Knowing what we know, would you pick a PEAK Dempsey to beat Tunney?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by bigG

does anyone remember a shorter come forward fighter with a swarming aggressive style and a superb hook giving ali a whole heap of trouble.....joe frazier.....dempsey is frazier but 100 times more so.........

Joe is happy to be hit. I don't think Dempsey is. That's your differnce right there. The patience needed by Frazier in those fights was close to saintly.

Dempsey's "kill him before he kills me" thinking would get him killed.

[Marciano Frazier]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I agree with you.

Ali is a nightmare incarnate for Dempsey, the things that Dempsey does badly - one strategy fighting, over-reaching with big punches, over-commiting if he smells blood, being shortish - are all the things Ali loves.

Ali would knock Dempsey out in my view.

I disagree. Busy, aggressive, quick short guys with powerful left hooks were the absolute worst type of opponent for Ali- see Cooper, Jones, Frazier, Spinks(yes, Ali was over-the-hill at this time, but I think it still demonstrates a stylistic tendency that the guy to beat him was a small, busy swarmer), etc. Dempsey has all those attributes in spades.

The comparison of Ali as being "like Tunney, but better in every way" is also off the mark. Tunney was a textbook boxer with a classic defense and a purist's dream of a fighter. Ali was a much different story- he was immensely and obviously unorthodox and broke multiple cardinal rules of textbook boxing which Tunney lived by. Which was ultimately the more effective style is up for debate, but one certainly can't reasonably say they're the same.

[Unforgiven]

Dempsey with old legs managed to deck Tunney with a good combination.
The younger version of Dempsey would probably have Tunney hurt and on the defensive from the first round onwards. Dempsey was so quick on his feet in his prime he's certainly going to be on top of Tunney throughout the fight.

Tunney was smart, tough and strong in his own right, and a great ring general, so he has a chance of improvising and outboxing even a prime Dempsey who's on him like white on rice.

I'd edge towards Dempsey.

I also believe Dempsey would have a great chance of beating Muhammad Ali.
Objectively speaking, Muhammad Ali was the greater fighter when you compare career accomplishments, but head-to-head I see Dempsey giving him all kinds of trouble.
Dempsey has the footspeed, reach, arsenal and style to neutralise Ali's style and outwork him, IMO.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier

I disagree. Busy, aggressive, quick short guys with powerful left hooks were the absolute worst type of opponent for Ali- see Cooper, Jones, Frazier, Spinks(yes, Ali was over-the-hill at this time, but I think it still demonstrates a stylistic tendency that the guy to beat him was a small, busy swarmer), etc. Dempsey has all those attributes in spades.

You're talking in very broad terms here about "types" which is dangerous. Lift the rock and you see an impatient fighter who tends to overextend when he misses and needs to get inside to be at his best.

Meat and potatoes for Ali.

The comparison of Ali as being "like Tunney, but better in every way" is also off the mark. Tunney was a textbook boxer with a classic defense and a purist's dream of a fighter. Ali was a much different story- he was immensely and obviously unorthodox and broke multiple cardinal rules of textbook boxing which Tunney lived by. Which was ultimately the more effective style is up for debate, but one certainly can't reasonably say they're the same.

Agreed.

[Vockerman]

Considering how a completely shot Dempsey in his last fight beat Tunney in the rematch I believe Jack wins a either a convincing decision similar to what he did to the other great "pure" boxer he fought - (Tommy Gibbons) or KO's Tunney again.

Say whatever else you want to about the second fight - if anyone is on the seat of their pants for 14 seeconds during the round he got KTFO.

The fight ended there. Couda got up sooner, shouda got up sooner, wouda got up sooner don't matter to me - he didn't beat the count.
Everything after that doesn't exist for me. Just like the KO doesn't exist for some of you


Everyone knows Tunney lost the second fight in the 7th round by KO and the GD ref missed it.

But WE didn't miss it.

We just give him a pass on it....

Well some of us give him a pass on it - NOT ME.

An old and shot Dempsey is 1-1 with a near peak Tunney - peak for peak its not even close.

[ThinBlack]

Peak Dempsey would beat Tunney, coming from behind albeit.

[RockyJim]

The Dempsey of Toledo in 1919...

[guilalah]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Dempsey with old legs managed to deck Tunney with a good combination.
The younger version of Dempsey would probably have Tunney hurt and on the defensive from the first round onwards. Dempsey was so quick on his feet in his prime he's certainly going to be on top of Tunney throughout the fight.

Tunney was smart, tough and strong in his own right, and a great ring general, so he has a chance of improvising and outboxing even a prime Dempsey who's on him like white on rice.

I'd edge towards Dempsey.

I also believe Dempsey would have a great chance of beating Muhammad Ali.
Objectively speaking, Muhammad Ali was the greater fighter when you compare career accomplishments, but head-to-head I see Dempsey giving him all kinds of trouble.
Dempsey has the footspeed, reach, arsenal and style to neutralise Ali's style and outwork him, IMO.

This is basically my view, too, except I'd say 'fair' rather than 'great'.

[PhillyPhan69]

Originally Posted by janitor

Dempsey at his peak??????????????

I would not make any man who has ever boxed much better than 50/50 odds against him.

I doubt many will agree with this....and while I am not sure I do either, I think I would side closer with this than the majority.

There are certain styles that would always be difficult for greats to deal with....Frazier, Ali & Dempsey were not prime against Foreman, Frazier & Tunney but in all three cases I find it hard (meaning I don't) to envision a different outcome from the original.

[lufcrazy]

Tunney would always beat Dempsey in my opinion. He was just a level above skill wise.

Better boxer at any range and whilst he didn't have as good power he did have a better chin.

Tunney on points at any point in their career.

[anj]

I pick Tunney.

Dempsey = Only a punchers chance, just like their fight where Tunney was down for 14 seconds despite outboxing Dempsey.

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by McGrain

But I think I would probably pick Dempsey to catch prime Tunney. After all he managed it once whilst past it.

That is one way of looking.

Of course, this is one way of looking at it, but the opposite is also true.

Past Prime dempsey did indeed catch up to Tunney as (arguably) prime Dempsey would have. But it is very interesting that even when Tunney was caught and deprived of his senses (and presumably his youth and speed advantages), Dempsey couldnt even look like getting the job done and Tunney simply continued to dominate Dempsey.

I can see the arguments both ways, but i get the feeling that Tunney might have had Dempsey's number more often than not. In fact, i think he might very well be the most underated fighter (because he is still largely unproven).

[bazza12]

I'd still pick Tunney. An accurate and solid puncher, excellent footwork. Doesn't get any easier if Dempsey is a few years younger.

[red cobra]

Gene WAS the man.

[Theron]

Dempsey definatley, if you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Angelo Dundee, Don Dunphy, Archie Moore and George Benton all agreed Dempsey would of won in his prime