Obiously when Dempsey was in better shape for second fight he performed better nearly koing him. Then again he was 8 years away from his peak.
Cus D'Amato told young Tyson stories about former champs like Dempsey and Tyson grew up believing they were something special, that they were more than just ordinary pugilists. In reality Tyson could wipe the floor with Dempsey.
I think Dempsey was not at his best for Gibbons or for Tunney, obviously. Surprised that some people here are doubting the level of his decline at the time of the Tunney fight. Ironically some of the same postors have accused Dempsey supporters of ignoring major facts and applying different standards to modern champions. I reckon that if ANY modern champ took 2 to 3 years off between defences we would all expect their skills to decline considerably.
Yes, it should be noted that Dempsey's losses to Tunney may have been a result of his extended layoff.
Tunney wasn't that much younger than Dempsey, turned pro less than a year later, had more fights too. Demspey was outclassed in both matches.
Well, Tunney may have had a few more fights also. Overall there won't be much difference in rounds fought between them. There's always an excuse with Demspey "he had loads of tough fights", "he'd only fought a few fight in past few years". One says 'ring wear', the other 'ring rust'. He was well beaten and it was embarrassing.
Tunney himself said he was at his peak around 1926-28. Those were his best years and he was a bit of a late bloomer. Dempseys best years were between 1918-23. Simply put he was past his prime.