Mike Tyson (1988) Vs Jack Dempsey (1919-21) 15 Rd Heavyweight Fight

:goodKO

 

Dempsey isnt only losing to Tyson by first round KO because hes 24lb lighter (try 30), hes losing because hes less skilled, less speed, far less power, open defense, is comparatively weak, is comparatively chinny, etc, etc. Yes Dempsey could beat bigger oafs like Firpo/Willard. Chagaev can beat a big oaf like Valuev because he can get in and out with a jab and avoid brawling, something Dempseys never managed to do. Guess what Tyson isnt an oaf and Dempsey isnt outboxing or outbrawling him

If you followed the thread instead of making ******ed comments you'd have noted I already outlined these points

 

Here is where you are hopelesly wrong.

The rest of your points can to some extent be argued either way but this is where you are living in the dream world.

 

I don't have the ground to stand on that McGrain and HEGrant do as boxing analysts & historians, but to me this is fantasy. I LOVE Dempsey, to me he is the most exciting and entertaining heavyweight EVER, right up there with Ali. But he's essentially a skinny LHW, guys. Physically, Jeff Lacy would practically dwarf him.

If you're talking about talent, then coming up at the same time, I don't know, it's interesting. Dempsey has much better footwork, and is ****ing cat-like on his toes. Not as fast with one punch, but I believe quicker in combination and faster on the inside -- a better short-punch puncher. Less power, but that would even out some if Dempsey was a solid 200lbr.

I see Dempsey being flattened in one, maybe two rounds. He gets caught. Tyson immediately breaks into tears and hugs his idol, like a Marciano KO'ing Joe Louis.

Time-machined, I can only really picture it with Tyson coming up at the same time as Dempsey and not having the genetics to be a naturally huge guy. If they're both skinny ****ers, it gets interesting, but I won't make a prediction.

I really love both these fighters to death, they're two of my favorite heavyweights, but Dempsey was a turn-of-the-century heavyweight. He'd have to bulk up to be a modern cruiserweight! Let's get real guys, a fairer fight would be Dempsey-Hearns...


Just read Janitor's last post. I really love Dempsey, but I wouldn't want to see the fight. To add more to my post, I think Dempsey is more broadly athletic. Tyson is a sharpshooter with crazy speed and power, but Dempsey had it all. I could see Dempsey being a pro-bowl WR or maybe safety or something. I think it'd be more of a stretch to see Tyson as RB. For what it's worth...

 

Relax a little first. Then read the rest of this post.

If you're going to base an argument on whether Tyson was or was not as talented as Dempsey, then we can have a sensible discussion. But my original joke was to address comments like this-

- which you had agreed with-

- now there is another claim in your post that goes beyond the above posts (that before the 1930s all boxers had "Froch/Gatti" level skills") which is a tired old claim debunked by the likes of Crosstrainer on this forum long, long ago.

 

Well fighters of this generation had a less sophisticated skills.

1. The jab wasnt a common tool, when it was used it ,
2. Lateral movement was either none existant or poor
3. Fighters used a low guard making them easier to hit
4. Combination punching isnt really there for most and if it is, the best are slower
5. A number of defense techniques used today arent used
6. Plenty of other less obvious movements/skills just arent there

So the average skill level is lower but also the average physical performance is lower. You can tell the boxers are generally slower and less explosive.

Dempsey was great for his time but sports move on, boxers just like other sports men strive to take things to the next level

 

Are you serious? Corbett Jabbed, Fitzsimmons jabbed, Jeffries Jabbed, Tunney jabbed. Textbooks mentioned the jab as the first and most important punch to learn.

2. Lateral movement was either none existant or poor
Since we are talking about modern heavyweights, how many of today's fighters have any lateral movement at all? If we are limiting to Tyson and Dempsey discussion, they are almost identical on this level, although apparently statistics show that Dempsey's head moving and ducking was a little more successful, they are both outstanding in this area anyway. Tunney had far, far better lateral movement than any of Tyson's opponents, and certainly Corbett (another early heavyweight) was on another level to todays fighters.


3. Fighters used a low guard making them easier to hit

when did this change? The most successful fighters in modern times generally use the low guard. Ali, Vitali and Roy Jones stand out as three successful guys. Incidentally, if you read some old time manuals (Fitz for example), it shows that the low guard was not really used when a fighter got in close quarters (like Jones and Ali), so it is a little misleading to say that a low guard was used, because usually that hands were kept up when throwing punches and being attacked.



4. Combination punching isnt really there for most and if it is, the best are slower
I thought the 5 or 6 punch combination that Bill Lang finished off an ancient Fitzsimmons with was a pretty good combination and i dont really think he was a freak of nature. Dempsey's combinations on Willard were another pretty good example of combination punching. I really dont see how the old fighters were slower, when it is common ground that they had better stamina and were generally lighter (presumably faster). Incidentally, which modern fighters throw lightning fast combinations? Most today hit like trucks, but they also seem to accelerate like them as well.

Name one.

You may have got it the wrong way around here though. The bicep grab was identified as a lost art of defence a while ago. Jack Johnson' s body positioning particularly his head whilst in the clinch is another fine example where modern fighters are a little open for obvious reasons. Parrying and Deflecting doesnt seem to be as commonly used today.

I honestly cant think of a single technique which is used today but wasnt pre 30s. The only possibility is the 45 degree stance which is usually used. And perhaps the shifting of the weight from the back to front foot. This does help cover up and I would ahve thought helps defensive movement, although it does so presumably at the cost of a little offensive power. Jack Johnson is one fighter in particular though who saw both in the cross over period and preferred the older style. Many agreed with him. Although, i tend to think that the emulation of Louis and to a lesser degree Tunney (both of whom wold have still been good under the older stance) more than anything, lead to the finishing off of the older style stance.

Such as what?

Feints? Offence in the clinch? Be specific please.

How in the blue hell can you tell that the boxers are generally slower?

Being honest, half the time the jerky pre 1930 film is played at a sped up pace and they actually look up to twice as fast as modern fighters or even more. How slow did you think that John L looked on film? Which film have you seen which shows how slow prime Corbett, Jeffries or Fitzsimmons was? I would even settle for film of a slow Ruhlin, Maher, Langford or other. I really cant see hwo you can argue that older fighters were slower when the main criticism of modern fighters is that they are big, unfit and slow.

 

Reading acounts of any of Jem Mace's fights you would have to conclude that he used the jab more than any other punch.

 

This would probaby be the most entertaining HW fight of all time for however long it lasts.

Dempsey does not compare in terms of boxing skills, head movement & defense prowess. Dempsey's biggest shot is to take it to Tyson early & hope he gets him out of there with the kind of onslaight he put on Jess Willard.

However, in adopting this approach, Tyson would make Dempsey miss then make him pay. Tyson would be too accurate. A peak Tyson did not waste too many punches & he was very accuarate, especially with power shots or shots to take you out!

Dempsey did not know the importance of the jab & I not care what type of boxer, slugger you are, you have to jab. Its sets all else up.

Tyson by KO3

 

Yes.

That's the only area I see him being competitive in. He'd be quite dangerous to Tyson inside, but getting there is tricky. I have doubts whether Dempsey could avoid getting tagged by one of Tyson's explosive laser-punches coming in. Tyson can also somewhat muscle Dempsey around. Dempsey would have to be on his toes and be deadly careful, one mistake and it's probably over.

Another thing I considered, but there's no way of knowing how it would come into effect.

As for power, Dempsey used smaller gloves and I doubt Tyson would have had as much trouble ending the Willard affair. However, Dempsey had legit power, and the thing with

To be fair, Dempsey is a small cruiserweight today. Today's cruiserweights largely dwarf yesterday's heavyweights. If Dempsey came up at the same time, and developed into a true heavyweight, then the talent is certainly there to make this even. I can't imagine what a 205-210lb Dempsey would be like, though.

This I can't possibly agree with. If guys like Chuvalo, Cooney, itty-bitty Billy Conn, etc. can be competitive with the best at heavyweight, then ****ing of course Dempsey could. Coming along at the same time, Dempsey is a far sight better than Frazier. Frazier wasn't a quarter the athlete Dempsey was, and his punching talent did not compare. Dempsey is still too small for heavyweight, just as Frazier was.

Good point, but athleticism counts for a lot. Dempsey, Ali, Tyson and Jeffries are four of the most athletic guys in division history, but in different ways. Frazier is a good example of an un-athletic guy who over-achieved by having a good style and one great tool. Boxing is far more forgiving to un-athletic guys than most other skills sports, but a great athlete like Ali can get away with poor technique and an athlete like Tyson can become a beast using traditional technique.

Actually, this is true. Anyone familiar with power or Olympic lifting can confirm this. However, let's get real: Tyson was stronger than Dempsey. The measurements were surprising.

 

Tyson won't be good enough on his feet to escape Dempsey, and if he turtles up, Dempsey can get in close inside Tyson's power and launch devastating six-inch punches. Honestly, that would be the worst strategy for Tyson. Tyson should be trying to land something before Dempsey gets close. I guess I could see it lasting a few rounds if Tyson is careful or learns to respect Dempsey's power, but I can also see it ending quickly in one round. Of course, Dempsey has a definite puncher's chance, but I think this would be murder against Dempsey.

 

What about height differences?

 

:shock:

Brutal, man. Just BRUTAL.