Tyson versus Dempsey

Personally I dont think Bruno was a proper gauge as to how solid of a fighter he was after a four year layoff nor do I see much difference in the two performances. I also think Bruno was worse in the second fight. He was heavier, less mobile and less determined. I think Tyson looked pretty bad in both fights regardless of the outcome. He was just as easy to hit in both fights and there was little difference between to the two in reality.
With Holyfield we knew he was going to be the test that showed where Tyson was at, even if he beat him one sided like the odds suggested, Holyfield was going to show something, and he did. He was going to exploit those mistakes that Tyson made against both Mathis and Bruno.

As far as Douglas, you think what you want, I dont agree. I think what made Tyson the dominate force he was, was his ability to come forward and avoid punches and counterpunch. He was able to put good tall counterpunching technicians in defensive mode, because he made his opponents miss so much. It wasnt just a power game. Douglas was facing a stationary less elusive target that was there to be hit, and I think that version of Douglas or even Tucker beats any comebacking version of Tyson. It doesnt matter how strong and powerful Tyson might have been thats not what made him great, it was his defense and counterpunching ability and that went away shortly after the Spinks fight, so yes, call it a short prime, but Tyson was not the same fighter post 1988 and the proof was in his performances because he wasnt facing fighters that offered anything more than he had already beaten previously they were just given more chances to exploit Tyson's size and style.

 

Tyson literally ADMITTED he'd be scared of Dempsey and would lose to him, of course, knowing the ****** loving posters on ESB, I've never seen it once mentioned. Wish I could say I'm surprised. :verysad

 

Anybody would be scared to meet a ghost of a long dead person.

 

Nope, he was watching the Willard fight circa 88, (Tyson's so called "prime") and said he would not have wanted to be Willard or face this Dempsey, and expressed fear. Sorry. I know how much it pains you being a Tyson fanboy.

 

He said he was scared of a long-dead former fighter. So what?

 

Dempsey at his peak form firing on all cylinders would be a scary prospect for any fighter in history, I think. The same could be said for Tyson, let's be fair.

 

Dempsey admitted he was afraid of little Sam Langford and avoided him...

 

And when was Dempsey's prime? Just the Willard bout?

 

So, whenever Tyson says something, you fanboys preach it like versus from the bible, but when he FLAT OUT ADMITS he'd lose to fighters, suddenly you guys go all quiet.

Man these Tyson fanboys can be crazy.

 

OK and?

 

No.

 

So are we supposed to take everything a boxer says seriously?

Being "humble" is a thing, you know.

The only fanboy here is the guy that thinks a fighter from 100 years ago who drew the color line, never fought the best challengers available and barely defended his crown against manufactured contenders, who also happens to be at every possible physical disadvantage, and lost to guys like Willie Meehan and Jim Flynn could beat Tyson.

What Tyson did in the 80s alone ****S on Dempseys entire legacy. Nostalgic hero worship aside.

 

Well, the problem is he looked disappointing quite often. Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, there was a lot of criticism of Dempsey's performances in each of these bouts.

 

Brennan - came from behind to score a stunning ko. Being able to come back in a losing fight to win is THE indication that said fighter has ATG characteristics.

Carpentier- He koed in four rounds the hwt champion of Europe/LT heavyweight champion of the world. Well known he was told to carry Carpentier and not score an immediate ko.

Gibbons - Tunney said it was Dempseys greatest performance. When he saw he could not ko the crafty Gibbons he outboxed the boxer for the decision win in a one sided bout.

Firpo - Against a fearless and "Herculean" strong opponent Dempsey comes back to brutally ko his opponent after being knocked from the ring. Coming back to win in the face of adversity is a major determinant of ATG status.

 

It depends how you gonna look at it, the glass is half-empty or half-full, but the fact is he didn't look that impressive in any of his bouts after Willard and Miske, in the opinion of contemporary press. So was his peak limited to 1919-1920?