Firstly, we assume it's the best version of both fighters, not a lazy or undertrained version. Tua had political problems that caused gaps in his career and probably led to being a bit disillusioned, but let's not forget that Dempsey put the title in the cooler for years at a time. It's not like he was always focused on fighting. Secondly, it's a lot easier to look like a Great White against an old, semi-retired Willard or completely unqualified heavy like Carpentier than it is against Lennox Lewis or Ibeabuchi.
It is very unfortunate that Dempsey put the title in the cooler especially since we basically missed out on some prime time Dempsey. It did seem unfortunately thats what HW Champions did at the time. The whole vaudeville traveling routine that Kearns kept pushing. Seems like from what I remember reading that was Kearns driven agenda along with the movies as it was quick guaranteed cash that went through Kearns hands like water so he kept it rolling fitting in fights here and there. This is how I remember it adleast. Either way I think more highly of Dempsey than Tua and I think he kicks his ass
That's the thing, though. Take the Ike performance out of the equation, and as far as I can remember, Tua never had a performance remotely approaching that on a multitude of fronts. I believe Ike had a style that actually played to Tua's advantage, and it's perhaps possible that Dempsey's style MIGHT play that way, too (but I tend to think not). Tua was doing all the little things in the Ike fight he always needed to do to be successful - using right hands, working the body, throwing in combinations. The reason I think he was able to do all of these things more effectively that night, in part at least, was because Ike's style allowed Tua to shine. In a somewhat ironic way, Ike's fierce activity rate helped Tua flourish. Other boxers were able to tame Tua by jabbing, and moving, and turning him, and using quicker feet to move away from telegraphed hooks. When Tua's rhythm was disrupted, he almost always needed to reset - but Ike wasn't really taking advantage of these resets the way other boxers who had success against Tua did - he was triggering 4 or 5 extra reset moments - unnecessarily in my view - and this helped allow Tua to shine. Just my opinion, but I maintain that was the only truly elite level "complete" performance we ever saw from Tua (and I actually scored that one for Tua, although I know I'm in the minority there).
I wouldn't bring up quality of opposition if I were you. It is really not going to work in your favor here!
Please, Tua would tear thru that collection of lightheavies and farmhands in no time. Many of the "names" on Dempsey CV, guys like Morris, Flynn, Pelkey, Smith, aren't particularly awe-inspiring if you take into account the stage of their career. And then we have dubious heavyweights such as Miske, Carpentier, Gibbons, even Tunney (if we are going to be honest) who have little to no pedigree in the top division. I'll take the full grown men that Tua fought.
Would, could, should, but lost whenever he fought somebody top ten in the real world. Dempsey has an enormous advantage in quality of opposition on paper!
I'm not in love with Dempsey in the way a lot of you guys are, but if I wanted to pick a modern fighter for him to look great against it'd be Tua. Dempsey would look fast, reap huge rewards on the cards for aggression and work while Tua would look clumsy in comparison. That's not to say he might not land a huge hook and put Dempsey to sleep, but he's probably going to be at risk of that against any fighter you care to name that wouldn't end up in a fight where he looks like he did in the Gibbons fight; probably he'd get DQ'd against Byrd or someone in the modern ring. Against Tua I think he'd be radar on, slick looking, two-handed, landing lots of very hard punches while on the aggressive move. I think he'd get Tua on an accumulation TKO. The thing is that Dempsey was undeniably great, for all that I think he gets the benefit of the doubt way too often on here. Tua was a fighter with good kit given multiple chances to prove his greatness who never did so. I don't trust such a fighter, even with a weight division between them. Dempsey is either a good cruiserweight or a great cruiserweight. I'd pick all the great cruiserweights who somehow qualify at HW. So Marciano, Dempsey, Byrd (tee hee), Holyfield, Usyk etc. They'd all beat him. Dempsey and especially Marciano are operating at a stylistic disadvantage here but they're special enough to overcome most of the time IMO.
I'm more impressed in beating prime Gibbons, Miske, Fulton and Firpo than prime Rahman, young Maskaev and young Ruiz. Beating past prime Willard is also more impressive than past prime Moorer for me.
Yes, but the bottom line is still the bottom line. Tua only ever beat one top ten ranked contender, and that was a controversial win over Rahman. Dempsey was a lineal champion, who beat a slew of top contenders. Dempsey has the better resume, by a very big margin. I can buy the idea that Tua was unlucky to share an era with Lewis, but I don't think that he was unlucky to share an era with Byrd and Rahman.
Lineal is a mythical concoction of old timey enthusiasts imbued with the unequal opportunities of color lines, mob-control and geographic favoring. It means little to me because make-believe is not my concern. Does he? Head to head? Please name his Top 5 pelts. There is a process among the Classicists to see a name in their readings and hear the recounting by misty-eyed old-timers, a name that gathers and multiplies in the echo chamber of nostalgia, a name that blossoms in the rays of greater lights like Marciano or Dempsey or Louis. And over time, their worth grows far beyond the actual contemporary value of what the fighter earned in a few "dramatic" rounds. Thus, we have a total ham-and-egger type like Firpo, a guy who wouldn't sniff the Top 50 today, but was involved in a dramatic fight that was painted and photographed and recounted as "exciting" and "great" by old-timers for decades and has assumed a stature completely out of scale with its actual worth. With the cacophony of sentiment rattling in their brains, Classicist contend that these feeble and ridiculous proponents would carry actual worth in a modern ring and believe such because a rational thought can not pierce that noise that has gathered over decades.
