Jack Dempsey vs Mike Tyson..with a twist

Mike Tyson is black, has better footwork than Charlie Chaplin and can throw technical punches and doesnt fight like ****. This package is all wrong for Dempsey, i feel. Burt Beinstock is delusional and Johnstown looks like a sex offender.

 

i know that prime Dempsey would have got knocked out by prime Tyson , Dempsey is another one of these old timers who is vastly overated and theres no doupt in anyone with a brains mind that Tyson was to fast and powerful for a man like Dempsey

 

not even close, frazier weighed 214 pounds when he faced foreman and frazier was 5´11, foreman weighed 217 pounds and he was 6´3. (foreman weighed 224-232 among the years 74-76, but he weighed 217 pounds when he faced frazier in 1973).frazier was much more compact. The size or the weight is not matter , styles make fights and foreman was a very strong guy. The style ,the power and the strength were the key factor

dempsey was faster than tyson with legs, he had a good chin and power to recover, he had more stamina and he was a savage, prime vs prime i am not sure.

 

just like Dempsey was exposed when he faced a man who knew how to box

 

dempsey was not in his prime when he faced tuney (tuney yes)and still dempsey was stolen in the rematch,genne was down 14 seconds really. tyson was clearly destroyed by evander a man 4 years older than himself. great difference.

 

Hahaha

 

What puzzles me


Is the incredibly contrasting views of those who have SEEN Dempsey, and those who have not.


Ray Arcel, one of the greatest trainers of all time, said Jack Dempsey, at his best, was the greatest fighter ever. He saw them all, trained Leonard, to Duran. Seen Dempsey in his prime, to Ali in his prime.

The buck doesn't stop there. Every time I hear people's opinions who have actually seen Dempsey fight, it's always the same thing. "He was unbeatable at his prime."

They will give totally rational opinions on other fighters. "Ali was the fastest. Unmatched speed and footwork." "Louis was the greatest puncher ever. He could hurt you with any punch." And then bam, the bombshell, "Jack Dempsey at his prime is the greatest physical specimen to ever fight in a ring." I always see this pattern, and I have no other option, then to take these guys words for it, that Jack Dempsey was no joke. Not saying hes the greatest, but he definitely lives up to his reputation.


Arcel said years later he saw Dempsey fight Carpentier. HE said it wasn't the same Dempsey.


We have all seen Dempsey vs Willard, but I dont think many people appreciate exactly what they are looking at. You can barely make out Willards punches even in the high quality versions. Yet Dempseys punches are so vivid and visible! Its because hes not throwing normal punches, hes throwing bombs! I bet you if that fight was filmed with modern cameras, the close up slow mo images of Willards face being pummeled would be too gruesome for kids.




To the main question at hand. Going by the Willard fight, and credible testimonies, I saw Prime Dempsey beats Tyson.

What im more interested in, is to see whose more of an animal? It would be great to see them face off against the same 10 opponents, and see who does more damamge the quickest.

 

I think that by the time of the Holyfield fight, we might actualy see Tyson get slaughtered. If he dint like Hlyfields infighting, then Dempseys is going to be a whole lot worse.

Even at this stage Tyson cannot be counted out because Dempsey might just walk into something he ought not have done.

 

I hate so say this, but Dempsey wasn't very good boxer by modern standards. Even at his best he'd just be a journeyman today.

 

If you claim the 14 seconds as being a robbery on behalf of Dempsey even though he himself was dropped in the following round, to be consistent you have to acknowledge that Mike Tyson dropped Buster Douglas for 13 seconds and was therefore robbed even though Tyson was stopped 2 rounds later.

But as for the OP.

It comes down to styles, obviously the older Mike Tyson is, the worse off he is in a match up against Prime Dempsey. I'd favor any version of Tyson up until his second fight with Holyfield, after that the odds start to even out with each passing year until they are in Dempsey's favor.

The thing is that Dempsey didn't have the style to beat Tyson. His style was similar and when that is the case you have to go with the guy who has better attributes simply because they both play into each other's style. Tyson beat Bruno in 1989 and in 1996. In 1996 Tyson beat him quicker not because he was better but because he always had the style to beat him. There are always going to fighters that have stylistic advantages over the other to the extent that the only thing that could cause one guy to lose more often then not is father time.

Some examples are;

Larry Holmes at 42 beat a prime Ray Mercer, simply because he always had the style to beat him. Meanwhile you have guys like Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis struggling to beat an older Ray Mercer.

George Foreman at age 45 beat a prime Micheal Moorer. I have no doubt in my mind that a younger George Foreman would not do the same. In fact George would actually beat him in about 1-2 rounds if it were the 1973 Foreman that faced Frazier or Norton.

On the flip side;

I'm convinced that prime Foreman would have beaten Tommy Morrison in his prime but his age, reflexes and speed diminished and those elements of father time were primary reason why he couldn't keep up with Morrison. He had the style but father time beat him that night, not Tommy Morrison.

After watching their scrap in 1992 there is no doubt in my mind that Larry Holmes in his prime would have definitely beaten Evander Holyfield. Despite being 42 years old facing a prime Evander Holyfield he held his own. He confused Holyfield at times but he simply lacked the ability at that point to get the job done. It was a situation where, his age contributed to the loss moreso than anything else.

Of course this is with all due deference to both Tommy Morrison and Evander Holyfield who were fine fighters. (Holyfield being exceptional).

Interesting thread though OP.

 

To the main question at hand. Going by the Berbick Or Spinks fight, and credible testimonies, I say Prime Tyson beats Dempsey.

Interesting :good

 

Tyson also was not in his prime when he faced Holyfield or Lennox for that matter.

Douglas was down for 13-4 seconds in Tokyo and if the ref knew how to count history may have been rewritten.

Dempsey also got schooled by Tunney.

Yes Evander is Older than Tyson and your point is? Tyson was much more shot than Holyfield was when they fought, in fact Tyson retired 5 years ago and Holyfield is still fighting.

Ali was about 10 years older, but it didnt stop him from whooping that man in your avatar

 

Yes, I am sure it is a great burden upon you to say that.

 

This is something I have speculated upon.

Taking Tysons opponents, I suspect that most of them might have lasted longer against Dempsey, but I think that Dempsey would likley have got Smith and Tucker out of there before thge final bell.

 

fair assessment.