Tyson versus Dempsey

I've explained my criteria.
If a fighter loses on his way up before he's even thought of as a real contender - when he's just some prospect or an obscure fringe fighter with no real trainer or manager - then the loss doesn't count.

I apply the same criteria to any great fighter. And I think most people on this site use the same common sense approach, instinctively.
I mean, who here makes a big deal out of Henry Armstrong's recorded losses in the 1932 - '36 period ?
Doesn't change the fact that he was perhaps the greatest fighter ever at his peak in 1937-'38.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

Dempsey DID improve greatly in a year or two. There's a huge difference between a hobo fighter who has no decent manager or trainer, bumming from town to town living hand-to-mouth, and a fighter with a good trainer and manager who are thinking longer term and grooming him for a title shot down the road.

It's the Flynn fight I discount, not the Meehan one.

 

(I don't dismiss the Meehan loss. The only thing I say is it's not a particularly BAD loss. When you score a knockdown and win a round in a 4-rounder but drop 3 rounds and lose the decision without getting hurt then that's not a particularly bad loss.)

It's the Flynn loss I dismiss.
I don't use "double standards" for Dempsey and Lewis.

My criteria are pretty simple : if you've not made it to the point of being a world significant fighter the losses you incur should not count against you IF you happen to become a good or great champion down the line.

Lewis had beaten Razor Ruddock (a win that stands to this day one of his finest ever) among others. He was firmly established as a world-class fighter, no question in anyone's mind about that.

Demspey was a mildly promising prospect at best, or a routine hobo pug at worst, when he fought Flynn. He'd failed to make much of an impression against second-raters in his time on the east coast. No one had him as a major heavyweight title contender. He had yet to knock out anyone decent.

Your points about Lewis's technical improvements are valid. But we have to draw a line somewhere. Anyone good enough to be rated top 1 or 2 in the world, and good enough to register one of the most impressive KOs of the era, is putting a legacy reputation on the line.
I don't see how a 1917 Dempsey is accomplished enough to be considered to be taking part in legacy-relevant fights.

 

He had a manager, but no evidence that he had a good one.
Everyone is "well trained" in pre-fight articles. I have no idea on his physical condition. I have no reason to doubt that he was just another hungry exploited fighter though.

The relevant thing is that Dempsey was still quite an obscure fighter, who had failed to make a significant impact in New York against second- and third-raters.
But by 1918 - '19 he was thrashing Brennan, Fulton and Willard, and scoring KOs over decent fighters.

That's a vast difference, IMO.
More so than Lewis (who can beat Ruddock/Bruno but lose to McCall) versus Lewis (who can beat Golota/Mavrovic/Holyfield/Tua but lose to Rahman).

I'm surprised anyone would even attempt to draw some equivalence, tbh.

 

I'm not talking about perceived status, I'm talking about ACTUAL progression in the world of boxing.

Obviously fighters DO fight there way up "through the ranks". And often the ones who end up great incur losses on the lower rungs of that ladder.

Lewis was at the top of the world boxing ladder. That's not just "perceived status", is it ?
It's a position he arrived at with actual significant wins. His "actual quality", as you put it, had been demonstrated as worthy of world championship standards.
Absolutely and unquestionably.

 

I can't take this seriously, after all your lectures on the stupidity and redundancy of looking at the respective physiques of fighters.
You're only encouraging more of the same. (Probably your intention).



We simply don't know how Meehan's style would mesh against Tyson.
The fact is he beat Dempsey, Langford and went the full 4 rounds with Fulton and Wills.

And I can think of at least two fat fighters who went beyond the 4th round with Tyson.
Mike Jameson and Brian Nielsen.
And fat Mathis Jr. gave him problems for 3.
What did the eye test say on those fights ?

 

It's based on results.
Sure, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
But I apply that benefit evenly to all the great fighters, for any losses incurred before they were established as top fighters.

Dempsey may have had far more pro fights.
But he didn't have the care and attention of a good manager and trainer and career-planning that Lewis enjoyed from the start.
Many of Dempsey's early fights (recorded or unrecorded) can probably be placed on the same position of a learning curve as much of Lewis's amateur career. (Lewis went to two Olympics and sparred with professionals for years.)
But discussing such things is a diversion, and can provoke endless debate and speculation, not to mention disagreements.
My criteria is far simpler than that. And I've explained it, and where I draw the line.
Everyone draws the line somewhere.

 

i seriously dislike Tyson but he beats Mr. Dempsey.
Jack Dempsey was from a totally different time.

 

How is it a leap of perception ?
I tend to believe that the vast majority of fighters were struggling hungry and exploited at that time. And some of the talented ones were lucky enough to get good managers who knew how to groom them towards a shot at the title.
Dempsey's results in New York weren't great, and the story of his troubles with John The Barber and his decision to go west again, penniless, I take as roughly true.

Many of the great fighters have similar stories.
They were real people living real hard lives.

I have no reason to doubt that Dempsey wasn't just another poorly-paid badly-managed pug, fighting on the edges of poverty and obscurity.
It was a common thing back then.

As a fighter, he certainly hadn't made an impact at this time.

No, it's completely even and logical.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned "fame", it seems to have cause some confusion.
Fame is just a possible EFFECT of firmly establishing yourself as a world champion standard fighter.
It's not Lewis's "fame" that's important.
It's the fact that he was a world championship standard fighter, already one of the top HWs of the era. His results had demonstrated that.

Dempsey - in spite of how many fights he may have had - was a mildly promising prospect at best, a fringe fighter. His results had demonstrated that.

 

Willie Meehan is no slouch in 4 rounders.
Take a look at his record, he had some impressive wins
Ofcourse there's no point in comparing him with a modern fighter, but for his time he was a dangerous and underrated boxer.