How much of a chance was Tunney given against Dempsey?

That means the first LarSarza Marciano fight can be found maybe lol.

 

These 'lost' fights have always fascinated me, there must be some out there, somewhere, waiting to be re-discovered. I've not heard of any significant 'lost' footage being found recently though

 

I have kept following the sport, through the eighties, but my interest has waned in the last 15 years of so. Most of the big fights are on cable and as you grow older you pick up more responsibilities at work, etc. Prior to retiring, I worked for years on weekends to build up my pension (figured as percentage of gross earnings with a weekend shift differential), so it was more difficult to watch. I'm still interested though and am looking forward to Calzaghe and Kessler. My interest in the history of the sport remains keen.

 

Yes, it did really paid off, thank you.

I have watched the old timers, several of them back when they were active, such as Fullmer and Tiger. It is, I think, an interesting question why relatively shorter men seemed to have been more consistently successful in past times.
I would like to see what others think about it, but the old guys--Walker, Cerdan, Zale, LaMotta, Fullmer, and Tiger came at you in a straight line and low, and it was tough to keep them off if they had good foot speed like Walker, Cerdan, and Fullmer. They were all built like brick outhouses, and if you were taller, you had a higher center of gravity and were probably not as strong at the same weight and got shoved around.

I noticed on the film it is this way, except for Robinson, among the old champions on the whole. Few were tall for their weight division, among the middles.

 

I genuinley believe that the bookmakers were more conservative in asigning odds back in the day.

Mike Tyson was a 42/1 favourite over James Douglas and a 10/1 favourite over Evander Holyfield. I get the idea that in Joe Louis's day they would have made him 10/1 over Douglas and 3/1 over Holyfield with the same expectations as to how the fight would unfold.

Perhaps it is because bookmakers today can borrow more money to offset individual miscalculations.

 

Perhaps, but it is kind of hard to believe the bookmakers were rolling in dough during the Depression when Louis came onto the scene versus the prosperous twenties when Dempsey was at his peak--only ten to fifteen years apart.
Also, don't the odds shorten if money comes in on the underdog?

 

I just can't see Dempsey or Louis having been a 42/1 favourite over any challenger with two hands.

 

Dempsey's best odds were 7-1 over Miske.

Louis' was 20-1 tops over guys like Harry Thomas and Al McCoy.

The Tyson odds are really bloated reflecting perhaps modern hype, but I think he was favored in the SECOND Holyfield fight, wasn't he? And Liston was favored in the SECOND Ali fight at 3-1. Didn't they watch the first fight or at least the films of the fight?

The longer odds, of course, might merely reflect that the challenger is far less well known to the betting public than the challengers were back in the 20s to 50's era when boxing was a mainstream sport.
My guess is a lot more people knew who Brennan or LaStarza were than knew who Douglas was.

 

Didnt Tyson always seem to be a 30-to something top dog in the 80's?? The myth of Tyson made Tyson betting favors in the Holyfiled rematch, and of couse the Lewis fight when it should have been clear Tyson was done. Dont be shock if he comes back after his prison term and he ends up fighting the Kilt brothers, people will bet mad money for Tyson to win at 0dds like 15-1 or something like that.

 

I saw more of Archi Moore on TV than the Rock so favored Moore. My parents favored the Rock....I was @ 7 and knew boxing well since I was 5.

At five I had seen my first for real black eye and it did not look anything like the Little Rascles....a woman of 175 pounds was married to a 135 pound man, and she'd given him that Black eye.
I slithered into that household, and was in thier living room for the very next fight night....it was dark, because we had shitty fuzzy Black and White TV back then....
I watched the woman sitting on the couch, hollaring and doing, jab, hook, cross, upper cut. One eye on the woman, one eye on the TV. The husband sitting next to her, swayed away from wild hooks, once in a while brought up his left to cover his face......I saw that if the guy on the TV had done what she said, he'd won....sorry no second black eye, but she'd wipe the mat with Ali's daughter.
From that night on, I knew the elemements of boxing....1953...

During the early to mid 50's there were 4 TV channels, and one that died featured boxing a lot...3 or more nights a week...., then it got down to Gillette Fight night and that was all...I think they had some boxing on all the four Channels....up to say 1957 or so.

The reason for this crap and the death of boxing as a real national sport, as I see it, was the ****ing Neison Rating system.....they did not have the rating box in bars, where back when you could drink and drive most men watched TV in bars....while the woman watched I love Lucy, and the first stupid and now normal, Father is too stupid to come in out of the Rain, staring William Bendex.(sp)