No, I am just asking that people back up their stances with some sort of reference, something I might possibly have never read or seen. You've read Roberts' bio; you've probably read more than that. Back up your stuff with that. Am I playing a bit devil's advocate here? Yes and no, just a bit to add a some perspective. I do think Dempsey gets off easy from most boxing historians in regards to his title reign. I do think Wills was a duck, whether it be a Kearns/Rickard thing (which I tend to believe more) or a Dempsey aversion. I think also, and this is a recent realization, that Greb was best white challenger to his title up until Tunney. He also was avoided in preference of guys he had beaten repeatedly. The pimp stuff (not to mention the slacker title) was in response to someone who stated Tyson was merely a thug, a grandma mugger. Well, guess what, Dempsey was a thug, too. It generally takes a thug to succeed in the boxing business. Dempsey later grew to be a really well-balanced gentleman, much as Tyson has made a transition in his middle-age. Surprise, they are human beings with the capacity to change.
Fine, I'm a scumbag who is winning this discussion. Guys often sign contracts with no intention on fulfilling them. The business world is full of such people. Again, I have quoted contemporary source materials that claim Dempsey was conveniently avoiding Wills. You have resorted, for the umpteenth time, to name-calling. Good day.
The lack of film of Sullivan shouldn't bother you, since you have his photograph and tale of the tape.
I find him quite a tragic figure in some ways. Yes he was a bad man who did bad things, but he had a chance to break away from his abusive childhood and become a better person, and perhaps he nearly did. I just wish things could have turned out differently.
How is Dempsey going to beat a fighter who is faster, stronger and much more powerful as well as more skilled? with a solid chin, it Just isnt happening, Tyson by early KO
This is ridiculous, this thread is supposed to be about who would win between these tow in a mythical fight, yet over 80% of the thread just turns into arguments about Dempsey's legacy as a fighter and as a human being,, why is it so hard to stick to the topic when we're talking about Jack Dempsey?
Tyson had the better genetics for sure. He clearly had better natural hand speed, and better chin. One thing Dempsey had was better technique. I know I will take some hits for this, but he perhaps gives us an idea of how Tyson might have developed, if he had kept his head together and continued learning. Another thing Dempsey had was much better psychological fundamentals, and ability to fight through the fog. I dont know who would win, there are some interesting counter variables.
K, YOU ARE SPOT ON...Let me be objective and answer your question as to why the thread as to who would win a fantasy fight between Jack Dempsey v Mike Tyson ? No more, no less, this simple thread was dragged into personalities and agendas. Because there is a poster who absolutely thrives on his hatred of Jack Dempsey, a man who last fought EIGHTY SIX years ago, and immediately went into his tangent of regurgitating the same old bile to try to destroy the reputation of Jack Dempsey as a MAN. This person has done this spiel time after time after time, bringing this thread to the gutter...I truly don't know WHY he does that ?...But if everyone did the same to every boxer they disliked, we would call this Forum Vendetta Boxing...Good post K...:good
Actually, one poster noted that Tyson could win because he was a granma mugging thug. I merely chose to point out that these two were cut from the same cloth. Tyson KO4. Dempsey comes to battle and pays for his recklessness.
Dempsey was a true badass at his core. And were he better disciplined, I think he has a chance of pulling a Holyfield in this fight. But, alas, you can take the boy outta the hobo camp but you cant the hobo camp out of the boy.
