Evander Holyfield '88 vs. Jack Dempsey '19

I also have Holyfield winning

 

I am not sure. That would be a great fight. A real prime for prime match between two fast, young great heavyweights.

 

Whew. Dempsey literally wrote the book on power punching but Holyfield is a student of every aspect of the game. Overall I like Holyfield's advanced skillset more, but, as always, I'm not a fan of Holy's propensity to brawl with anybody. Dempsey was really explosive and surprisingly accurate. Can't decide.

 

Dempsey beats Evander, most likely by mid round ko.

 

why do people make matches like that high rounds knowing it wouldnt last that long always thought that was odd

holy wins this ver of holy was full brawler jack was the same but a counterpuncher not full brawler can see him lasting until 3rd jack moved good enough but wouldnt be caught and ko

 

Dempsey was fast and vicious . Jack by ko

 

Dempsey inside 6 rounds.

 

This is true.
He MoneytheMan is the mirror-image of some older posters who always favor the old-timers-regardless of style advantages or size differences.
Now when we show guys that are the same size, he looks for ways to favor the modern guy, even with the thinnest of rationales.
Not saying Holyfield as a 190 lbs. CW might not take it, but he is incapable of being Fair & Objective.

But he is as an extreme case of prejudice/bias as you can find.
Because even among those who always favor the older boxers, I recall none that assumed those who differed from their opinions were DISHONEST or "trolling".

Doing this will never earn him credibility & respect-& as already is the case, few will ever engage in actual discussions with him.

smh.

 

holyfield too hittable. dempsey too vicious. dempsey ko 8

 

you must be out of your mind, Holyfield was much faster and technical, he would steamroll Jack.

 

Dempsey by KO. Brawling with Dempsey is bad for your health

 

1919 Dempsey?..."Jess Willard" Jack Dempsey?...too much for Holyfield....take Jack by KO...

 

Billy Miske would beat Holyfield. He moved better

 

Boxing historian Eric Jorgensen sums it up well.


Dempsey vs Holyfield: Yes, Holyfield surprised everyone by dismantling Tyson, and, yes, we all like and root for him, but I just don't see him as belonging among the true elite of the division. The real surprise of Holyfield-Tyson was the evidence that the Douglas fight was no fluke, and that Tyson has been vastly overrated for most of his career. A victory over Tyson, without more, does not qualify a fighter for ranking among the top 10 of all-time (see Douglas). Nor does the rest of Holyfield's career justify that lofty position. Remember, he had a great deal of trouble with Foreman and Holmes when each was well into his 40s. Looking at those fights, one has to figure that both those guys would've handed Holyfield his head when in their primes. Remember also the trouble he had against Bert Cooper, Michael Moorer, and Vaughn Bean, none of whom exactly qualifies as a hall-of-famer. Holyfield hits hard, but he is not a devastating puncher; he's quick, but I've seen quicker; he's a good boxer when he's paying attention, but he gets careless and can be hit; he's well-conditioned, generally, but I've seen him fade in the later rounds of a number of fights; he has heart, but I've seen him wobbled by mediocre punchers. In short, he is a first-rate heavyweight who stopped just a shade short of true greatness.

Dempsey did everything better than Holyfield does, and would have stopped him within 5 rounds. Unlike Tyson, Dempsey wouldn't choke or become unglued at the first sign of resistance.

Result: Dempsey KO5 over Holyfield


-Sorry you can't handle the truth.