How much credit do you give Willard, Dempsey, Tunney ?

Tunney beat the best opponent and gave a boxing masterclass, which at least makes us question if he'd do the same to the prime version

 

I believe Tunney would repeat the boxing lesson but Dempsey also has a far better chance of finishing Tunney off. Could go either way, depending on whether Dempsey can catch Tunney like he did in their second fight.

I don't see Tunney being able to escape against a prime Dempsey if he gets caught. Neither does Dempsey have the ability to outpoint Tunney.

 

Pretty much agree, could go either way as Tunney should outbox him but he does move back in straight lines with low hands, which a pressuring left hooker could exploit. I don necessarily think 'Tunney would get finnished', but Dempsey may have caught him more often going back in straight lines and maybe got him out of there because of that

Prime for prime I still lean towards Tunney

 

Keep in mind that the key shot which initiated the Long Count sequence was a right hand counter punch, not a hook. Gene jabbed in mid ring, and Jack slipped it by canting his head to his left. As Tunney's jab sailed between his head and right hand, Dempsey slammed that right to Gene's temple from outside, stunning him, and initiating that retreat to the ropes. Jack was known for his hook, but his right was nicknamed, "Iron Mike," and it may actually have been the harder punch. (He knocked out Firpo with a right uppercut. Dempsey was no Frazier. He carried one punch knockout power in both hands.) This could have ramifications for Gene's propensity to move back in straight lines. It's not just the hook he has to worry about.

 

In a number of ways, Ali-Frazier I was the modern-day parallel of that since many looked at Ali as still being the rightful champion and he only had a couple fights after his 3 year layoff before fighting Frazier.

 

I know he was 2 handed, but my general point was you need that left hook, fast feet and combinations to chase down a backpeddler. I'm not sure if that wasnt a momentary mistake from Tunney though, he did keep himself safe circling and when he back peddled he'd come back with counters the majority of the time

As for the 'LONG COUNT', Tunney was in control of that count.

 

A prime Jack Dempsey would attack a boxer HARD!!! Jack once told me he preferred fighting against a crafty boxer. Gene Tunney, at his best, would not last the distance against Jack Dempsey at his best...in my opinion, of course.

 

I absolutely agree that Gene was in control of that count, and it looked to me as though he could have gotten up about as quickly as Ali did in the FOTC, or as fast as Holmes got up from Shavers, if he'd risen with all possible speed. (I have a BIG problem with the fact that Dave Barry immediately started counting when Dempsey was knocked to a knee in the following round. His officiating was not equitable.)

My speculation for a peak for peak showdown is based on the supposition that Jack would have had the hand and foot speed to indeed be able to chase him down, catch him, and stun him like that repeatedly, eventually forcing a stoppage. I have no great quarrel with others who believe Tunney simply had his number. I hold both in the very highest esteem.

 

I hold both in high esteem as well, 2 ATG but I can see Dempseys feet looked a bit locked and stiff, I think he would have been better before the time off but Gene was one of the best boxers ever, right up there with Walcott and Ali

 

I believe that the Jack Dempsey of Toledo and before,then described as fast as a welterweight, would have certainly caught up with Tunney and ko Gene..Jack Dempsey after a three year layoff was not the "Manassa Mauler" of old...He was rusty and not pantherlike, he was in his prime..Still in the long count in 1927, he came MIGHTY close to koing a prime Gene Tunney...Speed KILLS, and the 32 year old Dempsey lost his, by 1927...

 

I dont give Willard any credit .. He was the 'opponent' that gave Dempsey the impetus that gave him lift-off to be the most popular fighter of all time .. That is in no way a criticism of Dempsey, he is assured of a place amoung the greats of all time and rightly so, Dempsey was a brilliant fighter who captured the imagination of the world with his ultra-aggressive style .. Willard is a mere footnote of history, kind of like Trevor Berbick in the Tyson story ..

Gene Tunney is the interesting one, often forgotten, often denigrated but by far the best fighter of these 3 .. His battles with Greb, his dissecting of Dempsey using 'movement', which was the blueprint of every boxer that came after him. Tunney needs to be remembered as a very important figure in boxing. Maybe im biased because hes one of my favourites, but Gene Tunney was a sensational, tactical, strategic fighter who plotted and carried out the downfall of Dempsey

 

Its far too easy to use the 'prime' argument, you can use that for every fighter in history .. For millions of boxing fans an '88 Tyson is the greatest thing ever, but its all to do with image .. Ali would have destroyed an 88 Tyson, Louis would have taken him out, a prime Holmes would have out-boxed him and i believe the best heavyweight version of Holyfield would have beaten an '88 Tyson .... Fans get too carried away with the 'image' of a fighter and dont look at things like, psychological attack (Ali), and styles (Louis, Holyfield) .. Joe Louis was the most destructive and one of the most accurate punchers in heavyweight history, an '88 Tyson would have been wiped out against Louis in my opinion ..

 

Whatever happened to that "Riko" guy who claimed Tunney was just a "bum" and a "journeyman"? :think

 

I find it very difficult to make that assessment with any certainty. For one thing, all of those men were relatively old and inactive when stepping in the ring with their successors, and all of them, or at least most were beaten more than convincingly... Top it off with the fact that there were qualified challengers in heavyweight boxing back in the teens and twenties who weren't getting title shots, and I really see no way of telling for sure how these aging champions would have looked against them.... Willard in particular was a man waiting to be taken.

Its sort of like saying that no other man in 1988, would have beaten Spinks asside from Tyson, when in fact most people on this board might produce several names when asked.

 

I would suggest this 'Riko' guy was a total ******* who knew nothing about boxing .. Tunney is a Legend !!