Prime for prime Jack Dempsey v Gene Tunney

Out of his his natural weight class, with 69 fights in his career......With more tough fights than Dempsey ! Especially the wars against Greb.....In my opinion, well, Tunney was slightly past-prime...at least....

 

Miske was not primarily a boxer ,and the Meehan fights were 4 rounders.
Dempsey handled Gibbons pretty well , and he was a far superior than either of them .

 

Dempsey for me, probably by stoppage. The Dempsey that Tunney fought was a pale imitation of the Dempsey of 1918-1921.

It's probably also worth remembering that if the neutral corner rule had not been in effect in fight 2, it's quite possible Tunney would have been kayoed in the second fight. Jack could have just stood over Gene and followed up immediately Gene had stood up. Gene would not have had those 5 extra seconds, and none of us can be absolutely sure how much of a difference those 5 extra seconds made to Gene's chances of survival, but the reality is that Gene would have been in better shape 14 seconds after being floored than he would have been after 9.

 

I've not been on this board for a while but this style of writing reminds me of combatesdeboxeo...have combatesdeboxeo and thegoldenera ever been seen in the same room together?

 

Tunney told his son that he could have gotten up were he not given the extra time, but he also said he was not sure if he could have escaped Dempsey after that, jack would have rushed in with a furious assault and Gene was unsure if the cobwebs still being there that he could get away from it.

 

I think the fact that Dempsey took him the distance and had him on the canvas at one point, despite being inactive and aging, basically gives us an idea of what he might have done to Tunney a few years earlier.. Sure, Gene's illusive movements and exceptional boxing ability would keep him alive for a while and might even win him a few rounds, but I don't think he would be able to stay away from a peak Dempsey forever.

 

Dempsey with intact speed makes this one a lot tougher. It could play out like a competitive decision, and Tunney could also end up like Levinski if Dempsey can close the gap fast enough. What mr.magoo said has merit IMO... What would happen if he wasn't so easily outsped?

Hard to say.

 

The thing about a prime Dempsey is that he only has to put you on the canvas for ten seconds, then whatever happens before or after that is irrelevant.

Dempsey is the absolute master of putting you down for ten seconds at some point during the fight.

I would call the fight for him, expecting him to loose most rounds and I would not feel safe untill the reff counted ten.

I think that the notion that Tuinney was by far the best fighter that Dempsey ever faced should be challenged. If you take away his wins over Dempsey, his resume dosn't stand out relative to Dempseys other opponents.

 

The count doesn't start until the fighter who scored the knockdown is on his way to a neutral corner.... it doesnt matter if Tunney was down for an hour.

Ali vs. Liston II.... you must think that ended fine right? Walcott gets a bad rap but he was actually doing what he was supposed to do. Nat Fleischer fvcked that fight up. Ali wasn't going to a neutral corner so Walcott didn't start the count until he did... Liston was up before Walcott reached 10 and he let the fight continue.... Nat ran his mouth that Liston was down for more than 10 and the rest is history.

Tunney beat Dempsey twice fair and square, get over it already. Prime vs. Prime? Who knows, but I doubt Dempsey stops him. Tunney was never stopped... one of only three Linear HW Champs who were never stopped (Marciano and Bowe are the others).

 

Did Tunney do any better in his series against Greb than Tommy Gibbons did?

 

1. Agreed
2. In 4 or 6 round slappy or avoid contests? Yes, Miske earned a 10 RD draw that's true but Dempsey did get the better of that series.
3. So did Buster Douglas, but it's not like you'd pick him to beat a 1988 Tyson. It can't really be that simple/easy. Dempsey fought early and often in a rough tough gamed era. Sometimes hungered, and never truly as grounded or secure as many later fighters. Only fair to evaluate the best most secure Dempsey. I'm absolutely fine with your conclusion, though.

Solid point, and very true.

Dempsey either gets too much credit or Tunney is getting way overlooked here. In my mind, I feel it's parallels Douglas-Tyson in a sense that while Tyson get absolutely smacked around (And both Tyson and Dempsey have a longcount/knockdown controversy, although Tyson's hold little to no water) he still gets predicted to win if he were at his absolute peak. You make all these grievances for a premature Dempsey against some slick boxer in some 4 round contest, but I don't see the same balanced perspective like you might provide some of your other favorite fighters, like Tyson. Just my view. Very good post either way.

 

Superb and alert analogy!:good

What Jack did to Battling Levinski in November 1918 is of course not on film. But nobody had stopped him in about 250 bouts prior to Dempsey, and Levinski was 27 years old, near his peak and smack dab in the middle of his four year reign at 175. Like Tunney, he was an excellent boxer, outstanding on defense, durable and game. Just because we didn't see Dempsey do it on film doesn't mean he wasn't perfectly capable of wiping out a first rate stylist at his best, and what he did to Levinski in Philly should bear witness to that. Levinski took that LHW Title from another giant killing Jack, Dillon, but Dempsey was Dillon on steroids before steroids came into being.