would have been undefeated jack dempsey in the 80s-90s at cruiserweight?

He had close to 200 amateur fights, something Dempsey didn't have, and was a unified cruiserweight champion, including wins over two hall of fame cruisers that would have been considered heavy's in Dempsey's day.. Top that off with his training regimen and fighting style for dealing with punchers, and I'd say its enough.

Because as I already mentioned, he had the physical tools, and mindset for taking on bigger guys, even before he added the additional weight, something he wouldn't even need against a man who's size he had already surpassed even at cruiserweight.

Show me some film and give an analysis.

 

In a trilogy which would've been likely i think holyfield would win atleast one between dempsey and himself

 

Yes...Heavyweight. Today we are obsessed with bulk and weight. Dempsey at 190 pounds from the waist up was as big as a 215 pounder,and twice as fast.
He in his prime flattened a slew of "modern weight giants". He and Joe Louis
FEASTED on "big" men. Those "leaner" days, trainers wanted their charges at
their minimum effective weight.

 

More 190 lbs. guys

Bob Foster (175+)
Gregorio Peralta
Ezzard Charles
Bert Whitehurst (Surprise special)

 

Agreed. Miske and T Gibbons are getting underrated.

 

I don't draw fantasy fight conclusions based on unrecorded bouts, that a fighter supposedly had.. We have no idea what this involves, because it raises too many questions like:

1. How many did he really have, or are we working with speculative numbers?

2. Who were they against? Were these men licensed professionals, and if not, does that explain why the matches weren't even recorded?

3. What were the outcomes? Did he win all of these fights?

4. Were they sanctioned bouts which demanded full competitiveness, or just exhibitions?

What we do know, is that both Holyfield's amatuer and professional acheivements are well documented and written in stone, going all the way back to when he was 12 years old.. By the time he was 25 years of age, he had fought in close 200 amatuer fights, was a former olympian, 18-0 as a pro with wins over hall of fame bound champions and holding a unified cruiser title... Bottom line, he was no foreigner to the sweet science.

Perhaps, but if we were to honestly surmise which man was less accustomed to the other's profile, then I think Dempsey has a greater problem to deal with.

Yes and no.. While he did very well against bigger men, they were also typically the ones who ulitimately ended up beating him.. Men who were smaller or comparable in size, with sound boxing skills, got eaten up, and it was an observation that many experts ( including Ferdie Pacheco ) made early in his career.

Perhaps, but in just about every fantasy match-up that I've seen and participated in involving Holyfield vs Spinks, had Michael as the underdog..

I am not in the position to either agree nor disagree with you... I know very little about Tommy Gibbons... Some fight film, against an opponent with similar traits to Evander Holyfield and a detailed analysis of how and why this performance would make him successful might equip me with better tools for making a decision..

 

At cruiserweight, I'd say that it was around the time he had unified against Carlos Deleon.. Overall, probably from about 1988-1991, stretching from his last cruiser bout with Deleon to his heavyweight title defense against George Foreman.