Just watched Tunney/Dempsey II...

The above argument in Dempsey's favor slamming Dave Barry is ridiculous. First of all Pacheco was an ass and certainly not a historian and Roger Kahn was a self admitted Dempsey fanboy whose book is about the purest example of a hagiography you can find. Biased doesnt even begin to cover it. There was no unifying set of rules governing the entirety of boxing across the USA in 1927. So saying "the ref should pick up the count from the timekeeper" is simply not a statement of fact and ignores the context in which the long count occurred. When Dempsey dropped Tunney Barry immediately raised his hand to begin the count. He only stopped counting when he noticed Dempsey refusing to retreat. More than once he he pointed Dempsey to the correct corner before finally having physically usher him in the correct direction. The referee in Illinois at the time under the newly created boxing rules codified the year before when boxing was legalized in Illinois gave the referee full discretion, based upon instances exactly like what was occurring in the ring, to halt the count and resume it when the fighter had finally retreated to the corner. These rules were gone over in detail with both fighters and their camps more than once prior to the fight and were actually published in local papers before the fight. When Tunney dropped Dempsey Barry lept in immediately with a raised hand to begin the count but Dempsey was up before he could even count to one and before Tunney could begin to retreat so we dont ever get to see if there MIGHT have been an inconsistency to Barry's actions. As things actually happened Barry not only acted perfectly consistently but also strictly by the rules as they were written at the time. Kahn questioning why Barry was selected as the referee as if it was some sort of conspiracy simply illustrates his ignorance. Barry had been a professional boxer for a decade at the turn of the century, was one of the most experienced referees in Chicago at the time the sport was legalized there, and was a boxing trainer with amateurs at the CYO including a young Barney Ross. He knew his business and was respected. His actions that night were upheld and lauded by the both State Athletic Commission and the NBA. It was Dempsey who came out publicly with the bald faced lie that no neutral corner rule existed and that it was made up on the spot. You can still find rule books published when boxing was legalized in Chicago that predate Dempsey's attempt at saving face which refute his allegations. Dempsey had nobody to blame but himself for attempting to break the same rule he had been breaking since at least the day he won the title. The corner rule has been in the sport since the Marquis of Queensbury rules were enacted (look it up). Every place Dempsey fought at professionally during his career used some modification of that rule to prevent fighters from standing over their fallen opponents and gaining an unfair advantage and yet Dempsey continually was allowed to get away with breaking that rule. His fans are just angry that the rules were finally enforced against him.

 

Hmm? you know I hadn't considered it much but if Dempsey couldn't corner Tunney I have a hard time seeing Marciano doing it either. I'd favor Louis over him but wouldn't be surprised if Tunney was ahead after 10 or 11 rounds

 

We like boxers who trade, not runners who try to win on points.

 

As I've said many times, my posts such as these are always, IMHO, whether stated or not.

I'm not arguing Chicago rules in place for the Dempsey vs. Tunney 2nd fight. The validity of rules are always open for debate. Example: Does a rule in Chicago supersede NBA rules? I'm stating my opinion on what the rules should be, and how they should be enforced. In other words, the actions of an excited fighter, who just knocked someone down, should not be the determining factor in calling a knockout, unless he actually hits the downed man.

Here's another opinion about that fight I have, that's probably equally unpopular: If you look at that count, as it happened, closely, Tunney should still have been counted out. There was sufficient time where part of Tunney's body was still touching the canvas, after the count of 9, to call him out.

Waiting until 9 is not a good way for an alert fighter to decide to rise. 8 is much more reasonable, and even that can be risky, in case of a minor semi-stumble. (If we could we should ask Jerry Quarry!) IMHO, Dempsey should have been credited with regaining the title that night. This is not a knock on the Referee, who I believe tried to do an honest job.

For the record, Dempsey is not my favorite fighter, nor do I even rank him in my all-time top 3 Heavyweights.