Dempsey 1919 vs Tyson 1989: What would happen?

I don't really think Dempsey can win. I think he's possibly more overrated H2H than Tyson is.

 

Skills - Dempsey doesnt even know how to throw a jab, keeps and is clueless when he faces the first half decent boxer in his career in Tunney

Defense - gets knocked out the ring by a bum like Firpo, gets his head used as a speed ball by Tunney, KO'd bya journeymn. Keeps his hands low and jumps in, easy to hit and KO basically

Speed - Tyson throws 2 punches in the time it takes Dempsey to throw 1

Strength - Dempsey is an annorexic weakling, I know 16yos that would treat him likea ragdoll, hell I know women that would toss him round like a ragdoll, he probably wouldnt face them as they are blk though :yep

Chin - his whole resume is a collection of bums but he still managed to get ko'd in 1 by a journeyman

Power - Dempsey gets taken the distance by LHWs, takes 1000 punches to KO a bum like Willard, has few 1 punch kos

 

To quote a fellow poster:

 

:yep

 

How can Dempsey have 'no chance'? He had power in either hand, in particular in an excellent left-hook and an often over-looked staight right hand, he also had a stiff jab. He could get his punches off on the inside with ease, no matter how close up he was to his opponent.

He had under-rated boxing skills and could be patient when needs be, for example as was mentioned earlier in the opening of the Willard fight. But with that, he had a supreme killer-instinct in the ring. He could be extremely aggressive with his speed and power and rest assured if he hurt you, you weren't getting off the hook.

He had an excellent bob and weave movement and could combine that with well timed, powerful counters, and whenever he was caught he often showed a great beard and soaked up the punishment.

And then there's the psychological factor. Douglas and Holyfield both beat Tyson - not solely based on mentality at all - but largely because of it. Dempsey wouldn't be intimidated, the guy was tough as nails and as cold as ice inside the ring. And what's more, he could if needs be employ the same sort of dirty tricks that Holyfield used to frustrate Mike and take him out of his rhythm. He would do anything to win.

The only doubts I have are over his speed and physical strength. While he was very quick and very strong, I wasn't sure how that would translate pound-for-pound, because he's fighting a guy who's got 20-25lbs on him. But I'm sure he wouldn't be dominated in either of those two areas.

Tyson could very well blow Dempsey out early, but then again he could just as easily get knocked out himself. To say 'I don't see how Dempsey can win at all' or 'Dempsey has no chance' is simply over-looking a great fighter and showing lack of effort in properly looking at this fight from an objective viewpoint.

 

the whole thing about your argument, is if you go back and swap out all the praise that you just gave dempsey and put tysons name in the same place, it would still hold true. tyson could punch with both hand, brutalized many guys with his left hook, had an equally good right hand, and underappreciated jab especially at this time in his career. also tyson showed an excellent bob and weave and i dont think anyone is ever gonna deny tysons beard. then you discuss the psychological factor, remember this is 1989 not post prison tyson so this undefeated i am never gonna lose tyson is the beast in the ring not the tyson who is looking solely for a paycheck. tyson at this time and during the douglas fight fought with desire and attempted to win even when discouraged. and the only doubts you have are my biggest reason for picking tyson, he is naturally bigger and stronger than dempsey, and all the arguments you made before about dempsey having a good punch/beard/bob and weave etc. are simply second rate when compared to tyson in my opinion.

i am not gonna belittle you for picking dempsey because as i said i think he is a great fighter but dont call me clueless for having an opinion on a h2h fight between two guys where we will never know the answer anyways.

 

What you talking about Willis? Dempsey didnt have a jab, didnt have a guard and gets out done by Tyson in every area. As for Tyson getting blown out early, WTF, Dempsey just never had that 1 punch power

Dempsey was great for his time, but not necessarily the best of his time and boxing has progressed

 

This is typical of you. To dimiss Tunney as only a 'half decent boxer' shows clear lack of knowledge, and there's nothing else to say about it. Not to mention Dempsey fought Tunney at the tail-end of his career when past his prime and coming off a 3-year retirement. Dempsey's jab wasn't his best weapon, but it was like all his other punches. Powerful.

Past his prime again in both fights. And Fireman Jim Flynn wasn't a journeyman. Nevertheless, by reports Dempsey seems to have been caught off-guard with a picture-perfect punch. What about Tyson getting KO'd very close to his prime by the remarkably inconsistent B level 'Buster' Douglas?

Doubtful.

Clueless. Dempsey had great upper-body strength.

And Tyson's resumé is sparkling in contrast to that, is it? He fought in relatively weak-era for heavyweight boxing, but still beat fighters like Willard, Flynn, Gunboat Smith, Tommy Gibbons, Carpentier, Firpo, Jack Sharkey, Levinsky, Bill Brennan and Carl Morris.

I take it you are referring to Tommy Gibbons and Billy Miske, as if they are average 175 fighter's. They were both great fighters, didn't Tyson get taken the distance by the like's of James Tillis and Mitch Green?

 

Anybody who says Dempsey even has a chance of getting out the 2nd round is just on some pure classic enthusiast bull****.

Tyson KO1 Dempsey.

 

And that's all well and good. They are essentially 80-85% similar in style, given Tyson watched many Dempsey films and replicated himself on Jack's style. They both fight in much in the same way and utilize for the most part the same tools.

And because of that, Dempsey always has a chance. He's a great fighter in his own right, and the psychological factor could be big. I know we are not talking about post-prison Tyson, but what about the Douglas fight in 1990? 'Buster' showed no fear that night and his mentality gave him a real edge.

I'm not going to belittle you for picking Tyson, but to say Dempsey has no chance really is clueless. This is essentially a toss-up. And by the way, I'm not saying Dempsey would necessarily win. I'm just trying to argue the point that he does in fact have a chance here, something you seem to find hard to believe.

 

To quote a fellow poster:

 

:yep

 

I strongly disagree with those who think that Tyson should be a prohibitive favourite.

I don't think that the physical difference between them is nearly as great as many peoiple think.

I also think that Dempseys infighting skills are going to pose a big big stylistic problem for Tyson.

We don't even need to ask who wants it more.

 

Actualy it would probably look a lot like that.

 

Tyson hit a little harder and a little faster. His speed is plain to be seen on film. Where does Dempsey ever look as fast as Tyson?