:think Sometimes when I watch Tyson I think he'd clean Dempsey's clock; sometimes when I watch Dempsey I think he'd char Tyson body and soul.
Tyson KO1, massively better in every facet of the game. Stop talking bunk. Tyson could throw uppercuts, Dempsey couldn't. The difference is Dempsey never fought any big decent in fighters, like say Wills. Dempsey threw about 2 jabs in his whole career Threw the heavy bag around?
The big technical issue with Tyson, for me, is the way he allowed himself to be walked inside. That was bad. But that problem versus Dempsey's jab problem? I'll take Tyson on the technical front personally. A swarmer without a jab is basically not something that happens now. Dempsey made it work, no doubt, but it's his big problem on film.
Hes never talked about it, and nobodies ever asked him. To me, it seems this could possibly have been a Damato tactic, but who knows? Maybe Tyson knew not to exert or waste energy like that espeically if the big guys were just gonna lean on him? Oh and Tyson sparks Dempsey very early
In an offensive fighter, I submit that a lack of infighting technique, is a far more serious shortcoming than underutilising the jab.
I would disagree in the strongest possible terms. Offensive fighters without a jab are almost unheard of. Offensive monsters that didn't have great infighting skill, Ricardo Lopez, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, all these guys it didn't matter that they can't infight but they'd be at a dead loss without a jab. But is a good example of a fighter being able to box around his limitations. He was adept at making room, in his way, of controlling range. Klitschko went on to perfect the art. By contrast, Jack is a dead end, one that spent twenty rounds following Gene Tunney around the ring because he couldn't deploy the most basic, most important punch in a meaningful way.
We are comparing Dempsey and Tyson here, not Dempsey and Foreman. Guys that had to overcome certain physical disadvantages. This gives infighting a whole new priority, and the jab a backseat.
Foreman, Lopez etc. are just examples of fighters bereft of infighting skill that excelled. But Dempsey is close to unique on film as a jabless fighter that excelled. I see this as proof that a lack of a jab is a greater handicap than infighting ability. What else would it mean? Walk into any gym in the world and it's the first thing you learn, regardless of natural style. There is a reason for this.
It was probably the first thing Kearns taught Dempsey:yep Seriously though, if you are managing Barbados Joe Walcott, and he has to loose either his jab or his infighting ability, you will keep the jab? Some historians attribute Dempseys poor showing in the first Tunney fight, to the fact that he relied on the jab more!
That depends upon who he is fighting, in his own era I would prioritise infighting. In many ways, modernism in boxing is defined on film by Willard-Dempsey, and Willard's instance upon spreading his arms to indicate he isn't punching at the break. In comparing Dempsey to Tyson, Foreman is certainly of more interest than Walcott. A better example would be Armstrong. Armstrong would probably buy more wins with his infighting ability, but looking at how often he leads with his left even on the limited footage, it's very clear that losing either is a total disaster for him. Either way, boxing on film has demonstrated, clearly, that a fighter is more likely to court success bereft of infighting ability than jab. That is extremely bizarre.
