs Holyfield was beating up heavyweights. Holyfield had an iron chin and that has carried him in many fights at HW (including the Tyson fight). How many of the 220lbs+ monster punchers did Dempsey prove himself against? Willard never landed much, neither did Fulton. Firpo did and he knocked Dempsey silly.
I can never see any relevance when people talk of boxers killing people with punches as a means to proclaim their power or effectiveness. It's the luck of the draw, or should i say terrible bad luck of the draw. Mancini killed a Kim, but would you say this means he hits harder than Tyson too? Emile Griffith? I'm sure given a choice boxers will much prefer not to have killed someone in the ring. Tyson got up vs Douglas regardless of his shocking condition and whether it was stopped. It took some effort And if we are going to go so far outside Tyson's norm we have to include the Towering Inferno that was Jim and a myriad of other woeful performances by dozens of greats at their end. Holyfield was no-where near the size of Dempsey when fighting Tyson. The big thing is he felt he needed to pack on a substancial amount of extra muscle and size to compete at heavyweight. Holyfield weighed a solid 218 and 215 vs Tyson, by comparison Dempsey's best days were at about 188. This is a whopping 30 pounds, not so meaningful from the 220's up but very much here. Beating big lumbering oafs from 188 is very different to beating machinations like peak Tyson and co.
I'm not really criticizing Dempsey here. My post was only intendend to pull your chains a bit Sonny, and it apparently worked like a charm. I will say however that the whole thing about McNeeley is a joke. Frankly if you think that Tyson givng him a fight is bad after 4 years of inactivity, is as bad as Dempsey fighting MIske for the title, then lets just have a beer and call it quits, because I don't know how else to refute this argument. I just got through celebrating my daughter's 1st birthday, and this is how I feel :cheers Of all the posters on ESB Sonny, you're the one who I would most want to buy a beer at a pub. You're the biggest pain in my arse, but I love ya big boy.....:good You're my man Sonny.....I LOVE YOU..... And I don't give a crap about who would win between Tyson and Dempsey. You pick and I'll follow.......
I won't bother to rehash our disagreements about Dempsey/Firpo again. I will say that I've always wondered how Holyfield would have done against the heavyweights he defeated if he still weighed 190. Likewise, I've wondered how the 170 pound Mike Spinks of the David Sears fight might have done against Holmes and Cooney. I'm not entirely sold on the notion that increased weight is as important as increased strength.
Of course, Dempsey with his duty as world's champion, is worse, but I was just pointing out that giving McNeeley that payday was actually an even bigger case of "charity", and the result even more of a foregone conclusion. Congratulations, man. LOVE YOU TOO :good
One question. If the Tyson who fought Holyfield had gone up against the cruiserweight version of Holyfield would you bet on Tyson? Would the diference in weight have turned the fight in Tysons favour?
And that's what the steroids were for. Dempsey and Holyfield are two men of the same biometric size. Holyfield just needed to cheat and use steroids to compete at heavyweight.
Have you looked at Miske's post-Dempsey record? That paycheck saved him, what Dempsey did was actually a good thing, even if he brutalized him in the fight. Besides, in terms of competition, it's no different than Marciano fighting Cockell or Ali fighting Wepner other than the fact that Dempsey was doing it because his friend needed the money. Another good example being Joe Louis fighting John Henry Lewis because he needed money. Prove it.
The thing about the Billy Miske criticism is that Dempsey actually beat a younger version of Miske - who nobody claims was sick at the time, as far as I know - in 1918. He drew with him over 10 and later beat him over 6. Not his greatest performance, but a good win nontheless over a decent fighter. So when someone lists Billy Miske as a good fighter Dempsey beat, it is valid. Of course, Miske lost a few after that, and was really in a slight career slump when handed a shot at the title, plus he was "sick". But let's not be too harsh on Dempsey for being "charitable". Those were harsh times. I dont actually hear anyone who rates Dempsey highly saying Dempsey's legacy rides on his title fight with Billy Miske. That's an argument that has been falsely imposed by Dempsey critics, a strawman. Still, most accounts agree that Dempsey made short work of Miske in emphatic fashion, putting the "sick has-been" out of his misery ala Louis-JHLewis or Ali-C.Williams. Dempsey was dreadfully inactive as champion, yes. But he fought a heck of a lot of fights to get there, and has 3 or 4 very good wins and performances pre-title.