A thought for poor Gene Tunney

I would like to have seen Wills Vs Tunney - Wills was offered a fight Vs Tunney with the winner set to face Dempsey for the championship, but Wills refused the bout because he was the number one contender and had already been guaranteed a title shot Vs Dempsey.

Of course Rickard hijacked the bout and set up the first fight with Tunney which was a raging success.

I'm thinking about it now, my first reaction was that Tunney couldn't have been the best HEAVYWEIGHT Dempsey fought (P4P there's no doubt in my mind he was) but I think you're right. I'd rate him above Sharkey, Willard etc.

 

Nice to see someone provide evidence for this topic. I've always rated Tunney higher than Dempsey, because he beat him. I don't think Jack was all that old. He certainly didn't look like it when he put Tunney on the canvas.

 

Tunney was AT HIS BEST.
Dempsey was WAY OFF HIS BEST.

Film, reports, and common sense makes it clear. Dempsey's legs weren't what they were, his speed was not where it had been.

For the record, I probably rate Tunney's chances against a peak Dempsey even higher than you do, JohnThomas.

But coming from a man who reckons everyone under the sun should acknowledge that Mike Tyson was way off-form against Douglas, your position on Dempsey's condition going in to this fight is ridiculous.

Tunney's 9-months of ring rust may account for his getting decked by Dempsey in the rematch, along with Dempsey having improved a bit through increased activity. That's fair.

But Tunney was still prime Tunney. Actually, Gene thought his absolute peak performance came in the Heeney fight, which was after another TEN MONTHS off.

Still, months are months, years are years.

Dempsey was no longer the same as he had been. The difference is noticeable on film, for those with eyes. His footspeed is WAY DOWN compared with the guy who was chasing and catching Gibbons and Carpentier. Way down.

Against Tunney, Sharkey and Tunney again, ALL the ringsiders thought Dempsey looked washed-up, old, a man who had had his day. The films bear this out. Sometimes it's actually worth watching the films.

That's not to take anything away from Gene Tunney, who totally schooled a still-dangerous still-clever fighter in there, a fighter still capable of flashes of brilliance. Tunney is one of the all-time great heavyweight champions, IMO.

 

There's a lot to be said about a hungry fighter's chances. Dempsey, by the time he fought Tunney, hadn't been hungry for a while. Tunney was successful, yet still had that carrot dangling out there for him.

I still rate Tunney above him, though.

 

:happy

 

I'd rate Tunney in the top 10 heavyweights of all-time.

I know that'll **** a lot of people off - just as my high ranking of Dempsey does - but I rate them how I see them.

Tunney looks incredible on film, and his record is almost perfect.

People will argue that he lacks wins over a vast number of heavyweights, that's a fair reason to mark him down - just as Dempsey's inactivity is a fair knock on Jack.

Still, all things considered, I'd have Tunney well within the top 10.

Head-to-head in his prime I can see him standing a great chance against Louis and Ali.

 

this is not exactly true that they were at the same carrier stage. Tunney himself said he was around his peak for those fights, and a bit of a late bloomer, so he was not past it or anything

And anyone who is capable of watching film would see that Dempseu of 1926 is not nearly as fast or as good as he was 7 years earlier. Tunney was in shape and in his prime and Dempsey was not.

Tunney is not forgotten- he is rated very highly at light-heavyweight, even number one by some fans. However at heavy Dempsey beat more contenders, stayed longer and was more tested so he should rank higher.

 

Gene Tunney is one of the top 20 fighters of all time IMO

 

As you so beautifully put it when describing Tyson vs Douglas: "It's hard to look good when the **** is beaten out of you". Maybe Tunney made Dempsey look slow and confused him with his technical ability and speed, just like according to you, Douglas did to Tyson?

 

If that's what you really think, then that's fair reasoning.

I can only call it how I see it.

I've studied the film and come to my conclusion.

I'm trusting that you and JT have actually sat down and studied in detail the films of Dempsey, but sometimes I wonder.

Either way you look at it, surely at least that reasoning suggests that my line on Tyson is worthy of being treated as a legitimate opinion and not as some "hate agenda".

BTW, I dont think Douglas made Tyson look slow. Tyson didn't look slow.
I watched Tyson-Berbick, Tyson-Bruno 1 and Tyson-Douglas just a few days ago, and Tyson is EXACTLY the same from where I'm sitting. Douglas just did something different, and more.

Also, everything I say about inactivity and lay-offs in general stands up as the common sense viewpoint.
Taking 3 years off and living the good life WILL take a considerable toll on the majority of 28 year old fighters.
Arguments against that common sense I struggle to take seriously.

I think JohnThomas is WAY OFF by suggesting that Dempsey and Tunney were both roughly in the same area in relation to their primes when they fought.
Look at the timeline. Dempsey hadn't even fought in 3 years, while all Tunney's best work had been done in that period - and he was improving every fight.

Tyson, however, has a KO win of Alex Stewart just nine months after Douglas, and a KO win of Carl Williams just seven months before, two of his best 1st round KOs on his record. Looks like vintage Tyson to me.
The timeline also shows that Douglas fought on the same bills as Tyson in the preceding 12 months, so his activity and training peaks were the same.

And if JT's assertion about "career stage" has any meaning, Buster Douglas was one fight away from looking totally finished and being retired, and never was to become a contender in his comeback, unlike Tyson who was number 1 contender by year's end.

Lastly, I dont consider Douglas a great fighter, in case you're wondering.

I would welcome any further comments.

Here's another chance to twist some facts, make some false analogies, and then turn round and pretend or imply that I'm the guy using double-standards.