What is the general consensus on Jack Dempsey in 1926-27?

I think he had a fair bit left.

The point of this contrast is that there is absolutely no comparison between old, part time brawlers like Willard and young, professional, dedicated boxers like Tunney.

Dempsey always did and always would have trouble with smaller guys who could move and had quick hands. Tunney would have given him trouble at any point in his career.

 

He wasnt nearly as shot as some people would like to believe. Compare his performance against Bill Brennan in 1920 (his prime) to the Tunney fights. Not much difference. The reason being is that against both fighters Dempsey was facing live opposition.

 

He was a shadow of his former self, but he still had enough left to beat Jack Sharkey.

Based on that alone, we have to give Tunney some credit for dominating him.

 

I agree entirely. 3 years off for a savage fighter is too long. Although, I feel Tunney PROVED himself a great fighter throughout his career.

 

I like how Tunney was lucky to get a 32 year old, shot Dempsey who had fought twice in the previous 4 years, but Dempsey put on the greatest display in Fistiana by beating a 37 year old Willard who had fought just once in the previous 4 years.

 

THERE YOU GO AGAIN. And I guess there is not much difference btewtween the Ali that lost to Norton in 74 and the one that lost to Holmes in 80. You REALLY hate Dempsey don"t you. Answer the question I asked about Greb vs the many fighters Klompton and stop saying I got my own question taken off. You sir, are a ducker. You never answered it. Or it would still be up there for everyone to comment on your opinions. Again, vs. Saad, Marciano, Louis, Moore, Charles, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Conn, LaMotta, Monzon, Hagler, Schmeling, Foreman, Tiger, Fullmer, M. Spink, Holmes, etc. Let's hear it. Get them to leave it up and I'll shut up. If you wrote it once, then why not again for those that would like to know your worthy opinion? Who wouldn't like to know what you think of those fights.

 

The question is not how much he lost or when he lost it but how much did he ever really begin with. Given the list of patsies he fought and those he avoided, we shall never know.

 

I think his opposition was at the very least good enough to give us a very clear idea what his capabilities were.

There is realy no issue there.

 

So, he was good enough to beat up Greb's sloppy seconds. Call the Hall of Fame.

 

It wasn’t the greatest title reign in history, but he did fight pretty much every style and size of opponent imaginable. In that sense we have a much firmer handle on his capabilities, than we do with somebody like Rocky Marciano for example.

 

This is a key point to note when the old 19-1 rounds in favour of Tunney is blurted out.

A fitter & less rusty Dempsey was difficult to nail in the rematch. Rounds were lost by slimmer margins.

Notwithstanding reflexes and stamina, Dempsey's feet were probably the main aspect which degraded. He hobbled around the ring compared to the guy who mugged Carpentier.

A prime Mauler blasting Tunney out in the first half is a little hard to digest, but there's a good chance of Jack busting him up over fifteen rounds.

 

I disagree entirely. Thats the myth that has grown up based on Dempsey knocking Tunney down but the contention that Dempsey was somehow more competetive throughout this fight is not supported by the complete films or radio broadcasts of either fight. Dempsey suffered less physical damage in the second fight but he was dominated just as easily and on the verge of being knocked down several times which we didnt really see in the first fight due to Tunney taking less chances. In the second fight the bout ended with Dempsey staggering drunkenly and taking punishment and the radio announcer going on about how he tired he was and looked ready to go down. This was the case several times throughout the fight. Even in the seventh Tunney regained control of the fight before the end of the round. If you watch the training films for both fights you can see Dempsey looked damn good until he was in against a live body (like Tommy Loughran). He was ripped and ready to go just like he always. The problem was that Tunney came to win, he didnt come to roll the dice and hope he might get lucky or to lay down. He was always a supremely conditioned athlete, extremely confident, well schooled, and tough. In short he was far better, miles better in fact, than anyone Dempsey had been in the ring with. The closest thing to Tunney Dempsey fought was Bill Brennan, a pale imitation, and Brennan nearly knocked Dempsey's ear off, wobbled him, and had him behind on points for 12 rounds. I say again, watch those three fights in their entirety: Brennan, Tunney 1 and 2 and tell me Dempsey was all that different.

 

Not sure how you figure that out.

It seems to me that Dempsey fought a few people, who were both much better than Brennan, and more like Tunney stylisticaly.