Two questions: 1) How would Jack Dempsey's reputation/legacy been affected if he hadn't scored the long-count knockdown? 2) How would Gene Tunney's reputation/legacy been affected if Dempsey hadn't knocked him down?
I’m not sure I can answer the question, but I have a few thoughts on the topic. 1) I think for the most part Dempsey’s reputation was intact and would remain so. He was a dominant heavyweight champ, a megastar athlete and an icon. Him losing the first fight to Tunney didn’t change that, so I don’t think the knockdown really figures into it. 2) I also don’t think Gene’s reputation suffers from the knockdown, so presuming he just outboxes Jack again he also remains intact as far as image and legacy. 3) BUT … I think the long count controversy shined a light on both in a lot of ways. It’s something still debated to this day almost 100 years later. When I first started becoming interested in boxing and reading up on it, it’s one of the first things I learned — it was, and is, that famous. I’m not certain there’s a single moment in sports history that has lasted in the lexicon and legend like that one, or at least as for long. Maybe Babe Ruth calling his shot in the World Series, but that is disputed and the film seems not to back it up … but when the legend because truth, print the legend or something like that. More people learned of Dempsey and Tunney because of the knockdown/count controversy than would have if Gene had merely boxed his way to an easy, unmemorable decision … and a good many of those people (me included) went on to learn more about each man’s greatness and legacy because that was the front porch or gateway to their interest. When I was but a lad, our mom used to take me and my younger brothers to the library about once a week. She is and was a voracious reader. I gravitated to sports books and in particular boxing books. But our library also had 8 mm films (you know the kind, no sound or anything) and they had one on the long count (not sure through the haze of memory if it was the full fight or what) and I persuaded her at some point to let me check it out after we had located a projector to borrow so we could watch it. And I don’t remember much about it, but I’m certain it’s the first fight film I ever saw and it was like glimpsing through the curtain of time at history. That was profound in that day and time, long before we could do it on our phones or laptops or tablets. Without the long count, I seriously doubt the library would have had a Tunney-Dempsey film. So I think it being a famous historic sporting moment shined a greater spotlight on both men than either would have gotten had it never happened, thus I think both were enhanced by it.
My question is how do you think the knockdown actually affects their reputations as it stands? It’s an interesting one because I actually watched the fight for the first time in full the other day on a very decent quality version that’s on YouTube and a few things struck me about it: 1. Tunney schooled Dempsey. It was a great performance but not a great fight. 2. The knockdown was massively overblown. Tunney could have got up quicker but was clearly alert, listening to the count and maximising his recovery time. He wasn’t badly hurt. 3. If the fight film didn’t exist, we’d only have newspaper reports to go off and their reading of the knockdown is what allowed the myth to grow.
I do wonder if the whole controversy wasn’t drummed up to promote the film — @klompton2 or @apollack could certainly shed light on this but I think in those days a lot of revenue was generated by the showing of major fight films in theaters and nothing entices a ticket-buyer better than a ‘come see it for yourself and make up your own mind’ controversy. Not to say it wasn’t controversial on its own, but proper promotion would enhance capitalizing on it. Maybe also to drum up interest in a third fight if they could get Dempsey on board? Just thoughts without me looking into it. There are others far more qualified than me to shed light on it.
