Evander Holyfield - Jack Dempsey

1996 Tyson was a couple of inches shorter than Dempsey, but smaller? No, he wasn't. I'm not sure about his being faster either. Tyson was also not nearly as agile as the more lithe Dempsey and his feet were not nearly as quick. Tyson and Dempsey present different problems but Holyfield's handling of the slugging, aggressive Tyson did raise many eyebrows.

 

...They were different punchers. And I am not sure that you are acknowledging Tyson's rapid devolution over his career. 1996 Tyson was formidable, but he wasn't what he was 8 years earlier -in any way.

 

Yes, but there are enough differences that would suggest a different result. Dempsey's "less refined" style may work in his favor because Holyfield, though a brawler in many respects, was a technican. Tyson was as well. Dempsey was not so much. He had his own style. Those looping shots and blistering combination had murder written on them and I'm not sure that Holyfield would read them.

I don't believe that Tyson would ever have beaten Holyfield. Holyfield owned him in 2 fights and at least one sparring session when they were kids too. I strongly suspect that Tyson always had a little fear of Holyfield while Holyfield had ice water in his veins. From Tyson's backing out of the bout in 1991 to that almost meek look in his eye at ring center during the instructions, Tyson never really believed that he could take Holyfield.

A fearful Dempsey was another story altogether. It was kill or be killed for him. Despite Tyson's words to the same effect, he never really lived up to that. You could see him lose the fire in many tough fights and just go through the motions, trying -but not with fire. His endurance and power compensated, but I don't see him ever going through the hell that Dempsey did against Firpo and come roaring back...

 

I recall Holyfield fight vs Bert Cooper and picture a faster harder punching Dempsey. Evander would also be one of the best fighters Dempsey faced sos prime for prime with proper weight and era ajustments it would be a barn burner but Dempsey was more explosive and a good body puncher...those body shots would take ther toll...I like Dempsey in this one by a stop

 

Unorthodox shots are not so easy to evade because they're not the norm. Much of boxing is expected action-reaction, which is why a guy like Pryor was hell for Arguello.

Dempsey had a ton of heart. You should read up on his life leading up to 1919 and you'll get a better idea of just how tough he was inside and out. He got soft as champ, but what he dealt with in his formative years was 10 times worse than what Tyson ever faced.

You missed the point. Firpo could hit like hell and he connected on Dempsey repeatedely. Dempsey went flying through the ropes and was virtually finished ...but came back.

 

I disagree that Dempsey telegraphed his punches, you seem to be overstating this, at least.

It's more likely that he took a dive against Flynn than anything else. More than one eyewitness reporter believe that he did -and one even states it was for $500. Dempsey was an unknown then and had family back home that he was responsible for, so he took the short end money.

You're thinking statically. Barrera confirmed my belief that the technician occupies the top notch, as opposed to the athlete. But that doesn't mean that therefore, the unorthodox must always be dominated by the well-schooled, and well-drilled orthodox. Guys who throw mental shots can often connect on an experienced boxer who expects the norm. That really is beyond debate, my friend.

A hard life doesn't mean anything in the ring? I couldn't disagree more. Boxers are tough guys. Poverty and hard lives breed tough guys. There aren't a whole helluva alot of silver spoons in the sport's history ... but there are lots and lots of hobos, street kids, welfare kids, and barrio boys.

What?! Find me a fighter or a trainer who discounts the critical importance of "heart". Seriously. If you find one, tear up his license.

What are your thoughts on Tyson getting beaten by Douglas, who was at the time considered a journeyman and a 42-1 underdog?

 

You mean you had him winning after 5 rounds, or had him winning all of those? Because i thought they were pretty even, perhaps a slight edge to either, but no way did Tyson won all of them.

 

I dont see why bringing up the 1996 version of tyson is similiar to a peak jack dempsey. tyson was far past his prime by 1996, his peek a boo very predictable now, his combinations to the head and body were gone, he was very rusty having been inactive 4 years, tyson basically got by just on intimidating in 1995-1997..... tyson did not beat any very good fighters in the mid 1990s. he was simply exposed for what he already was by 1996....washed up.



I think a prime jack dempsey is a different animal than a 1996 tyson