Prime Dempsey v Prime Tunney?

How in the hell can you "rampage" though a division when you purposely avoid the two best challengers and opt for a sickly Billy Miske (anyone doubting this, please read Moyle's book), and completely trumped up hype jobs in Carpentier and Firpo?

That sounds more like a very careful and slow navigation to the quietest ports in the division.

 

It's Dempsey's legs that give him a great chance of defeating Tunney, prime v prime.

Dempsey had lost a good step by 1926/'27 yet he still managed to catch Tunney in the rematch and put him down hard.
You'd have to figure that with the foot speed of his prime he'd be able to catch Tunney earlier, and more often.

 

Even name fighters from that period can have unreported fights, and with non name fighters, you can virtually assume that they have unrecorded fights.

Yes some of these guys were indeed name fighters on the slide, but that is the type of opponent that every great fighter has been built up against.

Either way, a guy who is being matched against opponents like Fulton, Brennan, and Levinsky, is not a protected contender.

 

There is a world of difference between a contender not being as good as people though/think they were, and being a fraud.

I respect you as a historian, but you have a distressing tendency to overstate the case against fighters that you have come to regard as being overrated.

Carpintier was what he was. A legitimate heavyweight contender, who perhaps got a couple of lucky breaks, and got built up by the media.

Either way, it is hard to criticise Dempsey for fighting him, given the undeniable media interest in the fight.

 

From Feb 1918
Jim Flynn-ko1
Fred Fulton-ko1
Battling Levinsky ko 1
Gunboat Smith Ko 2
Jess Willard Ko 3
Billy Miske Ko 3
Bill Brennan Ko 12
Georges Carpentier Ko 4
Tommy Gibbons --Won decisive 15 rd decision
Luis Angel Firpo -Ko 2 September 1923
So S THESE FIGHTS MADE JACK DEMPSEY THE GREATEST RING ATTRACTION IN HISTORY FOR A REASON, THAT UNFORTUNATLY
YOU WISH TO DENY...Political correctness not withstanding ...
P.S. Though Dempsey did NOT fight Harry Wills, though they did SIGN for a bout that was canceled, and Dempsey and my idol Harry Greb never fought each other, it DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEMPSEY WOULD NOT HAVE NOT BEEN THE FAVORITE TO WIN..
So to answer your question, millions of fight fans thought DEMPSEY WAS THE GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT of his era
notwithstanding your critique of him almost a century later...:hi:

 

You're historical take and knowledge of these fighters is exactly why I asked you this question. And I agree 100% that unless there's some sort of valid reason, why not take into account the opinion of those who were around to witness these fighters and one should also take into account what the contemporises of these two fighters had to say about the abilities of each.

Taking a 3 year lay off with the style of boxing that Dempsey fought, is essentially an unrecoverable situation. I would use Tyson as Exhibit A for this assertion. I rarely ever bet on boxing but I was one of the few who picked Holyfield to win their fight because I knew the level of opposition that Tyson was fighting was far below the quality of fighters he was fighting before he went to jail. That and the fact he had very few rounds under his belt, made me pretty confident that Holyfield would win. In somewhat the same vein, Dempsey was a rusty version of himself when he fought Tunney.

 

Carpentier was a fraud as a HW when Dempsey fought him. In that context its an apt description and thats the context we are discussing.

Ive given Carpentier credit for what he was. He was a legitimately dangerous right hand puncher and he was inarguably the single most important figure in European boxing history. As such he deserves to be in the HOF. But he is/was vastly overrated as a fighter and I would argue that at any time during his career within a couple of divisions in which he was fighting at any particular time there were several non champions who could have beaten him handily.

How exactly was he a legitimate contender at HW? He had only two wins of note between 1914 and his fight with Dempsey: A likely fixed fight with LHW Bat Levinsky and his KO over Beckett who wasnt anything special. I would submit that there were easily ten better HWs than Beckett in the world. Like I said, that fight was too big to not be made so I dont fault Dempsey for it but it was a complete mismatch and its hardly a fight to be lauding Dempsey for or to compare to what Tunney would have done against Dempsey. Tunney and Carpentier were two totally different animals.

 

:deal and you don't have to fight 60 fights (at least) with,from what I can see, no actual genuine losses (a couple of bull**** 4 round quasi exhibitions against some fat navy mascot) and an IMO bogus/dive loss versus a guy you knock out in 1 round in the return match, before you get the title shot.

 

How was he a legitimate contender at heavyweight?

Because the media said he was for a start.

Even if you take a critical view of his career, there is still enough to suggest that he was the equivalent of a ranked heavyweight today.

I don't think that even Dempsey's supporters on this form, make his head to head case based on this fight.

OK so he was overrated.

Let's move on, and give him credit for whatever he is due.

 

It's funny when you read some of the articles about Dempsey it seems rather obvious people needed a hero and wanted to read about one. If you read some of the stuff written by him you'd think he could leap tall buildings in a single bound. I'm mean it's almost laughable. Yet, "these" are the opinions we're suppose to take literally and not with a grain of salt? Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. What some writers said during Dempsey time was more fluff than substance imo

 

Justify the assertions that you have just made.

Sure there might be some truth in what you say, but if you are going to hang a lot on it, then you need to back it up.

 

Tommy Gibbons couldn't knock out Miske? Infact Miske beat Gibbons over 2 years after he'd lost to Dempsey because he was sickly? Greb couldn't knock Miske out? Jack Dillon couldn't knock Miske out? Levinsky couldn't knock Miske out? Fulton couldn't knock Miske out? (Infact Miske KO'd Fulton in 1 round 2 years after he lost to Dempsey because he was on deaths door)?
Gunboat and Flynn couldn't knock Miske out? Brennan couldn't knock Miske out? (Infact Miske Miske beat Brennan a year after he'd lost to Dempsey because he was on deaths door)? Kid Norfolk couldn't knock Miske out? Sounds like some sic performances as opposed to sickly?

Similarly in Brennan's first 61 fights also against a who's who of the heavyweight division in the day (basically his whole career discounting the tail end when he should never have been in the ring) the only man that knocked him out was you guessed it... Dempsey! And he did it twice! Nobody else knocked him out - no one - just Dempsey and twice!? What does that tell you?

Whatever all the revisionist historians want to spout about Carpentier, fact is from 1912 to 1926 only one man knocked Carp out...you guessed it Dempsey! And in 4 rounds? And probably could've done it sooner had he not been told to let it go a few? Jeanette couldn't knock Carp out? Gunboat couldn't? Levinsky couldn't? Gibbons couldn't? The Siki fight was a farce and Carp was giving him a drubbing until he got kicked in the leg and the Tunney fight goes down as a TKO but that was a low blow - carbon copy of the Sharkey/Schmeling one by the way - Dempsey was the only one who genuinely knocked him out and put him away with ease really?

Firpo again for all his shortcomings again only one man actually knocked him out before he retired in 1926 - Jack Dempsey!

Jack Sharkey aswell whatever the circumstances of his knockout against Dempsey - fact is he knew the referee was counting him and if he wanted to stay in the fight he should've just quit the moaning about the shot to the ***** and got up - whether he thought he was cheap spotted or not if he was ok and wanted to be there he would've just got up and given Dempsey worse back -that tells me he didn't want anymore of Dempsey and/or that left hook had genuinely taken more out of him than anyone appreciated - either way between 1924 and 1936 only one other man actually KO'd Sharkey and that was Carnera when he lost the heavyweight title in another ending that people have cast doubt over the legitimacy of - so if you don't wanna accept that he was "rampaging" through the division you must at the very least concede that he was KO most all the people he was fighting and KO people who either very few were Kayoing, or no one was Kayoing other than him - so whether you like the term rampage or not he was kicking butt like no one else in the division?

 

And name me the four best heavyweights he beat to get provoke such a claim?

Or perhaps did something a little more liquid grease their pens?

 

And again, your post means what ? Dempsey had a weak chin since nothing like Carpentier "rocked" him and Tunney dropped him w an "ordinary" shot ? Just speak English man ..