https://youtu.be/u-SY0F6Kkg0
It's in the last 2 minutes or so of the clip.
Just thought there's a few lads here who are preachers of the old school. Just like to hear your opinion on it. 
not sure about that. tyson has a significat weight advantage. 217 in prime to dempsey around 189.
so you have to account for tyson having nearly 28lbs on him. however dempsey trained himself down to that weight to be prepared to go as many rounds as they did. dempsey frame wise however wasn't smaller than holyfield. demspey was fast, relentless and much tougher than the guys tyson fought on the way up.
tyson would be heavily favored, but dempsey can make a fight out of it, tyson's overall size advantage would rule the day, but dempsey isn't mike spinks. be a much tougher battle than that. steam rolled? just can't see it
He made out that the sport had progressed to the point that, that era would have beaten another. It's quite arrogant to say that but he talks about boxing along with mma just evolving where the present beats the past.
I only asked because there's more than a few posters here who's opinion I respect.
Yes sports evolve. However some guys are freaks of nature. Dempsey being one. It was 20 years before another champ came that would be favored over him. Louis. And almost 50 years after his reign, the 70's, that you would find several guys that can beat him
Bo Jackson who debuted 30 years ago, would be the most impressive physical running back in the nfl right now
People talk about lebron physical gifts, but Jordan was the fastest, most explosive, highest leaping guy every time he stepped on the court in the 80's. 30 years later is his level of athleticism becoming more common
Freaks of nature that are ahead of evolution. Dempsey was one of them 
Dempsey came with a gut-check as standard.
gut-checks were not Mikes forte.
Dempsey was fearless,could punch,and could take a punch. Mike did not usually farewell vs. those types of fighters. Plus Jack would've had a 5 in reach advantage.
Jack Dempsey was a fighting machine.
Stern - Dempsey was fearless,could punch,and could take a punch. Mike did not usually farewell vs. those types of fighters. Plus Jack would've had a 5 in reach advantage.
Jack Dempsey was a fighting machine.
i'm torn. if it came down to toughness and will, dempsey's got him. but in the back of my mind that huge weight disparity for tyson might even it out
however the 'more evolved' argument that rogan is pushing doesn't hold up here. it was 50 years later in the 70's before dempsey might have been a mid contender and thats with ali, frazier and foreman at the top of the mountain.
even in the 80's, i like demspey against guys like tyrell biggs, berbick, snipes. guys who held belts/top 10 ranked
i dont like him against holmes, but he beats spinks
dempsey was a force of nature. the 'boxers are more evolved bigger stronger faster' might work if you're comparing jersey joe walcott to evander holyfield or floyd patterson vs wlad. but dempsey does well across many eras
Thanks for weighing in lads.
pharochuck -Good post. I agree with pretty much everything you said.Stern - Dempsey was fearless,could punch,and could take a punch. Mike did not usually farewell vs. those types of fighters. Plus Jack would've had a 5 in reach advantage.
Jack Dempsey was a fighting machine.
i'm torn. if it came down to toughness and will, dempsey's got him. but in the back of my mind that huge weight disparity for tyson might even it out
however the 'more evolved' argument that rogan is pushing doesn't hold up here. it was 50 years later in the 70's before dempsey might have been a mid contender and thats with ali, frazier and foreman at the top of the mountain.
even in the 80's, i like demspey against guys like tyrell biggs, berbick, snipes. guys who held belts/top 10 ranked
i dont like him against holmes, but he beats spinks
dempsey was a force of nature. the 'boxers are more evolved bigger stronger faster' might work if you're comparing jersey joe walcott to evander holyfield or floyd patterson vs wlad. but dempsey does well across many eras
Jack Dempsey was 6 feet tall with a 77" reach at 190 pounds. His power is what really separated him. Not only was he faster than the bigger guys but he hit harder. You might find some faster heavyweights but not any that were faster and punched harder. I've heard people say that a great fighter that weights about 190 pounds has the ability to beat anyone. Faster than the bigger guys stronger than the smaller guys. I don't know if I buy that but I have heard boxing guys say it
Back in 1986, Jack Sharkey was asked about Tyson, and he spoke very highly of him, said he'd be Top 10 in any era. But in that same interview, he said a prime Jack Dempsey was head and shoulders above every other heavyweight who lived. Ray Arcel said pretty much the same thing in a separate interview. I'd trust their judgment more than that of Joe Rogan.
oblongo - Back in 1986, Jack Sharkey was asked about Tyson, and he spoke very highly of him, said he'd be Top 10 in any era. But in that same interview, he said a prime Jack Dempsey was head and shoulders above every other heavyweight who lived. Ray Arcel said pretty much the same thing in a separate interview. I'd trust their judgment more than that of Joe Rogan.I can agree with sharkey. Dempsey was a once in a lifetime talent. The perfect combination of talent and social conditions to make a true beast.
Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, louis, Ali, Holmes are the Giants of the 20th century.
Still Floyd?
Ignore that.
Is this even being discussed?
Dempsey, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Liston... Tyson couldn't even make eye contact with any of them.
And this is a guy who couldn't survive the trenches with a juiced up lightheavy with little speed or power.
Browny85 - He made out that the sport had progressed to the point that, that era would have beaten another. It's quite arrogant to say that but he talks about boxing along with mma just evolving where the present beats the past.We hear about shit like this all of the time. "If Gretzky played in today's era, he would barely score 10 goals". "Lebron James would murder Jordan"... Statements like these are horseshit. Truth is, you can never know.
I only asked because there's more than a few posters here who's opinion I respect.
Also, you can't really take his statement as face value. Just think about the ridiculous statements made about Ronda over the years.
Either Tyson KOs him early or he loses. He simply did not have the mental toughness Dempsey had
pharochuck -Joe Louis was so good you put him twice. I would put my favorite heavyweight ever Big George Foreman on that list. He was just most destructive fighter I think I've ever seen. He destroyed Frazier and Norton and when I say destroyed I'm talking destroyed. Frazier 2x actually. You aren't supposed to do that to other legendary hall of famers.oblongo - Back in 1986, Jack Sharkey was asked about Tyson, and he spoke very highly of him, said he'd be Top 10 in any era. But in that same interview, he said a prime Jack Dempsey was head and shoulders above every other heavyweight who lived. Ray Arcel said pretty much the same thing in a separate interview. I'd trust their judgment more than that of Joe Rogan.I can agree with sharkey. Dempsey was a once in a lifetime talent. The perfect combination of talent and social conditions to make a true beast.
Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, louis, Ali, Holmes are the Giants of the 20th century.
DisIsDeRiddumOfDeNite -I somewhat agree but boxing is a little different from other sports. The best athlete doesn't always win. You can compete at a high level in boxing without being a great athlete. Obviously it helps. You can't compete in other sports without being a great athlete.Browny85 - He made out that the sport had progressed to the point that, that era would have beaten another. It's quite arrogant to say that but he talks about boxing along with mma just evolving where the present beats the past.We hear about shit like this all of the time. "If Gretzky played in today's era, he would barely score 10 goals". "Lebron James would murder Jordan"... Statements like these are horseshit. Truth is, you can never know.
I only asked because there's more than a few posters here who's opinion I respect.
Also, you can't really take his statement as face value. Just think about the ridiculous statements made about Ronda over the years.
That's how I see it at least.
Just right off the top I want to say that I reject almost anything Joe Rogan says about boxing immediately. He says some smart and some inexplicably dumb things about boxing. I think most people acknowledge that Rogan has a bias against strikers who do not kick. Probably because of his TKD background. After all these years, he still mentions on most UFCs that boxing based strikers (Like Edgar) aren't "well rounded."
I like Joe Rogan and I am a fan of both his comedy and his commentating (the latter to a lessor extent). That said, Rogan has never allowed a lack of knowledge on a topic to impede his natural inclination to run his mouth and talk shit. Even giving up twenty pounds, Dempsey could have beat up, robbed and sexually assaulted Mike Tyson is he chose to and there would not be one thing that Tyson could do to stop him. If Tyson gave up and quit and got himself disqualified against Evander Holyfield in their 2nd fight, how do you think that he would respond when matched against arguably the most ferocious fighter in boxing history.