Walcott with ease There isn't a good heavyweight after the early 30s that Dempsey has a shot in hell against, in my opinion
Respectfully, thats ridiculous --- but to play Devils Advocate, Dempsey was considerably better than Marciano. Yes, the counter is Walcott was past his prime then...well, so was Dempsey when he battled Tunney. The truth is both men are unique to one another. Dempseys best real-world analogy was likely Tommy Gibbons, who was cute, quick and crafty, but not the same force Walcott was at Heavy. Walcotts best experience for this lies somewhere between an old Louis and a fresh Marciano. I see this as similar to how a lot of people imagine Walcott vs Frazier --- that at some stage, Walcott gets broken down and may have connived his way to a points lead prior. Dempsey was quicker out of the blocks than Frazier (and Marciano too) and more dynamic offensively, and though almost no one had Fraziers motor, Dempsey did not want for stamina, and could stay dangerous late as needed. He was certainly better in that regard than, say, Liston, Foreman and Tyson.
A key point you seem to be missing is that 50s > 20s. By allot. If only (but not only) because all the best guys fought each other and not just other white guys.:Thumbs:
The teens/twenties was a deeper era than the 50s, however. If I agreed with that assertion, however, I still couldnt see Walcott as superior to Tunney, not even by a hair, let alone a lot. He realistically lost three of four to Charles, and he'd find Tunney no easier a mark. This is about Dempsey-Walcott though, and I would expect the young Dempsey to KO him at some stage. Walcott is a live underdog and has several tools you need to beat Dempsey (a long, spearing jab, great reflexes, good and flexible defense) but he just took way too many chances in there to last, IMO. Dempsey was a lot swifter than Marciano.
The teens/twenties was a transitional era in the sport The 40s/50s was light years more advanced Walcott would be positively demonic in the setting of 1926... he'd kill everyone in sight
And Dempsey wouldnt do what Tyson did in the 80s, for instance? Dempsey did almost everything better than Marciano, who went 49-0-0 in the 40s-50s. Dempsey would fare at least as well in Walcotts era as vice-versa. At least.
Disagree completely... Every guy Tyson defended against kills Dempsey Dempsey was great for his time, and he's one of the most important innovators of all time... he changed the game profoundly... but even his inventions had been greatly improved upon and polished within 10-15 years after he was retired... I watch the fighters from the 40s and 50s and see guys that are complete, that could fight in any era and in many cases are technically ADVANCED compared to today's youngsters I watch the guys from the 20s and I see the birth of better techniques, better skills... but I do not see anything close to a fully realized product
So, to clarify, Dempsey would be a victim of Spinks, Bruno, Tubbs, Holmes (1988 version) and co? If you count from the Berbick fight, these are the guys Tyson defended at least a partial title against.
Tony Tubbs would be amazingly advanced compared to any guy from the 1920s... even the most advanced man of the decade-- Benny Leonard
Wow. We wont find common ground here then. Those guys are Dempsey-fodder, IMO. Hed cut a swathe through that calibre of competition in my view.
what fighter did Dempsey face who was anywhere near the skill-level of Tubbs? I think it's a safe assumption that Gene Tunney is far and away his most technically evolved opponent... Tunney looks, frankly, quite primitive by the standards of the 40s and beyond... what looked swift, polished and graceful to the witnesses of the time actually looks stiff, predictable and flawed when viewed through the lens of what came later A guy with the slick, backfoot style of a Tony Tubbs would be an utter revelation to the people watching Tunney in 1925... same goes for Walcott, he would walk those guys into devastating shots as long as it took
