Could Tunney have defeated a Prime Dempsey?

You point is well taken and you argue it well. One weakness is that Dempsey did not just come up a little short in 1926. He was more or less helpless and probably lucky it was not a 15 round fight.

It certain is not beyond reason to say that Dempsey did no better against Tunney in 1926 than Jeffries did against Johnson.

The 1927 fight was still pretty one-sided except for the one explosion in the 7th. That certainly leaves open the possibility that it was not only that Jack had gone back but that he met in Tunney an the opponent with the exact style to give him a terrible time at any point, and that Tunney was simply better that Jack's earlier victims.

 

JCV landed 40% more power shots, 120 to 85, and the harder jabs, tho less of them. Sweat Pea was clearly hurt in the 4th and 7th, wobbly legged, even noted by Clancy on both occasions and shown in replays. Lastly, I don't give guys championships for running away and not engaging, which is what Pea did when he discovered he couldn't match power in the pocket with JCV.

This was obviously a coronation for Whitaker, a gimee complete with a script that is very obvious, which Tony Orlando follows to a T. I'll finish up my scoring tonight. It's not like I didn't score this fight live back in the day or a couple times since.

I'm sure everyone is enjoying our tangent here.

 

LOL... Stop it buddy.. Whitaker was not hurt. The first knockdown was pea more off balance doing his ducking thing. He got up right away and was laughing about it. He was not hurt. I just don't know how you can look at his fight with JCV and say he just ran and didn't engage. You can say the same thing about him against Nelson and Ramirez..Yet that doesn't stop of from giving Pea the clear dominating win. JCV didn't fight bad, in fact, better than expected. However, Pea won that fight on points with or without the deductions.

 

"I haven't seen any flagrant holding behind the head, especially enough to warrant a deduction." Gil Clancy, Rd 9.

"Have you seen anything like that, Larry?"

"No, I haven't".

But Orlando was promising Whitaker and his corner he would be taking away a point 2 rounds earlier, and that statement was caught on the audio. That's not fishy? When have you ever heard a ref promise a corner and their fighter that he was going to essentially award them a one point advantage as soon as he got the chance? Doesn't that change how a fighter approaches his opponent, luring in for the infraction? How many times does Pea grab the back of his head and look at Orlando even when nothing of consequence occurred?

If you can't see the script for this fight playing out, you are highly naive.

 

Did you also "miss" or forget to mention the commentary on the SECOND deduction where the guy talks about spinal column and how dangerous that is and how JCV KEEP ON hitting him there. I'm going to assume you just "missed" that convo and didn't intentionally leave it out. Ummm actually, he didn't promise anything, that is your spin on the conversation to try and support your scripted theory. You hear ref ALL the time tell corners... "yes I hear your grievance, if he continues to do that a point will be taken away" this happens all the time. Nothing new there, and certainly nothing to points to a script or the ref being in out it for certain. Again, who landed more shots and at a higher percentage? Clearly Pea. You claim Pea was hurt and he was no such thing after the KD.. the was laughing and telling the ref that was no KD. After the fight, again he said what KD, I wasn't even hurt. Trying to find a script there, doesnt' mean there is a script there.

 

My answer is maybe ... Dempsey did next to nothing as champion and started to clearly decline after Carpentier ... we never saw him beat anyone as good as Tunney .. it would have always been a challenging match up for Jack ...

I do believe Dempsey had the physical skills, if maxed out which never happened, to defeat the best Tunney for whatever that's worth ..

 

Prety much sums it up.

 

Per the topic, yes, Tunney could have defeated a prime Dempsey. But his chances would be a definite maybe. I wouldn't put much money on it either way.

 

This is how I see it.

We are always a bit nervous about this type of fight, when our predictions are actualy going to be put to the test.

 

Makes me wonder what would have happened if Greb were in the ring instead of Gibbons, tho. But that's another topic.

 

A lot of people at the time wondered that!

 

Real quick.... Greb-Gibbons IV was supposed to be an easy elimination match at MSG for Gibbons who was being touted as "Dempsey's next opponent." The winner was slated to face Tunney and then fight Dempsey. Both Tunney and Dempsey were in attendance.

So what happens? Greb takes 12 out of 15 rounds. Then he fights Tunney and wins every round. And then! And then! ...... crickets.

 

I think 1919 Dempsey's significant edge in foot speed compared to a 1926/'27 version of himself possibly makes him a solid favourite to get to and HURT Tunney sooner and more often than he did in those post-prime efforts.
I mean, really, his lack of legs seemed to be his biggest obstacle against Tunney. The prime Dempsey had magnificent leg speed, and would be on Tunney like white on rice.

There's a distinct possiblity that Tunney would rise to the occasion though. He would have to dance his socks off like never before, do some extremely fast boxing and moving. Otherwise Dempsey's going to beat him up.

I'd give Dempsey the edge.

 

I could only really answer this question if there was better footage available of both mens careers.

 

Yes, he could.