Who was further away from their best?

I'm guessing Tyson, mainly because his deterioration was laregely attributed to his mentality and poor decision making abilities outside of the ring.

 

I voted for Dempsey being further away from his very best.

Tyson looked almost back to his vintage best against Bruno in spells and was in fine fighting condition. He slackened off training for the Holyfield fight- wrongly regarding it as a potential 'cakewalk' as a result he gave away ground in terms of fitness. Had he been in Bruno II type shape against Holyfield the fight would've perhaps been more competitive for a longer spell.

Tyson definitely had the more left of the two. :good

 

I think the critical thing here is thier periods of inactivity and how it affected them.

Tyson, being in prison and unable to box, train or put in any real roadwork necessary to keep him in fighting shape had more of an uphill battle coming back into the ring.

Dempsey on the other hand fighting exhibitions, and being able to train whenever he pleased did not deterioate as much. He had the ability to stay in fighting shape and had at the very least sparring sessions(or exhibitions) that enables you to stay sharp.


Evander Holyfield leading up to his fight with Tyson in 1996 said the one thing that we hadnt seen from Mike Tyson was he hadnt been hit since he came out of prison. The importance of your body getting used to the punishment in the ring. Tommy Morrison said the same thing in his comeback fight just recently. Morrison alleged that he was conditioning his body to take a punch again. The feeling is something that needs to familiar condition your mind and body.

The point is Dempsey had that going in with Tunney as opposed to Tyson who didnt have that going in with Holyfield.

 

Dempsey injured his hip when he fell out of the ring against Firpo, and I suspect that hampered him much more than he ever let on. He took out Sharkey on a punch below the belt, in a match which Sharkey had been dominating. (Whether or not that shot was low, the bottom of Sharkey's trunks jerk up the instant Dempsey's right to his body makes contact, then we see Sharkey's knees buckle as he looks helplessly to the referee on the way down, before Dempsey's final hook to the face. However, once on the canvas, it's his groin that Sharkey's clutching.)

Of course, he lost up to 19 of the 20 total rounds he boxed against Tunney (interrupted only by the Long Count round), a striking contrast to the Dempsey who won 12 out of 15 rounds against late peaking master boxer Gibbons. Tyson's incarceration on the other hand, spared his body the physical wear and tear of training and competition. Tyson was only 24 years old when he had his rematch against Ruddock, his final bout before his incarceration. He had barely turned 29 when he had his return against McNeeley. Just over a year later, he'd recaptured both the WBC and WBA HW Titles.

Holyfield is about four years older than Tyson. Tunney was two years younger than Dempsey. To accept that Tyson was further away from his best than Dempsey is pushing the envelope of biological reality.

 

Boxers may be generally not declining as early as they did in the past. I think some would argue Tyson was in his prime against Holyfield.

 

On film its about even. They both look a little more sluggish, though still fast. I'll always believe that Tyson and Dempsey would have beaten Holyfield and Tunney had they been closer to thier best.

I voted for Tyson because, like you said, on paper that was the deal breaker.

 

This could possibly be the case.

Reportedly, when Sharkey's manager Johnny Buckley was raising hell over referee Jack O'Sullivan's refusal to rule Dempsey's bodyshot as a low blow (with both of them in position to clearly see the punch), Sharkey is supposed to have muttered to Buckley under his breath words to the effect of, "Forget about it. It's all just part of the 'game.'"

At the end of the previous round, as soon as the bell rang, and Dempsey dropped his gloves in facing toward his corner, an angry Sharkey cuffed Dempsey from behind with his right, continuing to glare at Dempsey over his shoulder at he walked across the ring to his own corner. (Perhaps you've seen that bit of extracurricular activity.) I imagine that Sharkey was peeved about some of Dempsey's rough tactics inside. (Ironic, since many consider Sharkey to be the dirtiest fighter of any heavyweight champion.) Maybe that right to the body was low, maybe it wasn't. It could be that O'Sullivan figured Sharkey had it coming to him after suckerpunching Dempsey the way he did.

In Dempsey's 1977 autobiography, it was explicitly stated that the left hook, and not the right downstairs, was the knockout punch. To me, the specificity of that claim smacks a bit of protesting too much.

That right downstairs had enormous power behind it. The way the bottoms of Sharkey's trunk legs jerked up when it connected proves that it landed below his beltline. The question is, how far below the beltline did it stray?

Sometimes, a punch that is not actually a low blow can feel like one, when the abdominal muscles are tensed, and the force of an uppercut into the lower stomach causes enough of an upward pull from the groin. Whatever the case, the referee was in position to see it, and was moving in to break the two after that punch landed, when Sharkey looked over at him. However, O'Sullivan said that, "There is no question about the punch on the left leg with a right -a punch on Sharkey's left leg by Dempsey's right. It was a sweeping blow which glanced off the leg..."

Did Sharkey purposely attempt to act his way to a disqualification win? Looking at the movie film, it appears that Dempsey's bodyshot had paralyzed Sharkey. His knees have buckled, and a sudden loss of strength from his arms appears to be what frees Dempsey's left from the clinch to deliver that final hook.

Possibly, Sharkey was indeed playing for a DQ. Maybe Dempsey did indeed hit him low. It could be that O'Sullivan ruled correctly, but that it felt like a low blow to Sharkey anyways. What is certain is that the punch was below Sharkey's beltline, and that this right hand was the knockdown punch. (If Dempsey's hook had been damaging enough to knock out Sharkey, then he would have been too senseless to immediately clutch at his groin upon hitting the floor.)

From what I could tell, there was no way that Sharkey could avoid going down. Once on the floor, did he decide not to get back up, and hope for a DQ in his favor? Good question.

By that point in the contest, Dempsey was finally starting to come on after a dreadful start. He was delivering some tremendous bodyshots which must have been taking their toll on Sharkey. In the previous couple of years, Sharkey had won three times by disqualification.

Watching the film of Sharkey's previous match with archrival Jimmy Maloney, he didn't look particularly impressive, although he took Maloney out in five. He followed up the Dempsey loss with a 12 round draw against Heeney, then a 15 round split decision loss to Johnny Risko (who Sharkey had previously decisoned in Boston). Sharkey's subpar performances against Maloney, Heeney and Risko, coupled with his recent trio of disqualification wins, could be construed as an indication that he realized he wasn't up to going eight more rounds with Dempsey, and started looking for an easy way out. In any event, there was no telltale bruise to indicate where Sharkey could claim he'd been fouled, nor did he enter a formal appeal from O'Sullivan's ruling, nor did he seek any medical attention.

 

(I suspect that is true for most of us on ESB Classic. It also sometimes seems that a glancing blow is more disabling than a direct hit, at least in my own experience)

No, we won't. But I actually reviewed that footage on youtube while in the process of composing my last post, and Sharkey's response to that right of Dempsey's was instantaneous. As you say, there is usually a momentary delay in reaction to such a blow, but that did not appear to be the case here. Possibly, it was indeed a Dempsey right to Sharkey's left leg that was the paralyzing blow.

By all means, check it out again Chris. The on-line footage doesn't show the hitching up of Sharkey's trunks with the clarity the movie film footage does, but the way his head immediately rears up and towards referee O'Sullivan is obvious. He's turning it back to Dempsey, when the Mauler's left arm gets freed for the final hook.

For all the time since this happened, the fixation has been on the fact that Sharkey turned his head away from Dempsey to the referee. But from what I can detect on the footage itself, that had nothing to do with the outcome that transpired. Even if Sharkey had ignored the referee completely, he was on the way down already, whether Dempsey delivered that final hook or not. His only chance to avoid it was to fall quickly enough that it went over his head as he dropped to the floor.

What if that sequence had not taken place at all, and a non controversial finish had resulted? Again, the match was less than half over, and Dempsey had trained harder than the younger Sharkey. Dempsey was starting to come on with those tremendous bodyshots on the inside, with over half the scheduled 15 round distance remaining. His advantage in youth and speed had been negated by his decision to take Dempsey head-on. Sharkey did not have the firepower needed to drop his shot idol and veteran opponent. Nor had he trained as hard as Dempsey had. Dempsey's reflexes and coordination of mind and muscle may no longer have been what they once were, but at the end, he had enough strength and energy left to pick up Sharkey's limp form with his gloved right hand, and help carry/drag Sharkey back to his corner.

Dempsey did not need great timing to pound away at Sharkey's body, the way Sharkey had foolishly made it available to attack. Sharkey was also losing his composure, as demonstrated by his angry cuffing of Dempsey at the end of round six. Dempsey had taken Bill Brennan out in 12 rounds with bodyshots. The early going had been all Sharkey's way, but Dempsey's massive punches downstairs were starting to take their toll, off-setting Sharkey's more youthful advantages. In his own mind, I suspect Sharkey realized he wasn't going to withstand that attack for eight more rounds, so he well might have sought a win in the only remaining way he thought possible.

I don't know what the chronology was for introducing protective cups, or when the shift from five to six ounce gloves was implemented. (That Dempsey and Willard wore five ounce Sol Levinson gloves is well known.) It seems likely to me that six ounce gloves might have been introduced after Tunney's retirement, but I'll have to dig out my tattered copy of the 1932 Boxing Illustrated Record Book, for seeking potential further clues through the numerous equipment advertisements within it's pages.