What gap, if any, exists between Dempsey and Tyson?

G'morning everyone, the end of the working week is nigh, so if anyone's interested maybe you can give me your views on this little number which is inspired by Trussman's 'Stop selling Tyson short' article. Better than derailing it, I thought I'd set this partcular debate aside.

Much as it's irked many of our most esteemed posters on here, I've always been consistent in my views of Jack Dempsey; namely, that he was a great Heavyweight, but not as great as often portrayed. There was a time when I couldn't even find room for him within my top ten Heavyweights of all time, albeit I've relented slightly in that respect in recent times. Even so, if the 'Manassa Mauler' does make it in, it's only by the skin of his teeth in my eyes. I can't quite shake the feeling that Dempsey's huge contributions to the popularisation of boxing in the roaring twenties, bringing it to a financial level which had been, until just a few years previously, complete unimaginable, serve as a convenient crutch to help overplay what he actually did (or rather, sometimes didn't do) in the ring.

Now, I'm sure each and every one of you will have your own views on that particular contention of mine - so please let them be known below! But more to the point, I'd like to pick your brains on another issue; surely, if I'm selling Dempsey short and he is in fact the Heavyweight giant others seem to think, then Mike Tyson must be exactly that, too?

Conventional wisdom paints Dempsey as one of the godfathers of Heavyweight boxing, and certainly part of the very, very elite. On the other hand, Tyson's place in history is more contested and, even if he's granted one, it's seldom as flattering as the one afforded to Dempsey, whose ferocity and tenacity made him an idol of the young Tyson. For instance, a few months back us 606v2 users collectively made Dempsey the third greatest Heavyweight of the lot, while Tyson languished a whole ten places behind, at thirteenth. Now I'm not berating anyone who places Jack higher than Mike, but my overall question is this:

Seriously fellas, how on earth can a gap of ten spots between the two be justified?

The more I think about it, the more I find myself thinking that Tyson, all things considered, has a very decent claim to be ahead of Jack, but more importantly I believe that if he is behind Dempsey, then it simply can't be by anything even approaching ten spots.

Both Dempsey and Tyson ascended to the world title on the back of sensational knock out runs. Both of them became noted for their explosiveness, aggression and heavy hitting. Both of them found that this style took a heavy toll, leaving them a shadow of their former selves by the time they hit their thirties.

So far, there are plenty of valid comparisons to be made. So where exactly does Jack suddenly gain this huge edge? Is it opposition beaten? Jess Willard, from whom Dempsey ripped the title, had a good right hand and a huge frame, but what else? Here's a man who was already at an age when most are considering hanging the gloves up by the time Dempsey got to him, a man who had been largely inactive, a man who presided over one of the least impressive title reigns of any Heavyweight champion, and who, if we were to be brutally honest and to the point, was really a lumbering (although also very, very game) gatekeeper who was in the right place at the right time. Does anybody have the smallest shred of doubt that Tyson would have done exactly the same? Surely his efforts in taking the WBC title from Berbick aren't all that much less worthy of merit, if at all?

While I've alluded to both men having relatively empty tanks by the age of thirty, it should also be noted that, if there is an edge in longevity, it rests with Tyson. Nine successful title defences in his first reign, during which he annexed all versions of the crown, tore away lineal recognition from Michael Spinks and generally cut through the divison with an arrogance only seldom seem before, and certainly not seen since. Dempsey's title reign started well enough (off the top of my head, he crammed in three defences within his first year as champion) but certainly tailed off afterwards. By the time Gene Tunney outslicked him in 1926, Dempsey had compiled five successful defences within a seven year span, hardly prolific in any era. While Bruce Seldon was nothing to get excited about, it shouldn't be forgotten that Tyson was still picking up titles a whole decade after his first.

Opposition beaten by each man is roughly of an equal quality, too. If there is an edge with Jack, it's certainly not to a degree of ten spaces in the all-time stakes. Willard, Firpo, Fulton and Jack Sharkey simply don't represent a better collective batch of Heavyweights than Smith, Tucker, Thomas and Bruno, in my opinion. Sharkey, perhaps, is worthy of slight exception there, but remains a man who is primarily remembered as an unfulfilled talent, not entirely dissimilar to Thomas or Tony Tubbs, incidentally, both of whom Tyson beat convincingly (lest we forget, Sharkey was handily navigating Dempsey before getting careless, though I suppose that's besides the point).

I can see the appeal of being secuded by Dempsey's wins over the Gibbons, Carpentiers and Miskes of this world, too, but if Dempsey beating Light-Heavyweights Gibbons and Carpentier qualifiy as career-defining wins, or wins worthy of 'good' status, then what does that make Tyson's win over Spinks? Not only was Spinks a better Light-Heavyweight than both of them, he was also a far more considerable Heavyweight force, too, with genuine success north of 175 lb. Granted, Dempsey himself operated at an optimum weight of around only 190 lb, which somewhat reduces the idea that, as a Heavyweight, he held every ace imaginable over the smaller men looking to dethrone him, but I maintain that Tyson's demolition of Spinks clearly outweighs such victories of Dempsey's. Even a thirty-eight year old Holmes is surely better than all but a handful of Dempsey's opponents, given that Larry scored a highly respectable win over Mercer a few years after losing to Tyson, and also made two valiant efforts to regain the crown against Evander Holyfield and Oliver McCall in subsequent years.

Now of course, it's not all one-way traffic. Dempsey certainly lost his title in less ignomonious circumstances in 1926 than Tyson did in 1990, for instance. But the idea that Tyson is the only Heavyweight to have a nighmare bout against an opponent he should be dominating simply isn't true. Dempsey, for example, had absolutely no business struggling so routinely with an opponent as profoundly average as 'Fat' Willie Meehan. Meaningless, keep-busy bouts you may shout, and only scheduled for a handful of rounds. True enough, but surely the fact that Dempsey was such an explosive starter and one of the most devastating four-round fighrers in history should hzave rendered these points irrelevant, and that's not to mention the fact that he simply had a far greater skill level than Meehan.

Someone's going to have to explain it to me like I'm a five year old, perhaps, because I simply don't see a case for Dempsey being so much higher than Mike, and that's not even going in to detail about how Dempsey never had to face his consensus number one contender in Wills (I suspect Tyson, no matter what the circumstances, wouldn't be afforded such leniency in this respect). Fully aware that Dempsey signed for the fight at least once, but I'm not totally convinced he was as totally powerless as some others do. Besides the point though, I suppose.

Seems that most would turn their nose up at anyone placing Tyson over Dempsey, but I don't see any reason why he can't be higher. And if you do side with Jack, how can such a big gap be justified? Surely if Dempsey is top five, Tyson must be in a similar position? Or if you're going to dismiss Tyson's top ten claims, shouldn't the same apply to Dempsey? The more I think about it, the more I believe that Tyson belongs at eight / nine in the all-time Heavyweight echelons, with Dempsey actually a spot or two behind him.

If anyone's interested or thinks they can convince me otherwise, fire away. Thanks, lads.

Great for his time chris......Worthy top 10 Man but didn't have Tyson's qualities...

Rightfully higher for his dominance of his era but wouldn't stand a chance....

Tyson was bigger, stronger,,,quicker and had more dimensions to his game..

But then again If Dempsey was around now I'm sure he'd be a better all-round fighter..

That's the thing though, Truss - I'm not actually sure that Dempsey did dominate his era any more than Tyson did his. Would back Tyson to win more often than not (don't think I'd go so far as to say that Dempsey "wouldn't stand a chance", though!), too. A gap of ten spots just seems impossible to justify, to me. Judging by our collective votes, you'd think it was impossible to consider Tyson the greater fighter with a better career, but I think it's more than valid.

I think its just the criteria that is used when ranking fighters.

I would have Tyson an easy top ten in head to heads. But taking his career as a whole, the second part of it post prison really hurts it as does the loss to Douglas pre prison.

The post prison element of his career is pretty hard to measure because its hard to know exactly how much slack should be allowed for the decline and exactly how much Tyson had slid. He was shot by the Lewis fight, but what about Holyfield? As I see it the second part of his career when added to the massive upset against Douglas casts a far greater shadow over his other acheivements than Dempseys losses to Tunney at the end of his career. Much easier to get a handle on Dempseys career I think. With Tyson, there are just alot of question marks with no easy or concrete answers. Some believe Douglas and Holyfield exploded the myth completely. Others wil say it was just a case of an off night, and then being past it.

Personally I think fighters like Tyson and Liston are better boxers than their general rankings suggest while the likes of Marciano and Jeffries are alot worse than their rankings are. But I see it as just a product of how careers tend to be evaluated and the fact that greatness can only really be acheived against ones peers.

To be honest Chris, mainly on the back of your promptings I have found myself dropping Dempsey down my rankings and he certainly does not occupy the top three berth I have been guilty of giving him in the past. A couple of points I would say is your argument about Tyson rebounding to win titles after exile is not really a valid one because it is more a reflection of the fragmentation of the title belts than any great acheivement, pure speculation but reasonable to assume that were four belts around in Dempsey's time he could not have rebounded post Tunney to pick one up.

The other thing I would say is I genuinely believe most of us agree Louis and Ali stand apart at heavy a view I totally agree with but for me once you get beyond these you could do this thread with pretty much any two heavyweights from a list of around 10 and put forward as compelling an argument as you have for any two you choose because the gap is so fine between the chasing pack. Personally think my own reason for ranking Jack so high is one a lot don't agree with but the views of those who were fortunate enough to see him live, and almost to a man they consider him at his best to be one of the greatest and this is being said by those who lived to see many other fine fighters even up to Ali. Am more than willing to accept nostalgia or his influence on making the sport massive will influence the ratings of some or to some degree but I cannot accept eveyone can be wrong.

Good article and you make a compelling argument for Tyson. I've never been completely sold on either to be honest when it comes to being part of the elite HWs.

Dempsey I'd have near the end of my top 10 and Tyson somewhere outside that but as you say I wouldn't have 10 places between them. Tyson had more boxing ability, Dempsey much greater mentally but they both have question marks when it comes to troubling a top 5 for me.

Great article Chris!

I admit I have a bit of a soft spot for Jack, almost too much, but its based on the fans rather than the boxer - those who appreciate Dempsey tend to have a much more open view on boxing and appreciating a man who had his flaws yet was still an exciting boxer and Tyson fans being blinkered in the majority has made me look upon Tyson with a little scorn and Dempsey more favorably.

I'd still set Dempsey ahead but not by much. I have dempsey in at 8 on my list and Tyson around 12 for reasons Manos went over.

Thanks Jeff. Very true with regards to the clear daylight which separates Ali and Louis from the rest of the pack, but even allowing for the small margins between everyone else, such a big gap betwen the pair does seem odd. It's not just exclusive to 606v2 either, I should point out. Historian lists, other websites etc all routinely place Dempsey much higher than Mike. But to me, they are comparable in just about every aspect, from their fighting styles all the way down to the highs and lows of their careers.

I'd disagree if someone ranks Dempsey as high as three, for instance, but a bigger annoyance for me would be someone ranking Dempsey that high with Tyson not in the top ten at all. Wherever you rank them, the other simply has to be no more than a couple of places away, I'd say.

Not sure if it's a case of Dempsey being placed far too high or Tyson far too low, but I'd imagine it's a mixture of both.

My issue with Demspey is that his actual career doesnt really match up to the glowing position he holds. As you say, when you disect his record its good but not really justifying the ravings. Popularity tends to lead to overrating and this I think is also a big factor with Dempsey.

However people were kind of doing the same thing with Tyson in the 80s. Like Dempsey, he was clearly a quality boxer, a bit of an animal, and laying waste to those in front of him. However it only really became fashionable post Holyfield to kind of dismiss the 80s reign which is almost going the complete other extreme.

Its pretty hard to seperate the heavyweights outside of Louis and Ali. Dempseys actual paper record is probably no better than most of the others contending for third spot but I think his actual ability is good for a high spot whereas the likes of Marciano or Jeffries I see as making the list purely because better boxers like Dempsey, Tyson or Liston cant actually displace them through their c.v being strong enough.

It is very difficult Chris, would guess the main reason is possibly the Douglas result, almost certainly people view dumping the title to Tunney after three years inactive as far more forgivable than dumping your title to Douglas at 24 when still an active fighter. As you know I am effusive in my praise of Buster's performance that night and obviously Tyson did not enter in anywhere near the condition he should have but it is still not a guy he should not only be losing to but lets be honest getting chased out of the ring to. Not saying particuarly this justifies the gap but is almost certainly a consideration for many.

Part of the issue is, as Rowley alluded to, the fact that after the clear top two the next 10 spots are almost interchangeable.

I mean any record can be picked apart. Take Frazier. Bounced twice by Foreman, lost 2-1 in his trilogy to Ali. Never fought Norton. Measured against the best of his era. that's 1-4. Is he deserving of a top 10 spot? Well, for me he definitely is but you can see how some people, looking at his record could disagree.

And you can pretty much do the same to any of the chasing pack.

Johnson. Beat a young Langford, beat a 170lb Burns, 155lb Ketchel, an old Jeffries and refused to defend against Langford, Jeanette etc.

Holmes. Never unified, best win an ageing Norton, scraped past Witherspoon, stopped by Tyson in 4.

It's pretty easy to do really. Tyson is top 10 for me, as is dDempsey. I rate them both but if someone ranks Dempsey 10 spots above Tyson then ok, the gap is still pretty marginal in real terms, it's just that everyone is so close together.

It's like a team lying 14th in the Championship but being only 4 points off the play-off places. On the surface they're pretty low down but in reality they're actually very close.

If Tyson is marked down for his defeat to Douglas then what about Dempsey and the first Fireman Jim Flynn fight? If it was legitimate then he was KO'd by an average fighter. If the fight wasn't on the level then surely that should also be held against him? Never really read up on that fight whats the general consensus on the validity of that result?

I think invariably with the the heavyweights the actual gap between 3rd spot and 10th spot is probably going to be close regardless of whether its Tyson, Marciano or Lewis or who resides there.

I have no real definative list but at for arguments sake:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Foreman
6. Dempsey
7. Lewis
8. Jeffries
9. Marciano
10. Tyson

Its possible to say the gap between Tyson and most of those name between 3-9 should not be more than a couple of places apart. But invariably that will be the case.

Paperbag, general consensus is Jack took a dive, this is a brief version of what Monte Cox had to say on the matter:

This fight was a complete dive by Dempsey. This was a very poor period for Jack where he sometimes went without eating for 2-3 days at a time. His first wife Maxine Cates was reputed to be turning tricks as a prostitute to help make ends meet. She admitted that Dempsey was “offered more money to lose than to win” (Khan 121) to which she testified under oath at Dempsey’s slacker trial that Dempsey accepted $500 to lie down for Flynn. Many historians believe this to be true. Certainly times were tough, they were hungry and such a move for a young fighter would not be unusual in that day as that was a lot of money in 1917. Dempsey was not a protected fighter moved along at a cautious pace. It was a rough time and you did what you had to make a few dollars to live. When they met for real a year later, it was Dempsey who scored a crushing first round knockout victory.

Obviously diving is not great but a very different time and place and harsh to criticise without an understanding of the era and circumstances young fighters faced.

rowley wrote:Paperbag, general consensus is Jack took a dive, this is a brief version of what Monte Cox had to say on the matter:

This fight was a complete dive by Dempsey. This was a very poor period for Jack where he sometimes went without eating for 2-3 days at a time. His first wife Maxine Cates was reputed to be turning tricks as a prostitute to help make ends meet. She admitted that Dempsey was “offered more money to lose than to win” (Khan 121) to which she testified under oath at Dempsey’s slacker trial that Dempsey accepted $500 to lie down for Flynn. Many historians believe this to be true. Certainly times were tough, they were hungry and such a move for a young fighter would not be unusual in that day as that was a lot of money in 1917. Dempsey was not a protected fighter moved along at a cautious pace. It was a rough time and you did what you had to make a few dollars to live. When they met for real a year later, it was Dempsey who scored a crushing first round knockout victory.

Obviously diving is not great but a very different time and place and harsh to criticise without an understanding of the era and circumstances young fighters faced.

Cheers was trying to look at that article but its blocked in work.

Paperbag, as Jeff has nicely pointed out, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Dempsey flopped against Flynn. Curiously, though, he insisted that the fight was on the level until his final day. I'm sure he had his reasons for doing so, but given how emphatically he dealt with Flynn whn they met again further down the line, I think we'd surely have to concede that there was something very iffy about their first bout. Either that, or it was the freak result to end all freak results.

Chris similarly have read about Jack's insistance the fight was on the level, all you can think is in his mind he felt an embarrasing loss gave a better image to the public than admitting being involved in fixed fights, given he was hugely popular after his career is possible this was his thinking, odd though all the same.

In the past I've had Demspey as high as 4 and Tyson at about 11 or 12.

I've revised Dempsey's placing recently and had him at about 8 or 9. I can see arguments for Tyson being as high as 8 or 9 (albeit I invariably have him in about 11th) so I guess I have them just about on an even par.

What probably splits them for me is the fact that Dempsey was truly a trail-blazer, unlike anything the heavyweight division had seen before and single-handedly dragged the big men, kicking screaming and punching into the 20th century. Yes, Tyson was arguably the better all round fighter and as Chris points out, might have the better record of the two, but, for me, not so significantly that he deserves to be recognised ahead of Dempsey.

Tyson blazed his own trail but to an extent it had been done before by Dempsey and later albeit it less so, by Foreman.

As jeff said, beyond Ali and Louis it become really difficult to differentiate between the next 10 or 12 heavyweights. I've recently come to the conclusion that Holmes deserves to be ranked at 3 but only really by default and I could easily be convinced otherwise.

I haven't had the time to read the whole article, but I think you're right on the money with this.Having looked at Dempsey's resume recently it is quite thin when you look at his achievements. I do have a bit of a wish that the long count didn't happen however.
I also agree with the main thrust about Tyson as well, unifying the title is a mahoosive achievement. In a nutshell Tyson has to be much higher than Jack, fascinating man that he was,and one of the most vital figures in boxing history, but not a top ten HW for me.
Incidentally the Bert Sugar book of 100 best fighters has Mike at spot number 100.Madness. Seems to me there's a big gap, as always, between the super-apologists and the "can't stand him" camps.

Superflyweight, surprised that you (appear to) factor in cultural significance , when I put forward J.L.S. as an ATG , the general consensus was that you had to focus on achievement alone and not potentiality or significance.I put Holmes as my number 2 Heavy by the way and though it does seem a bit mad I can't shake the conclusion that he had it in him to beat anyone apart from Ali (and maybe Louis).
Tempting to put the fighters you like really high in the list, which case Jack Johnson and Dempsey would be up there for me...