Most overrated old-timer?

Avoiding punches, among other things.

 

Watch the film and count the number of punches they both slip per round.

Dempsey outworks Tyson by a ratuio of 2/1 in terms of slip and duck rates. Just watch the film and count.

 

Punched harder.

 

That is not an issue of technique though.

I submit that Dempsey was the harder puncher pound for pound and had better punching technique.

 

I watched round one of the second Brennan fight, in which I saw Dempsey slip 9 punches. But they only showed two minutes of that round. I then watched the first two minutes of round one of Tyson-Tucker, in which I saw Tyson slip 17 punches. I don't have time to watch all their fights and count all their slip and duck ratios right now, so i juat took two of their fights in their primes and went on that, which I think is pretty reliable.:good

 

You only took one round from each fight.

Against Bonecrusher Smith Tyson averaged 12 slipages per round. Against Tommy Gibbons Dempsey averaged 23. Now part of that might reflect that Gibbons was busier but I think you have to recognise Dempsey as being at least equal in this regard.

 

That's as maybe. But we're not talking pound-for-pound. Like most people on here, I'd much rather be hit by Dempsey than Tyson.

 

How many punches did Smith throw in that fight? Smith held and ran like a ***** the whole time, so of course Tyson is onna slip less punches. You can avoid what doesn't come at you.:good

 

Now there I would have to disagree. Tyson might hit you harder but it would probably be a more enjoyable experience. Dempseys delivery was just sick.

In any event I was responding to the suggestion that Dempsey was too primitive to compete today. I submit that in terms of his technique there is verry little you could do to improve him without radicaly changing his style.

 

Well, there was far less signs of wear and tear, you can't just comment on what you haven't seen (although no footage to you seems to be even more conclusive than actual footage). Dempsey was the champ a the time, so a fair comparison is Lewis I.

Well, it's not as you can look at his reign and point to the times when he was busy and fighting every couple of months. His and Kearns treatment of the title wasn't far removed from the D'amato/Floyd era.

 

Why would it be more enjoyable?