Could Tunney have defeated a Prime Dempsey?

Tunney schools him still, it was technicial skill that won those fights from the offset. In his prime Dempsey performed poorly against technically skilled boxers. He fought a close fight with Miske that was scored either way, on film he displayed errors as he was outboxed against Brennan, Meehan ofcourse beat him multiple times. None of these were nearly as good as Tunney

Tunney WIDE UD

 

Id go with Tunney.

He dominated Dempsey in those two fights outside of one rouund. It may be closer and tougher if Jack Dempsey was younger but I still think he has the skillset and ringsmarts to outbox him and win enough rounds to take the victory. Gene Tunney was always in great physical condtiion. He could move all night.

Gene Tunney by closer but still clear UD.

 

No. Dempsey spent years of 1924-1926 getting out of shape, aside from some exhibitions. He led soft life, hung out with Hollywood types, and dated many actresses. By time of Tunney bout he was off his game, and was probably overconfident. Wills fight in 1926 falling through hurt him I think. It would have been competitive, very, but Dempsey would have more of the form he only had in rare spurts in 2nd Tunney bout. Jack was different fighter, mentally and Physically, in first fight. After Sharkey bout he was fit mentally again, but still was not as fast as 1919-23 level.

 

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49
The prime, hungry, lean mean with chizzled back muscles jack dempsey stops tunney.

Winner of the 2012 Homoerotic Fiction Contest!

 

Tunney had the style to trouble Jack but inactivity make Jack's legs stiff before there time and I absolutely believe a prime and fit Dempsey had a better chance to catch up to Gene, the long count was a good example but it was obvious that Dempsey was rusty or his legs were going. They say the first thing to go is a fighters legs, not his power but legs are very important in the chase

 

This...Tunney is a great fighter, But a prime Dempsey eventually chases and catches him (after being outboxed for a stretch).

 

It's funny that people keep using Jess as some kinda benchmark or analogy to a fight with Tunney. They aren't just worlds apart.. they are light years apart in both style and achievements. jess could barely beat and was well behind against a 38 year old.. well past his best... partying it up.. not training Johnson... Yet, I'm suppose to be impressed when he losses the belt? I wasn't. Sans all the David and Goliath Nostalgia.. it was really a victory against a weak title holder no matter how you slice it. IMO Tunney wins 7 out of 10.. and the 3 losses ARE by KO.

 

Maybe, maybe not. There is no doubt that Tunney had the perfect style to beat Dempsey and give even a prime Dempsey a tough bout. He had fast hands, beautiful footwork, good sense of timing and distance, kept a good pace, knew how to clinch, and was never stopped in his entire career, and had great conditioning.

That said, the Dempsey that Tunney fought had not fought in three years, and we all know to rest is to rust, and most fighters throughout history who have taken off three years come back significantly diminished/less than what they once were. So I have no doubt that Dempsey would have been more ferocious, busier and faster of feet and hand, and could keep a better pace longer if they had met three years earlier. Much tougher fight for Tunney. But whether Dempsey wins or Tunney still manages to outbox him is something we'll never know. There are good arguments on either side.

 

The Dempsey he fought the second time had just "beaten" Jack Sharkey.

For that matter, I don't know if a prime Dempsey beats a prime Sharkey.

 

I still see a prime 1919 Dempsey eventually catching Tunney. Gene would make a good fight of it though.

 

Doesn't matter. Once you take off three years, you just are never the same again. Even a diminished Mike Tyson could still knock out lesser fare and top contenders, but to beat the best guy in the division after his three years off, that he could no longer do. Prime Dempsey stops Sharkey even faster.

Happened to many fighters throughout history. This debate could be used for several bouts. Sullivan - Corbett, Jeffries - Johnson, Dempsey - Tunney, Ali - Frazier, Tyson - Holyfield. If the three year layoffs had not happened, how much more competitive would the bouts have been, and would the results have changed?

We can debate this ad infinitum, but one thing is certain, there is nothing one can do in this world at an elite level, then not do it for three years, and then ever be as good at it again, no matter how many tune-ups one takes or training one does. There may be a few extremely rare exceptions, but for every 9 attempts to come back after a very long layoff, only one is successful. And those that do win again usually are still diminished, but good enough to win anyhow, or are fighting lesser guys, or find new ways to win, in spite of the fact that they are no longer as good.

 

Three years off can affect some more heavily than others. Muhammad Ali suffered far less than Dempsey,and Sugar Ray Leonard seemed sharp as a nail against Marvin Hagler.

 

True, some are affected more than others, but were they as good? Ali's footwork was vastly diminished. I don't think he could punch as often, and think his hand speed and reactions were just a tad diminished. But at the elite levels, even a fraction of a second can be the difference between winning and losing. Leonard was still fast of feet and hands, but was he as fast, or as sharp, and could he keep it up as well? I don't think so. But when you are absolutely phenomenal to start with, even just being really really good can still be good enough. Look at tennis. Roger Federer took no time off, has never been injured, but just by getting a little older, slowing just a tad, now he's gone from number 1 to number 3. The difference between being the best and being top 3 is sometimes subtle.

 

Prime Dempsey wins by TKO