Mike Tyson (1988) Vs Jack Dempsey (1919-21) 15 Rd Heavyweight Fight

[sugarsean]

This is a dream match up for any boxing fan a fight between two of the most ferocious fighters in history and would of most defiantly have been a brutal contest.

Mike Tyson's record in title fights is (11W 4L 0D 9KO's) over a 16 year period.

Jack Dempsey's record in title fights is (6W 2L 0D 5KO's) over a 8 year period.

This fight in my opinion would be such a ferocious and all action fight between two powerful puncher's. Dempsey is the more raw vicious talent as Tyson is the more skilled technician and defensive fighter but also has the ferocious combination's. I'm gonna with Tyson's greater skill and defense to be to much for Dempsey.

Mike Tyson By 8 Rd KO

so who do think wins this fight between both fighters at their peak.

[Quitali Bitchko]

I can only see this going one way. Early, possibly first round KO for Mike. Why? Well this will sound like a cliche, but I cant help it, its true. Too much power, too much speed, too much skill. Tyson would eat Dempsey alive, this is a total missmatch. :-(

[McGrain]

Shoot me, but I think that Dempsey's defence is better than Tyson's. Yes, on film.

But I still pick Tyson. It's the punch resistance that does it though. For the record; he wants to get this done early.

[Ezzard]

If both men have the same facilities open to them then this is a 50-50

[turpinr]

I can only see this going one way. Early, possibly first round KO for Mike. Why? Well this will sound like a cliche, but I cant help it, its true. Too much power, too much speed, too much skill. Tyson would eat Dempsey alive, this is a total missmatch. :-(:goodagreed

[turpinr]

Shoot me, but I think that Dempsey's defence is better than Tyson's. Yes, on film.

But I still pick Tyson. It's the punch resistance that does it though. For the record; he wants to get this done early.dempsey had a defence ??

[McGrain]

dempsey had a defence ??


Beautiful little dips and tucks of the head and chin, combined with tip-toe footwork and top-line mobility against Jess Willard. His head movement was arbitary, economical and very quick all with his head properly positioned.

I wish he'd used this style against Firpo, too, instead of slugging, but you could argue Firpo took that decision out of his hands. Basically Willard is the only opponent he boxes against as though he's out-gunned, which i'm assuming he would also do were he to be matched with Tyson prime for prime.

[turpinr]

i think a peak tyson is better in every department including head movement.its a mismatch

[McGrain]

i think a peak tyson is better in every department including head movement.its a mismatch

It's definitely not a mismatch. Dempsey is fast and can hit hard. At the very least Dempsey would be the 3rd best fighter Tyson had ever mixed with and he lost to the other two, and personally i'd rate Dempsey as better than Holyfield.

As to Tyson's head movement, it was amazing, but patterened, I think. You'd need ice in your veins, but you could time him. Timing Dempsey would be more difficult.

[junior-soprano]

idf this fight could happen i would support dempsey. but if i have to put money on it i put my money on tyson. i think tyson is the better version of dempsey (not mental) but purely fysical, in the way of fighting.

[he grant]

Horrendous match up for Dempsey ... simply terrible ... Tyson, KO, early.

[bodhi]

Well, Tyson was a big fan of Dempsey, in fact he modeled himself after him. I could imagine that Tyson would be happy like a child beeing in the ring with his idol! And while the ref makes his speech he asks Jack for an autograph and is looking for a pencil, the ref starts the fight and the Manassa Mauler sucker punches Tyson.
Dempsey KO1 Tyson :D

Nah, to be real this is a very even matched fight. Both are very similar with the power edge going to Tyson while Dempsey is a bit better in the defence and ring intelligence area I think. Both are fast starters, so I suppose the fight will end early (if not I would make JD the favourite to win, 15 to 12 round experience). Tyson´s head movement could be timed, Dempsey was good at this. So I suppose Dempsey wins but the chances are 60/40 at best.

[Stevie G]

As good as Dempsey was,he'd have been tailor made for Tyson. Dempsey would be knocked out early.

[turpinr]

As good as Dempsey was,he'd have been tailor made for Tyson. Dempsey would be knocked out early.be fair though,tyson would have gone straight over and help pick dempsey up after the ten count.

[ripcity]

Mike Tyson By early fight stoppage. Dempsey will slug it out with Tyson. Tyson will ko Dempsey early

[Flea Man]

Tyson by obliteration, early. IMO

[MURK20]

Tyson would beat Dempsey, Marciano, and Frazier.

[guilalah]

For this scenario I picked Tyson, and because of their styles I picked an early stoppage; that doesn't mean I see this as a mismatch.

Would slightly favor Dempsey if the two came along at the same time.

[he grant]

This is why there are weight divisions. Dempsey is about thirty pounds of solid muscle lighter.

Who would pick Stanley Ketchel over Marciano ? Really little difference as a match up ...

[Mr Butt]

tyson early they are both going fly at each other and tyson looks faster and has the better defence,also i doubt dempsey was ever hit as hard and fast as tyson would hit him.this does'nt mean i dont think dempsey would'nt hurt tyson if he csaught him

[McGrain]

This is why there are weight divisions. Dempsey is about thirty pounds of solid muscle lighter.

Who would pick Stanley Ketchel over Marciano ? Really little difference as a match up ...


There was plenty between Sharky and a flabby Wlalker, too, but not as much as there was between Chagaev and Valuev.

[janitor]

I think that those dismising Dempseys chances are in something of a hurry.

What has got lost in the mists of history is just how dangerous Dempsey was as a puncher. He was every bit as dangerous as Tyson but in a subtley different way.

The real wildcard in this is Dempseys infighting ability. That is the one area where he has a big edge over Tyson technicaly. Holyfield was able to dismantle a faded Mike Tyson by working inside his minimum punching distance and it is possible that Dempsey could do the same (depending on how a number of things play out).

The other wildcard is how Dempsey's mobility would come into play if at all.

Yet a third wildcard is that Dempsey was more dancerous in terms of setting up a single counter. He didn't just get stuck in like Tyson he could set traps as well.

I see Tyson as having the edge in durability though Dempsey was much more effective at fighting when hurt and if it came down to who wantede it more then Dempsey is going to want it more.

[janitor]

This is why there are weight divisions. Dempsey is about thirty pounds of solid muscle lighter.

Who would pick Stanley Ketchel over Marciano ? Really little difference as a match up ...

If you compared Dempseys tale of the tape to Tysons it would become apparent that you were not matching a Ketchel against a Marciano.

[SpanishArcher]

You are forgetting one thing, Jack Dempsey was small. At 6'1 he was only from 180-190 pounds. He is simply too small to deal with Tysons incredible explosive power, and come on, no Dempsey doesnt have the same power as Tyson. Dempsey was a great puncher in his day - when was that? He is an old school fighter, you cant take Dempsey from 1920 and throw him in with Tyson of 1988 its absurd. Its like you would race someone with a car from 1920 and a car from 1988. And no matter how dangerous Dempsey was BACK THEN, I dont think he would hurt Tyson. Tyson fought bigger punchers and went through their best shots.
I repeat, Dempsey was around 185 pounds, put him in cruiserweight he's a great puncher, but againts modern heavys?
Its nice to nostalgic and all but lets also be realisitc. Too many people look back at those days with emotions rather then reality. Tyson KO1 is the only possible outcome.
Oh, and Tyson had pretty good in fighting ability wich he was developing before he sacked Rooney. Holmes and then Tubbs fight show a development in this area and even after in the Ruddock fights he still has it when he isnt lazy so I wouldnt say Dempsey has a HUGE advantage here. And the Holyfield thing isnt valid. Evander was a bigger, stronger fighter who fought a past prime Tyson. And Tyson was never a fighter who would fight using his physical strenght, he didnt mind getting pushed (even Williams and Green did it ocassionaly) he relyed on speed and explosivness. And still, Dempseys infighting ability wouldnt matter anyway, he would be knocked out probably in the first 30 seconds anyway - if he went to brawl with Tyson. Otherwise he may survive a round or two.

[janitor]

[quote=SpanishArcher;5227368]You are forgetting one thing, Jack Dempsey was small. At 6'1 he was only from 180-190 pounds.

That is not lost on me.

He is simply too small to deal with Tysons incredible explosive power,

Dempsey was about the same size as the cruiserweight version of Evander Holyfield.

Do you think that if Holyfield had fought Tyson as a cruiserweight that he would just have been obliterated?

and come on, no Dempsey doesnt have the same power as Tyson.

If he didn't then it was frightningly close.

Dempsey was a great puncher in his day - when was that? He is an old school fighter, you cant take Dempsey from 1920 and throw him in with Tyson of 1988 its absurd. Its like you would race someone with a car from 1920 and a car from 1988.

That is a silly analogy.

Cars were made a different way in the 20s to in the 80s but people were still made in the same somewhat random manner with the same mixed results.


And no matter how dangerous Dempsey was BACK THEN, I dont think he would hurt Tyson. Tyson fought bigger punchers and went through their best shots.


He never met a finisher or all round puncher even close to Dempsey. There have been verry few and Tyson is one of them.

Oh, and Tyson had pretty good in fighting ability wich he was developing before he sacked Rooney.

But we never saw it in the ring.

If you want to see what real infighting ability is then watch Jack Dempsey or Tommy Burns. It is being able to throw sustained combinations with a few inches of breathing space.

And the Holyfield thing isnt valid. Evander was a bigger, stronger fighter who fought a past prime Tyson.

A bigger stronger fighter with a fraction of Dempseys power.

And I havn't even decided on my vote yet "sigh".

[Maxmomer]

Not a mismatch but Tyson wins in 5.

[sugarsean]

It's definitely not a mismatch. Dempsey is fast and can hit hard. At the very least Dempsey would be the 3rd best fighter Tyson had ever mixed with and he lost to the other two, and personally i'd rate Dempsey as better than Holyfield.

As to Tyson's head movement, it was amazing, but patterened, I think. You'd need ice in your veins, but you could time him. Timing Dempsey would be more difficult.

gotta disagree with you there about Dempsey being better than Holyfield
, Holyfield has much greater footwork, techniancal skills, ring craft, defense and better combination punching, I don't see how anyone could think Dempsey is a greater fighter than Holyfield. ( Jack is a great fighter though )

explain how Jack is the better fighter, please

[mcvey]

There was plenty between Sharky and a flabby Wlalker, too, but not as much as there was between Chagaev and Valuev.

Dempsey is my man ,but I have to point out that neither Valuev nor Sharkey were punchers.

[The Kurgan]

This is why there are weight divisions. Dempsey is about thirty pounds of solid muscle lighter.

Who would pick Stanley Ketchel over Marciano ? Really little difference as a match up ...

That is also why Muhammad Ali would stand no chance against Lennox Lewis. No chance at all.

[pugilist_boyd]

First couple of rounds could go either way ,but dempsey could win 2 ways out gun the gunslinger or outbox tyson which in his prime i believe he could do

[josak]

The way I see it, any man who's smaller and wants to come forward and slug against Tyson is going to get annihilated. It's just a fact of life.

Then again, if Dempsey bulked up, that might even things out a bit. His crude style might make him easy pickings though, and slugging with Tyson is always a no-no. Would be fun to watch though.

[Bummy Davis]

Jack Dempsey came from a rough era...he was a hard times guy for real...he was mean and had killer instinct and could punch with either hand....This one would be a war...In a blending of the era's and a meeting in the middle.....Jack was just as mean as Mike...It would be a KO but nobody would be ashamed of the outcome....Dempsey had a live chance IMO

[SpanishArcher]

Quote:


1. Dempsey was about the same size as the cruiserweight version of Evander Holyfield.

2. Do you think that if Holyfield had fought Tyson as a cruiserweight that he would just have been obliterated?


3. That is a silly analogy.

Cars were made a different way in the 20s to in the 80s but people were still made in the same somewhat random manner with the same mixed results.

4.But we never saw it in the ring.

5.A bigger stronger fighter with a fraction of Dempseys power.

1. Yes but Holyfield ended up with around 215 pounds of muscle (how he got is irrelevant) so he was a legit heavyweight, of course Dempsey was in his time too, but that time was 90 years ago.

2. If Mike Tyson faced the cruiserweight Holyfield he would have stopped him inside few rounds, yes. Holyfield as a cruiserweight did not yet develop his phyisical strenght to the extent he did later on.

3. Silly in a way - the again not. Back in those days boxing was not as perfect as it later came to be and nutrition and training werent as advanced, therefore an athlete from that time would be at quite a disadvantage to an athlete from ˙˙our˙˙ time - in almost every other sport not just boxing. So I dont see it silly.

4. Yes we did. Againts Holmes, Tubbs, Ruddock and other fights. Im not saying we saw anything spectacular but good enough. But as I said, I dont feel in this case this would make any difference anyway.

5. Bigger, stronger, more skilled, faster with a better chin etc. Comparing Holyfield to Dempsey is useless in disscusing the Tyson-Dempsey fantasy match up.

And please people, enough with the Dempsey power. Yes he had great power, he was a Foreman of his time no doubt about it. But let's not forget he mostly fought what today are light heavys and cruiserweights and total bums at that and yes of course he had a few legit heavys at around 220 and two freaks around 250 who he overwhelmed with punches. Again Dempsey was not a true heavyweight by his physical build and I wouldnt put him into the top 10 in the power department. And I surely wouldnt put his power close to Tyson or Foreman or Shavers. What is keeping me from doing that is facts, evidence, logic and laws of physics.

As much as I love these old time warriors I dont let nostaligc feelings get the better of me. Dempsey would have no chance at a tittle had he come during the 70's, 80's or 90's - as he was back then. How he could develope himself with modern training techniques, well, nobody knows.

[janitor]

[quote=SpanishArcher;5231041]1. Yes but Holyfield ended up with around 215 pounds of muscle (how he got is irrelevant) so he was a legit heavyweight, of course Dempsey was in his time too, but that time was 90 years ago.

2. If Mike Tyson faced the cruiserweight Holyfield he would have stopped him inside few rounds, yes.


I am sorry I juist don't buy it that Tyson would have had an easy day with the cruiserweight version of Evander Holyfield. Holyfield would still have had the style to pick him apart, verry nearly the same level of durability, and probably enough strength to neutralise him if not manhandlke him.

Put the version of Tyson that met Holyfield in with the cruiserweight version of Holyfield and I guarantee you that the outcome would have been the same.


3. Silly in a way - the again not. Back in those days boxing was not as perfect as it later came to be and nutrition and training werent as advanced, therefore an athlete from that time would be at quite a disadvantage to an athlete from ˙˙our˙˙ time - in almost every other sport not just boxing. So I dont see it silly.


This is nonsense.

Some great boxers are great athletes and some are not even average athletes.

Jim Jeffries was a much better pure athlete than any heavyweight champion who came after him. Does that mean that he is the greatest champion ever?

James Toney was able to climb the heavyweight rankings 100 years later despite being disgustingly obese. Could he have been a world class track runner in that condition?


4. Yes we did. Againts Holmes, Tubbs, Ruddock and other fights. Im not saying we saw anything spectacular but good enough. But as I said, I dont feel in this case this would make any difference anyway.


Dempsey didn't just show some flashes of infighting ability he would fight the entire fight on the inside if you let him.

If he is somehow able to dictate that this is where the fight takes place then Tyson is fu**ed.


5. Bigger, stronger, more skilled, faster with a better chin etc. Comparing Holyfield to Dempsey is useless in disscusing the Tyson-Dempsey fantasy match up.


Actualy Dempsey is in many ways like a hybrid between Tyson and Holyfield stylisticaly.

I happen to think that Holyfield had a better chin but there is no way that he was more skilled, faster or as defensively adept as Dempsey.

The power difference is an important issue. You would have to ask what would have happened to Tyson if Holyfield had the sort of power that Dempsey had.

And please people, enough with the Dempsey power. Yes he had great power, he was a Foreman of his time no doubt about it. But let's not forget he mostly fought what today are light heavys and cruiserweights and total bums at that and yes of course he had a few legit heavys at around 220 and two freaks around 250 who he overwhelmed with punches.

The size of opposition argument dosn't wash with Dempsey.

The bottom line is that he got his title shot by knocking out a 220 lb fighter and won the title by knocking out a 245 lb fighter.

I could turn the argument back on you and ask when Tyson ever proved himself against a world class fighter as big and durable as Jess Willard. That would actualy have been uncharted teritory for Tyson.

Again Dempsey was not a true heavyweight by his physical build and I wouldnt put him into the top 10 in the power department. And I surely wouldnt put his power close to Tyson or Foreman or Shavers.

We can never know if Dempsey hit as hard as Tyson Foreman or Shavers because he is dead.

What I do know is that he was a far more effective finisher than either Foreman or Shavers and possibly more effective than Tyson.

That is what you are dealing with here.

[SpanishArcher]

[quote]


That is what you are dealing with here.

What im dealing with is a man who has no sence of reality. I laughed out loud when I read the following comment and decided I will no longer disscus his with you beacuse its so utterly stupid:

´´I could turn the argument back on you and ask when Tyson ever proved himself against a world class fighter as big and durable as Jess Willard. That would actualy have been uncharted teritory for Tyson. ``

Are you high on drugs?! Jesse Willard was a BUM a BUM! Durable?! :rofl The only reason he had a tittle was beacuse he was so damn big and everybody was so damn small back then. Hell guys like Green and Ribalta were better then him. Come on now, get outa here! That fight was, as Ali put it also a joke, a big joke.

We can never know if Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers of Foreman?! Dempsey was a light heavyweight/cruiserweight for christ sakes, look at him! Someone who has over 30 pounds of natural muscle and more powerfull bone construction over him like Tyson, Shavers, Foreman etc punch a level harder. :patsch

Dempsey looks like an unskilled brawler compared to the fighters from 70's onwards. Tyson KO1 Dempsey and it doesnt matter how much you blind yourself and how many pages of delusional stuff you write that you cant back up. :patsch

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
I am sorry I juist don't buy it that Tyson would have had an easy day with the cruiserweight version of Evander Holyfield. .

He would have done, Holyfield was on the back foot against Qawi who he had a hard night with, theres a good reason Holyfield took all those harmfull steroids to gain 30-40lbs of solid muscle. It made his punch much bigger and his punch resistance much greater. Remember the 220lb juiced up Holy getting stunned by Tyson (in the 5th was it)? That would certainly have ko'd the 185lb version, I don't the 185lb version lasts 3 rounds

[janitor]

[quote=SpanishArcher;5232344]
What im dealing with is a man who has no sence of reality. I laughed out loud when I read the following comment and decided I will no longer disscus his with you beacuse its so utterly stupid:


Since you have decided to be discourteous and specificaly question my grip on reality I feel that I am entitled to aply the same scrutiny to what you have writen.

Are you high on drugs?! Jesse Willard was a BUM a BUM!

You are a silly little man sitting behind a computer keyboard who would probably literaly piss his pants if he had to get into the ring with any world class fighter calling a former heavyweight champion a bum.

You then have the efrontery to acuse me of lacking a grip on reality.

Durable?! :rofl The only reason he had a tittle was beacuse he was so damn big and everybody was so damn small back then.

If you actualy troubled yourself to research Jess Willards career you would find that a good few of his key fights were against fighters over 220 lbs.

I would add that he won the title from Jack Johnson who was as big as the version of Evander Holyfield that Riddick Bowe won the title off.

Hell guys like Green and Ribalta were better then him.

No they wernt.

How many of those guys could have fought for 20+ rounds in the hot sun?

Indeed how many modern superheavyweights of any type could have beaten Willard in a fight to the finish?


Come on now, get outa here! That fight was, as Ali put it also a joke, a big joke.


In Ali's day the fight would have been stopped half way through the first round.

He never had to endure the king of damage that Willard endured.

Nobody from his era did.


We can never know if Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers of Foreman?! Dempsey was a light heavyweight/cruiserweight for christ sakes, look at him! Someone who has over 30 pounds of natural muscle and more powerfull bone construction over him like Tyson, Shavers, Foreman etc punch a level harder. :patsch


It dosn't follow.

We can safely assume that Bob Satterfield hit harder than Primo Carnera despite being outweightd by 70+ pounds.

Also if you are going to use the crude logic bigger = hits harder then you have to aply it consistently.

Would you be prepared to acknowledge that Jess Willard must have hit harder than Mike Tyson or any of his oponents because of his huge weight advantage?

Dempsey looks like an unskilled brawler compared to the fighters from 70's onwards.

No you just don't know what you are looking at.

Come back when you do.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5232417]
He would have done, Holyfield was on the back foot against Qawi who he had a hard night with,


Part of Holyfields strategy was to fight Quai on the back foot.

theres a good reason Holyfield took all those harmfull steroids to gain 30-40lbs of solid muscle. It made his punch much bigger and his punch resistance much greater.

Not really.

There are two things you can't build in boxing.

You can't build power or punch resuistence.

Of course you can improve these atributes but yoiu are never going to make Chris Byrd into a hard hitter and you are never going to make Audley Harrison durable. Holyfield was always going to be a heavyweight with fair power and an awsome chin.

Remember the 220lb juiced up Holy getting stunned by Tyson (in the 5th was it)?

Stunned to KOd is a huge leap.

I don't see it myself.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. Part of Holyfields strategy was to fight Quai on the back foot.

2. Not really. There are two things you can't build in boxing. You can't build power or punch resuistence.

Of course you can improve these atributes but yoiu are never going to make Chris Byrd into a hard hitter and you are never going to make Audley Harrison durable. Holyfield was always going to be a heavyweight with fair power and an awsome chin.

3. Stunned to KOd is a huge leap.

I don't see it myself.

1. Because he couldnt go on the front foot because he was too weak

2. Bollox increased muscle mass and strength makes bigger puncher. Do you think boxers take steroids and force feed themselves for the fun of it? Do you think Pacquaio's chin is the same chin that was at 112lbs? Do you think 112lb Pacquaio beats Hatton and Cotto? :lol: If so your an idiot, Pac has loads more power and better punch resistance because hes added 30lbs of muscle same with Holy

3. No it isnt he was allot weaker and not the same boxer.

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=janitor;5232246]

What im dealing with is a man who has no sence of reality. I laughed out loud when I read the following comment and decided I will no longer disscus his with you beacuse its so utterly stupid:

´´I could turn the argument back on you and ask when Tyson ever proved himself against a world class fighter as big and durable as Jess Willard. That would actualy have been uncharted teritory for Tyson. ``

Are you high on drugs?! Jesse Willard was a BUM a BUM! Durable?! :rofl The only reason he had a tittle was beacuse he was so damn big and everybody was so damn small back then. Hell guys like Green and Ribalta were better then him. Come on now, get outa here! That fight was, as Ali put it also a joke, a big joke.

We can never know if Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers of Foreman?! Dempsey was a light heavyweight/cruiserweight for christ sakes, look at him! Someone who has over 30 pounds of natural muscle and more powerfull bone construction over him like Tyson, Shavers, Foreman etc punch a level harder. :patsch

Dempsey looks like an unskilled brawler compared to the fighters from 70's onwards. Tyson KO1 Dempsey and it doesnt matter how much you blind yourself and how many pages of delusional stuff you write that you cant back up. :patsch


You lost a lot of credibility with this post and to accuse Janitor of having no sense of reality is a joke. Janitor is one of the best posters on this site and what he forgot you will never know. How old are you. Know you place in life.

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=janitor;5232246]

What im dealing with is a man who has no sence of reality. I laughed out loud when I read the following comment and decided I will no longer disscus his with you beacuse its so utterly stupid:

´´I could turn the argument back on you and ask when Tyson ever proved himself against a world class fighter as big and durable as Jess Willard. That would actualy have been uncharted teritory for Tyson. ``

Are you high on drugs?! Jesse Willard was a BUM a BUM! Durable?! :rofl The only reason he had a tittle was beacuse he was so damn big and everybody was so damn small back then. Hell guys like Green and Ribalta were better then him. Come on now, get outa here! That fight was, as Ali put it also a joke, a big joke.

We can never know if Dempsey hit as hard as Shavers of Foreman?! Dempsey was a light heavyweight/cruiserweight for christ sakes, look at him! Someone who has over 30 pounds of natural muscle and more powerfull bone construction over him like Tyson, Shavers, Foreman etc punch a level harder. :patsch

Dempsey looks like an unskilled brawler compared to the fighters from 70's onwards. Tyson KO1 Dempsey and it doesnt matter how much you blind yourself and how many pages of delusional stuff you write that you cant back up. :patsch

Spanis Archer, You lost a lot of credabilty with this post. And to accuse Janitor ( a top poster) of having no sense of reality is rediculas. What Janitor forgot you will never know. Learn to respect knowledge. How old are you. Know your place in life.

[PowerPuncher]

Spanis Archer, You lost a lot of credabilty with this post. And to accuse Janitor ( a top poster) of having no sense of reality is rediculas. What Janitor forgot you will never know. Learn to respect knowledge. How old are you. Know your place in life.

Hes right though Janitor does live in a fantasy world where size/strength mean nothing, where Jess Willard has elite level boxing skills, where Froch/Gatti level skills dominate boxing (ie pre1930s skill sets)

[he grant]

First of all Holyfield boxed and Dempsey slugged. If a 190 pound Holyfield charged face first into an 1988 Tyson I feel he would have been crushed. In addition, we know Evander had an all time great chin , proven v.s. huge punchers like Lewis and Tyson while Dempsey is far less proven in the chin department.

[The Kurgan]

Hes right though Janitor does live in a fantasy world where size/strength mean nothing, where Jess Willard has elite level boxing skills, where Froch/Gatti level skills dominate boxing (ie pre1930s skill sets)

And where Mike Tyson could be competitive against Wladimir Klitschko and Muhammad Ali could go the distance with Lennox Lewis, ie. a fantasy world.

[McGrain]

And where Mike Tyson could be competitive against Wladimir Klitschko and Muhammad Ali could go the distance with Lennox Lewis, ie. a fantasy world.

:lol:

[bighappy]

mike to big too fast too strong and better D

[janitor]

And where Mike Tyson could be competitive against Wladimir Klitschko and Muhammad Ali could go the distance with Lennox Lewis, ie. a fantasy world.

It is true that people who aply the size and modernity argument do it verry selectivley.

They generaly want a cut off point somwhere so it dosn't aply to their favourite fighters.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5232966]
1. Because he couldnt go on the front foot because he was too weak


Isn't the more obvious conclusion simply that he backed up in order to keep Quawi walking into his punches.

2. Bollox increased muscle mass and strength makes bigger puncher. Do you think boxers take steroids and force feed themselves for the fun of it?

I agree that muscle mass increases power and durability I just don't think it increases them by verry much. You could feed Holyfield all the roids in the world and he would never hit as hard as Bob Satterfield.

The main component of power is neuromuscular and the main component of durability is a combination of god given and mental.


Do you think Pacquaio's chin is the same chin that was at 112lbs? Do you think 112lb Pacquaio beats Hatton and Cotto? :lol: If so your an idiot, Pac has loads more power and better punch resistance because hes added 30lbs of muscle same with Holy


Or is it just that their oponents are bigger and slower hence easier to hit clean and anticipate?

[janitor]

Tale of the tape

------------------------Jack Dempsey -------------Mike Tyson
Weight ------------192 lbs ------------------------ 216 lbs
Reach -------------77'' ------------------------------ 71''
Chest/Norm. ----42'' ------------------------------ 43''
Chest/Exp. ------46'' ------------------------------ 45''
Waist --------------33'' ------------------------------ 34''
Biceps ------------16.25'' -------------------------- 16''
Neck ---------------16.5'' --------------------------- 19.75''
Wrist ---------------9'' -------------------------------- 8''
Calf ----------------15'' ------------------------------- 18''
Ankle -------------9'' --------------------------------- 11''
Thigh -------------23'' ------------------------------- 27''
Fist ----------------11.25''---------------------------- 13''
Forearm --------14.5'' ----------------------------- 14''

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. Isn't the more obvious conclusion simply that he backed up in order to keep Quawi walking into his punches.

2. I agree that muscle mass increases power and durability I just don't think it increases them by verry much. You could feed Holyfield all the roids in the world and he would never hit as hard as Bob Satterfield.

The main component of power is neuromuscular and the main component of durability is a combination of god given and mental.

3. is it just that their oponents are bigger and slower hence easier to hit clean and anticipate?

1. No he backed up because his punches had no effect on Qawi until the rematch where he had clearly got bigger and stronger, I hear Holyfield was weighing 200lbs in the ring in the rematch bout. Do you think the punches that couldnt hurt Qawi would have hurt Tyson?

2. Technique, strength, power, speed and genetics all play their role, but if you can increase power by 30-40% by adding functional muscle mass it will play a big difference. I hear from 1 of his trainers during his transitional period that Holyfield's numbers in the gym went up a great deal. They will have gone up a load from the Douglas-Tyson fight too.

Holyfield was bigger and leaner against Tyson than he'd ever been and for good reason. Do you think this stronger Holyfield would have been nearly otu against BErt Cooper and Bowe? Holyfield's chin got better the stronger he got

3. So your seriously saying a 112lb Pacquaio beats Morales/Hatton/Delahoya?

[Mantequilla]

Qawi dogged the rematch with Holy.

[PowerPuncher]

Tale of the tape

------------------------Jack Dempsey -------------Mike Tyson
Weight ------------192 lbs ------------------------ 216 lbs
Reach -------------77'' ------------------------------ 71''
Chest/Norm. ----42'' ------------------------------ 43''
Chest/Exp. ------46'' ------------------------------ 45''
Waist --------------33'' ------------------------------ 34''
Biceps ------------16.25'' -------------------------- 16''
Neck ---------------16.5'' --------------------------- 19.75''
Wrist ---------------9'' -------------------------------- 8''
Calf ----------------15'' ------------------------------- 18''
Ankle -------------9'' --------------------------------- 11''
Thigh -------------23'' ------------------------------- 27''
Fist ----------------11.25''---------------------------- 13''
Forearm --------14.5'' ----------------------------- 14''

The bottom line is Tyson has far more muscular strength, power, density than Dempsey, its obvious. You've taken Tyson's lowest weight and Dempsey's highest, didn't Dempsey have weights in his pockets against Willard and actually weighed 170lbs for that fight?

An image says a 1000 words:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5236769]The bottom line is Tyson has far more muscular strength, power, density than Dempsey, its obvious.

There is nothing obvious about it.

You might suggest that it is likley but the truch is that you cannot judge a mans physical strength or punching power from his muscle mass.

It is entirely possible that Dempsey could be physicaly stronger than Tyson and punch harder despite their physical disparities.

You could find a welterweight who was stronger than Tyson if you looked far enough.

You've taken Tyson's lowest weight and Dempsey's highest,

I took their prime weights. At the end of the day I copied and pasted their tale of the tape from two seperate articles so I did not choose what weight was cited.


didn't Dempsey have weights in his pockets against Willard and actually weighed 170lbs for that fight?


There are stories to that effect but I am a little skeptical.

I have never seen any evidence of it.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5236686][quote=janitor;5235502]
1. No he backed up because his punches had no effect on Qawi until the rematch where he had clearly got bigger and stronger,


Do you think it might simply be that he was inexperienced in the first fight and had developed as a fighter?


I hear Holyfield was weighing 200lbs in the ring in the rematch bout. Do you think the punches that couldnt hurt Qawi would have hurt Tyson?


Horible logic.

This is like me saying that because Louis didnt stop Adolph Waiter his power must have increased by the time he fought Max Baer.

2. Technique, strength, power, speed and genetics all play their role, but if you can increase power by 30-40% by adding functional muscle mass it will play a big difference.

But you can't.

It is probably more like 10%


Holyfield was bigger and leaner against Tyson than he'd ever been and for good reason. Do you think this stronger Holyfield would have been nearly otu against BErt Cooper and Bowe? Holyfield's chin got better the stronger he got


Again that is like me arguing that because Jimmy Braddock droped Joe Louis his punch resistence must have fallen since he fought Max Baer who was a much harder puncher but failed to hurt him.

3. So your seriously saying a 112lb Pacquaio beats Morales/Hatton/Delahoya?

This is a slightly different situation because Paquio was an embryonic fighter at this point who had not physicaly matured.

Even so I doubt that they would have just walked through him.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. There is nothing obvious about it. You might suggest that it is likley but the truch is that you cannot judge a mans physical strength or punching power from his muscle mass.

2. It is entirely possible that Dempsey could be physicaly stronger than Tyson and punch harder despite their physical disparities.

3. You could find a welterweight who was stronger than Tyson if you looked far enough.


I took their prime weights. At the end of the day I copied and pasted their tale of the tape from two seperate articles so I did not choose what weight was cited.



There are stories to that effect but I am a little skeptical.

I have never seen any evidence of it.

1. Bones don't move by magic they move because of muscle, the better/stronger/faster the muscle the more power behind bone moving. Whats more the muscle has its own weight that is transfered to the target.

2. Now yes you can get bigger unfunctional muscles, and have small guys that are stronger than big muscular guys if the big guys muscle is unfunctional or made up from slow twitch fibre. But Tyson's muscle was very functional, not only that Tyson had P4P power, P4P speed. Muscles can be slow twitch, Tyson's were clearly fast twitch, more fast twitch than Dempseys. So not only was Tyson more muscular his muscles were better pound for pound than Dempseys.

3. So which WW do you think is stronger than Tyson then? :lol:

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5237038]
1. Bones don't move by magic they move because of muscle, the better/stronger/faster the muscle the more power behind bone moving. Whats more the muscle has its own weight that is transfered to the target.


And yet you can have huge muscular development and still be a light hitter while another guy has arms no obvious muscular development and hits like a truck.


2. Now yes you can get bigger unfunctional muscles, and have small guys that are stronger than big muscular guys if the big guys muscle is unfunctional or made up from slow twitch fibre. But Tyson's muscle was very functional, not only that Tyson had P4P power, P4P speed. Muscles can be slow twitch, Tyson's were clearly fast twitch, more fast twitch than Dempseys. So not only was Tyson more muscular his muscles were better pound for pound than Dempseys.


Just because Tyson has fast hands does not mean that he is a hard puncher or a strong man.

You could find a fighter with similar handspeed to Tyson who was neither a particularly hard puncher or particularly strong in the clinches. Sonny Liston had comparativley low handspeed yet he was one of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history and one of the strongest fighters of his weight.

There is not a clear correlation where the fighters with the fastest hands are the hardest punchers or the strongest fighters in the clinches. If there was you could measure power with a speed camera.


3. So which WW do you think is stronger than Tyson then? :lol:


I would suggest that any world class powerlifter in the welterweight class would be stronger than Tyson.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. And yet you can have huge muscular development and still be a light hitter while another guy has arms no obvious muscular development and hits like a truck.

2. Just because Tyson has fast hands does not mean that he is a hard puncher or a strong man.

3. You could find a fighter with similar handspeed to Tyson who was neither a particularly hard puncher or particularly strong in the clinches. Sonny Liston had comparativley low handspeed yet he was one of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history and one of the strongest fighters of his weight.

4. There is not a clear correlation where the fighters with the fastest hands are the hardest punchers or the strongest fighters in the clinches. If there was you could measure power with a speed camera.

5. I would suggest that any world class powerlifter in the welterweight class would be stronger than Tyson.

1. Thats because you need power/strength through the core (waist/lower back), legs, shoulders, upper back, you need speed and you need to know how to powerpunch, most fighters dont have the skill to use all their body in their punches.

Power goes up with muscle/size. Why dont we have any 180lb HWs today?

2. Tysons natural speed means he is more explosive. He uses strength and speed in his punches, some have 1 or the other, he combines both, thats why he was a phenomenon

3. Speed in arm punches doesn't generate much power, speed in powerpunches that use your whole body does. Liston was a strong brute and knew how to get all his weight behind his shots whether sitting on shots or swinging from the hip

4. Again if you know how to put all your body weight into a punch and can do that quickly it'll generate more power than if you do it slow. Tyson uses his bodyweight and is still fast

5. I was talking about functional real world strength, strength in the actual punch. Not technique under a bar with double denim bench shirts that add 200-300lbs to your bench. Did you know using some of those bench shirts you can't actually lower a weight of 300lbs to your chest they don't let you. TEach Tyson how to bench press with a double denim and I cant see a WW powerlifter beating him on bench for instance

[The Kurgan]

Tale of the tape

------------------------Jack Dempsey -------------Mike Tyson
Weight ------------192 lbs ------------------------ 216 lbs
Reach -------------77'' ------------------------------ 71''
Chest/Norm. ----42'' ------------------------------ 43''
Chest/Exp. ------46'' ------------------------------ 45''
Waist --------------33'' ------------------------------ 34''
Biceps ------------16.25'' -------------------------- 16''
Neck ---------------16.5'' --------------------------- 19.75''
Wrist ---------------9'' -------------------------------- 8''
Calf ----------------15'' ------------------------------- 18''
Ankle -------------9'' --------------------------------- 11''
Thigh -------------23'' ------------------------------- 27''
Fist ----------------11.25''---------------------------- 13''
Forearm --------14.5'' ----------------------------- 14''

The size difference is blatantly overwhelming in every regard. Tyson KO1, maybe earlier.

[Flea Man]

Cruiser Holy was hittable and stunnable just as the heavyweight version was. Plus the lack of weight, Kid Dynamite would stop him. No doubt at all in my mind

[Boilermaker]

The bottom line is Tyson has far more muscular strength, power, density than Dempsey, its obvious. You've taken Tyson's lowest weight and Dempsey's highest, didn't Dempsey have weights in his pockets against Willard and actually weighed 170lbs for that fight?

An image says a 1000 words:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Which stage of Tyson's career was this photo taken from? It looks Post Douglas to me, where he was always much bigger and muscular (seemed to emphasize weight lifting in training) but was never as effective.

One of the things i dont understand with many people who put so much stock in size, particularly weight is how they rationalise the fact that heavy fighters always are at their best when they are at their lightest weight!

I also dont see how Janitors tale of the tape is brushed over so easily. Looking at the tape, Dempsey is every bit as big as Tyson everywhere except the legs. In fact if Tyson did as much cardio vascular work as dempsey or if Dempsey dropped the cardio and did the weight training, Dempsey might even be bigger. The most important size statistic is usually reach (klitchkso and lewis fans bring it up constantly). Looking at the tale of the tape, how is Tyson going to get inside Dempsey, if Dempsey uses his jab and straight right cross? Not that i necessarilly lean towards Dempsey here, but i dont see how size and physique matters in this fight. Tyson is actually a pretty small heavyweight by all time standards.

[PowerPuncher]

Tale of the tape

------------------------Jack Dempsey -------------Mike Tyson
Weight ------------192 lbs ------------------------ 216 lbs
Reach -------------77'' ------------------------------ 71''
Chest/Norm. ----42'' ------------------------------ 43''
Chest/Exp. ------46'' ------------------------------ 45''
Waist --------------33'' ------------------------------ 34''
Biceps ------------16.25'' -------------------------- 16''
Neck ---------------16.5'' --------------------------- 19.75''
Wrist ---------------9'' -------------------------------- 8''
Calf ----------------15'' ------------------------------- 18''
Ankle -------------9'' --------------------------------- 11''
Thigh -------------23'' ------------------------------- 27''
Fist ----------------11.25''---------------------------- 13''
Forearm --------14.5'' ----------------------------- 14''

PAVLIK ------------------------Jack Dempsey
31-0
Weight 160 Weight ------------192 lbs
Height 6-1
Reach 78" Reach -------------77''
Stance Orthodox
Neck 17 Neck ---------------16.5''
Chest (normal) 44 Chest/Norm. ----42''
Chest (expanded) 46 Chest/Exp. ------46''
Biceps 16 1/2" Biceps ------------16.25''
Forearms 14" Forearm --------14.5''
Wrist 7"Wrist ---------------9''
Fist 13" Fist ----------------11.25''
Waist 31" Waist --------------33''
Thigh 18" Thigh -------------23''
Calf 12"
Arm length 27"

:hey

[Bummy Davis]

It is true that people who aply the size and modernity argument do it verry selectivley.

They generaly want a cut off point somwhere so it dosn't aply to their favourite fighters.


exactly, on this forum it does not apply to Certain fighters...

[The Kurgan]

PAVLIK ------------------------Jack Dempsey
31-0
Weight 160 Weight ------------192 lbs
Height 6-1
Reach 78" Reach -------------77''
Stance Orthodox
Neck 17 Neck ---------------16.5''
Chest (normal) 44 Chest/Norm. ----42''
Chest (expanded) 46 Chest/Exp. ------46''
Biceps 16 1/2" Biceps ------------16.25''
Forearms 14" Forearm --------14.5''
Wrist 7"Wrist ---------------9''
Fist 13" Fist ----------------11.25''
Waist 31" Waist --------------33''
Thigh 18" Thigh -------------23''
Calf 12"
Arm length 27"

:hey

Good point: boxing is first and foremost about being heavy. This is why we have weight categories. This is also, incidentally, why Valuev is unbeatable and would probably finish Tyson off within the first three rounds. It's also why Andrew Golota will KO Adamek in two rounds: any weight difference above 24 lbs means the fight is clearly over. That's why Pavlik couldn't beat Dempsey, Adamek can't beat Golota, Chagaev couldn't beat Valuev and Dempsey couldn't beat Tyson. QED.

[Maxmomer]

Good point: boxing is first and foremost about being heavy. This is why we have weight categories. This is also, incidentally, why Valuev is unbeatable and would probably finish Tyson off within the first three rounds. It's also why Andrew Golota will KO Adamek in two rounds: any weight difference above 24 lbs means the fight is clearly over. That's why Pavlik couldn't beat Dempsey, Adamek can't beat Golota, Chagaev couldn't beat Valuev and Dempsey couldn't beat Tyson. QED.

Pavlik couldn't beat Dempsey.

[The Kurgan]

Pavlik couldn't beat Dempsey.

My point exactly. Pavlik is 30 lbs smaller than Dempsey and that means that Pavlik couldn't beat Dempsey. For the same reason, Tyson could have never have beaten a PRIME Brian Nielsen.

[sugarsean]

Good point: boxing is first and foremost about being heavy. This is why we have weight categories. This is also, incidentally, why Valuev is unbeatable and would probably finish Tyson off within the first three rounds. It's also why Andrew Golota will KO Adamek in two rounds: any weight difference above 24 lbs means the fight is clearly over. That's why Pavlik couldn't beat Dempsey, Adamek can't beat Golota, Chagaev couldn't beat Valuev and Dempsey couldn't beat Tyson. QED.

Chagaev Beat Valuev :deal, size is'nt everything as the fights were the much smaller man dominated the fight like Jack Dempsey V Jess Willard , Max Bear V Primo Canera and many others , proved.

You need more than just size and power in boxing

Boxing is all about skill, abilty, timing, determination, will and heart

[Boilermaker]

PAVLIK ------------------------Jack Dempsey
31-0
Weight 160 Weight ------------192 lbs
Height 6-1
Reach 78" Reach -------------77''
Stance Orthodox
Neck 17 Neck ---------------16.5''
Chest (normal) 44 Chest/Norm. ----42''
Chest (expanded) 46 Chest/Exp. ------46''
Biceps 16 1/2" Biceps ------------16.25''
Forearms 14" Forearm --------14.5''
Wrist 7"Wrist ---------------9''
Fist 13" Fist ----------------11.25''
Waist 31" Waist --------------33''
Thigh 18" Thigh -------------23''
Calf 12"
Arm length 27"

:hey

Physically, Pavlik isnt too bad. It is a shame he doesnt have power like Dempsey, a chin like Dempsey, heart like Dempsey, Adaptability etc. It seems to prove Physical statistics may be similar (and are similar) but that doesnt necessarilly mean that power or chin is on the same level.

[The Kurgan]

Chagaev Beat Valuev :deal, size is'nt everything as the fights were the much smaller man dominated the fight like Jack Dempsey V Jess Willard , Max Bear V Primo Canera and many others , proved.

You need more than just size and power in boxing

Boxing is all about skill, abilty, timing, determination, will and heart

If Chagaev could somehow beat Valuev, why do we have weight categories?

[Boilermaker]

If Chagaev could somehow beat Valuev, why do we have weight categories?
More money for the sanctioning bodies?

[sugarsean]

If Chagaev could somehow beat Valuev, why do we have weight categories?

he did beat Valuev:patsch look it up

[The Kurgan]

he did beat Valuev:patsch look it up

Impossible. Are you saying that Floyd Mayweather could beat a prime Roy Jones?

[The Kurgan]

More money for the sanctioning bodies?

Time to be serious: because when you've got to make a set weight-limit, it matters a lot. If you walk around at 185 and you're a middleweight, it's going to be a huge physical trial to get down to 160. Put the same boxer who dominates at 160 with a lesser boxer who naturally weighs at 185, force the middleweight to make the limit, and they'd lose. Dehydration, weight-draining and so on effectively make the cruiserweight division and under a different sport from the heavyweights.

There are other reasons why Chagaev did something you wouldn't expect to find at the lighter divisions. There is a definite law of diminishing returns that begins to kick it at about light-heavyweight with regard to size, which makes sense when you consider that, while Steve Cunnigham is 25 lbs heavier than Jean Pascal, he's not 25 lbs of muscle and bone. Also, size strength works on a two-dimensional basis (point A to point B) while muscle is three dimensional, it's no surprise that while 5 lbs can make a big strength difference at 120 it makes very little difference in the heavyweights.

In other words, just because Dempsey was 24 lbs lighter than a prime Tyson, it doesn't automatically mean that Dempsey would lose. Otherwise, you'd be forced into denying that Chagaev-Valuev ever happened.

[SpanishArcher]

Dempsey's tale of the tape smells like bullshit in the upper body and arm department (bicpes+forearms). From all the pictures and videos I've seen from him there is no way he has 16 inch biceps and his forearms look more like 13 inch. Chest also seems incorrect. With what were they measuring back then? :lol: Not that these measurments have to do with anything, but since janitor brought it up, let's disscus. Like one poster said, a picture says a thousand words.
˙˙What we first saw in Mike, was that he was 12 years old, 5'8 and 190 pounds, but no fat. We wanted to see some official documents beacuse nobody belived he could be 12 years old`` - Teddy Atlas. Mike was also bench pressing 250 pounds in the youth facility, beacuse people were obviously betting he couldnt and he did. Bobby Stewart a proffesional fighter said a 12 year old Mike hit him harder then anyone else in his life braking his nose in their first sparring. Now thats a genetical gift. And now someone is going to tell me that a man like that who procced to train and end up with 220 pounds of fast twitch muslce fibres on a 5'10 frame is equal in power to a 6'1 man who has 30 pounds and more less of the muscle, and weaker bone construction. Law of physcis say NO.
I am well aware there are ˙˙smaller˙˙ man at 180 pounds who are stronger and more powerfull then someone at 230. But that someone probably has weak bone construction, flabby muscles by genetics or has dozens of pounds of unfunctinoal slow twitch muscle fibres...or their fat. :lol:
But we are talking about Mike Tyson here. It was also sudgested we cant say Foreman was any stronger or more powerfull then Dempsey. :rofl
I love Dempsey, all the respect to him, I love these old time warriors, but reality is one thing, fantasy and romaticising a certain period is another.

[JohnThomas1]

Kicking arse Kurgan :lol:

[SpanishArcher]

In other words, just because Dempsey was 24 lbs lighter than a prime Tyson, it doesn't automatically mean that Dempsey would lose. Otherwise, you'd be forced into denying that Chagaev-Valuev ever happened.

Of course not, I think this whole size/power disscusion started simply beacuse someone belives Dempsey's power is equal/comperebale to Tyson,Foreman,Shavers,Liston etc. But just size and power advantage over an opponent isnt enough. If Tyson was slow, unskilled glas jawed bum I'd pick Dempsey to KO him in the first. But Tyson is not only bigger and more powerfull then Dempsey he has more speed a better more proven chin, and better skill set (no matter how much janitor keeps wanking on the infighting ability of Dempsey). There's also the styles issue, Dempsey isnt a boxer, and if you'r gonna slug it out with Tyson first make sure you have a steel chin and at least equal size/power department. Thats why I say Tyson early KO. Not beacuse of extra 30 pounds. Thats another debate going on here, quite amusing to. :lol:

That being said, Dempsey KO1 Arreola. :yep Seriously, Arreola would end up on a wheel chair. LOL @ fat, tattooed mexican with zero skill fighting for the tittle :rofl

[Bummy Davis]

Time to be serious: because when you've got to make a set weight-limit, it matters a lot. If you walk around at 185 and you're a middleweight, it's going to be a huge physical trial to get down to 160. Put the same boxer who dominates at 160 with a lesser boxer who naturally weighs at 185, force the middleweight to make the limit, and they'd lose. Dehydration, weight-draining and so on effectively make the cruiserweight division and under a different sport from the heavyweights.

There are other reasons why Chagaev did something you wouldn't expect to find at the lighter divisions. There is a definite law of diminishing returns that begins to kick it at about light-heavyweight with regard to size, which makes sense when you consider that, while Steve Cunnigham is 25 lbs heavier than Jean Pascal, he's not 25 lbs of muscle and bone. Also, size strength works on a two-dimensional basis (point A to point B) while muscle is three dimensional, it's no surprise that while 5 lbs can make a big strength difference at 120 it makes very little difference in the heavyweights.

In other words, just because Dempsey was 24 lbs lighter than a prime Tyson, it doesn't automatically mean that Dempsey would lose. Otherwise, you'd be forced into denying that Chagaev-Valuev ever happened.


:goodKO

[PowerPuncher]

Time to be serious: because when you've got to make a set weight-limit, it matters a lot. If you walk around at 185 and you're a middleweight, it's going to be a huge physical trial to get down to 160. Put the same boxer who dominates at 160 with a lesser boxer who naturally weighs at 185, force the middleweight to make the limit, and they'd lose. Dehydration, weight-draining and so on effectively make the cruiserweight division and under a different sport from the heavyweights.

There are other reasons why Chagaev did something you wouldn't expect to find at the lighter divisions. There is a definite law of diminishing returns that begins to kick it at about light-heavyweight with regard to size, which makes sense when you consider that, while Steve Cunnigham is 25 lbs heavier than Jean Pascal, he's not 25 lbs of muscle and bone. Also, size strength works on a two-dimensional basis (point A to point B) while muscle is three dimensional, it's no surprise that while 5 lbs can make a big strength difference at 120 it makes very little difference in the heavyweights.

In other words, just because Dempsey was 24 lbs lighter than a prime Tyson, it doesn't automatically mean that Dempsey would lose. Otherwise, you'd be forced into denying that Chagaev-Valuev ever happened.

Dempsey isnt only losing to Tyson by first round KO because hes 24lb lighter (try 30), hes losing because hes less skilled, less speed, far less power, open defense, is comparatively weak, is comparatively chinny, etc, etc. Yes Dempsey could beat bigger oafs like Firpo/Willard. Chagaev can beat a big oaf like Valuev because he can get in and out with a jab and avoid brawling, something Dempseys never managed to do. Guess what Tyson isnt an oaf and Dempsey isnt outboxing or outbrawling him

If you followed the thread instead of making retarded comments you'd have noted I already outlined these points

[janitor]

hes losing because hes less skilled, less speed, far less power, open defense, is comparatively weak, is comparatively chinny, etc, etc.

Here is where you are hopelesly wrong.

The rest of your points can to some extent be argued either way but this is where you are living in the dream world.

[janitor]

[quote=SpanishArcher;5239278]Dempsey's tale of the tape smells like bullshit in the upper body and arm department (bicpes+forearms). From all the pictures and videos I've seen from him there is no way he has 16 inch biceps and his forearms look more like 13 inch. Chest also seems incorrect. With what were they measuring back then? :lol:

Not that these measurments have to do with anything, but since janitor brought it up, let's disscus. Like one poster said, a picture says a thousand words.


It seems that you are willing to use the measurments to strengthen your argument when they coincide with it but refuse to acknowledge the ones that contradict it.

If you are going to dispute that Dempsey has 16'' biceps because the temporary measurments are unreliable then I could dispute that he only weighed 190 lbs and say that he looked more like 220.

A picture does not say more than a thousand words because photographs are by their nature misleading. Not least because you don't even know when or where they were taken.

What we first saw in Mike, was that he was 12 years old, 5'8 and 190 pounds, but no fat. We wanted to see some official documents beacuse nobody belived he could be 12 years old`` - Teddy Atlas. Mike was also bench pressing 250 pounds in the youth facility, beacuse people were obviously betting he couldnt and he did. Bobby Stewart a proffesional fighter said a 12 year old Mike hit him harder then anyone else in his life braking his nose in their first sparring. Now thats a genetical gift.

Tysons fundamentals are not in dispute.


And now someone is going to tell me that a man like that who procced to train and end up with 220 pounds of fast twitch muslce fibres on a 5'10 frame is equal in power to a 6'1 man who has 30 pounds and more less of the muscle, and weaker bone construction. Law of physcis say NO.


Laws of physics don't say sh1t.

People have tried to identify trends that produce punching power for over a hundred years and no clear answers have been found in scietntific studies.

There is no corelation with body build or hand speed.

A power puncher can be any shape and he can have fast or slow hands.

There is only a verry loose corelation with body size to the extent that a heavyweight generaly hits harder than a light heavyweight and so forth.

There are smaller fighters with Tyson with slower hands who hit harder. Want an example that nobody would dispute? Earnie Shavers.


I am well aware there are ˙˙smaller˙˙ man at 180 pounds who are stronger and more powerfull then someone at 230. But that someone probably has weak bone construction, flabby muscles by genetics or has dozens of pounds of unfunctinoal slow twitch muscle fibres...or their fat. :lol:


I could find a man who weighted under the middleweight limit who would trash Mike Tyson in a bench press contest. I would not have to go to world level to do it. For the record I weigh 158 lbs with some excess fat and am benching 238 lbs at the moment and I am nothing special.


But we are talking about Mike Tyson here. It was also sudgested we cant say Foreman was any stronger or more powerfull then Dempsey. :rofl


We can only say that it is likley or that it is verry probable.

Stronger is easier to justify.

Harder hitting is just speculation.

[spittle8]

I don't have the ground to stand on that McGrain and HEGrant do as boxing analysts & historians, but to me this is fantasy. I LOVE Dempsey, to me he is the most exciting and entertaining heavyweight EVER, right up there with Ali. But he's essentially a skinny LHW, guys. Physically, Jeff Lacy would practically dwarf him.

If you're talking about talent, then coming up at the same time, I don't know, it's interesting. Dempsey has much better footwork, and is fucking cat-like on his toes. Not as fast with one punch, but I believe quicker in combination and faster on the inside -- a better short-punch puncher. Less power, but that would even out some if Dempsey was a solid 200lbr.

I see Dempsey being flattened in one, maybe two rounds. He gets caught. Tyson immediately breaks into tears and hugs his idol, like a Marciano KO'ing Joe Louis.

Time-machined, I can only really picture it with Tyson coming up at the same time as Dempsey and not having the genetics to be a naturally huge guy. If they're both skinny fuckers, it gets interesting, but I won't make a prediction.

I really love both these fighters to death, they're two of my favorite heavyweights, but Dempsey was a turn-of-the-century heavyweight. He'd have to bulk up to be a modern cruiserweight! Let's get real guys, a fairer fight would be Dempsey-Hearns...


Just read Janitor's last post. I really love Dempsey, but I wouldn't want to see the fight. To add more to my post, I think Dempsey is more broadly athletic. Tyson is a sharpshooter with crazy speed and power, but Dempsey had it all. I could see Dempsey being a pro-bowl WR or maybe safety or something. I think it'd be more of a stretch to see Tyson as RB. For what it's worth...

[The Kurgan]

Dempsey isnt only losing to Tyson by first round KO because hes 24lb lighter (try 30), hes losing because hes less skilled, less speed, far less power, open defense, is comparatively weak, is comparatively chinny, etc, etc. Yes Dempsey could beat bigger oafs like Firpo/Willard. Chagaev can beat a big oaf like Valuev because he can get in and out with a jab and avoid brawling, something Dempseys never managed to do. Guess what Tyson isnt an oaf and Dempsey isnt outboxing or outbrawling him

If you followed the thread instead of making retarded comments you'd have noted I already outlined these points

Relax a little first. Then read the rest of this post.

If you're going to base an argument on whether Tyson was or was not as talented as Dempsey, then we can have a sensible discussion. But my original joke was to address comments like this-

You are forgetting one thing, Jack Dempsey was small. At 6'1 he was only from 180-190 pounds. He is simply too small to deal with Tysons incredible explosive power, and come on, no Dempsey doesnt have the same power as Tyson. Dempsey was a great puncher in his day - when was that? He is an old school fighter, you cant take Dempsey from 1920 and throw him in with Tyson of 1988 its absurd. Its like you would race someone with a car from 1920 and a car from 1988. And no matter how dangerous Dempsey was BACK THEN, I dont think he would hurt Tyson. Tyson fought bigger punchers and went through their best shots.

This is why there are weight divisions. Dempsey is about thirty pounds of solid muscle lighter.

Who would pick Stanley Ketchel over Marciano ? Really little difference as a match up ...

- which you had agreed with-


Spanis Archer, You lost a lot of credabilty with this post. And to accuse Janitor ( a top poster) of having no sense of reality is rediculas. What Janitor forgot you will never know. Learn to respect knowledge. How old are you. Know your place in life.

Hes right though Janitor does live in a fantasy world where size/strength mean nothing, where Jess Willard has elite level boxing skills, where Froch/Gatti level skills dominate boxing (ie pre1930s skill sets)

- now there is another claim in your post that goes beyond the above posts (that before the 1930s all boxers had "Froch/Gatti" level skills") which is a tired old claim debunked by the likes of Crosstrainer on this forum long, long ago.

[sugarsean]

Impossible. Are you saying that Floyd Mayweather could beat a prime Roy Jones?

where did I mention Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather :huh I said Chageav beat Valuev which he did :deal

[PowerPuncher]

- now there is another claim in your post that goes beyond the above posts (that before the 1930s all boxers had "Froch/Gatti" level skills") which is a tired old claim debunked by the likes of Crosstrainer on this forum long, long ago.

Well fighters of this generation had a less sophisticated skills.

1. The jab wasnt a common tool, when it was used it ,
2. Lateral movement was either none existant or poor
3. Fighters used a low guard making them easier to hit
4. Combination punching isnt really there for most and if it is, the best are slower
5. A number of defense techniques used today arent used
6. Plenty of other less obvious movements/skills just arent there

So the average skill level is lower but also the average physical performance is lower. You can tell the boxers are generally slower and less explosive.

Dempsey was great for his time but sports move on, boxers just like other sports men strive to take things to the next level

[Boilermaker]

Well fighters of this generation had a less sophisticated skills.


1. The jab wasnt a common tool, when it was used it ,

Are you serious? Corbett Jabbed, Fitzsimmons jabbed, Jeffries Jabbed, Tunney jabbed. Textbooks mentioned the jab as the first and most important punch to learn.

2. Lateral movement was either none existant or poor
Since we are talking about modern heavyweights, how many of today's fighters have any lateral movement at all? If we are limiting to Tyson and Dempsey discussion, they are almost identical on this level, although apparently statistics show that Dempsey's head moving and ducking was a little more successful, they are both outstanding in this area anyway. Tunney had far, far better lateral movement than any of Tyson's opponents, and certainly Corbett (another early heavyweight) was on another level to todays fighters.


3. Fighters used a low guard making them easier to hit

when did this change? The most successful fighters in modern times generally use the low guard. Ali, Vitali and Roy Jones stand out as three successful guys. Incidentally, if you read some old time manuals (Fitz for example), it shows that the low guard was not really used when a fighter got in close quarters (like Jones and Ali), so it is a little misleading to say that a low guard was used, because usually that hands were kept up when throwing punches and being attacked.



4. Combination punching isnt really there for most and if it is, the best are slower
I thought the 5 or 6 punch combination that Bill Lang finished off an ancient Fitzsimmons with was a pretty good combination and i dont really think he was a freak of nature. Dempsey's combinations on Willard were another pretty good example of combination punching. I really dont see how the old fighters were slower, when it is common ground that they had better stamina and were generally lighter (presumably faster). Incidentally, which modern fighters throw lightning fast combinations? Most today hit like trucks, but they also seem to accelerate like them as well.


5. A number of defense techniques used today arent used


Name one.

You may have got it the wrong way around here though. The bicep grab was identified as a lost art of defence a while ago. Jack Johnson' s body positioning particularly his head whilst in the clinch is another fine example where modern fighters are a little open for obvious reasons. Parrying and Deflecting doesnt seem to be as commonly used today.

I honestly cant think of a single technique which is used today but wasnt pre 30s. The only possibility is the 45 degree stance which is usually used. And perhaps the shifting of the weight from the back to front foot. This does help cover up and I would ahve thought helps defensive movement, although it does so presumably at the cost of a little offensive power. Jack Johnson is one fighter in particular though who saw both in the cross over period and preferred the older style. Many agreed with him. Although, i tend to think that the emulation of Louis and to a lesser degree Tunney (both of whom wold have still been good under the older stance) more than anything, lead to the finishing off of the older style stance.

6. Plenty of other less obvious movements/skills just arent there


Such as what?

Feints? Offence in the clinch? Be specific please.


So the average skill level is lower but also the average physical performance is lower. You can tell the boxers are generally slower and less explosive.

Dempsey was great for his time but sports move on, boxers just like other sports men strive to take things to the next level

How in the blue hell can you tell that the boxers are generally slower?

Being honest, half the time the jerky pre 1930 film is played at a sped up pace and they actually look up to twice as fast as modern fighters or even more. How slow did you think that John L looked on film? Which film have you seen which shows how slow prime Corbett, Jeffries or Fitzsimmons was? I would even settle for film of a slow Ruhlin, Maher, Langford or other. I really cant see hwo you can argue that older fighters were slower when the main criticism of modern fighters is that they are big, unfit and slow.

[janitor]

1. The jab wasnt a common tool, when it was used it ,


Reading acounts of any of Jem Mace's fights you would have to conclude that he used the jab more than any other punch.

[Danny]

This would probaby be the most entertaining HW fight of all time for however long it lasts.

Dempsey does not compare in terms of boxing skills, head movement & defense prowess. Dempsey's biggest shot is to take it to Tyson early & hope he gets him out of there with the kind of onslaight he put on Jess Willard.

However, in adopting this approach, Tyson would make Dempsey miss then make him pay. Tyson would be too accurate. A peak Tyson did not waste too many punches & he was very accuarate, especially with power shots or shots to take you out!

Dempsey did not know the importance of the jab & I not care what type of boxer, slugger you are, you have to jab. Its sets all else up.

Tyson by KO3

[spittle8]

I think that those dismising Dempseys chances are in something of a hurry.
Yes.

The real wildcard in this is Dempseys infighting ability.
That's the only area I see him being competitive in. He'd be quite dangerous to Tyson inside, but getting there is tricky. I have doubts whether Dempsey could avoid getting tagged by one of Tyson's explosive laser-punches coming in. Tyson can also somewhat muscle Dempsey around. Dempsey would have to be on his toes and be deadly careful, one mistake and it's probably over.

The other wildcard is how Dempsey's mobility would come into play if at all.
Another thing I considered, but there's no way of knowing how it would come into effect.

As for power, Dempsey used smaller gloves and I doubt Tyson would have had as much trouble ending the Willard affair. However, Dempsey had legit power, and the thing with

If you compared Dempseys tale of the tape to Tysons it would become apparent that you were not matching a Ketchel against a Marciano.
To be fair, Dempsey is a small cruiserweight today. Today's cruiserweights largely dwarf yesterday's heavyweights. If Dempsey came up at the same time, and developed into a true heavyweight, then the talent is certainly there to make this even. I can't imagine what a 205-210lb Dempsey would be like, though.

Dempsey would have no chance at a tittle had he come during the 70's, 80's or 90's - as he was back then.
This I can't possibly agree with. If guys like Chuvalo, Cooney, itty-bitty Billy Conn, etc. can be competitive with the best at heavyweight, then fucking of course Dempsey could. Coming along at the same time, Dempsey is a far sight better than Frazier. Frazier wasn't a quarter the athlete Dempsey was, and his punching talent did not compare. Dempsey is still too small for heavyweight, just as Frazier was.


Some great boxers are great athletes and some are not even average athletes.

Jim Jeffries was a much better pure athlete than any heavyweight champion who came after him. Does that mean that he is the greatest champion ever?
Good point, but athleticism counts for a lot. Dempsey, Ali, Tyson and Jeffries are four of the most athletic guys in division history, but in different ways. Frazier is a good example of an un-athletic guy who over-achieved by having a good style and one great tool. Boxing is far more forgiving to un-athletic guys than most other skills sports, but a great athlete like Ali can get away with poor technique and an athlete like Tyson can become a beast using traditional technique.

It is entirely possible that Dempsey could be physicaly stronger than Tyson and punch harder despite their physical disparities.
Actually, this is true. Anyone familiar with power or Olympic lifting can confirm this. However, let's get real: Tyson was stronger than Dempsey. The measurements were surprising.

[quote]
But you can't.

It is probably more like 10%

This is also a fair point. MLB pitchers can be frighteningly skinny and throw 98MPH. It's all about energy transfer, and it's the same in boxing. Speed/power, however, is genetic.

Tyson's were clearly fast twitch, more fast twitch than Dempseys. So not only was Tyson more muscular his muscles were better pound for pound than Dempseys.
This is total horseshit. Tyson was a fast-twitch animal, for sure, but so was Dempsey. Aside from Tyson and Ali, there aren't really any other heavyweights with speed like Dempsey. If you tack on a bunch of muscle on Dempsey's frame, his power increases significantly. Most likely, his speed stays fairly constant, though he'll fatigue faster naturally.


2. Tysons natural speed means he is more explosive. He uses strength and speed in his punches, some have 1 or the other, he combines both, thats why he was a phenomenon
You clearly don't know shit about Dempsey. He wrote that book.


In other words, just because Dempsey was 24 lbs lighter than a prime Tyson, it doesn't automatically mean that Dempsey would lose. Otherwise, you'd be forced into denying that Chagaev-Valuev ever happened.
Valuev is a fucking bum, and Tyson is the most explosive, exciting heavyweight puncher since..... Jack Dempsey. I doubt there's more than a few people on this board who'd argue Dempsey wouldn't KO a LOT of the real big heavyweights (6'3+, 220+) that've come along in the last few decades. He'd murder some of the big guys, but that's because of his talent. Put him in with a naturally bigger man with similar or in Tyson's case equal talent, and you've got another story. That is my problem with this fight. No way he makes up the weight deficit when dealing with an equal talent.

[spittle8]

However, in adopting this approach, Tyson would make Dempsey miss then make him pay. Tyson would be too accurate. A peak Tyson did not waste too many punches & he was very accuarate, especially with power shots or shots to take you out!

Dempsey did not know the importance of the jab & I not care what type of boxer, slugger you are, you have to jab. Its sets all else up.

Tyson by KO3
Tyson won't be good enough on his feet to escape Dempsey, and if he turtles up, Dempsey can get in close inside Tyson's power and launch devastating six-inch punches. Honestly, that would be the worst strategy for Tyson. Tyson should be trying to land something before Dempsey gets close. I guess I could see it lasting a few rounds if Tyson is careful or learns to respect Dempsey's power, but I can also see it ending quickly in one round. Of course, Dempsey has a definite puncher's chance, but I think this would be murder against Dempsey.

[The Kurgan]

Valuev is a fucking bum, and Tyson is the most explosive, exciting heavyweight puncher since..... Jack Dempsey. I doubt there's more than a few people on this board who'd argue Dempsey wouldn't KO a LOT of the real big heavyweights (6'3+, 220+) that've come along in the last few decades. He'd murder some of the big guys, but that's because of his talent. Put him in with a naturally bigger man with similar or in Tyson's case equal talent, and you've got another story. That is my problem with this fight. No way he makes up the weight deficit when dealing with an equal talent.

What about height differences?

[The Kurgan]

Are you serious? Corbett Jabbed, Fitzsimmons jabbed, Jeffries Jabbed, Tunney jabbed. Textbooks mentioned the jab as the first and most important punch to learn.

2. Lateral movement was either none existant or poor
Since we are talking about modern heavyweights, how many of today's fighters have any lateral movement at all? If we are limiting to Tyson and Dempsey discussion, they are almost identical on this level, although apparently statistics show that Dempsey's head moving and ducking was a little more successful, they are both outstanding in this area anyway. Tunney had far, far better lateral movement than any of Tyson's opponents, and certainly Corbett (another early heavyweight) was on another level to todays fighters.


3. Fighters used a low guard making them easier to hit

when did this change? The most successful fighters in modern times generally use the low guard. Ali, Vitali and Roy Jones stand out as three successful guys. Incidentally, if you read some old time manuals (Fitz for example), it shows that the low guard was not really used when a fighter got in close quarters (like Jones and Ali), so it is a little misleading to say that a low guard was used, because usually that hands were kept up when throwing punches and being attacked.



4. Combination punching isnt really there for most and if it is, the best are slower
I thought the 5 or 6 punch combination that Bill Lang finished off an ancient Fitzsimmons with was a pretty good combination and i dont really think he was a freak of nature. Dempsey's combinations on Willard were another pretty good example of combination punching. I really dont see how the old fighters were slower, when it is common ground that they had better stamina and were generally lighter (presumably faster). Incidentally, which modern fighters throw lightning fast combinations? Most today hit like trucks, but they also seem to accelerate like them as well.



Name one.

You may have got it the wrong way around here though. The bicep grab was identified as a lost art of defence a while ago. Jack Johnson' s body positioning particularly his head whilst in the clinch is another fine example where modern fighters are a little open for obvious reasons. Parrying and Deflecting doesnt seem to be as commonly used today.

I honestly cant think of a single technique which is used today but wasnt pre 30s. The only possibility is the 45 degree stance which is usually used. And perhaps the shifting of the weight from the back to front foot. This does help cover up and I would ahve thought helps defensive movement, although it does so presumably at the cost of a little offensive power. Jack Johnson is one fighter in particular though who saw both in the cross over period and preferred the older style. Many agreed with him. Although, i tend to think that the emulation of Louis and to a lesser degree Tunney (both of whom wold have still been good under the older stance) more than anything, lead to the finishing off of the older style stance.


Such as what?

Feints? Offence in the clinch? Be specific please.



How in the blue hell can you tell that the boxers are generally slower?

Being honest, half the time the jerky pre 1930 film is played at a sped up pace and they actually look up to twice as fast as modern fighters or even more. How slow did you think that John L looked on film? Which film have you seen which shows how slow prime Corbett, Jeffries or Fitzsimmons was? I would even settle for film of a slow Ruhlin, Maher, Langford or other. I really cant see hwo you can argue that older fighters were slower when the main criticism of modern fighters is that they are big, unfit and slow.

:shock:

Brutal, man. Just BRUTAL.

[Boilermaker]

On the topic of the fight, one thing which needs to be considered, given that everyone seems to be intent on making this a slugfest with action aplenty, is how each fighter might react to a knockdown. If this is indeed an out and out shootout, you would expect Dempsey to hit the floor, but you would also expect him to get up and keep swinging. How would Tyson be expected to go if this turns into a Louis Angel Firpo style slugfest. Can Tyson climb up from the Canvas and return fire like Dempsey did? Or does his chances of victory rely solely on him getting to Dempsey before Dempsey lands big on him?

Either way this is a good close fight between too great fighters. Maybe, just maybe, it is the greatest match up that could ever be made.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Are you serious? Corbett Jabbed, Fitzsimmons jabbed, Jeffries Jabbed, Tunney jabbed. Textbooks mentioned the jab as the first and most important punch to learn.

2. Lateral movement was either none existant or poor
Since we are talking about modern heavyweights, how many of today's fighters have any lateral movement at all? If we are limiting to Tyson and Dempsey discussion, they are almost identical on this level, although apparently statistics show that Dempsey's head moving and ducking was a little more successful, they are both outstanding in this area anyway. Tunney had far, far better lateral movement than any of Tyson's opponents, and certainly Corbett (another early heavyweight) was on another level to todays fighters.


3. Fighters used a low guard making them easier to hit

when did this change? The most successful fighters in modern times generally use the low guard. Ali, Vitali and Roy Jones stand out as three successful guys. Incidentally, if you read some old time manuals (Fitz for example), it shows that the low guard was not really used when a fighter got in close quarters (like Jones and Ali), so it is a little misleading to say that a low guard was used, because usually that hands were kept up when throwing punches and being attacked.


4. Combination punching isnt really there for most and if it is, the best are slower
I thought the 5 or 6 punch combination that Bill Lang finished off an ancient Fitzsimmons with was a pretty good combination and i dont really think he was a freak of nature. Dempsey's combinations on Willard were another pretty good example of combination punching. I really dont see how the old fighters were slower, when it is common ground that they had better stamina and were generally lighter (presumably faster). Incidentally, which modern fighters throw lightning fast combinations? Most today hit like trucks, but they also seem to accelerate like them as well.

5. LEss defensive techniques. Name one.You may have got it the wrong way around here though. The bicep grab was identified as a lost art of defence a while ago. Jack Johnson' s body positioning particularly his head whilst in the clinch is another fine example where modern fighters are a little open for obvious reasons. Parrying and Deflecting doesnt seem to be as commonly used today.

I honestly cant think of a single technique which is used today but wasnt pre 30s. The only possibility is the 45 degree stance which is usually used. And perhaps the shifting of the weight from the back to front foot. This does help cover up and I would ahve thought helps defensive movement, although it does so presumably at the cost of a little offensive power. Jack Johnson is one fighter in particular though who saw both in the cross over period and preferred the older style. Many agreed with him. Although, i tend to think that the emulation of Louis and to a lesser degree Tunney (both of whom wold have still been good under the older stance) more than anything, lead to the finishing off of the older style stance.


Such as what?

Feints? Offence in the clinch? Be specific please.

6. How in the blue hell can you tell that the boxers are generally slower?

Being honest, half the time the jerky pre 1930 film is played at a sped up pace and they actually look up to twice as fast as modern fighters or even more. How slow did you think that John L looked on film? Which film have you seen which shows how slow prime Corbett, Jeffries or Fitzsimmons was? I would even settle for film of a slow Ruhlin, Maher, Langford or other. I really cant see hwo you can argue that older fighters were slower when the main criticism of modern fighters is that they are big, unfit and slow.

1. Look at the film, the jabs of Holmes/Whitaker and it being used. Dempsey didn't use the jab its a weakness in his style. Tunney was 1 of the pioneers with the jab and it dominated Dempsey

2. Lateral movement as a whole is better amongst the best HWs/boxers of today, Jack Johnson for instance lacked lateral movement. Dempsey did not have better head movement than Tyson, he was caught more while facing lower quality opposition.

Its easy to quote Corbet when there is no film of film, its widely acknowledged he wasnt as a good as Johnson who neither had an impressive jab or lateral movement, but Im sure if there were no film of him you'd try to convince me otherwise

3. Fighters with great reactions/height like Jones/Ali/Vitali can get away with half or low guards by shot slipping. Dempsey did not have great reactions and was regularly hit because of his low guard. So were many others of the era, its a stylistic weakness unless you have ultra fast reactions

4. Show me a pre-1920s fighter who could throw combinations as precise and fast as Tyson and Jones Jr or even Holyfield. Dempsey with his wild swinging frankly has more in common with Mayorga than those 2 men. Dempseys pace/ was new for HW boxing, combinations were the exception rather than the rule then.

5. Well high about a high guard, circling to the right/left, shoulder rolling and even head movement and shot slipping wasnt nearly as advanced as a Whitaker/Loche.

Footwork, balance, movement have all seen big improvements over the decades and have declined in the last decade or so

6. Who are the fastest boxers of all time? Jones, Leonard, Ali, Meldrick Taylor, Mosley, Pacquaio, Patterson notice a patern none are pre-50s.

Heres a challenge find me pre 40s fighters who are faster than todays fastest of Jones Jr, Mosley, Pacquaio, Dawson, Dirrell. You won't find pre 40s fighter than those men, boxers are simply faster and sharper today

[PowerPuncher]

On the topic of the fight, one thing which needs to be considered, given that everyone seems to be intent on making this a slugfest with action aplenty, is how each fighter might react to a knockdown. If this is indeed an out and out shootout, you would expect Dempsey to hit the floor, but you would also expect him to get up and keep swinging. How would Tyson be expected to go if this turns into a Louis Angel Firpo style slugfest. Can Tyson climb up from the Canvas and return fire like Dempsey did? Or does his chances of victory rely solely on him getting to Dempsey before Dempsey lands big on him?

Either way this is a good close fight between too great fighters. Maybe, just maybe, it is the greatest match up that could ever be made.

Firpo is an unskilled weight lifter and had Dempsey nearly out. Dempsey was faster than Firpo and a better boxer, but Tyson is faster than Dempsey and would land first, he'd also land the jab which would back Dempsey up and set up combinations to the head and body. Tyson had faster more accurate punches and would land more, he would also hit harder because unlike Firpo he actually new how to punch. It may be unlikely Dempsey gets up and if he does you can be pretty sure Tyson would be all over him. Dempsey's body also looks soft and weak, hows he going to handle Tyson's body punching? I could see a body punch KO here

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5250373]1. Look at the film, the jabs of Holmes/Whitaker and it being used. Dempsey didn't use the jab its a weakness in his style.

How much did Tyson use the jab and how important was it when he did?

Tunney was 1 of the pioneers with the jab

No he wasn't.

The jab is a lot older than gloved boxing.

Jem Mace used the jab far more than he did any other punch.

2. Lateral movement as a whole is better amongst the best HWs/boxers of today, Jack Johnson for instance lacked lateral movement.

Even in the limited footage we have this is obviously not true.


Dempsey did not have better head movement than Tyson, he was caught more while facing lower quality opposition.


Dempsey slipped twice as many punches per round in the Gibbons fight as Tyson did in the Smith fight.

I would venture that Gibbons punches were probably faster and less predictable.

Its easy to quote Corbet when there is no film of film, its widely acknowledged he wasnt as a good as Johnson

Widely acknowledged by who?

who neither had an impressive jab or lateral movement,

You need to go back and look at the film again.

You have missed a lot.


3. Fighters with great reactions/height like Jones/Ali/Vitali can get away with half or low guards by shot slipping. Dempsey did not have great reactions and was regularly hit because of his low guard. So were many others of the era, its a stylistic weakness unless you have ultra fast reactions


It is not a stylistic weakness it is a high risk high reward strategy.

You take a higher risk of being hit to be better able to counter your oponent.

You seem to think that nobody had the idea of lifting up their hands to protect themself untill 1950 or so.

4. Show me a pre-1920s fighter who could throw combinations as precise and fast as Tyson and Jones Jr or even Holyfield.

Joe Gans.


Dempsey with his wild swinging frankly has more in common with Mayorga than those 2 men. Dempseys pace/ was new for HW boxing, combinations were the exception rather than the rule then.


There was nothing wild about Dempsey just like there was nothing wild about Tyson.

He looks wild due to the fact that the timing on the film is all over the place but everything he did was for a reason.


6. Who are the fastest boxers of all time? Jones, Leonard, Ali, Meldrick Taylor, Mosley, Pacquaio, Patterson notice a patern none are pre-50s.


I would venture that Young Griffo could have made that list.

Heres a challenge find me pre 40s fighters who are faster than todays fastest of Jones Jr, Mosley, Pacquaio, Dawson, Dirrell. You won't find pre 40s fighter than those men, boxers are simply faster and sharper today

Speed is genetic.

A fast fighter is basicaly born.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. How much did Tyson use the jab and how important was it when he did?

2. No he wasn't. The jab is a lot older than gloved boxing.

Jem Mace used the jab far more than he did any other punch.

3. Even in the limited footage we have this is obviously not true.

4. Dempsey slipped twice as many punches per round in the Gibbons fight as Tyson did in the Smith fight. I would venture that Gibbons punches were probably faster and less predictable. Widely acknowledged by who?

5. You need to go back and look at the film again. You have missed a lot.

6. It is not a stylistic weakness it is a high risk high reward strategy.
You take a higher risk of being hit to be better able to counter your oponent.

You seem to think that nobody had the idea of lifting up their hands to protect themself untill 1950 or so.

7. Joe Gans.

8. There was nothing wild about Dempsey just like there was nothing wild about Tyson. He looks wild due to the fact that the timing on the film is all over the place but everything he did was for a reason.

9. I would venture that Young Griffo could have made that list.

10. Speed is genetic. A fast fighter is basicaly born.

1. Prime Tyson always used the jab to stun and set up other shots, the jab is the easiest shto to land its critical. He often outjabbed bigger men

2. Show me a fighter on film that used the jab better than Tunney, pre-Tunney

3. Show me which fighters on film use lateral movement effectively

4. And Gibbons threw more punches, all Smith did was hold and spoil, Dempsey should be slipping more :patschDempsey was still hit more than Tyson while fighting lesser opponents

5. Johnson clearly backs up in straight lines and clearly throws a very basic jab with poor technique. If you can't see that you don't know jabbing or lateral movement

6. Fighting with low hands without being fast and without using a jab, which is what Demsey did, is a unnessarily high risk and very unlikely reward strategy. And Tunney demonstrated this beautiful despited being a natural LHW

7. Gans was a great innovater himself, he'd be successful today although he isnt as complete/advanced as Duran/Whitaker at the weight

8. LEading with a hook is wild, lunging in with your hands down without a jab is wild. Dempsey did all these things, Tyson did not while at his best

9. I havent seen Young Griffo but unless I see it I doubt he makes the list. I think your emphasising my point though that in 30years of filmed boxing footage you're struggling to find any boxer as fast as those top10 speedsters around today

10. Speed like anything else is a result of training, nutrition and genetics, otherwise sprinters wouldnt bother training their asses off and getting their diets/supplements right. Its like saying stamina is something your born with, so dont bother doing distance training/intervals etc. Power is something your born with so dont both practising your punch technique and training on the heavy bag before a fight. Different training methods yield different results

[Boilermaker]

Firpo is an unskilled weight lifter and had Dempsey nearly out. Dempsey was faster than Firpo and a better boxer, but Tyson is faster than Dempsey and would land first, he'd also land the jab which would back Dempsey up and set up combinations to the head and body. Tyson had faster more accurate punches and would land more, he would also hit harder because unlike Firpo he actually new how to punch. It may be unlikely Dempsey gets up and if he does you can be pretty sure Tyson would be all over him. Dempsey's body also looks soft and weak, hows he going to handle Tyson's body punching? I could see a body punch KO here

For the record, i havent predicted a winner yet.

The question is, how does Tyson react in the case of Dempsey landing big, and dropping him and hurting him. Is tyson able to come back and land big after he is dropped, or does his hope of winning rely solely on outclassing Dempsey and being good enough to avoid Dempseys heavy arterial.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor;5250445]

[quote]
1. Prime Tyson always used the jab to stun and set up other shots, the jab is the easiest shto to land its critical. He often outjabbed bigger men


Of course we don't have a career boxed set of Dempseys fights from which to cherry pick him doing this that and the other.


2. Show me a fighter on film that used the jab better than Tunney, pre-Tunney


Show me a fighter pre Tunney of who there is any decent footage of.

Watch Jack Johnson against Fireman Flynn. I see no reason for saying that Tunney had taken it to another level.

3. Show me which fighters on film use lateral movement effectively

Bob Fitzsimmons.


4. And Gibbons threw more punches, all Smith did was hold and spoil, Dempsey should be slipping more :patschDempsey was still hit more than Tyson while fighting lesser opponents


If Gibbons was throwing more punches then presumably he posed a much stiffer test of Dempseys defence and was not what you call "lesser opposition".


5. Johnson clearly backs up in straight lines and clearly throws a very basic jab with poor technique. If you can't see that you don't know jabbing or lateral movement


I know them well enough but I suspect that you are not verry good at interpreting the old films.

It is a skillset in itself as important as the jab or lateral movment.

Watch Johnson Burns throughout and dont look at anything except Johnsons feet.

Watch Johnson tag Flyn with five sucessive jabs and then try to find sombody today doing the same to an oponent.


6. Fighting with low hands without being fast and without using a jab, which is what Demsey did, is a unnessarily high risk and very unlikely reward strategy. And Tunney demonstrated this beautiful despited being a natural LHW


You have to make some alowance for the fact that Tunney fought a dilapidated Dempsey who had been taking beatings from his sparring partners.

If James Douglas happened to be the first jab happy fighter to benefit from good quality film we might be arguing that he beat Tyson because he made effective use of the jab.

David Haye is an example of a modern fighter who uses a low guard the way I am talking about.

7. Gans was a great innovater himself, he'd be successful today although he isnt as complete/advanced as Duran/Whitaker at the weight

Gans was probably an inovator but he copied a lot from fighters like Fitzsimmons.

8. LEading with a hook is wild, lunging in with your hands down without a jab is wild. Dempsey did all these things, Tyson did not while at his best

Dempsey gets sold shot somewhat by the film.

There is some slowed down footage of Dempsey around now and he looks a million times more slick than in the traditional newsreels. It clarifies his head movment somwhat and leading with a hook dosn't seem like such a crime because it is obviously unpredictable.

Incidentaly Willard looks a lot better as well.


9. I havent seen Young Griffo but unless I see it I doubt he makes the list. I think your emphasising my point though that in 30years of filmed boxing footage you're struggling to find any boxer as fast as those top10 speedsters around today


You never will see Young Griffo because there is no footage.

However if you read acounts of his fights it sounds as if he had Roy Jones type speed. He was just frustrating good technicians because of his reflexes.


10. Speed like anything else is a result of training, nutrition and genetics, otherwise sprinters wouldnt bother training their asses off and getting their diets/supplements right. Its like saying stamina is something your born with, so dont bother doing distance training/intervals etc. Power is something your born with so dont both practising your punch technique and training on the heavy bag before a fight. Different training methods yield different results


I think that handspeed and power are verry diferent to running speed and stamina. It is like multiple footraces of a single step.

Throwing a punch is a neuromuscular action more than anything else. It is down to the brains ability to control the body.

You will never create another Roy Jones or Earnie Shavers. You have to wait for one to be born.

[Boilermaker]

1. Look at the film, the jabs of Holmes/Whitaker and it being used. Dempsey didn't use the jab its a weakness in his style. Tunney was 1 of the pioneers with the jab and it dominated Dempsey

Dempsey used the jab almost the exact same way that Tyson used it. Tunney beat Dempsey with the jab, but Lennox Lewis beat Tyson just as easily with the jab also. Neither is Dempsey or Tyson is likely to jab like that to face the other, but if they were, you would have to back Dempsey more, with his height advantage and the fact that he does have a better outside game than Tyson. I think it is irrelevant though. What do Holmes and whittaker do with the Jab that is so different to what Tunney and Gans do with a jab? There are plenty of other examples.



2. Lateral movement as a whole is better amongst the best HWs/boxers of today, Jack Johnson for instance lacked lateral movement. Dempsey did not have better head movement than Tyson, he was caught more while facing lower quality opposition.

Its easy to quote Corbet when there is no film of film, its widely acknowledged he wasnt as a good as Johnson who neither had an impressive jab or lateral movement, but Im sure if there were no film of him you'd try to convince me otherwise



So which current boxers are the great example of lateral movements?


3. Fighters with great reactions/height like Jones/Ali/Vitali can get away with half or low guards by shot slipping. Dempsey did not have great reactions and was regularly hit because of his low guard. So were many others of the era, its a stylistic weakness unless you have ultra fast reactions


So, Vitali has ultra fast reactions now? What about David Haye, is he a freak of nature reaction wise? Dont you think it is a safe bet that some of the older fighters themselves had pretty decent reactions?



4. Show me a pre-1920s fighter who could throw combinations as precise and fast as Tyson and Jones Jr or even Holyfield. Dempsey with his wild swinging frankly has more in common with Mayorga than those 2 men. Dempseys pace/ was new for HW boxing, combinations were the exception rather than the rule then.


you seem to forget that there is only a limited amount of film of fighters in the 20s and every single one looks super fast because the film is sped up too fast (or at times super slow). You cannot compare the two speeds. But before i give this a go, why doent you show me a post 1990 heavyweight who had faster hands and better combinations than Jones or Tyson.


5. Well high about a high guard, circling to the right/left, shoulder rolling and even head movement and shot slipping wasnt nearly as advanced as a Whitaker/Loche.

Footwork, balance, movement have all seen big improvements over the decades and have declined in the last decade or so


A high guard, you mean like John L Sullivans? Circling to the right or left, you mean like the way Corbett describes doing in his fight with Sullivan? Head movement and shot slipping, you mean like young griffo used to do when he avoided punches without stepping off his handkerchief (or do you think that he used magic orsome better way).

Since Footwork, balance and movement is so improved, why does someone like say former world champion Hasim Rahman look so unbalanced in the ring at times.



6. Who are the fastest boxers of all time? Jones, Leonard, Ali, Meldrick Taylor, Mosley, Pacquaio, Patterson notice a patern none are pre-50s.

Heres a challenge find me pre 40s fighters who are faster than todays fastest of Jones Jr, Mosley, Pacquaio, Dawson, Dirrell. You won't find pre 40s fighter than those men, boxers are simply faster and sharper today

Well Sugar Ray Robinson debuted in 1940. I am guessing your pretty glad that wasnt a year earlier but their must have been a big change in that year. Incidentally, Tunney is probably the fastest heavyweight outside of Ali.

[rm36]

Tyson would win with an early rounds KO. He was faster, bigger, he had a harder punch and had a better defense.

[Vanboxingfan]

Haven't read the thread, but if forced to, I'd pick Tyson. Having said that I love Dempsey and would be routing for him. I just think Tyson's a bigger version of Dempsey in many respects and that extra 20-30lbs becomes a factor.

[spittle8]

What about height differences?
Between Dempsey and Tyson? Dempsey is taller and has a greater reach.

On the topic of the fight, one thing which needs to be considered, given that everyone seems to be intent on making this a slugfest with action aplenty, is how each fighter might react to a knockdown. If this is indeed an out and out shootout, you would expect Dempsey to hit the floor, but you would also expect him to get up and keep swinging. How would Tyson be expected to go if this turns into a Louis Angel Firpo style slugfest. Can Tyson climb up from the Canvas and return fire like Dempsey did? Or does his chances of victory rely solely on him getting to Dempsey before Dempsey lands big on him?

Either way this is a good close fight between too great fighters. Maybe, just maybe, it is the greatest match up that could ever be made.
I doubt it happens, but if Dempsey hurts and drops Tyson, Tyson is in serious shit. Dempsey would be fully aware of the danger Tyson poses and would go at Tyson with everything he had.

[Marnoff]

Mike Tyson By early fight stoppage. Dempsey will slug it out with Tyson. Tyson will ko Dempsey early

Fully agreed.

[The Kurgan]

Between Dempsey and Tyson? Dempsey is taller and has a greater reach.


So Tyson is the naturally heavier man, but not the taller man. Let's at least have some balance here.

[ChrisPontius]

The part about the law of diminishing returns is true, but it only kicks in at LHW in the sense of a negative derivative, if you will. That is, adding extra weight is going to help, but 10 extra pounds does not do as much at LHW as it did at middleweight. And it does even less at CW. But the point of where adding extra weight doesn't translate to functional strength/power at all can be as high as 250lbs, although this obviously differs a lot per boxer.

My point is that there's still a very big difference in terms of power and strength between a natural, in shape 215lbs hitter like Tyson and a 190lbs hitter like Dempsey. It would be foolish to suggest that Tyson has reached the point where the added weight doesn't help him compared to a 190lbs'er.

Anyone who has boxed or sparred knows that there's a huge difference between being in the ring with a 190lbs guy and a 220lbs guy.

It is a historic thing. Dempsey was the Tyson of his day. But today's Dempsey is bigger and stronger. In Jack's time, the average height was several inches shorter and in-shape heavyweight that scaled over 200lbs were rather rare. There was barely any talent over 210lbs. When one did come along - Jeffries, Johnson - they ruled supreme.

Tyson comes from and had to compete with a huge talent pool over the 210lbs. Most of Dempsey's opponents could or have competed at LHW. This cannot be said about Mike's opposition. A guy like Firpo, whose skills are absolutely horrible, got to the absolute top by his extraordinary physical strength and size only - and nearly stopped Dempsey despite a huge disparity in skill level. In Tyson's day, the only extraordinary thing about Firpo would be his Spanish accent and Tyson was facing guys like him who could actually box.


As for Tyson's height, it's actually an advantage here. Close combat always favors the shorter, stronger boxer while the tall, lankier fighter has the advantage on the outside in jabbing, sticking and moving. But Dempsey is going to do none of that because he never did. He's going for the KO but so is Tyson. One drives an F40 and the other a Veyron. Take your pick. My heart says the F40 but rationally thinking, the Veyron takes it.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Dempsey used the jab almost the exact same way that Tyson used it. Tunney beat Dempsey with the jab, but Lennox Lewis beat Tyson just as easily with the jab also. Neither is Dempsey or Tyson is likely to jab like that to face the other, but if they were, you would have to back Dempsey more, with his height advantage and the fact that he does have a better outside game than Tyson.

2. I think it is irrelevant though. What do Holmes and whittaker do with the Jab that is so different to what Tunney and Gans do with a jab? There are plenty of other examples.

3. So which current boxers are the great example of lateral movements?

4. So, Vitali has ultra fast reactions now? What about David Haye, is he a freak of nature reaction wise? Dont you think it is a safe bet that some of the older fighters themselves had pretty decent reactions?

5. you seem to forget that there is only a limited amount of film of fighters in the 20s and every single one looks super fast because the film is sped up too fast (or at times super slow). You cannot compare the two speeds. But before i give this a go, why doent you show me a post 1990 heavyweight who had faster hands and better combinations than Jones or Tyson.

6. A high guard, you mean like John L Sullivans? Circling to the right or left, you mean like the way Corbett describes doing in his fight with Sullivan? Head movement and shot slipping, you mean like young griffo used to do when he avoided punches without stepping off his handkerchief (or do you think that he used magic orsome better way).

7. Since Footwork, balance and movement is so improved, why does someone like say former world champion Hasim Rahman look so unbalanced in the ring at times.

8. Well Sugar Ray Robinson debuted in 1940. I am guessing your pretty glad that wasnt a year earlier but their must have been a big change in that year. Incidentally, Tunney is probably the fastest heavyweight outside of Ali.

1. Now you either dont know what a jab is or your lying, either way it makes a joke of your post. Dempsey didn't throw a jab. Tyson doubled and trippled the jab outjabbing taller/rangier opponents to compare the 2 is laughable.

Dempsey never proved himself against a good jabber, Tyson beat many excellent great jabbers in Holmes/Thomas/Tubbs/Bruno etc etc.

2. Faster snappier jabs that are doubled and trippled while using lateral movement

3. Plenty have lateral movement today, dont you watch boxing?

4. Vitali and Haye aren't greats but Vitali has the height and Haye the speed/reactions. They have both paid for their hands down defense though, Vitali against Lennox and Haye against Mormeck

5. I take that as admitting today's fighters are faster, they clearly are if you allow for the film being sped up. I'm not suggesting boxing today is at its peak I'd say it has declined since the 80s/90s

6. I ask you to produce film from 40 years of boxing and the best you can do is pretend the boxers prior to this filmed timed employed techniques that they suddenly stopped using with the invention of motion picture recording :lol: rather convenient. And as for Corbett he looks about as skillfull as John Ruiz from the footage we have of him

7. Because Rahman doesn't represent the best of our era and started boxing late, having said that he'd look like a genius in 1890.

8. Tunney the second fastest HW? Faster than Patterson? Jones Jr? Tyson? Holmes? Charles? Conn? Holyfield? Maybe faster than a couple of those but not most of them.

I think Tunney is indeed a great and 1 of the pioneers of boxing

BTW RObinson wouldnt nearly be the fastest today either

[Muchmoore]

Beautiful little dips and tucks of the head and chin, combined with tip-toe footwork and top-line mobility against Jess Willard. His head movement was arbitary, economical and very quick all with his head properly positioned.

I wish he'd used this style against Firpo, too, instead of slugging, but you could argue Firpo took that decision out of his hands. Basically Willard is the only opponent he boxes against as though he's out-gunned, which i'm assuming he would also do were he to be matched with Tyson prime for prime.

To be perfectly fair though, Willard was a stationary, slow, plodding giant. It isn't hard to look like a master boxer with top notch defense against that type of fighter.

I do agree though that Dempsey at his peak had nice skills though. He has the best mobility of any puncher that's ever lived in my honest opinion, but as for his defense being better than Tyson, that's debatable.

I can see Dempsey being a bit of a super heavyweight destroyer, he tended to struggle with the smaller guys that could stick and move moreso than the regular sterotypical heavyweights. Eddie Machen would of been a really tough matchup for any Dempsey.

I have to pick Tyson here, and to be honest I feel as confident with that pick as I can be considering it's Jack Dempsey we're talking about. Tyson is better in the areas that will count most, as in power and chin. Tyson early.

[Bokaj]

For me, the talk about Dempsey's fantastic defense seems like, as very much concerning the man, a myth. I've seen Dempsey against Willard, Firpo, Brennan, Gibbons, Carpentier and Tunney, and the only one of them who seemed to have very big trouble hitting him was Willard. A 37-year old who had been inactive for three years.

Carpentier, for example, got to Dempsey with right hand leads at will, they just didn't bother him any. Even Firpo managed to tag him with wild, crude swings - and Tunney of course used his face for target practice. How on earth can this compare to Tyson? Anyone who believes Firpo would even come close to tagging prime Tyson, much less hurt him, is delusional. No ifs, no butts.

While I don't see Dempsey as a great mid-range fighter (he only looked the part against Willard), I'm much more impressed by his inside work. He had deadly short, compact punches. This much of his legend is true. Don't think it would be enough against Tyson of 1988, though.

Tyson wins by early KO.

[spittle8]

1. Now you either dont know what a jab is or your lying, either way it makes a joke of your post. Dempsey didn't throw a jab. Tyson doubled and trippled the jab outjabbing taller/rangier opponents to compare the 2 is laughable.
Read Dempsey's book. He had a very good jab that would be used to stun a guy while coming in. I actually learned my jab from his book.

So Tyson is the naturally heavier man, but not the taller man. Let's at least have some balance here.
Neither fighter fights tall. Dempsey is built stylistically for fighting taller fighters IMO, same with Tyson. I think Dempsey is a little more open, though. Dempsey might be able to slip and dance around taller fighters, but Tyson won't play that game. He'll stay in the pocket and look for an opening. If Tyson keeps his distance I think Dempsey is screwed. I think Dempsey's only chance is to close the distance without getting smacked, and then make Tyson brawl. That would of course be a gamble, but I see no other realistic way for Dempsey.

[Boilermaker]

To be perfectly fair though, Willard was a stationary, slow, plodding giant. It isn't hard to look like a master boxer with top notch defense against that type of fighter.


Maybe, but to perfectly fair, that is the best way to describe at least 50 percent of Tyson's, and most other modern fighters, opponents.

[Boilermaker]

1. Now you either dont know what a jab is or your lying, either way it makes a joke of your post. Dempsey didn't throw a jab. Tyson doubled and trippled the jab outjabbing taller/rangier opponents to compare the 2 is laughable.

I call the jab a straight punch with the left hand, but maybe that definition has changed with modern improvements or innovations. Why did Dempsey include the jab in his manual, if he never used it. That is ridiculous. Do you think he always lead with his write or something, or only threw a left hook or uppercut?



Dempsey never proved himself against a good jabber, Tyson beat many excellent great jabbers in Holmes/Thomas/Tubbs/Bruno etc etc.

What about Fulton, Miske, Smith, Levinsky, Kellar.



2. Faster snappier jabs that are doubled and trippled while using lateral movement


I will bet Dempsay wishes he would have thought that he should throw his punch faster and with more snap:patsch And if only someone had told their older fighters that after they landed the first jab, they could have fired back with a second jab or even a third I bet they never thought of that. Incidentally, the liberal holding rules did probably reduce this tactic a bit. How many triple jabs has John Ruiz been hit with in his career. Actually it may have even reduced combination punching a bit. This is one reason most modern fighters are at a disadvantage against the older fighters. Their skills are not equipped to deal with aspects of the game which have been largely outlawed, although not that relevent to consider against Dempsey or Tyson.


3. Plenty have lateral movement today, dont you watch boxing?


I am only really considering the heavyweight division whne i make that statement. Which of todays contenders excells with lateral movement - Valuev? Areola? Austin? It is the exception rather than the rule.



4. Vitali and Haye aren't greats but Vitali has the height and Haye the speed/reactions. They have both paid for their hands down defense though, Vitali against Lennox and Haye against Mormeck

You are probably right about them not being great, though Vitali may end up great. Point is though, they both reached world champion level witht he low guard, and in your estimation were not great natural talents. I dont, by the way advocate the low guard just pointing out that it is not impossible to succeed with it. And by the way the two fighters i just referred to are probably better described as a one handed low guard because their left nearly always hangs down at the front of their body.


5. I take that as admitting today's fighters are faster, they clearly are if you allow for the film being sped up. I'm not suggesting boxing today is at its peak I'd say it has declined since the 80s/90s

It is impossible to tell. Watching both films together, the older boxers will throw 3 or 4 punches in the time it takes modern boxers to throw 2. If you saw film of Roy Jones throwing 3 or 4 punches in the time it takes vitali Klitchsko to throw one, you could safely say that Roy is faster than Vitali. You can not make speed judgments (one way or the other) solely on the film. But if you did, it wouldnt be close, old timers are much faster.

As a whole though, I would say that older boxers were fitter, faster and more mobile than todays fighters because of the way they trained and their mindset. Todays fighters are slower, but probably stronger again because of training and mindset mostly. Which is better well i am sure most people would go with the strength and power, but i dont think that i would.


6. I ask you to produce film from 40 years of boxing and the best you can do is pretend the boxers prior to this filmed timed employed techniques that they suddenly stopped using with the invention of motion picture recording :lol: rather convenient. And as for Corbett he looks about as skillfull as John Ruiz from the footage we have of him


Well why dont we start with head movement. Janitor already told you that Dempsey slipped and avoided more punches than Mike Tyson did, statistically. Your response was that this was only because the opponent threw more punches. It take it from this that you have viewed and agreed that slipping and avoid punches was common in the earlier times, since it is plain for all to see (as much as film quality can allow) right there in film.



7. Because Rahman doesn't represent the best of our era and started boxing late, having said that he'd look like a genius in 1890.

Well he certainly isnt alone, Sam Peter is another who jumps out, without trying to thing. Rahman wouldnt be considered a genius in any era, that is just stupid. What about Kirk Johnson. Considered a clever boxer type today who reached world title challenging level. He d have been a no hoper, immobile big slugger who couldnt last back in the older days. I doubt hed be remembered or anywhere near a world title. If he was, he would be greatly criticised.


8. Tunney the second fastest HW? Faster than Patterson? Jones Jr? Tyson? Holmes? Charles? Conn? Holyfield? Maybe faster than a couple of those but not most of them.


Arguably. So is Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Greb, even Jeffries or Sullivan and plenty of others. Certainly i think those guys are as fast or faster than Holyfield.


I think Tunney is indeed a great and 1 of the pioneers of boxing

BTW RObinson wouldnt nearly be the fastest today either

A pioneer that coincides with improved quality of filmed world title fights. Very coincidental.

[spittle8]

We have no way of knowing how fast Sullivan or Corbett or Jeffries really were. Insufficient evidence. There is no film of Greb, and that needs to be considered. It's definitely a bullshit argument that old-timers were slow and immobile -- watching the film you see they were generally very nimble on their feet.

[MrMarvel]

It's not a dream fight for me. It's a mismatch. Tyson crushes Dempsey.

[RockyJim]

Tyson has never gotten off the canvas to come back and win a fight..much less get knocked out of the ring and come back and win a fight....I'll take Dempsey in this one..
...SHOULD be a classic!!!

[SpanishArcher]

Tyson has never gotten off the canvas to come back and win a fight..much less get knocked out of the ring and come back and win a fight!

Thats beacuse his chin is too solid for him to be knocked down while still being ˙˙in the fight˙˙ so to speak. You must punish him, and punch his head off for most of the fight to put him down. :good

[janitor]

Thats beacuse his chin is too solid for him to be knocked down while still being ˙˙in the fight˙˙ so to speak. You must punish him, and punch his head off for most of the fight to put him down. :good

You mean that the laws of physics come into play and it dosn't matter little chance the man had against the fantasy Tyson.

He takes too many punches and it is goodnight.

[Hatesrats]

Different era's..
H2H it would be impossible to pick Dempsey, IMO.
Tyson by K.O.

[SpanishArcher]

You mean that the laws of physics come into play and it dosn't matter little chance the man had against the fantasy Tyson.

He takes too many punches and it is goodnight.

You are a complete delusional fool and I wont waste anymore of my prescious time trying to explain something to you that little children would understand. Go and jerk off on Dempsey and other oldtimers and leave the rest of us alone in the reality world. :good Oh and Jack Dempsey isnt in the top 20 of the biggest punchers of all times and he's a skinny man who would fall to pieces the minute Tyson charged him it would be a brutual masacer with Dempsey ending up in the hospital. :deal Tyson KO1 (29 seconds) :deal

[PowerPuncher]

You mean that the laws of physics come into play and it dosn't matter little chance the man had against the fantasy Tyson.

He takes too many punches and it is goodnight.

Your seriously quoting the laws of physics now? :lol:

[PetethePrince]

Guys, 2 years earlier Flynn punched through Dempsey's guard and knocked him out cold within the first 10 seconds of the fight. Dempsey was on his back for at least 20 seconds. Starving or note, I think this is an absolute nightmare stylistic matchup where Dempsey gets overwhelmed and looks not only small but inferior in virtually every category imaginable. That being said, It's not far-fetched for Dempsey to survive a first round slaughter at his best, perhaps rally briefly and make a somewhat exciting fight for a brief inclusion of the fight. Dempsey was a very tough and hard man with some underappreciated skills. But let's not gloss over the reality. Tyson is getting him out of their most likely inside of 3 rounds. There's about a 1-3% chance Dempsey survives to 5 or so rounds and takes Mike in the latter rounds to defeat him.

[janitor]

Your seriously quoting the laws of physics now? :lol:

We both believe in the laws of physics we just don't agree as to what they are.

I am afraid they don't mean that a fighter who is 30 lbs heavier necisarily hits harder, or is more durable or physicaly stronger.

They sure as hell don't mean that he has an ealy night or that the fight unfolds to a given script.

If you treat this fight as being that simplistic then you are doing everybody a diservice.

[Maxmomer]

Different era's..
H2H it would be impossible to pick Dempsey, IMO.
Tyson by K.O.

I pick Dempsey. Boom.

[janitor]

You are a complete delusional fool and I wont waste anymore of my prescious time trying to explain something to you that little children would understand. Go and jerk off on Dempsey and other oldtimers and leave the rest of us alone in the reality world. :good Oh and Jack Dempsey isnt in the top 20 of the biggest punchers of all times and he's a skinny man who would fall to pieces the minute Tyson charged him it would be a brutual masacer with Dempsey ending up in the hospital. :deal Tyson KO1 (29 seconds) :deal

You havn't tried to explain anything to me you have just repeated how you think the fight would turn out and periodicaly insulted me.

Perhaps one day you will be wise enough to know how little you know.