Tunney/Dempsey were primitive

I don't think that either of them represented anything new stylisticaly if you take into acount the lower weight classes.

Benny Leonard was around before either of them.

Mike Gibbons was verry much the prototype for Gene Tunney.

Terry McGovern was to my mind the pioneer of Jack Dempseys style. Nobody had seen anything like it when he came allong. Dempsey became the first sporting megastar by being the heavyweight Terry McGovern.

When Dempsey first came along many people described him as a bigger version of Jack Dillon. It would be verry interesting to see some footage of Dillon.

We can go back further and consider guys like Sam Langford, Joe Gams and even George Dixon.

 

Peak Tyson matched Dempsey in footwork and head movement.

 

Not necessarily stylistically. The major thing is they became regular 12-15 round fighters. When you are fighting endless rounds it is a different ball game.

Guys like McGovern and Corbett obviously paved the way for guys like Tunney and Dempsey.

Ultimately I believe every era has effective fighters, timeless fighters, absolute **** etc Take todays heavyweight division, you go everything.

 

I don't think that he quite did.

IMHO he had the same level of talent but never really fleshed out these aspects of hi game as Dempsey did.

He was not up on his toes and circling for an opening like Dempsey.

His head movment was awsome but not quite as slick and unpredictable as Dempseys.



Now give Tyson a few more years of motivation after Spinks to develop his skills and all bets are off.

 

This is how I see it.

I do however think that the styels of Dempsey and Tunney did not originate with them. There were fighters before the 15 round era who functioned in a verry similar way.

 

The styles definitely didn't originate with them. Nor did particular skillsets...

...BUT I do believe technique improved.

Man is continously trying to find the most efficient and effective method to deal with what is at hand.

Where as Corbett and Tunney may be grouped into the same style, I would not say Corbett is as technically sound as Gene!

 

Thanks for supplying the footage!

They don't look primitive, they look good. Their guards are a little bit suspect though, and I would say that the movement and punching in for example FOTC are sharper that it is in the Dempsey-Tunney fight, but Tunney does fight well.

The young and trim Dempsey look very sharp and dangerous, but his opponents do not. For example Willard and Firpo looks crude and quite primitive too me, and they for sure wouldn't be competitive at elite level today. But when you see young Dempsey you can appreciate the admiration he gets still today. A formidable fighter. Too bad he ducked fighters and didn't defend more frequently.

 

Ill give you footwork, and head movement, but i defintley disagree on the infighting. I also think Liston is belongs on there with ali louis as one of the pinnacle's of style.

 

The only heavyweights of those era on film that had Correct punching technique, right amount of leverage in there punches, perfect body torque, straightness.......were Jack Dempsey who basically modernized it. Other close 2nds were Schmeling, Sharkey.


Tunney does not belong on there. He had very straight punches, but he had no body torque, didnt get any leverage or body weight into his punches he essentially threw arm punches.

 

No less than Muhammad Ali, when watching vintage boxing films of the great heavyweight champions of the past on a special edition of Wide World of Sports back in the mid seventies made the observation that Gene Tunney was like a modern day boxer, and looked far more sophisticated than the other champions they were viewing. Of course Ali was a bit contemptuous of most of the champions, like Carnera, Baer, even Louis and Marciano, though he seemed to be more fair than expected. He nonetheless, of course, saw himself winning over all of them. He made the point repeatedly about Tunney looking like a modern day boxer in terms of his technique and footwork, hand speed and such against Dempsey. Of course things have evolved in boxing since those early days, but mainly training techniques and not the basics of the sport. If Dempsey had been around in later decades, I'm sure he would have benefitted from modern training methods and would have been a hellion to any era's heavyweights. As for Tunney, he was a pioneer of defensive boxing, and it's obvious that he wasn't the least bit 'primitive".

 

I think he saw himself when he watched Tunney fighting. How could he not like that.

 

Bernard Hopkins recently commented in a press conference that he felt older fighters such as Robinson,Louis, and Ali (those he mentioned) were actually the better athletes due to the fact that moderns have more training advantages...through equipment, nutrition, etc.

 

If you think Dempsey & Tunney are primitive then what would you call Jack Johnson?

 

I think we all miss cross trainer somewhat- he was a great, intelligent poster, funny too- wander if hell be back