Tyson versus Dempsey

Yes, Dempsey was better.

 

Their quality of opposition is on a similar level.
They were both well manoeuvred into the title picture.

They are completely different fighters, with very different career and title reigns, so comparisons are difficult.
Tyson was more active collecting the various belts and defending them - that lasted for only a couple of years, Dempsey had to stay active in non-title fights waiting for Willard to fight him, then went into his own mostly inactive reign. Tyson was beaten by an average contender at age 23. He never really came back from that.
I think Dempsey lost his title to a better fighter than the one Tyson lost to.

 

Good night, Jack.

 

This match-up is a question of speed and firepower, seeing as both men are gonna come get it.

Offensively, I can't see any area Jack would have the advantage. He'd probably fight like a pitbull, but he'd get iced.

 

I know there was not actual ratings around when jack was doing his thing but the scalps he aquired before facing willard eclipse Tysons before facing berbick -who was not the real champion.

1983 Larry Holmes, Champion

1.Gerrie Coetzee
2.Greg Page
3.Michael Dokes
4.Pinklon Thomas
5.Tim Witherspoon
6.Mike Weaver
7.David Bey
8.John Tate
9.Trevor Berbick
10.Frank Bruno

1984Larry Holmes, Champion

1.Pinklon Thomas
2.Greg Page
3.David Bey
4.Tim Witherspoon
5.Gerrie Coetzee
6.Mike Weaver
7.Michael Dokes
8.James Broad
9.James (Bonecrusher) Smith
10.Gerry Cooney


1985Michael Spinks, Champion

1.Pinklon Thomas
2.Larry Holmes
3.Tim Witherspoon
4.Tony Tubbs
5.Greg Page
6.Gerrie Coetzee
7.Trevor Berbick
8.Carl Williams
9.Mike Weaver
10.Michael Dokes

Tyson fought none of the above to get his shot.

 

Tyson won a belt from Berbick, not a title. The one he won the title against was either Tucker or Spinks.

If we say Spinks, Tyson clearly has the more impressive run: Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Holmes and Tubbs were destroyed; Smith and Tucker well beaten. That's the most empathic clean-out the division has seen of a pre-title run.

If we say Tucker, it's more or less a toss-up.

 

There pre title runs are almost impossible to compare, since their career circumstances were so different.

Dempsey had no amateur career ,and effectivley started his professional career on the local circuit fighting for money to buy food.

Dempseys pre title career is largley incomplete, and would be analogous to Tysons amateur career and pre title profesional career combined.

 

I think actually Tyson up until Spinks should be used as a point of reference. Spinks was just as much a champion as Willard was. Both were lineal champs who hadn't done very much since winning the title (even if Spink had done considerably more).

So, Tyson had hands down the more impressive pre-title run.

 

Im not saying anyone beter was around at that time but what was so impresive about berbick and thomas when tyson fought them? thomas was beating joe bugner victims no beter than old bugner since losing his belt and berbick was going 10 rounds with 16-10-2 mike perkings 2 months before facing thomas. biggs had not beat a rated fighter in the ring anual ratings, holmes was inactive and Tucker untested. Tubbs was on weight control alert and turned down a handsome bonus just so he could come in out of shape against tyson. And who did Tubbs beat to get his shot? former lightheavyweight eddie gonzales (knocked out that year by marvin johnson) who put on 40lb in a mater of months to take on tubbs.

 

:huh

 

Ok. Change it to: "Tyson won a belt from Berbick, not the title" if it makes you feel any better. Should be clear enough as it is, but one should obviously never underestimate some posters' failure to understand...

 

There wasn't anything very impressive about them, but neither were Fulton, Flynn et al world beaters. Tyson cleaned out what was avaliable more or less. That's all you can do.

 

:think

 

Then you don't know anything about boxing. It really is that simple. There are no degrees here. That statement is ridicolous to anyone with just a rudimentary understanding of what constitutes boxing skill.

If you mean to say they were better for their time, I'd say that even that is very, very doubtful.