Prime Dempsey v Prime Tunney?

Carpentier was a fraud of a heavyweight and still wobbled Dempsey.

 

Carpentier was a harder right hand puncher than Tunney and just as fast. His wobbling of Dempsey was next to nothing as you know and Dempsey destroyed him. I wonder why people bother w dumb posts like yours. Are you saying Dempsey had a bad chin? :nut

 

Tunney was ten times the boxer that Carpentier was…. and when his hands were correct was a very stiff puncher. He put Dempsey down with an ordinary shot. The Orchid Man couldn't do it with his best Sunday punch. Featherweight Carpentier (that is where he started) was a one-trick pony and a complete fraud as a heavyweight.

 

I also believe Dempsey was told by Tex to carry Carpentier for a few rounds before ending it for the paying crowd. I think George got in a good right hand that wobble Dempsey and Dempsey decided after that to start working on taking him out, which he did 2 rounds later. I think a good puncher at any weight, and Carpentier was, could stun even the most iron chin fighter if caught just right as was the case in this fight.

Ketchel really had no right to floor Jack Johnson, but he did. Stuff like that happens from time to time.

 

Carpentier was a fraud as a HW but he was a legitimately great right handed puncher. He did manage to wobble Dempsey but that shouldnt cloud the fact that he had no business being in the ring against him outside of the fact that the fight was too massive for anyone to turn down.

That being said all this nonsense about what a prime Dempsey would do to Tunney is just that. A prime Dempsey fought Bill Brennan who wasnt half the boxer Tunney was and wasnt half as durable yet using the exact gameplan Tunney did 6 years later he outpointed Dempsey for 12 rounds, wobbled him once, and damn near knocked his ear off. If Brennan can do that I dont see why Tunney cant utilize his superior speed, skills, and durability to do the same. Im also not sure about all this business of Dempsey having all this stamina. The guy went over ten rounds just twice in his entire career. At best hes fairly unproven. Tunney went over 10 rounds 12 times in his career. If you want to believe Dempsey was some kind of a distance fighter fine but stamina isnt something you want be banking on against a supremely conditioned athlete like Tunney who is also tough, durable, and showed in several fights that he had more than a little bulldog in him as well. I think any version of Dempsey is in over his head against Tunney. It would probably be a decision but my money would be on Tunney.

Ketchel didnt floor Jack Johnson. I will never understand how anyone can watch that film and pretend that KD was legitimate. If Johnson is going down before the punch lands, and has enough wherewithall to duck his head and let the punch loop around the back of his skull and then gets up and damn near kills Ketchel (who he had been literally toying with all afternoon) then how in the world can anyone pretend that "ketchel shouldnt have dropped Johnson but he did." Johnson had a piece of the film revenue and it was in his interest to make the fight more sensational to sell more tickets. Even the newspapermen ringside said it looked every bit as suspicious standing a few feet away as it does on film.

Dempsey may have been just missing by inches against Tunney but why suppose that had more to do with Dempsey than with Tunney who was a well known defensive master?? Just because Tunney was making Dempsey miss by inches in 1926 and 1927 in two utter dominations, doesnt mean that he cant do it in 1920 or 1921. Gibbons made Dempsey miss repeatedly. Brennan was able to make him miss and keep him on the end of jabs and right crosses and tie him up when he got close. Why couldnt Tunney who was better than both of those guys. Dempsey was a great puncher but look at his KOs, he got to stand over guys and repeatedly bludgeon them. Tunney was savvy enough to make this an issue (the guy made an issue out of every angle he could). Combine his ruggedness with the fact that he and his people arent going to put up with a ref like Dempsey's pal Jimmy Dougherty letting him get away with rabbit punches, headbutts, and low blows, or hovering over him in case of a knockdown and it still spells trouble for Dempsey. I dont know, I just see this as a very bad matchup for Dempsey. His weaknesses play into some of Tunney's strengths and some of Tunney's other strengths negate some of Dempsey's best assets.

 

I corrected my conflated post… ten time the boxer I meant, not ten times the puncher. Carpentier had a brilliant right hand… for a light heavy.

 

From all that I have read lo these many years, the vast majority of boxing writers have said that whatever else is said about Carpentier, he had one of the fastest and deadly right hands in history. He flattened HWs Joe Beckett,
Bomb. Billy Wells, Battling Levinsky, and Ted kid Lewis with that laser right hand. And to say that Jack Dempsey ,because he was slightly wobbled by
Carpentier's right hand ,did not have a great chin is B.S. He Dempsey was
supposedly told by Tex Rickard to not ko Georges too early and give the enormous crowd a run for their money, abided by Rickard's request until that flush right hand, and then Dempsey went to work on the Orchard Man,
giving Carpentier a vicious body beating and a one-two to the chin...Sayonara.

 

Burt, what's your opinion regarding this question?

 

Van, I have been watching boxing, and reading boxing history
since I was a pup in the 1940s.
Most of my opinions on what great fighter,would do against another great fighter is based on what the CONSENSUS of
top boxing writers of their [the fighters] times chose as their choice. Based on that consensus and my common sense and intuition I feel strongly that the Dempsey of the Fulton, Battling Levinsky, gunboat Smith, Jess Willard era, when Dempsey was at his rampaging best, he would have more than matched Tunney in hand speed, and swiftness, and would have kod any version of
Tunney, were they to have met in their primes. And MOST of the
scribes of those times agreed with this. Even the old, slow, out of shape Dempsey after a 3 year layoff, almost did the trick in 1927
when his 7 punch barrage floored Tunney and had him on ***** street. Picture what the younger prime Dempsey would have done in his prime ??? cheers...

 

Great post! Very observant. Kudos

 

Window dressing as you say but amongst the very best of window dressing when you compare it to every other heavyweight champs window dressing from comparative stages of their careers.

Yeah a lot may have been the 'Mexican road sweeper" types but just on 'first
Round KO's 'window dressing' is a bit unfair. When you think:

he was the first man to even KO Levinsky in an estimated 250plus fights - and to do it inside one round is not bad?

He was also the first man to even KO Fulton at all in his first 38 fights? And again, to do in 18 seconds or whatever is pretty sensational?

Jim Flynn: in 129 fights only one other man was able to score a first round knockout against him over all them fights - and that man was Sam Langford - that's gotta say something at least?

Pelkey?: Dempsey was the only man to KO him in first round in his entire 54-fight career which again is not bad?

Carl Morris aswell - no one else in his 69 fight career managed to stop him in the first round other than Dempsey? And I'm pretty sure Dempsey may have sparked him in something similar to the Fulton fight which again is pretty impressive really?

Porky Flynn: in 66 fight career no one else knocked him out in the first round other than Dempsey - and Dempsey did it twice so again it seemed to be out of the ordinary for anyone to stop him so quick?

Homer Smith: again Dempsey was the only man in Smith's first 76 fights to flatten him inside one round so again that's not bad?

Charley Miller: in 57 fights only two other men stopped him inside the first - Harry Wills, and 6 years before Dempsey Gunboat did it but again not many did it so not bad?

Again Dempsey was the only man to KO either Bob Devere or Tom McCarty inside 1 round

Window dressing it may have been like you say but a certain amount of credit is surely due for consideration - a lot weren't pushovers and Dempsey annihilated them like few others did (and in a lot of cases, like no others did)?

 

Great informative post Rocky...Dempsey MAINLY on this forum
is truly likened to a journeyman by revisionists who somehow
seem to think that all the thousands of Dempsey's boxing contemporaries who saw him at his best rampage through the
heavyweight division from 1918 to 1923 ,were either stupid or were less informed than these holier than thou deniers of ESB 90 years later...They nitpick anything Dempsey ever accomplished
in his prime and disregard the valid opinions of such fighters as
Sam Langford,Mickey Walker, Gene Tunney, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, Ray Arcel, and other writers who praised the greatness of the Manassa Mauler. cheers Rocky.:hi:
of the Manassa Mauler...cheers Rocky :hi:

 

People citing the Brennan fight against "prime Dempsey" need to realize that he fought Brennan twice. The first fight was apparently a lot more one-sided than the second. We could argue that Brennan was "off" in the first one, or that Dempsey was "off" in the second ... and I suppose it's fairest to assume both.
Take on aggregate, prime Dempsey has an easier time head-to-head against Brennan than the 1920 alone would show.

 

I was somewhat indecisive on this one...but reading Burt's post tilted me in Dempsey's favor. If a leaden legged Dempsey can take everything that Gene dishes out and still put him on his keester with a blistering combo (and probably would've ko'ed him if he had gone straight to a neutral corner as instructed) imagine what a prime springy legged Jack would've done. It still wouldn't have been an easy fight as I think Tunney gets seriously underrated by some but Dempsey would prevail. On a side note, Ketchel did not knock Johnson down. Jack was heading for the floor before the punch sailed over his head. Reminds me of Tyson/Seldon without Bruce getting back up.