http://www.historicfilms.com/search/?q=dempsey+tunney&q=dempsey+tunney#p1t14661l376562 Ive been watching this footage and really come away impressed with what I see from a faded Dempsey and even more frustrated of what might have been from him .. seeing Jack throw jabs to the body and many other little tricks and moves .. this era is far from the archaic time period some portray it to be ..
I know you have never been a fan of Jack's H. E. The fact that you are prepared to watch him with an open mind and give credit where it is due is refreshing, especially when taking into account some of the closed minded, bigoted,biased idiots we have to contend with here.
1927 Dempsey beat Sharkey. I think the Dempsey Tunney fights were more about Tunney fighting two incredible fights, rather than Dempsey not fighting good.
I have always thought he was a big underachiever. These films prove it more to more. I think he was very talented.
The thing I come away with is that the old Dempsey was as deadly as a viper....as a rattlesnake. All it took was one screw up, one moment of inattention, one lapse, and he had one shot deadliness. I think Dempsey gets undersold as a one shot finisher.
Tunney was an excellent fighter who was at the top of his game and that in itself tells us a lot about Dempsey as he was very competitive in many of the rounds, especially in the first half of the second fight until his legs gave out .. he was never the peak fighter of Reno but still very dangerous .. I also see quite a bit of terrific feinting, shoulder rolling, body jabbing .. he is no where near the one dimensional slugger many make him out to be ..
Dempsey had loads of skills and subtle tricks that you just don't see as often now. Cute stuff and rough stuff. It took years of experience for Dempsey to come together as the champion we see on film, so anyone who thinks he was an unskilled slugger doesn't know what they are looking at. Of course, most of the other top fighters of the era had tons of skills and subtle tricks too. Then again, people these days can look at Gennady Golovkin on an HD 50-inch colour TV screen, with all sorts of angles, clear replays and magic slow-mo and somehow come to the conclusion he's just an "unskilled slugger" too. So for some there's no hope.
I look at the Tunney fights kind of like I do the Pryor-Arguello 1 fight. The rounds were close and competitive but Tunney was edging them just like Pryor was and if you only look at the scorecard you would think it was a blowout. I know the Pryor-Arguello scorecards were close but mine personally was almost all Pryor rounds up until around the 8th. Just goes to show the kind of fighter Dempsey was. You couldn't just outright beat him no matter what style you fought.
Wow, and have you guys seen this? Slow motion footage of their first bout: http://www.historicfilms.com/search/?q=gene+tunney#p1t205l9160 Tunney had a beautiful jab. And then there's good quality footage of the Tunney Carpentier fight, where Gene just batters the poor man.
Agreed. So many here love to go by round tally and make it seem like the bouts were routs and the second one sure was not
Tunney must have hit Carpentier cleanly a bunch of times and aside from stumbling around the ring, Carpentier stood upright. Either, Tunney didnt hit as hard as we thought or Carpentier had a decent chin.