Tyson versus Dempsey

If it's faulty criteria, I suspect everyone here is making the same errors with A LOT of fighters.
Like I said, it's not just Dempsey who I've been applying it to (in spite of what Bokaj or whoever might imply) .... I think I've been applying it across the board.
I need to re-assess everything now.



I remember recently I felt the need to question a couple of postors who were asserting or implying that there was a "new Jimmy Braddock" that suddenly emerged about a year before the Baer fight, a different fighter to the hapless Braddock in the years leading up. I was sceptical there - largely because I've SEEN the Braddock-Baer fight and they both look shitty ! - and perhaps then I should have carry that scepticism over the other fighters.

 

Personally, I think those kinds of thing are very hard to judge. How far could the Clay against Jones and Cooper for instance possibly be from the one against Liston? If Pac was still raw against Morales and Marquez, how come he could barnstorm Barrera the way he did? Etc, etc.

There is no exact science to these questions, and as you say Dempsey did clearly avenge the Flynn defeat. I was being a bit obnoxious before since I feel that excuses sometimes comes a bit too easily for Dempsey, but the truth is that I myself don't really know what to make of that defeat. The defeat to Meehan and the struggles with Miske are probably easier to judge, but still not easy since we lack any film of it.

 

I understand your emphasis on consistency. We've covered that many times. Consistency over a string on fights proves a lot, yes, but it's not identical to increased ability within single fights.

Hey, McCall had Steward in his camp and corner for the first fight but Steward was in Lewis's camp and corner for the second. You think that might not have rendered McCall a lesser fighter in the rematch ? Or does Steward only make Lewis better ?

It's not a point I put much weight in, but you seem to scoff at it too readily.

Your analyses of the Grant and Golota and Ruddock fights, I can't agree or disagree with. It would be pure speculation on my part if I started talking about this "psychological warfare" aspect on those fights, which I haven't considered. I thought we were talking technical improvements.
The Grant fight was the crudest of the lot, IMO.

 

Dempsey's improvement and quick progress when he hooked up with Kearns is well-documented too.
But of course, I dare not mention anything written about Dempsey in regards to that (I assume we're all read up on it) because when it comes to Dempsey it's "myth" and "propaganda". That's okay with me, I'm naturally sceptical too.

Never mind that Braddock is THE CINDERELLA MAN, named after a fairy tale and romanticized beyond reason, his "story" is undeniable to you, McGrain.

Only Jack Dempsey is the fairy tale !

 

On this forum, Dempsey's chances against anyone cannot even be discussed without "If Jim Flynn could knock him out ..... " being brought up within a page or two.
That's probably what provokes excuse-making.
It's like saying "If Leonard Morrow could knock him out in 1 round .... " on every Archie Moore thread.

Admittedly, there's reason to count the defeat in assessing his legacy, I concede that now. Because, as McGrain points out, my previous criteria may have been too inflexible.

Still, it's hard to square the Flynn defeat as a "near-best Dempsey" performance, when he slaughtered the same man in 1 round a year later, as well as some highly rated fighters.

 

Double standards.

:deal

 

Well, I admit, I'm still none the wiser as to how much it should be regarded. And that goes for similar results on the ledgers of other ATGs.

I think you bringing Lennox Lewis into the discussion contributed to the protracted disagreement, because it sparked lefthook31 and myself's LL tangent discussion, on which there will never be 100% agreement.

The whole Dempsey debates thing is getting tired again. The strange thing is, I don't even care to rate him on any special platform - he's just "one of the greats to me" - but I do find myself defending him a lot.
It seems that anything favourable to Dempsey is fair game to be shot down as part of a redundant myth, and anything unfavourable needs to be magnified further to kill off any remnants of that despised old "myth".
People are even openly talking in terms of ideology (and "race" even) when attacking Dempsey.

Or maybe he was just a shitty fighter. The hell if I know.

 

Dempsey fought to survive as a youth in mining camps....Tyson knocked over old ladies
in Brooklyn....you tell me...

 

'Doc' Kearns' promotion and input into Dempsey's campaigning from mid-'17 onwards, and his improvements under that set up are well-documented.
And factual.