Louis got schooled by Schmeling, Liston got schooled by Ali, Tyson go schooled by Holyfield, Douglas and Lewis. Were they not all still nightmares in the ring?
Dempsey was only 70% of the fighter he once was when he fought tunney,he had lost the hunger or as mic from rocky said he(got civilized)he wasnt as fast his footwork not as good and didnt slip and bob as well as he once did what happend to dempsey happens to fighters sometimes he lost the hunger and became old overnight.i believe if the 1927 tunney met the 1919 dempsey it would have been a painfull night for tunney
How is that relevant to this discusion? It isnt like he lost because he was holding back out of compasion for Tunney.
If they met in 1919 it would have been still Dempseys best opponent.difference is Gene would have schooled a prime Jack
What exactly makes you think that Tunney was Dempseys best oponent? If you take away his wins over Dempsey his heavyweight record is prety average. Arguing that he was the best because hye beat Dempsey and the others didnt is somewhat circular logic.
I dont think Jack had the legs in those Tunney fights that he had earlier in his career. Tunney had great legs (up there with Ali and Walcott) But i do think a earlier more active version of Dempsey would not let Gene survive the long count...Dempsey was not prime for Tunney, Gene was.....Tunney would have been a wrong fight for him at any stage but Jack may have stopped Gene a few years back....and mabey not....How good was Tunney....did he present the same threat as Firpo...He was better and bigger than Carpentier....Brennen, Miske....Sharkey was more there to be hit......Tunney was experienced and skilled and had some pop...was he better than Patterson? where does he stand next to Walcott and Charles
I'm glad you brought this up, it influenced my decision. Dempsey and Marciano are the only "mean" fighters mentioned here that never quit in the ring. Just look at the way Dempsey unloaded on Tunney when he got the chance to knock him down. Not bad for a fighter to win only 2 out of 20 rounds. I believe that in being the "meanest", resilience must come into play. You are much scarier if your opponent thinks you're never going to stop.
yes a serious mean fighter with no quit that keeps coming and always waiting.....Tyson was mean but gave in when presented with obstinance.....where as obstinance motorvated Marciano to pick it up a notch.....Foreman was mean but like Vince Lombardi says "Fatigue makes a coward of us all" ....Marciano was the exception to that rule and Frazier was another that would not give up
http://mx.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070820115300AAsIYE7 This is supposed to be a Harry Wills interview; unfortunately, no citation given. If it's genuine, Wills discusses another sort of 'meanness', ie mean-spiritedness. "I've met some hard punchers in my time, but the hardest ever landed on me were like slaps in the face from a woman compared to the bone-crushing wallops of Sam Langford. They seemed to go right through you. When he hit you in the body you'd kind of look around half expecting to see his glove sticking out of your back. When he hit you on the chin- well, when that happened you didn't think at all until they brought you back to life again. "Sam McVey was a good fighter, but not a good fellow like Joe Jeanette or Langford. He had a mean streak in him and liked to boast. He used a lot of tricks that were unfair. He also had a left hook that was the best I ever saw, speedy and accurate. This content is protected "He was smart in many ways, but in others he showed no sense at all. He got so stuck on himself he had the idea that everyone should fall down and worship him. He was a show off who wanted to attract attention all the time and didn't care much how he did it. As long as he made people talk about him he was happy, and he never stopped to think that he was doing himself more harm than good. This content is protected