Prime Tyson and Prime Dempsey

Can't see Dempsey lasting past the first round.

Tyson K.O 1, and how was Dempsey the better boxer????? McGrain is usually a very good poster, would like to hear how he thinks Dempsey is superior

 

I would bet on Dempsey. :bbb

 

this is a joke isn't it
Tyson would annihilate Dempsey within the first round

 

Tyson KO in one ... horrendous match up for Dempsey ...

 

I hate it when people say things like what I want to say right now. I always wonder why they don't have more of an argument to make. It seems an easy and lazy thing to say. But I have little time and what I want to say, and I apologize for how unfair this sounds, and for how easy it is to say it, is that believing that Dempsey stands any sort of realistic shot at defeating Tyson separates those who get it from those that don't.

Actually, I just came into some more time, so I will offer more than this snotty comment. I will offer an illustration. For I cannot help but laugh when I read in the May 8 New York Times that Dempsey had to stop training for his bout with light heavyweight Tommy Gibbons for several days because of a "slightly injured fingernail on his right hand." I'm serious. This was in the world's newspaper.

This was followed by the July 1 article with the headline "Gibbons Record is not Impressive." The article notes that his knockout string was "scored over second-raters." After 10 years of boxing, Gibbons had only gained any recognition at all in the East in the months before the Dempsey fight. It is interesting, the article notes, that a man never known for his punch, suddenly discovers it, as well as discovers a string of inferior opposition upon which to visit this new punch. Yes, there was the notable Meehan, who had twice beat Dempsey, but, then, Meehan was past it.

On July 4, folks were worried. "Challenger Appears Drawn and Stale on Eve of Championship Battle," the headline went. In all his work, he had only managed to get his weight just a half pound past the light heavyweight limit. "That's enough, isn't it?" Gibbons asked the concerned reporters. Apparently, it was!

Gibbons extended Dempsey and taught him more than a thing or two. (So did Harry Greb, Gibbons' conqueror, who was let go from Dempsey's training camp during preparations for the Carpentier fight because he so embarrassed Dempsey in workouts. While no footage of Greb fighting exists, there are many clips of his impressive workouts available on the web, so you can get a taste of what was embarrassing Dempsey.)

Gibbons--shorter, smaller, weaker--never tasted the canvas against Dempsey. The papers found it remarkable that a man 13 pounds lighter and "notoriously lacking in a hard punch" could not only stay fifteen rounds and "was at no time in serious danger of being knocked out" but also battled back to give the champion fits over the championship rounds.

Imagine Tyson going the distance with 175 lbs Tommy Gibbons. I know, it's hard to imagine. That's because it would be manslaughter. No, I take that back. Because everybody knows Tyson would kill him, it's premeditated. That's murder.

 

It's hard to give Dempsey any chance against the mighty modern superman Tyson, especially when you note how much smaller Dempsey was than Tyson conquorer Evander Holyfield. Jack's spindly arms and chicken chest just wouldn't give him the wallop needed to make Mighty Tyson take a backwards step.

http://chesley.ca/chesley/tbibhftape.html

 

Don't know where those numbers come from. When Dempsey was measured in 1926, his biceps were 14 inches, not 16+. That was when Dempsey weighed a hefty 198 lbs. They were the same when measured for his bout with Tunney, and his chest, normal and expanded, were smaller than listed in the chart.

I take it the chart is used in an attempt at sarcasm, but Dempsey's problem in a bout with Tyson isn't really size. It's Tyson.

 

Tyson. Tyson was bigger, stronger, and knew how to throw punches other than hooks.

 

How do people feel about the fact that Willard didn't start boxing until 30 years of age and was 37 years old when he lost to Dempsey? I also can't say I see a lot of keen ability in Willard. Why is so much made of this fight?

 

Tyson could win, it's just hard to see him out-do Dempsey.

The simple fact is Dempsey was awesome at fighting back when hurt - the same can't be said of Tyson and Dempsey's own power + speed is being woefully understated.

 

Couldn't Tyson simply outbox Dempsey? And it usually takes an accumulation of punches to subdue Tyson - witness Ruddock landing his Smash on Tyson and Tyson taking a few steps back and coming back at him. Ditto when Tucker did the same thing. Also Dempsey was never great against fighters smaller and more agile than himself, although the fight that Tyson is a aggressive fighter obviously works in Dempsey's favour.

 

That just doesn't equate. You can't put a "atsch" on one of my posts from the other day and expect me not to return the favor here.

 

:blood

 

Oh yeah, Tyson was real good at absorbing big shuddering blows, but it's the ferociousness of Dempsey that would be discouraging.

Plus Jacks inside game was sick, Tyson started to malfunction in clinches.

Single smashes of Ruddock would be easier for Tyson to handle I'd imagine then Dempsey throwing everything but the kitchen sink.

It would be a beaut! I just think Dempsey's resolve wins him this one, the inside difference and generally fans go for muscle over reality - the reality being that Dempsey was definitely, comparatively as explosive as Tyson.

 

Glad to see the majority of posters on here favour Tyson over Dempsey in a prime Vs prime matchup. It's surely the only possible outcome. Quite apart from Tyson's advantages in size and speed, his boxing ability was superb also. Slipping punches and countering with dynamite in either hand. This fight is a big mismatch.