Does anyone still have Dempsey as a top ten heavy? Top 15?

I do not believe Tunney beats Dempsey in his prime. Technically, the past it version knocked him out in the rematch. Prime version puts him down and keeps him there.

 

Well he had problems in his prime with Brennan and a prime Mikse. And he was floored vs Firpo. All the of above happend in his prime ( I think Dempsey lacks defense ).

He also had a lot of trouble with Sharkey in between the Tunney matches. A prime Dempsey would do better than the 31 year old version, but not that much better. Dempsey blitzing through his opponents is a myth and Tunney is a class above all Dempsey opponents He had some spoty results on the way up if you are being honest too. Yet Tunney did not. And he fought a few notable opponents that Dempsey did, and Greb who of course Dempsey didn't.

 

I agree i've always thought Tunney is a bad style match up for Dempsey, yes Dempsey wasn't in his prime vs Tunney and to be fair a 3 year lay off is a long time. But that doesn't mean Tunney still doesn't necessarily beat Dempsey in his prime. He won 19 out of the 20 rounds vs Dempsey pretty clearly, i mean yes there's always a chance Dempsey could catch Tunney like he did in the famous long count fight. Although i've always thought Tunney could of got up sooner vs Dempsey and wasn't seriously hurt, although maybe i'm remembering it wrong and should look at footage again.

But yes overall i think Tunney is always a tough fight for any version of Dempsey.

 

Do you work for a government? Your position is that bureaucratic definitions define reality. But how big a man is depends on how much he weighs and not on a bureaucratic definition of which division the fight is being contested in.

In 1939 Henry Armstrong fought Lew Feldman. Armstrong weighed 135. Feldman weighed 134 1/2. They were fighting for the lightweight title. However, Armstrong was also the welter champion, so the welterweight title was also at stake. If Feldman had defeated Armstrong, he would have won both titles. I don't know how the modern bureaucrats would classify this as it would seem to me if the championship of a division is at stake one has to assume the fight is contested in that division.

Now I have no problem with it. These two men were both lightweights. Their weights tell me that. But you don't have to weigh in a division to contest in that division. You only have to be under the weight limit. And anyone at all could contest the heavyweight title.

In 1906 Tommy Burns defended the heavyweight title against Fireman Jim Flynn. Burns weighted 170. Flynn weighed 169. But Burns was the heavyweight champion and Flynn would have been if he won, although both were light-heavyweights (and, in case the issue is brought up, by the definition of the time. Kid McCoy had contested the light-heavyweight title in 1903 at 173 lbs.) How can anyone argue that a fight in which the heavyweight championship is at stake is not being contested at heavyweight?

Now when Jack Johnson defeated Burns the fight was unquestionably contested at heavyweight, but Burns at 168 1/2 was a light-heavyweight. The film displays the gross physical difference between the two. I see no reason to give Johnson any credit other than beating a 168 lb. man who was holding the heavyweight title. That is his legacy. If Flynn had beaten Burns, he would have had an equal accomplishment.

No sense going around about definitions I don't think at all relevant. If you give Dempsey or Johnson credit for beating a 172 or 168 lb. man, the only consistent policy is giving the same credit to anyone else who beats the same 172 or 168 lb. man. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. All that matters to me for legacy or resume is what your opponent weighs, not arbitrary division cutoffs.

 

No, I don't work for the government. I do try to apply criteria to my rankings consistently.

I consider Armstrong's wins over Feldman as part of both his LW and WW resume as it was contested for both world titles. I'm not saying that's the definitive approach. It is my approach. Tunney vs Carpentier was not contested for the HW world title.

On reflection, I've been guilty of over complicating our discussion unnecessarily. If you could please pay me the courtesy of directly answering this next question either yes or no, then my subsequent reply to you will be the last on this subject - do you consider Tunneys win over Carpentier as contributing to his HW resume?

 

He did as much for the sport's evolution as any fighter before or after.

 

Older generation is bad as New nostalgia is bad too sorry but Tyson fury is definitely better than JD

 

"I do try to apply criteria to my rankings consistently"

But your criteria are intrinsically inconsistent in my judgment.

"do you consider Tunney's win over Carpentier as contributing to his HW resume?"

Yes.

Why?

1--Carpentier at a lighter weight than he fought Tunney at challenged for the heavyweight title. He was obviously considered a worthy opponent for a heavyweight and in fact for the heavyweight champion.

2--Carpentier had been a champion at heavyweight. He held the European heavyweight championship for nine years. Here are some of the weights for his more salient Euro heavyweight fights:

Carpentier 168--Billy Wells 187 (wins title 1913)
Carpentier 172--Billy Wells 189
Carpentier 169--Joe Beckett 184

Carpentier won all these fights by KO's. He also won a fight against Gunboat Smith (170 to 182) contested for the "white" heavyweight title.

3--Tunney weighing 173 for Carpentier did not mean he was at the time or would be in the future campaigning as a light-heavyweight. Tunney's goal was a heavyweight title shot against Dempsey, not a fight with Mike McTigue. Tunney weighed 183 for his previous fight against Spalla, who was a bigger, and I assume slower, man at 6' 1" and 191. For Carpentier, Tunney came in at 173. This could be because Carpentier demanded it contractually. Or it might be that Tunney felt being lighter and faster was the key to handling Carpentier. I don't believe any title could have been at stake.

The bottom line is that Carpentier was clearly a stepping stone to a heavyweight title match for Tunney because of Carpentier's achievements at heavyweight in Europe.

How valuable is Carpentier as a heavyweight scalp? That is certainly debatable. But my take is he is as valuable to Tunney as he is to Dempsey.

*Note that Armstrong and Feldman were both under the lightweight limit with both the lightweight and welter titles at stake. So you credit this on Armstrong's welter resume, and I assume would credit Feldman's welter resume if he won.

But when Armstrong fought Lou Ambers with both under the lightweight limit, the welter title was not at stake. Ambers did not become welter champion, even though both men were under the welterweight limit. So do you credit this fight to Amber's welter legacy, or dock Armstrong's welter legacy, or just consider it a lightweight fight at the weight it was contested?

Why were these two fights with basically the same weights different? They were under different governing bodies, and politicians are rarely consistent.

What is consistent is going by the weight of the opponent. That is factually absolute and tells one exactly what you are beating in any period of history.

 

Thank you. You consider Tunney's win over Carpentier, in a non-title fight where both weighed 173lbs, as contributing towards Tunney's HW resume. That is of course fine, it's completely your prerogative.

I'll take you back to the start of our exchange, which started with me addressing a response you made to Janitor's post describing Tunney's "HW resume as thin", in which you cited Tunney's win over Carpentier as one of the reasons you disagreed with his statement. I think I'm on safe ground in saying that Janitor, as with probably every poster on this forum with the exception of you, does not consider Tunney's win over Carpentier as contributing towards his HW resume. I'm not saying that invalidates your view, I was just trying to point out that is 1 reason you have a different view as to the depth of Tunney's HW resume than Janitor (& I).

 

No problem.

I am often contra mundum.


But remember my point is I am not going to credit Dempsey with beating a 172 lb. Carpentier while turning around and not crediting Tunney for beating a 173 lb. Carpentier.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The real question is not whether I consider the 173 lb. Tunney defeating the 173 lb. Carpentier as contributing to Tunney's heavyweight resume or credentials, but did Tex Rickard and Gene Tunney consider it thus important?

 

the very big Harry Wills was also ignored after wins over Fulton and Firpo which supposedly were title eliminators, and probably would have been if Wills had lost.

 

Nice to see a mature , grown up, and polite retort to a fellow poster who ever so gently made a contra view point to your own, others could learn from this.
stay safe buddy.

 

As is often the case in all kinds of situations, the error is pushing an either-or solution.

For example LaMotta against Jackie Wilson or Robinson. LaMotta was 160+. Wilson and Robinson were 145. So Jake was a middleweight and Wilson and Robinson welters. Does this make it a middleweight fight? I would say no, as Wilson and Robinson are not middleweights. But it can't be a welter fight either. It actually is a third type of fight. An intra-divisional fight in which a man from a heavier weight class fights a man in a smaller weight class.

So should LaMotta get middleweight resume credit for beating Wilson or Robinson? I would say no. Those men are not middleweights. Jake gets resume credit, and beating Robinson, even with a big weight pull, was an impressive achievement.

What about the flip side? Robinson as a welter defeated LaMotta. I would give Robinson middleweight credit for that. Robinson was under the middleweight limit.