Tyson vs Lewis Primes

[Dave Rado]

Who ranks Dempsey higher than Tyson?

Among many others, ESPN, Bert Sugar, James Slater, and in short, pretty well every ATG list you can find. In fact, I challenge you to find a single ATG list by a reputable boxing expert that doesn't rank Dempsey higher than Tyson.

[them_apples]

Among many others, ESPN, Bert Sugar, James Slater, and in short, pretty well every ATG list you can find. In fact, I challenge you to find a single ATG list by a reputable boxing expert that doesn't rank Dempsey higher than Tyson.

I know but have you ever looked into it? a lot of deluded historians put him at like no.3

Look at what he's done in his career and get back to me. Dempsey should not rate Higher than Mike.

Other fighters can, but Dempsey is not one of them.

[Dave Rado]

And Tyson beat who exactly?

Rahman and McCall werent as weak as Buster Douglas.

Douglas in that fight would have troubled any ATG in history - he gave the performance of his life in that fight, and was a highly talented boxer who usually underperformed, but didn't in that fight.

[Dave Rado]

And how exactly does Mike Spinks remind you of Lennox Lewis? One was a giant heavyweight with solid skills, the other was a frightened lightheavy there to cash a paycheck.

He was referring to the point which marked the end of Tyson's peak and the start of his decline, he wasn't comparing Spinks with any other fighter.

[Scott9945]

nothing is more overated then Ali's defense. floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee only worked against Liston, the rest of his career was him getting hit flush and being tough enough to come back.

not a knock, just by heavyweight standards Mike had good defense. p4p, yea it's nothing.

You have to make two categories for Ali's defense, one pre exile and the other post exile. His defense is what suffered the most during his forced layoff.

[Scott9945]

He was referring to the point which marked the end of Tyson's peak and the start of his decline, he wasn't comparing Spinks with any other fighter.

And my point is that the talent Mike was beating at his peak doesn't even compare to a prime Lennox Lewis. Obviously you could reverse that, but IMO it would always have been a bad style matchup for Tyson.

[Dave Rado]

I know but have you ever looked into it? a lot of deluded historians put him at like no.3

Look at what he's done in his career and get back to me. Dempsey should not rate Higher than Mike.

Other fighters can, but Dempsey is not one of them.

Monte Cox's analysis of Dempsey:

The highest rated of the swarming heavyweights. The Manassa Mauler was not only one of the most exciting heavyweight champions in history he was also one of the ring's greatest all time pound for pound fighters. Dempsey has one of the best knockout records in history with a winning streak of 32-0 with 28 knockouts. His 25 first round knockouts are a record in the heavyweight division. Dempsey was a bob and weave swarmer who attacked violently from the opening bell. He could box inside, he could punch, and he could take a punch. He had excellent foot speed and could also maneuver around fairly well for his style. At 6’1” 190 pounds he might be considered smallish by today’s standards but he had the power and ability to knock out much larger opponents as his victories over Willard and Firpo aptly demonstrated.

And his analysis of Tyson:

The biggest, fastest, strongest and most powerful of the swarming type heavyweights. His speed and explosive power rate among the best ever. In his prime he also had fine defensive skills. Hank Kaplan wrote, that his “defense is the best seen in the heavyweight division in many years.” In his fights with Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker each man only landed one significant punch in their entire fights. Tyson’s perpetual motion bob and weave was designed to make an opponent miss while always being in position to punch. He was very elusive with his upper body. He was able to anticipate an opponent’s attack, slip their punches and counter perfectly. Tyson was one of those fighters who after winning the title could not stay on the top of his game mentally. While lacking the durability and mental toughness of many of the other great heavyweights his physical talent and punching power is enough to defeat many of them. But because he lost his legacy fights (Douglas, Holyfield 1 and 2, Lewis) he cannot rate higher in a historical sense. One has to wonder if he would freeze up and fold against other all time greats who were not afraid of him.

Anyway, when pretty much every serious boxing analyst in the world who gets paid for his knowledge of boxing rates Dempsey higher, and then someone in a forum who doesn't get paid for his knowledge of boxing says the whole lot of them are just idiots, that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. If you disagree with them, fine, but to call them idiots when they are considered experts and you are not just strikes me as hubris.

[Dave Rado]

And my point is that the talent Mike was beating at his peak doesn't even compare to a prime Lennox Lewis.

That's a given but it doesn't necessarily mean he'd lose. I think he probably would lose, but not for that reason.

[Dave Rado]

You have to make two categories for Ali's defense, one pre exile and the other post exile. His defense is what suffered the most during his forced layoff.

I agree, his legs were his defence, and he could no longer dance for 12 rounds against anyone, after his exile.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Douglas in that fight would have troubled any ATG in history - he gave the performance of his life in that fight, and was a highly talented boxer who usually underperformed, but didn't in that fight.

I dont neccesarily agree with such romanticism. I know his mother just died and he did fight the fight of his life but his style more than anything exposed fundamental flaws in Tyson. But I dunno if many ATG heavyweights would allow themselves to be exposed in that fashion.