Simple Question: Which Fighter Was Better? Dempsey or Tyson?

He did against Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper.

 

They are both considered heavyweights, so unfortunately for Dempsey yeah, he is at a big disadvantage. Obviously he would either today be a cruiser OR bulk himself up to a legitimate heabyweight but at it stands...they were both heavyweights in their time and will be matched as heavyweights. Regardless of weight disparity.
Is it unfair on Dempsey? Probably, but that's life. Heavyweights got bigger, and Tyson was as fast or faster. Must we somehow slow Tyson down to make things fairer? Make him hit less hard? Because that's exactly what you're trying to do by magically altering their weights 'to make things fairer.'

You're fundamentally trying to change almost everything (because almost everything would be affected) by changing their weights. It's an impossible task because there is no perfect middle ground, and one fighter may well be more adversely affected by being shrunk or blown up than another.

It becomes a massive gussing game with not a shred of scientific fact behind it. At least comparing them as they actually are/were has that.

As for Tyson being 'better' than say, Hagler, only if they are thrown into the ring together. But that will never happen. He wasn't a superior overall fighter to Hagler once everything was taken into account.

 

Haha...I think Unforgiven is a great poster. I just don't agree with him here, at all.

 

No, Tyson would be faster at a lighter weight. He'd still hit very very hard.

Ok, the scientific fact is their ACTUAL weight, then.
Scientifically a lighter fighter is at a disadvantage, up to a point.
We all know this.
Why not acknowledge it in this case ?

If a 248 pound Lennox Lewis destroys Jess Willard in 3 rounds is that as impressive as a 187 pound fighter doing the same thing ?
I would say, no, it is not.
And if a 154 pound Julian Jackson did the same thing to Willard I'd say that's even more impressive.
I'm finding it hard to see why on earth we shouldn't acknowledge this.

 

Was he losing those fights?

 

So what you're saying is that bigger is often 'better.' We know this already. What is your point exactly? It seems as though you have lost your way...