Where would Tyson rank today if he never had come back after prison?

Yes. I think he was a more proven fighter, a more proven champion. He won some tough fights and lost his title to a great fighter, who he almost KO'd in the rematch. He wasn't KO'd.

I always accepted that Tyson wasn't the real world champion until he beat Spinks.Though he was the number 1 guy before that. But Dempsey was ARGUABLY the number 1 since KOing Fred Fulton in 18 seconds.

Tyson was in jail, no one was sure when he would be out or whether he'd ever fight again. He wasn't an active fighter.

 

We have film of Dempsey v.Willard, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Tunneyx2 and Sharkey.

Yes, we have about 50 or more Tyson fights, but I dont see why that's relevant. Sugar Ray Robinson is rated number 1 at welterweight but how much film have we seen ? I've seen little, if any.

And Tyson got KO'd by Buster Douglas in his third defense.

 

I'm not sure I understand.

Not really my version. RING magazine and BOXING ILLUSTRATED and all boxing traditionalists figured Spinks had the championship, but Tyson was the world's best heavyweight. It's unequivocal that Tyson's status as the "world champion" WAS disputed by Spinks and many boxing insiders.
Not that it's especially important.

Yes, which he gets credit for. From me.

Dempsey was defeating contenders on his way to the title, there were no other titles to pick up and defend at that time.

The technical definition of their respective "reigns" or "title runs" is quite academic.

I feel Dempsey was a more proven fighter in his career up to '27 than Tyson up to '91, (I guess I should have said it in those words to begin with).
I think Dempsey was better, and greater.

 

Disagree,

Dempsey was a pioneer in his style and that resonated with fans and the press alike. He was certainly a phenomenon, and a great fighter but I simply cannot based objective criteria rank Dempsey ahead of Tyson.
Tyson beat more ranked fighters, ducked nobody and if we are counting Tyson up until 1992 then he has 1 loss to a fighter who could have conceivably beat Jack Dempsey as opposed to Dempsey who has mutltiple blemishes on his record including a 1st round KO loss to a journeyman.

Anyway you slice it Tyson has to rate above Dempsey.

 

I'll go find myself an avatar. :good

I've tried so before but the picture was up for a day or two then got removed (maybe too big ? Maybe copyright, I dunno).

 

You have the wrong avator my friend.

Here is a better suggestion:

This content is protected

 

No, no Klitschko brother avatars for me, thank you magoo.

 

These lists are very bad and likely very biased. Bert Sugar has Dempsey rated at #1 above 9 guys who were infinately better, while Arthur Harris doesn't even have Tyson in his top 10, but has Walcott and Tunney there.

 

Well then, lets get on with it.

This content is protected

 

Yes.

No, actually, you have it very backwards. It's saying that anyone who holds a plastic trinket that says "ABC world heavyweight champion" on it is a world heavyweight champion that dilutes the concept of being a champion.

Yes, absolutely. The title is vacant.

A titlist is champion of some kind of an organization- he's not champion of the world, though. Understand, it is nonsensical to say that there can be more than one world champion of the same thing at the same time.

I believe we can give him credit for being the youngest beltholder of all time, but he was not the youngest heavyweight champion of the world of all time.

 

I don't think this will ever be fully understood by many.