I always asumed that Louis was the best of the heavyweight infighters in terms of ability to throw compact punches. Recent analysis of film by Michael Hunnicut suggests that Jack Dempsey threw more punches that traveled under 12" than any other heavyweight with Louis as a close second. If you put either of these guys in a telephone box with another heavyweight then they would be the one who would walk out of it. It is things like this that act as a chiling echo of the claims that the old timers made for Dempsey.
How do you know that this cutting off the jab with the right to the biceps didn't work against Tunney because Tunney was faster than the men Dempsey had fought and it was a tactic that would have never worked against Tunney?
Pretty much the crucial factor for me. But what is the significance of this distance? I'd guess not much as according to punches thrown 14". Where Louis may - may - exceed Dempsey and does in terms of destruction. Seriously, let's give Dempsey the doubt over 12" - can you really give him the doubt over 14"? If Louis and Dempsey were in the phonebox?
It may not have. Inch 4 inch, Tunney may have had the best jab in HW history, making Dempsey wholly dependent on slipping that jab in order to counter. But it's all speculation now. I believe Toledo Jack would have stopped the Tunney of the Heeney fight, primarily by getting under, or weaving to the sides of Gene's jab, then stunning him repeatedly with devastating counters. (Have you ever seen the grimace on Tunney's face when he delivered his jab? A very ill-intentioned slam to the head!) For all we know, the Dempsey of the Willard fight may have been faster than anybody Tunney ever faced. (Jack was certainly the hardest puncher. He only needed to connect two solid punches on Gene to land him, for the only time in Tunney's career. Gene would have had to withstand considerably more than that from the Dempsey of Toledo.)
Yes, but a year before Toledo, Dempsey went to a ten round draw with Billy Miske. Miske's record at the time was not that outstanding, and the Dempsey draw was sandwiched between losses to Kid Norfolk, and followed by losses to Harry Greb. Dempsey overpowered the slow moving Willard, but his performances against Miske in 1918 and Brennan in 1920 certainly leave openings for those who would consider him more vulnerable than you would allow to smaller, faster men with better boxing skills. I don't think it likely, although without film I guess there is no way of proving it, that Dempsey was faster or had better reflexes than Harry Greb.
True, Willard was ready to be transformed into the biggest pinata in heavyweight history, but the version of Dempsey he faced was honed to a razor's edge, surely the utmost peak of Jack's career. (Too bad we saw so little of it, thanks to Kearn's recklessly stupid gamble. It would have been extremely revealing to see him go a more calculated distance against the endurance champion of the Havana heat.)
Dempsey certainly looks impressive slaughtering Willard, but Jess was pushing 38, hadn't fought in 3 years, and appears, off the film, to have not been in anything like top shape. I don't see how one can reasonably extrapolate a victory over Tunney from this fight.
Mainly because Jess was also an insanely tough sonofagun, who held the most cherished prize in all sports. In connecting with him, Dempsey inflicted substantial physical damage. Gene was considerably smaller, yet still boxed tall. Dempsey's footwork and mobility against Willard was considerably superior to what the rusty and misfiring version brought to Sesquicentennial Stadium and Soldier Field. We already know for a fact that a shot version of Dempsey still had the firepower necessary to stun and drop Tunney. Improve his speed, reflexes, accuracy, sharpness, and subtract seven years from his age, and Tunney would really have his hands full. He would not have limited Dempsey to landing just two hard headshots.
I do think your arguement here is similar to the "Cooper dropped Ali and so Liston will kill him" line of reasoning. I don't dispute that Dempsey had gone back, but he still might well have caught Tunney with the best punch he ever had in his arsenal and who knows if a younger Dempsey could automatically have done better. The fact is, Dempsey hit Tunney with his best shot and Tunney got up and danced away. The Long Count clouds the whole issue, I know. I think Tunney would have beaten a regular count. I understand that many disagree.
