# Dempsey - Tunney Prime for Prime?



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Who would win this fantasy fight between the two men on their best night?

I had always previously believed Dempsey would get the job done but my recent admiration of tunney leads me to now think otherwise. I currently have Tunney 15th in my HW list with Demspey one slot behind him.

I don't think Dempsey ever faced anyone as good as Tunney (although Gibbons isn't far off) and of course the version of Dempsey that Tunney beat was slightly removed from his peak.

I'm picking Tunney to keep Dempsey away with his jab and matching him on the inside for the few occasions when Dempsey works his way inside. I pick Tunney UD 15.

thoughts?


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Tunney UD.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

DonBoxer said:


> Tunney UD.


agreed mate :good


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

lufcrazy said:


> agreed mate :good


So many people talk as if Tunney needs to stay away to win because Demspey is stronger, i would say over the two fights Tunney came off better in more of the clinches and tussles than Dempsey did. I just cant see any way in which Dempsey takes this one.


----------



## Boogle McDougal (Jun 8, 2012)

Didn't Tunney spend his career building to the inevitable moment when he would fight Dempsey? When he finally got that moment it was against a faded version. He still came close to getting knocked out. A prime Dempsey very well could have got to him sooner and finished the job. On the other hand, it's hard to argue against a guy who outboxed Jack in almost every round of their two fights...


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Boggle said:


> Didn't Tunney spend his career building to the inevitable moment when he would fight Dempsey? When he finally got that moment it was against a faded version. He still came close to getting knocked out. A prime Dempsey very well could have got to him sooner and finished the job. On the other hand, it's hard to argue against a guy who outboxed Jack in almost every round of their two fights...


Not just out boxed, but outfought, there is nothing for Dempsey to do.


----------



## Boogle McDougal (Jun 8, 2012)

DonBoxer said:


> Not just out boxed, but outfought, there is nothing for Dempsey to do.


Suppose he punched him in the face more, and with greater vigor?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I think Tunney is just on another skill level to jack.

Jack has a puncher's chance but that's about it.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

a prime dempsey would of been quicker on his feet than the dempsey that tunney actually mixed it with . I am not saying it is anything other than quite possibly the hardest fight of dempey's career but i think dempsey would win


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

DonBoxer us right on Tunney, he is one of the most rugged light heavies of all time, very rugged, watch his smashing the shit out of past prime Carpentier. On this fight, I'm giving my nod to Tunney too, the fights weren't close, so I'm not going to apply the 'the fight was close so I reckon if the fighter that lost was in his prime he would win' logic


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> DonBoxer us right on Tunney, he is one of the most rugged light heavies of all time, very rugged, watch his smashing the shit out of past prime Carpentier. On this fight, I'm giving my nod to Tunney too, the fights weren't close, so I'm not going to apply the 'the fight was close so I reckon if the fighter that lost was in his prime he would win' logic


I agree with this. Tunney pretty much dominated 19 of the 20 rounds between the two. A prime Dempsey would obviously have been quicker which would have posed Gene more problems. But that would only make the fight closer rather than turning it on its head.

Tunney UD. Again


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> I agree with this. Tunney pretty much dominated 19 of the 20 rounds between the two. A prime Dempsey would obviously have been quicker which would have posed Gene more problems. But that would only make the fight closer rather than turning it on its head.
> 
> Tunney UD. Again


:good


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

With Tunney I get the sense he was just on a different skill level to Jack. like @Teeto says, the fights weren't really close enough to imply a better version of jack would have won.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

not to sure about that, a Willard fight version of Dempsey would of been a sufficiently different proposition to the Dempsey coming off a three year lay-off. Dempsey would certainly of closed distance faster on tunney .


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Yiddle said:


> not to sure about that, a Willard fight version of Dempsey would of been a sufficiently different proposition to the Dempsey coming off a three year lay-off. Dempsey would certainly of closed distance faster on tunney .


yeah he'd have been more competitive, but I see nothing to suggest Dempsey would have beaten Tunney within their two careers.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

i guess i am in the minority but i would bet heavy on Dempsey


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Yiddle said:


> not to sure about that, a Willard fight version of Dempsey would of been a sufficiently different proposition to the Dempsey coming off a three year lay-off. Dempsey would certainly of closed distance faster on tunney .


Greb struggled to close distance on Tunney in all of their fights, i dont see why Dempsey would succeed.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

i think tunney's management got benny leonard to talk to tunney to persuade him to wait a little longer than he really wanted to. before rematching greb as they felt the longer the better for tunney. i will check this out


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

The prime 1918 or 1919 version of Dempsey was the guy who inspired the first half century of his legend as a man-killer and the best fighter - not just the best heavyweight (!) of all time - hands down - that whirlwind was a COMPLETELY different fighter than the one who 9 years later (3 of which were spent effectively in retirement creaked after Tunney for 10 rounds - the comparison is like night and day?? Basing anything on the Dempsey that faced Tunney is like comparing the Ali who lost to Leon Spinks with the real Ali who danced like Fred Astaire. Against Cleveland Williams!!?? Totally TOTALLY different - Dempsey the real Dempsey was on a different level to Tunney - I' d hazard a guess that a young Georges Carpentier would push Gene to the wire - Dempsey would finish Tunney - Gene got lucky facing that version of Dempsey the young tiger who obliterated Levinsky/GunboatFulton/Morris/Willard etc etc would've decimated Tunney like he did everyone else


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

rockyssplitnose said:


> The prime 1918 or 1919 version of Dempsey was the guy who inspired the first half century of his legend as a man-killer and the best fighter - not just the best heavyweight (!) of all time - hands down - that whirlwind was a COMPLETELY different fighter than the one who 9 years later (3 of which were spent effectively in retirement creaked after Tunney for 10 rounds - the comparison is like night and day?? Basing anything on the Dempsey that faced Tunney is like comparing the Ali who lost to Leon Spinks with the real Ali who danced like Fred Astaire. Against Cleveland Williams!!?? Totally TOTALLY different - Dempsey the real Dempsey was on a different level to Tunney - I' d hazard a guess that a young Georges Carpentier would push Gene to the wire - Dempsey would finish Tunney - Gene got lucky facing that version of Dempsey the young tiger who obliterated Levinsky/GunboatFulton/Morris/Willard etc etc would've decimated Tunney like he did everyone else


Welcome aboard rocky...
I agree with you 100%...I always have felt that how 2 fighters should be rated decades later, should be based on what their contemporaries 
thought of their respective abilities...After all the boxing fraternity SAW them at their bests...In this regard the vast boxing writers, trainers and boxers of the prime Dempsey era[ 1918-23 era ] felt that Dempsey before his 3 year layoff would have caught up to Tunney, and most likely kod 
Gene...Yes Tommy gibbons lasted 15 rounds with Jack Dempsey in 1923, but Gibbons was easily in the same league with Gene tunney in his boxing 
ability...And Dempsey won by a huge margin over the defensive minded Gibbons...
The Jack Dempsey of the Tunney fights, was just a slow shell of himself...As we know Dempsey foolishly took the Tunney bout in 1926, after not fighting for THREE YEARS, without ONE tune-up bout, without his mentor Jack Kearns, and depressed about his close brother Bernie, who
just murdered his wife and then commited suicide...Dempsey at this stage was described as a "defanged tiger", compared to his 
prime days...And yet he still probably kod Tunney in 1927 with a seven punch barrage in the 7th round, when tunney had the benefit of a 
15-17 second "long count", whilst Dempsey was directed to a neutral corner before referee Barry started , the one count...
So , factoring all this, i agree with the boxing people of those days that Dempsey with his great speed beats Gene Tunney, both in their primes...


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

:happy

Its nice to know i am not completely on my own a prime Dempsey was an absolute tiger and a totally different animal to the Dempsey that actually fought Tunney


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

No doubt Dempsey was an offensive beast but tunney possessed skills that I can't envision Jack dealing with.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

well you are wrong :yikes















:lol:


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Yiddle said:


> well you are wrong :yikes
> 
> :lol:


:lol: we'll never know who is wrong and who is right


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

yeah and what a pity that is


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

truly is.had he forsaken his hollywood years, there were fights available that would answer so many questions people pose about him today 100 years on (greb, wills, tunney). it's a shame they didn't happen.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Over 10, toss a coin.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Over 10, toss a coin.


you think dempsey has the skillset to compete with tunney?

has the c moyle book really changed your opinion of dempsey that much?


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I always felt prime Dempsey would be a different kettle of fish for Tunney. I've always thought of Dempsey as a head-to-head beast.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> I always felt prime Dempsey would be a different kettle of fish for Tunney. I've always thought of Dempsey as a head-to-head beast.


hmmm not the impression I had tbh.

I find it difficult considering Dempsey a h2h beat in terms of real hw's. But at say a 190 limit there aren't many I'd favour over him cos of his power it might just be Geeb, Tunney and Rocky I'd favour over him now that I think about it.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Funny, but when I clicked on this thread, I figured I would be going against the grain by arguing that Tunney has at least a 50-50 shot against even a peak Dempsey. As it turns out, most people here are even more confident of Tunney winning than I am. :lol:



rockyssplitnose said:


> Gene got lucky facing that version of Dempsey the young tiger who obliterated Levinsky/GunboatFulton/Morris/Willard etc etc would've decimated Tunney like he did everyone else


He didn't obliterate or decimate "everyone" - a pre-Bright's Miske is credited with giving him two close, hard fights, and Brennan outboxed and even punished him for most of their title fight (which is on film).

If Tunney can withstand Dempsey's early blitz, he has to be given a fair shot at following through on Brennan's gameplan.


----------



## Webbiano (Jun 9, 2013)

I think your being slightly misleading by saying Dempsey was 'slightly' past prime Luf. His first fight in 3 years and already a few years removed from his prime. I mean, would you consider Holmes as 'slightly' past prime when he fought Tyson? I'm taking Dempsey here. I think a prime Dempsey is a whole different beast. I think he's got it in him to stop Tunney, but if he doesn't, the decision would be decided in the championship rounds. Tunney, having never gone more than 11 rounds in a heavyweight title fight and Dempsey, being a notoriously quick finisher throughout his career, leaves it in the unknown for me.


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

When a consensus is agreed on page one there is no need to bring up a year old thread.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Tunney is one of the most overrated fighters in history, imo. Prime for prime, Dempsey would stretch him.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Past prime Dempsey was very close to stop Tunney.....I reckon a prime Dempseu WOULD stop Tunney.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> When a consensus is agreed on page one there is no need to bring up a year old thread.


The consensus came under question on page two.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

a younger dempsey would have been able to punch faster and more often......would have had better reflexes to counter... Dempsey KO inside of 8


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

When I think of this, it reminds me a bit of Ward-Golovkin, yes, Tunney's got the skills to get away from a fearsome puncher (Golovkin is more technical, mind), but it would only take one second, one punch for Dempsey to change it...
Tunney would be dog-tired after a heroic effort, and gets worn down in the 10th


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> The consensus came under question on page two.


Page 2 means nothing. :lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

A younger Dempsey still gets schooled, a younger Dempsey didn't have a jab, a right hand counter or much better defense, all he has is his lead left hook, all Tunney has to do is circle in and out jabbing and smash Dempsey with a counter right when he comes in. Dempsey never beat anyone in Tunney's class.

The idea that Dempsey would do better are simply fans wishful thinking, it's an easy fight for Tunney.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> A younger Dempsey still gets schooled, a younger Dempsey *didn't have* a jab, *a right hand counter *or much better defense, all he has is his lead left hook, all Tunney has to do is circle in and out jabbing and smash Dempsey with a counter right when he comes in. Dempsey never beat anyone in Tunney's class.
> 
> The idea that Dempsey would do better are simply fans wishful thinking, it's an easy fight for Tunney.


ehhhh..... 




unless you are going to argue that he didn't learn that till he was spending most of his time acting poorly in movies and banging actresses...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Webbiano said:


> I think your being slightly misleading by saying Dempsey was 'slightly' past prime Luf. His first fight in 3 years and already a few years removed from his prime. I mean, would you consider Holmes as 'slightly' past prime when he fought Tyson? I'm taking Dempsey here. I think a prime Dempsey is a whole different beast. I think he's got it in him to stop Tunney, but if he doesn't, the decision would be decided in the championship rounds. Tunney, having never gone more than 11 rounds in a heavyweight title fight and Dempsey, being a notoriously quick finisher throughout his career, leaves it in the unknown for me.


I said slightly removed from his peak, and he was.

He chose not to stay active, but he was still young and considered unbeatable. The rematch showed that he might get moments of success, but even when full prepared for the threat facing him, he's getting schooled.

Maybe Dempsey did lose something in Hollywood, but if he did it was by choice and I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. He had the opportunity to face greb, wills and tunney in his active years. He didn't wanna know.

I have no intention to mislead but watch him v tunney and watch him v gibbons and tell me there's a huge difference. All I see is one man he could bully and one man he could not.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> I said slightly removed from his peak, and he was.
> 
> He chose not to stay active, but he was still young and considered unbeatable. The rematch showed that he might get moments of success, but even when full prepared for the threat facing him, he's getting schooled.
> 
> ...


31 while not super old is not really young in boxing even now....definitely young for a man with 74...also that style tends to be hard to maintain longevity...guys like Frazier Marciano and Tyson were either shot or losing a step by that age.

In boxing...a slight loss in reaction time makes a huge difference..just think how many punches a good fighter avoids by 1/10 of an inch....


----------



## Ricky42791 (Jun 7, 2013)

Go home Check Hook Boxing you're drunk. Prime ferrel toledo-esque Dempsey stops Tunney in 8 with vicious body shots to take away Gene's legs before coming upstairs with a shoulder-whirl hook to the jaw. Dempsey KO8 TUNNEY


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> 31 while not super old is not really young in boxing even now....definitely young for a man with 74...also that style tends to be hard to maintain longevity...guys like Frazier Marciano and Tyson were either shot or losing a step by that age.
> 
> In boxing...a slight loss in reaction time makes a huge difference..just think how many punches a good fighter avoids by 1/10 of an inch....


believe me, I know all about reaction time, it is the difference between me holding my own in sparring and getting my shit pushed in.

I'm saying Dempsey doesn't look slower to me. And him slipping that combination of tunney's shows his reflexes were as good as ever. He was just unfortunate to be against one of the best fighters in boxing history.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> a younger dempsey would have been able to punch faster and more often......would have had better reflexes to counter... Dempsey KO inside of 8


A younger Dempsey had trouble catching an older Gibbons, avoided Greb like the plague and couldn't figure out Slick Willie Meehan over 20 rounds. Dempsey preferred bigger, slower, cruder fighters... in other words, the opposite of prime Tunney.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> ehhhh.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's well set up right counter, Tunney makes a big mistake, Dempsey does land the right but it's not really a particularly good right the left hook is doing the damage.


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Ricky42791 said:


> Go home Check Hook Boxing you're drunk. Prime ferrel toledo-esque Dempsey stops Tunney in 8 with vicious body shots to take away Gene's legs before coming upstairs with a shoulder-whirl hook to the jaw. Dempsey KO8 TUNNEY


:deal THIS

All this clap trap revisionist history about Dempsey not being particularly far gone by the time he fought Gene is complete bolderdash :lol: he was a million miles from the fighter he had been in 1918 - Willard was the last time he was the real Dempsey - the Dempsey the Gene got to face was a pale imitation and even then he had to run all night and grab to survive - he basically took advantage of the fact that Dempsey was slow and sluggish by then - remove that Dempsey and replace him with the fast full on aggressive constantly moving impossible to nail properly Dempsey and he'd have a fighter who could match him for speed and get to him fast and Hirt him badly with fast hands as well and who wouldn't get frustrated and walk after him check out the videos below - the first video is as close to prime Dempsey as we have on film






And this the Willard footage - the last prime footage we have of Dempsey











Even in brief sparring footage on this tribute you can see the difference in the _movement_ of the young Dempsey is like night and day - his movement is non-stop and he combines the movement with fast straight shots as he moving constantly - this is a different fight to the one chugging around after Tunney -totally different fighter - Gene wouldn't have lived with this Dempsey - he had good legs but they wouldn't have taken him back quick enough to get away from this Demosey I'm afraid


----------



## The Sweet Science (Jun 5, 2013)

Most here will probably disagree, but I am a firm believer that Gene Tunney would have outboxed Jack Dempsey on his best day. Gene Tunney was a great boxer and his lateral movement was ahead of his time for a heavyweight. Jack Dempsey could hit like a truck, so I know there is always a chance of a Dempsey KO. Still, I say Dempsey would lose a series to Tunney 2-1, if not 3-0.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> :deal THIS
> 
> All this clap trap revisionist history about Dempsey not being particularly far gone by the time he fought Gene is complete bolderdash :lol: he was a million miles from the fighter he had been in 1918 - Willard was the last time he was the real Dempsey - the Dempsey the Gene got to face was a pale imitation and even then he had to run all night and grab to survive - he basically took advantage of the fact that Dempsey was slow and sluggish by then - remove that Dempsey and replace him with the fast full on aggressive constantly moving impossible to nail properly Dempsey and he'd have a fighter who could match him for speed and get to him fast and Hirt him badly with fast hands as well and who wouldn't get frustrated and walk after him check out the videos below - the first video is as close to prime Dempsey as we have on film
> 
> ...


So, Dempsey's prime was when? From 1918 to 1919? And that's supposed to be a great fighter? And the signature win we are to base this on was against a 37 year old guy who didn't like boxing and had fought one bout in 4 years? I supposed to laud a guy who neglected the two most obvious and accomplished fighters of his day, taking their refuse for his title opponents instead? A guy who sat on the title and stifled the entire sport?

Tunney beats Dempsey 9 times out of 10. And as long as you are playing that Dempsey KD of Tunney, please to remember that was the only round out of 20 that Dempsey won and Tunney KD'd him the very next round. And further remember that Tunney faced Greb, whom Dempsey openly avoided, 7 times and tried to get Wills in the ring, a possibility that Dempsey positively cowered from.


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Seamus said:


> So, Dempsey's prime was when? From 1918 to 1919? And that's supposed to be a great fighter? And the signature win we are to base this on was against a 37 year old guy who didn't like boxing and had fought one bout in 4 years? I supposed to laud a guy who neglected the two most obvious and accomplished fighters of his day, taking their refuse for his title opponents instead? A guy who sat on the title and stifled the entire sport?
> 
> Tunney beats Dempsey 9 times out of 10. And as long as you are playing that Dempsey KD of Tunney, please to remember that was the only round out of 20 that Dempsey won and Tunney KD'd him the very next round. And further remember that Tunney faced Greb, whom Dempsey openly avoided, 7 times and tried to get Wills in the ring, a possibility that Dempsey positively cowered from.


Yeah just Mike Tyson's prime was from Berbick to Spinks a period of about 18months - what don't you understand about that? Marciano's would probably be for me at least Walcott I to Ezz Charles I - what's the big deal about the length of someone's prime? Joe Louis' prime was probably again for me Carnera to Schmeling II - a 2 year stretch - no big deal? Hell? We only had 3 years of Muhammad Ali's peak? Hahahahahahah stifled the entire sport!!!????.?. You feckin begger belief - I can't believe you even uttered those words!!???? I'm sorry but I'm through talking to idiots like you - stifled the sport!! The guy drew the biggest gates in history!?? He broke records with the gates he drew!?? Do you know anything about Jack Dempsey at all?? Sorry but you are beyond comprehension - saying Jack Dempsey stifled the sport is like saying Muhammad Ali didnt talk ever!? You're off the planet mate - Jack Dempsey transformed the sport into a massive crowd puller - I don't have to remember anything about the number of rounds Demosey won against Tunney because that's one of the biggest oft repeated fallacies in boxing that Dempsey only won one round - wen I scored it -think I gave Dempsey 3 in that fight alone from memory - but it's irrelevant anyway because Dempsey was a million miles away from the fast as non stop moving fighter he'd been in 1918/1919 - totally different fighter altogether - Gene wouldn't have lived with that Dempsey - and it's funny that you say Dempsey cowered from Greb and Wills when he actually signed to fight Wills and sparred a few times with Greb?? I don't think a guy who is cowering from someone even enters the same room as them let alone signs to fight them and spars a few times with the other?? For the record Dempsey would've absolutely flattened Harry Wills


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Most of the time a good hw beats a good lhw.
Except Tunney was p4p a way better fighter I bet.

Dempsey is probably overrated because he was the most exciting force, not the best.
Some say Dempsey is good because he has the most 1st round KOs of any hw, he hasn't, Shannon Briggs has.

Willard was a farmer who hadn't fought in 3,5 years.
Imagine the outrage we would get if Floyd Mayweather had fought Joe Calzaghe in june 2012 or so.
Nobody would take that win seriously, why would we take Dempseys win over Willard seriously?

Having your signature win over a 37 year old farmer coming from a 3,5 year lay off isn't great, it's sad.


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

dyna said:


> Most of the time a good hw beats a good lhw.
> Except Tunney was p4p a way better fighter I bet.
> 
> Dempsey is probably overrated because he was the most exciting force, not the best.
> ...


That's just circumstance - you could equally say Tunney's signature win was against a middleweight who'd beaten him in his prime, and a tired champion who been absent from the ring 3 years but thats just the way it was - doesn't change the fighter Tunney was? I'd like to see how Gene would've dealt with the 6'7" 250lb Willard 37 or not?? He damn sure wouldn't have had an easy time out boxing him and that's the only way he's beating him -no way in the world is Gene stopping Jess and that is a stonewall fact


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Hahahahahahah stifled the entire sport!!!????.?. You feckin begger belief - I can't believe you even uttered those words!!???? I'm sorry but I'm through talking to idiots like you - stifled the sport!!


Dempsey was all show biz, a puppet of Kearns and Ricards, a money making trinket who was protected by his team.

Here's how the the United News service, carried in most major US papers, saw the situation...

"The issue is thus put squarely up to the heavyweight champion. He can play ball with the New York boxing commission and meet Wills or he can cast his lot with Ricards. But he can not emulate the ostrich much longer, burying his parafin nose in celluloid and pretending he doesn't smell the smoke that is surely driving him from his hiding place... It is the opinion of well-informed boxing boxing circles that Jack is hanging to his title as long as possible for the money value it has in other lines, such as motion pictures and exhibitions, but he will never enter the rings against a worthy opponent."

Sure as hell like he was stifling the title to me. Meanwhile, here's what Wills had to say...

"I've been reading in the papers that Dempsey says he tried to get me in the ring for the last five years. He's a liar. He can fight me in the streets. I'll knock him out so quick he'll be sorry he was ever born."


----------



## I am tyler (Dec 20, 2012)

I reckon Dempsey could get a late stoppage. Really is one of those fights that is tough to pick a winner. Tunney can box his head off, but prime Dempsey probably could knock him out.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

dempsey never did well against guys smaller. well he didn't impress as much. he had to resort to bullying carpentier and gibbons and he never looked a man killer against them. put him in against a slower opponent who he can beat to the punch however, and i wouldn't ever bet against him.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

There's no real reason to pick Dempsey here.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> There's no real reason to pick Dempsey here.


I could suggest several.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> There's no real reason to pick Dempsey here.


legend


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

I am tyler said:


> I reckon Dempsey could get a late stoppage. Really is one of those fights that is tough to pick a winner. Tunney can box his head off, but prime Dempsey probably could knock him out.


Though, in their second fight it was Tunney who had Dempsey almost out at the end.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Though, in their second fight it was Tunney who had Dempsey almost out at the end.


bullshit....ive watched both fights...


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Seamus said:


> Dempsey was all show biz, a puppet of Kearns and Ricards, a money making trinket who was protected by his team.
> 
> Here's how the the United News service, carried in most major US papers, saw the situation...
> 
> ...


Hahaha Harry Wills knocking out anyone quick would be a turn up for the books mate!?? As touched on in an earlier thread: Bartley Madden fought both Wills and Tunney - in June '24 Wills beat him but only by 15 rounds decision whereas just over a year later Gene Tunney stopped Madden in the 3rd round. Not being able to stop a man it took the light hitting Tunney to stop in 3 rounds doesn't suggest the kind of punching of finishing required to stop a Jack Dempsey?

Madden also took Tom Heeney to a 20round decision to guage him some more (Tunney stopped Heeney for his final curtain) but the fact that he took Wills the limit suggests to me that Wills wasn't all that in reality - it doesn't scream wow this guy would blow away _anyone_ let alone Jack Dempsey - I more expect a boring decision win from a Harry Wills fight with even average fighters?

Also Wills went 12 rounds to beat Firpo a man who Dempsey wrecked in 2 crazy rounds - non of these results cry out as even particularly impressive - everything points to decision wins with Wills not knockouts? I'm also a bit dubious about Wills chin - though old he really didn't look to have very much punch resistance at all against Uscudun? - Wills is just not the most aggressive type based on his career - if you look at his record he couldn't stop Willie Meehan in a few 4-rounders - the man who Dempsey gets vilified for not being able to stop? Well if Wills was so sure he could blow away Dempsey why isn't he stopping Meehan?

Wills also went 20 rounds, 10 rounds and 8 rounds with John Lester Johnson - again no real improvement on what Dempsey did there? I could understand if he were doing so significantly better with common opponents at the very least that might gauge something to suggest Wills is gunna be blasting Dempsey out but there is nothing to suggest it whatsoever? 1920 Wills stops Fulton in 3 rounds? Dempsey did it in 18 seconds was it? Including the count? 1923 he stops Homer Smith in 2 rounds? 5 years before that Dempsey was doing it in 1 anyway? 1926 Harry Wills is battered to the point of fouling out by Jack Sharkey? One year later Jack Dempsey KNOCKS OUT the same Jack Sharkey who gave Wills that beating? An old and virtually blind Langford managed to spark out a young Harry Wills twice with one punch get outs which again suggests against an aggressive power puncher Wills would be the hunted rather than the man looking to do the knocking out? He would more likely be the standup boxer fighting more to stop Dempsey getting to him - he's not gunna be trying to engage Dempsey in a tear up in the first two rounds that's for sure


----------



## Yungboy (Jun 5, 2013)

I think Tunney beats any version of Dempsey.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Hahaha Harry Wills knocking out anyone quick would be a turn up for the books mate!?? As touched on in an earlier thread: Bartley Madden fought both Wills and Tunney - in June '24 Wills beat him but only by 15 rounds decision whereas just over a year later Gene Tunney stopped Madden in the 3rd round. Not being able to stop a man it took the light hitting Tunney to stop in 3 rounds doesn't suggest the kind of punching of finishing required to stop a Jack Dempsey?
> 
> Madden also took Tom Heeney to a 20round decision to guage him some more (Tunney stopped Heeney for his final curtain) but the fact that he took Wills the limit suggests to me that Wills wasn't all that in reality - it doesn't scream wow this guy would blow away _anyone_ let alone Jack Dempsey - I more expect a boring decision win from a Harry Wills fight with even average fighters?
> 
> ...


You're blatantly showing yourself up as knowing nothing about this era here while doing your best spin job to degrade Wills in order to protect your hero Dempsey. Tunney is light hitting is he? So I suppose Dempsey is light hitting, given he couldn't put away Gibbons who Tunney stopped? By your logic yes.

Laughing at Wills not being able to stop top contenders early? Well he knocked out Kid Norfolk in 2, Ed Martin in 1, Fulton in 3. With loads of bodyshot kos on his record. He seemingly is a conservative boxer, so likely doesn't go for the ko. In boxing a dominating decision is often considered as good as a fast ko, otherwise Whitaker/Mayweather wouldn't be rated too highly would they?

As for I'm not sure why you think an 18 second KO is necessarily more impressive than a 3 round KO either. I guess you've never heard of 'being caught cold'?

All you've done is cherry pick a couple of fights where Wills didn't get the KO in order to try and act. Guess what Wills didn't get smashed out the ring by Firpo either despite being past it.

And no Dempsey doesn't get vilified for not ko'ing Meehan, we question how good he is on the basis of him losing and drawing to Meehan multiple times.

No Langford wasn't blind when he ko'd Wills sandwiched inbetween 1 side losses to Wills. Out of their 17 or so fights Wills won nearly every round, including the fights he lost by KO in.

Anyway I'm sure you'll repeat this BS propaganda of yours again even after you've been corrected.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Dempsey was all show biz, a puppet of Kearns and Ricards, a money making trinket who was protected by his team.
> 
> Here's how the the United News service, carried in most major US papers, saw the situation...
> 
> ...


You're citing one point of view that addresses one particular portion of his title reign.

I can also show you a number of reports that described Carpentier as being the outstanding contender at the time he fought Dempsey, on par or even higher than Wills.

Firpo won a tournament to establish himself as a legit leading contender.

What were the opinions of the fans who paid record-breaking gates to see these fights? Did they also think Dempsey was just a "show biz puppet"?

Dempsey had also signed to fight Willis in '22, but the NY and NJ Commissions (who Wills had insisted on overseeing the match) both turned around and barred the fight.



Seamus said:


> Meanwhile, here's what Wills had to say...
> 
> "I've been reading in the papers that Dempsey says he tried to get me in the ring for the last five years. He's a liar. He can fight me in the streets. I'll knock him out so quick he'll be sorry he was ever born."


Yet at one point, Wills had refused to fight Dempsey unless he got a $500,000 guarantee first. I don't know too many streets that have that kind of money just lying around.

Wills wasn't totally blameless as to why the Dempsey fight didn't happen either.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> bullshit....ive watched both fights...


From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept 23, 1927

"Round 10:
Gene came in to the attack, ripping with both hands to the head. While Dempsey started to tire, Gene laid him on the ropes but the champion's two-handed attack was a bit wild. Dempsey drove several rights to the body. Gene countered with a left. Badly staggered, Dempsey wobbled about the rind as the bell sounded. The former champion, still groggy, sparred dizzily after the gong."


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Seamus said:


> From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept 23, 1927
> 
> "Round 10:
> Gene came in to the attack, ripping with both hands to the head. While Dempsey started to tire, Gene laid him on the ropes but the champion's two-handed attack was a bit wild. Dempsey drove several rights to the body. Gene countered with a left. Badly staggered, Dempsey wobbled about the rind as the bell sounded. The former champion, still groggy, sparred dizzily after the gong."


I agree that Tunney was close to getting a knockout in both fights.

You could argue that he should have been, given the beating that Dempsey took.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

McGrain said:


> There's no real reason to pick Dempsey here.


As someone who gives Tunney at least a 50-50 chance of beating a prime Dempsey, I still have to admit:
1. Dempsey has to be given at least a puncher's chance against anyone 200 lbs and under.
2. Tunney has never been tested and proven against a HW as good as a prime Dempsey.
3. Even a faded Dempsey was able to reach Tunney and put him down for the most controversial 15 seconds in boxing history.

Out of curiosity, who do you believe should be favored in a match between Tyson and Douglas at their respective bests? I think both scenarios are somewhat similar - a fast, explosive champion considered not at his best, manages to floor his opponent for a "long count," but is otherwise comprehensively outclassed and battered.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Dempsey had also signed to fight Willis in '22, but the NY and NJ Commissions (who Wills had insisted on overseeing the match) both turned around and barred the fight.


Sounds made up given the NY Commision said in 1925 that they'd strip Dempsey if he didn't fight Wills.

The main campaigner against the fight Dempsey's promoter Tex Rickard who publically stated he didn't want to do it. Then there were Kearns and Dempsey himself who are down on record as drawing the colour line. This is an article from 1925 where it's said Dempsey is still drawing the colour line despite this 200k offer being made.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=4254,5303752&dq=dempsey+wills&hl=en

Dempsey pulling out of 1922 bout - no issues of commisions here, just Dempsey not seeing a month as being long enough to train and ofcourse that the bout can't happen in the rest of 1922 either because they fancy a Willard bout :lol:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10E1FFA385D14738DDDA80A94DD405B828EF1D3

Although he did have actually have 6weeks

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0614F73D5F10738DDDA10994DD405B828EF1D3

NY Commisons sets terms for promoters of Dempsey-Wills bout - doesn't sound like they blocked it does it?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20616F83B5D1A7A93C5A91782D85F468285F9

More Wills-Dempsey offers, including a match of the career high Carpentier payday

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=2066,2960552&dq=dempsey+wills&hl=en



Sittin Sonny said:


> Yet at one point, Wills had refused to fight Dempsey unless he got a $500,000 guarantee first. I don't know too many streets that have that kind of money just lying around.
> 
> Wills wasn't totally blameless as to why the Dempsey fight didn't happen either.


1 article up it's Dempsey asking for the 500k guarantee not Wills, Wills signed for a 50k guarantee


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Seamus said:


> From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept 23, 1927
> 
> "Round 10:
> Gene came in to the attack, ripping with both hands to the head. While Dempsey started to tire, Gene laid him on the ropes but the champion's two-handed attack was a bit wild. Dempsey drove several rights to the body. Gene countered with a left. Badly staggered, Dempsey wobbled about the rind as the bell sounded. The former champion, still groggy, sparred dizzily after the gong."


Why would you post an article on the fight when it's on film for everyone to see and judge for themselves?


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Out of curiosity, who do you believe should be favored in a match between Tyson and Douglas at their respective bests?


Douglas for me, always an unfulfilled prodigy but for a night. ATG performance


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Douglas for me, always an unfulfilled prodigy but for a night. ATG performance


I just can't buy this.

Tyson more than met him half way.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Sounds made up given the NY Commision said in 1925 that they'd strip Dempsey if he didn't fight Wills.


You're just assuming something is "made up"?? This is one of the most basest facts in this issue.



Powerpuncher said:


> NY Commisons sets terms for promoters of Dempsey-Wills bout - doesn't sound like they blocked it does it?


*"Muldoon practically kills Dempsey-Wills go."*
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=quYgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6W0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5681,1618891

*"Muldoon erects barrier to title bout in New York."*
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pBtIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=j80MAAAAIBAJ&pg=5227,2269567

*"Muldoon bars bouts for Dempsey's crown."*
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...J5QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ayEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6195,6288744

*"Bars all title bouts involving the heavyweights."*

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vPJgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q2MNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3337,4545036

*"Muldoon had already ruled against Tom Gibbons, Bill Brennan, Wills, and Harry Greb as challengers for the heavyweight title, which practically banned any heavyweight championship fight.* *This left in the field only Luis Angel Firpo, Argentine giant, whose ring prowess has never really been tested, and Floyd Johnson, the youthful Iowa battler who is set to fight Gibbons and Beckett."*

Sounds explicitly like they did block it.



Powerpuncher said:


> 1 article up it's Dempsey asking for the 500k guarantee not Wills, Wills signed for a 50k guarantee


I don't know what you mean by this, but here's a timeline of the event, which shows Wills' manager did demand $500,000 at one point.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Why would you post an article on the fight when it's on film for everyone to see and judge for themselves?


Because it's a shitty 1927 film. A guy ringside can see way more than we can see from this footage.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> You're just assuming something is "made up"?? This is one of the most basest facts in this issue.
> 
> *"Muldoon practically kills Dempsey-Wills go."*
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=quYgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6W0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5681,1618891
> ...


Writting something in a large font does not make them more true. You claimed the commission blocked the fight, yet you post articles of the commission allowing the fight but setting conditions on it. These were the exact same conditions for any of Dempsey's fights and he still fought in NYC under these conditions. Muldoon's main objection with Dempsey's defenses appears to be the morality of mega purses being paid to the boxers, which he felt brought the sport into disrepute.

Muldoon who was the chairman of the commission who was issuing these conditions was only chairman for 2 years of Dempsey's reign. Using the commission as an excuse is a poor one when they tried to force Dempsey to face Wills and ofcourse ignores the fact Dempsey was offered big money to goto London and Canada to face Wills. If he wanted the fight why not make the fight there?

You also claimed Dempsey signed to fight Wills in 1922, I seem to remember something along the lines of a contract that was not binding him to fight Wills in any way. Muldoon wasn't blocking a Wills fight in 1922 either. A promoter was ready to have the fight in Canada the same year, which Dempsey flat out rejected. When Wills looked to get an injunction to block the Firpo fight in order to face Dempsey, Dempsey said he'd never fight Wills.

I wrote a long reply to this yesterday with several newspaper references but it was lost when my PC crashed.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> As someone who gives Tunney at least a 50-50 chance of beating a prime Dempsey, I still have to admit:
> 1. Dempsey has to be given at least a puncher's chance against anyone 200 lbs and under.
> 2. Tunney has never been tested and proven against a HW as good as a prime Dempsey.
> 3. *Even a faded Dempsey was able to reach Tunney and put him down for the most controversial 15 seconds in boxing history*.
> ...


I'm sorry this is a pretty weak argument Tunney prior to that point had beaten Dempsey every round and every minute for all rounds preceding that one as well as all of the rounds of the previous fight. Dempsey got lucky threw an awesome combo where about 4-6 punches landed flush and within a second or two of getting up Tunney had all his bearings and got straight back on his bike proceeding to knock Dempsey down the next round. Tunney was a masterful matador getting the bull to charge in blindly while he peppered him with shots. Dempsey would win the first quarter of the fight due to sheer aggression but Tunney was sublime he had Dempsey in the palm of his hands style wise. 15 rounds prime for prime I'm going Tunney late TKO, Championship rounds.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> As someone who gives Tunney at least a 50-50 chance of beating a prime Dempsey, I still have to admit:
> 1. Dempsey has to be given at least a puncher's chance against anyone 200 lbs and under.
> 2. Tunney has never been tested and proven against a HW as good as a prime Dempsey.
> 3. Even a faded Dempsey was able to reach Tunney and put him down for the most controversial 15 seconds in boxing history.
> ...


Yeah, but Dempsey was thrashed. His worst championship performance was against a man of similar stature, and if not style, some detail, and Gene Tunney was never stopped. Puncher's chances are fine, but sometimes they don't add up to much more. Dempsey was good, so who really knows?, but I wouldn't be picking him given the near total superiority of Tunney on film. Could be wrong.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Its really a question of how much had Dempsey declined by the time he fought Tunney.....


If he had declined a great deal..than his getting trashed by Tunney means next to nothing....


if he had declined only a small amount...than it a Tunney win Is still likely..but still not certain...had Dempsey been .1 percent faster and his timing .3 percent better..he might still not have won a points battle..but maybe he would have gotten the knock out???


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> Its really a question of how much had Dempsey declined by the time he fought Tunney.....
> 
> If he had declined a great deal..than his getting trashed by Tunney means next to nothing....
> 
> if he had declined only a small amount...than it a Tunney win Is still likely..but still not certain...had Dempsey been .1 percent faster and his timing .3 percent better..he might still not have won a points battle..but maybe he would have gotten the knock out???


Yesterday, I read a report from a couple days before the fight wherein all the wags were going on about Dempsey being the Dempsey of Toledo, in great shape, looking faster and sharper than ever. Ballyhoo or actual?


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

You can tell plenty where styles are concerned even from a declined version of the fighter. It's not like Dempsey was inactive for the second fight and he got thrashed in that one too. Was he what he once was? Naw. But he got totally out-classed. Someone earlier was trying to draw a parallel between this fight and Tyson-Douglas. Tyson at his best likely would have beaten Douglas, but the combination of heart, length, jab and mobility would always always have meant bad trouble for him. Tunney is perhaps 10 times the fighter Douglas was, but enjoys the same enormous and proven advantages, as testified to by their two fights.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Tunney is perhaps 10 times the fighter Douglas was, but enjoys the same enormous and proven advantages, as testified to by their two fights.


Douglas at his best is better than Tunney P4P for me. Faster hands, better counters, better infighter, better footwork, better defense, better combination puncher.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Douglas at his best is better than Tunney P4P for me. Faster hands, better counters, better infighter, better footwork, better defense, better combination puncher.


I've only seen two Douglas fights where I thought he was very good, and quite a lot of fights where I thought he was pretty poor tbh. I think Tunney looks _great_ in every glimmer of footage.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I've only seen two Douglas fights where I thought he was very good, and quite a lot of fights where I thought he was pretty poor tbh. I think Tunney looks _great_ in every glimmer of footage.


Well Douglas was rarely well trained or motivated, but against Tucker and Tyson he is a more complete package than Tunney. He was pretty dominant against McCall and Berbick too but not as quick, good wins though. Tunney is obviously the more consistent over the course of his career.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I just wouldn't describe a fighter that looked that bad that often as great. Ever. But his best performance is definitely absolutely extraordinary.

Did you try the Ardbog?


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

There were some interesting arguments about this on ESB, before it fell into the ground like Sodom and Gomorrah 

Some of better archivists made a compelling case that:



Tunney was a much more offensively orientated fighter than we generally think, and adopted a totally abnormal style for him in this fight. 
Dempsey was persuaded to make major changes to his style, due to his recent inactivity, and that these proved disastrous
 
I think this is worth throwing into the melting pot.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Yesterday, I read a report from a couple days before the fight wherein all the wags were going on about Dempsey being the Dempsey of Toledo, in great shape, looking faster and sharper than ever. Ballyhoo or actual?


well....his shape was definitely higher....also...many sports writers were paid back than by various promoters...also...the difference between being shot and being prime is often a matter of just a slight difference in timing....often its hard to pick up on in a training camp.

Finally..many sports writers at least today I would not even trust to judge how a fighter looks in camp....might have been the same back than....but who knows?


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> well....his shape was definitely higher....also...many sports writers were paid back than by various promoters...also...the difference between being shot and being prime is often a matter of just a slight difference in timing....often its hard to pick up on in a training camp.
> 
> Finally..many sports writers at least today I would not even trust to judge how a fighter looks in camp....might have been the same back than....but who knows?


Agreed on all accounts. When I have more time, I start a thread using the publicity around this thread as a case study on the lack of objectivity of the firsthand accounts which we rely on for so many fights. Damon Runyon's stuff is among the most biased stuff I have ever read, truly laughable.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I just wouldn't describe a fighter that looked that bad that often as great. Ever. But his best performance is definitely absolutely extraordinary.
> 
> Did you try the Ardbog?


I'm not sure he's a great as a whole career, but he was great for a night and conquered his Everest. I think allot of fighters get underrated in a H2H sense due to their lack of longevity and dedication meaning they weren't at the races too often but when they were they were as good as the best. Honeyghan's another guy I rate very highly but not rated highly because he couldn't maintain that fantastic standard he put in against Curry. People like to make excuses for guys like Tyson and Curry losing rather than. There's also O'Dowd, looks great on film, beat Greb and Gibbons, but he's the forgotten man of his era.

Douglas also had the bad luck of facing an absolute peak Holyfield in his cash out fight. Douglas in a way is similar to Braddock, scaling a mountain no one gave him a shot in winning with fundamentally sound boxing and cashing out against an up and coming ATG. Allot of guys climbed the mountain and then lost the drive to keep climbing once they scaled the height.

Ardbog, your thread the day the Lounge died? I've only stretched my budget to the 10 and the Ugi, thus far. I tried a Laga 12 cask strength, which was pretty good, very similar to Ardbeg 10 actually, a little better but around £62 I think. Laga and Ardbeg are definitely above the other Islays, I'm not sure if that's partly the none chill filtration.

How have you found it, I only remember you saying it was very dry, allot of people in the reviews seem to think it's good but Ardbeg are riding their name hard

http://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/ardbeg/ardbog-ardbeg-whisky/?srh=1

I'm guessing you've tried the Corry? Tried the Laga 16? That's on my to try list


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

I just can't figure out the logic here that so many of you are expressing..that I doesn't matter if someone is past their prime or not..that its all style.


Style is a big part...but being past your prime is the difference between winning and losing for many people...

hell I guess Dempsey in his prime would have lost to Kingfish Laveinsky...and Tyson would have lost to Kevin McBride.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> I just can't figure out the logic here that so many of you are expressing..that I doesn't matter if someone is past their prime or not..that its all style.
> 
> Style is a big part...but being past your prime is the difference between winning and losing for many people...
> 
> hell I guess Dempsey in his prime would have lost to Kingfish Laveinsky...and Tyson would have lost to Kevin McBride.


Prime is pretty much about stamina, speed and power. Stamina goes first, followed by speed, power/strength actually tends to get better with age. So once stamina goes you might expect a fighter to hold their own early and then fade. Dempsey wasn't in the fight early at all in either fight.

Dempsey was past his best against Tunney at 32 but by how much? I'm not sure, I don't think it's night and day. We can see he still has the stamina and tenacity against Sharkey. In his prime Dempsey wasn't that impressive against lesser versions of Tunney like the Prime Miske who took him to a draw and Brennan who gave him a good fight. And he never fought anyone nearly as good as Tunney.

You also have to ask how Dempsey has success? He has to get past a jab, lateral and backword movement and a counter right to land his lead left hook because that's the punch he leads with 9 times out of 10. Do you think he can get past such a quick jab and counter right to do so? It really is a nightmare style and partly because Tunney made such a perfect gameplan to neutralise Dempsey as he doesn't seem so elusive in other fights.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> You claimed the commission blocked the fight, yet you post articles of the commission allowing the fight but setting conditions on it.


Did you not read the bottom 2 articles, or the image I posted? They explicitly say Muldoon had barred the fight by Feb. 1923 - not simply "set conditions."



Powerpuncher said:


> These were the exact same conditions for any of Dempsey's fights and he still fought in NYC under these conditions.


They were not "the exact same." The first article says they were unusually stringent and impractical.

The 4th article explicitly says Dempsey had great difficulty making a fight in NY, and proposed fights with Greb, Gibbons and Brennan had also been barred by Muldoon. The article also says Firpo was one of the very few possible opponents who hadn't yet been barred. The NY commission later made a special exception for Dempsey to fight Firpo.



Powerpuncher said:


> Muldoon's main objection with Dempsey's defenses appears to be the morality of mega purses being paid to the boxers, which he felt brought the sport into disrepute.


The 3rd article says he was accused of racism as his motive, including by NY Senator Jimmy Walker.



Powerpuncher said:


> Using the commission as an excuse is a poor one when they tried to force Dempsey to face Wills and ofcourse ignores the fact Dempsey was offered big money to goto London and Canada to face Wills. If he wanted the fight why not make the fight there?


Wills had insisted the fight be overseen by the NY commission, and even had it stipulated in their original contract.



Powerpuncher said:


> You also claimed Dempsey signed to fight Wills in 1922, I seem to remember something along the lines of a contract that was not binding him to fight Wills in any way.


Everything I posted refers to the contract signed in '22, in which Dempsey was bound to make the fight once a reliable promoter had been found. The 2nd article says the commission had acted to block Rickard from promoting the fight shortly before banning the fight altogether.



Powerpuncher said:


> When Wills looked to get an injunction to block the Firpo fight in order to face Dempsey, Dempsey said he'd never fight Wills.


Just like Wills once said he wouldn't fight Dempsey unless he got a $500,000 guarantee first.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

It's hard considering the times. I've softened my stance a bit now. After the riots that took place when Johnson fucked Jeffries I can imagine why Dempsey wouldn't wanna face Wills as champion.

However John L himself said the colour line was always am excuse to duck rather than a political stance.

it's irrefutable though that wills was the outstanding contender and Dempsey refused fight him. Wills doesn't blame Jack but it's hard to believe a superstar like Jack couldn't get the fight if he wanted it.

Like today Lou doesn't want Martinez to fight Golovkin but Sergio is gonna chase the fight anyway.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> I'
> 
> Ardbog, your thread the day the Lounge died? I've only stretched my budget to the 10 and the Ugi, thus far. I tried a Laga 12 cask strength, which was pretty good, very similar to Ardbeg 10 actually, a little better but around £62 I think. Laga and Ardbeg are definitely above the other Islays, I'm not sure if that's partly the none chill filtration.
> 
> ...


Laga 16 is supposedly the one Johnny Depp orders just to smell. I don't care for it all that much personally, bit TCP. But if you liked it, you could do a lot worse than the BenRiach Curiositas:

http://www.benriachdistillery.co.uk/CURIOSITASPEATED10YEARSOLD.html

Same sort of idea, but a little less aggressive.



Johnstown said:


> I just can't figure out the logic here that so many of you are expressing..that I doesn't matter if someone is past their prime or not..that its all style.
> 
> Style is a big part...but being past your prime is the difference between winning and losing for many people...
> 
> hell I guess Dempsey in his prime would have lost to Kingfish Laveinsky...and Tyson would have lost to Kevin McBride.


What stylistic advantages did McBride demonstrate over Tyson?


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Laga 16 is supposedly the one Johnny Depp orders just to smell. I don't care for it all that much personally, bit TCP. But if you liked it, you could do a lot worse than the BenRiach Curiositas:
> 
> http://www.benriachdistillery.co.uk/CURIOSITASPEATED10YEARSOLD.html
> 
> ...


being a big mother fucker :lol:


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Agreed on all accounts. When I have more time, I start a thread using the publicity around this thread as a case study on the lack of objectivity of the firsthand accounts which we rely on for so many fights. Damon Runyon's stuff is among the most biased stuff I have ever read, truly laughable.


although, I will say that those old time news paper reports most likely do have more validity than a bunch of internet fourm hanger on yapping about fights that happened 50 years or more before most were born....


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> although, I will say that those old time news paper reports most likely do have more validity than a bunch of internet fourm hanger on yapping about fights that happened 50 years or more before most were born....


This. :deal

There are certainly individual reports that are biased and/or dissenting, as there are in any era. The key is to seek out a volume of reports from different sources, to get a better sense of what the prevailing view of a situation might've been.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> being a big mother fucker :lol:


Truth!

Tyson always struggled a little bit with size, though the returns those big guys received generally increased as he dropped off.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Tunney had quicker hands and feet than jack plus he was awesome at every range.

Unless jack catches him cold, tunney is outpointing him all day long.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> This. :deal
> 
> There are certainly individual reports that are biased and/or dissenting, as there are in any era. The key is to seek out a volume of reports from different sources, to get a better sense of what the prevailing view of a situation might've been.


So I will believe Runyan's review of Tunney Dempsey II in which he scored it for Jack, mostly by virtue of his knockdown... While never mentioning that Tunney turned the trick the very next round.


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> You're blatantly showing yourself up as knowing nothing about this era here while doing your best spin job to degrade Wills in order to protect your hero Dempsey. Tunney is light hitting is he? So I suppose Dempsey is light hitting, given he couldn't put away Gibbons who Tunney stopped? By your logic yes.
> 
> Laughing at Wills not being able to stop top contenders early? Well he knocked out Kid Norfolk in 2, Ed Martin in 1, Fulton in 3. With loads of bodyshot kos on his record. He seemingly is a conservative boxer, so likely doesn't go for the ko. In boxing a dominating decision is often considered as good as a fast ko, otherwise Whitaker/Mayweather wouldn't be rated too highly would they?
> 
> ...


Hahaha trust me mate you couldn't correct me beleive me - firstly Tunney was renowned as relatively light hitting although I concede everything I have read about him over the last 30 years could well be wrong?? 

Oh and regards him stopping Gibbons - Gibbons was as far gone when he was put in with Gene as Dempsey was!?? Carp was also totally shot when he fought Gene aswell (and Carp wasn't impressed with Gene either - Carp thought he could've beat Gene in his own prime).

In answer to your question "why is an 18 second KO more impressive than a 3 round KO?" - erm because it only took 18 seconds as opposed to 3 rounds???

Plus you go on about a decision win being just as good as a KO but then you boohoo Dempsey winning a clear decision versus a prime Gibbons (who was a first class boxer himself) in favour of Gene getting the job done inside the distance (against also a past it Gibbons)?? Make up your mind??

Oh and Dempsey doesn't get vilified for not stopping Meehan?? Haha you could've fooled me! That has become the whipping stick of choice for you Dempsey-haters!!?? That is continually brought up??

Oh and Langford himself said his eyes were swollen shut when he managed to pull out one punch KOs against Wills? Wills himself said how amazed he was that Langford was able to pull off this feat - and sung his praises based on this?? And however many rounds Wills won before those KOs becomes redundant when you are ko'd I'm afraid?


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Hahaha trust me mate you couldn't correct me beleive me - firstly Tunney was renowned as relatively light hitting although I concede everything I have read about him over the last 30 years could well be wrong??
> 
> Oh and regards him stopping Gibbons - Gibbons was as far gone when he was put in with Gene as Dempsey was!?? Carp was also totally shot when he fought Gene aswell (and Carp wasn't impressed with Gene either - Carp thought he could've beat Gene in his own prime).
> 
> ...


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Gibbons and Carpentier were at the end of their careers when Tunney fought them, just like Dempsey was. Gene was good at beating past-prime fighters. A master at it actually. Gibbons, Carp, Dempsey, Leo Houck, Jeff Smith, etc., etc. Put in prime versions or formidable versions of top flight fighters like Loughran and Greb and suddenly Tunney doesn't look so formidable. Could he even beat a prime Gibbons? I doubt it. A prime Jeff Smith? That's a pick 'em fight for me.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> *
> Oh and regards him stopping Gibbons - Gibbons was as far gone when he was put in with Gene as Dempsey was!?? Carp was also totally shot when he fought Gene as well (and Carp wasn't impressed with Gene either - Carp thought he could've beat Gene in his own prime).*


This. And it still mystifies me why those two fights are always being brought up. As if Tunney really licked prime versions and thus deserves full credit. Hogwash. Tunney was so careful and protected during his career. All cherry-picked opposition that he always had decided advantages over (although the Greb miscalculation obviously blew up in his face).


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Tunney certainly passes the eye test, that can't be denied.


----------



## dmt (Jun 4, 2013)

There is plenty of reason to pick Dempsey here

Part of the reason why Dempsey had so much problem with Tunney is simply because he did not have the footspeed to catch up with Tunney. Tunney was very quick, and Dempsey simply looked about half as quick as he did when he won the title. Add to this three years of inactivity and the fact that Dempsey was a swarmer (who typically don't last as long as other types of fighters) and its no wonder that the fights were as one sided as they were

A prime Dempsey would certainly be able to land more shots, and its hard to imagine Tunney completely avoiding getting hit by a big combination for 15 full rounds.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

dmt said:


> There is plenty of reason to pick Dempsey here
> 
> Part of the reason why Dempsey had so much problem with Tunney is simply because he did not have the footspeed to catch up with Tunney. Tunney was very quick, and Dempsey simply looked about half as quick as he did when he won the title. Add to this three years of inactivity and the fact that Dempsey was a swarmer (who typically don't last as long as other types of fighters) and its no wonder that the fights were as one sided as they were
> 
> A prime Dempsey would certainly be able to land more shots, and its hard to imagine Tunney completely avoiding getting hit by a big combination for 15 full rounds.


I think tunney outlands Dempsey on the inside tbh.


----------



## Webbiano (Jun 9, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> I just can't figure out the logic here that so many of you are expressing..that I doesn't matter if someone is past their prime or not..that its all style.
> 
> Style is a big part...but being past your prime is the difference between winning and losing for many people...
> 
> hell I guess Dempsey in his prime would have lost to Kingfish Laveinsky...and Tyson would have lost to Kevin McBride.


I'm sort of with you here Johnstown. It's not like the stylistic disadvantage is in the same region of magnitude as Frazier-Foreman was. The same people saying Dempsey wasn't that far gone would probably argue that Tyson stopping Holmes has no relevance as to how there prime for prime matchup would turn out. I'd say Dempsey from the Tynney fight was further from is best than Holmes from the Spinks' fights.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I've made no comment regarding Tyson v Holmes in this thread. What a strange comment?

I basically think the only advantage Dempsey has is power. Tunney is quicker in both hand and feet, he's better defensively and has much better technique at each and every range.

As Dempsey tried rushing in he will find himself walking into jabs. He will prolly score a knockdown at some point and maybe under the rules of his day he's gonna be able to finish anyone he drops. In more recent rules tunney will recover and box his way to safety.


----------



## Webbiano (Jun 9, 2013)

I didn't say you Luf. I was just trying to put things into context with a comparison of other greats past their best fighting other greats. I just don't feel like people are giving Dempsey a fair shout here. I wouldn't say I'm even fond of Dempsey, but people are acting like its a foregone conclusion for Tunney, but a prime Demspey is levels above the batsman that fought Tunney


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Webbiano said:


> I didn't say you Luf. I was just trying to put things into context with a comparison of other greats past their best fighting other greats. I just don't feel like people are giving Dempsey a fair shout here. I wouldn't say I'm even fond of Dempsey, but people are acting like its a foregone conclusion for Tunney, but a prime Demspey is levels above the batsman that fought Tunney


fair enough mate :good


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> I think tunney outlands Dempsey on the inside tbh.


really? on the inside???


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> really? on the inside???


yeah


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Tunney beats Dempsey,...prime for prime.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Hahaha trust me mate you couldn't correct me beleive me - firstly Tunney was renowned as relatively light hitting although I concede everything I have read about him over the last 30 years could well be wrong??


Use your own eyes, Tunney looks like a puncher in his fights. Tunney lay beating on plenty of fighters. If Tunney was a light hitter Dempsey walks through him, simple as that really.



rockyssplitnose said:


> Oh and regards him stopping Gibbons - Gibbons was as far gone when he was put in with Gene as Dempsey was!?? Carp was also totally shot when he fought Gene aswell (and Carp wasn't impressed with Gene either - Carp thought he could've beat Gene in his own prime).


a

Yes but Tunney also fought Madden nearer the end of his career than Wills did so doesn't the same apply?



rockyssplitnose said:


> In answer to your question "why is an 18 second KO more impressive than a 3 round KO?" - erm because it only took 18 seconds as opposed to 3 rounds???


An a 18second KO can be impressive, but is often considered to be 'caught cold'. Vitali and Wlad rarely have the fastest win over an opponent but are still the best of the last 10 years.



rockyssplitnose said:


> Plus you go on about a decision win being just as good as a KO but then you boohoo Dempsey winning a clear decision versus a prime Gibbons (who was a first class boxer himself) in favour of Gene getting the job done inside the distance (against also a past it Gibbons)?? Make up your mind??


No make up your mind, if Tunney is feather fisted, then by that logic Dempsey is feather fisted for not stopping Gibbons. By my standards I consider the Gibbons decision win as one of Dempsey's best, by your standards you can't really rate the win because it's not as good as Tunney stopping him years later on. By your standards you hold Wills to, it's a mark against Dempsey.



rockyssplitnose said:


> Oh and Dempsey doesn't get vilified for not stopping Meehan?? Haha you could've fooled me! That has become the whipping stick of choice for you Dempsey-haters!!?? That is continually brought up??


No the fact Meehan on several times actually beat him and drew with him is a far bigger factor than 'not able to stop him'. The losing or not being able to win being a far bigger weakness.



rockyssplitnose said:


> Oh and Langford himself said his eyes were swollen shut when he managed to pull out one punch KOs against Wills? Wills himself said how amazed he was that Langford was able to pull off this feat - and sung his praises based on this?? And however many rounds Wills won before those KOs becomes redundant when you are ko'd I'm afraid?


Langford's eyes being swollen shut from a beating has little to do with him being legally blind, which is said to have developed after the Fulton fight.

A great come from behind win no doubt by Langford but that and Wills prior wins pretty much puts to bed the idea that Langford got the better of Wills before Langford faded past his prime.


----------



## dmt (Jun 4, 2013)

Tunney was no quicker on his feet than a prime Dempsey. And handspeed? Its very hard to see who had quicker hands because of the film quality. It is not a forgone conclusion that Tunney had quicker hands.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

So yeah tunney on points innit


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Those claiming Tunney was featherfisted apparently lack the ability to open a book.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Tunney forced everyone to respect his power in the ring. Noone ever walked.through him.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

styles make fights man....so its clear that Tunney always had the style to beat Dempsey no matter where they were in their respective careers. Tunney beat Dempsey, so that shows he had the style to beat Dempsey...

































just like how I think Trevor Berbick always had the style to beat Ali..because you know...he did beat him. :hey


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Those claiming Tunney was featherfisted apparently lack the ability to open a book.


Dempsey in his own book dispelled this. Given also his accuracy and the rate at which he landed his opponent was looking in for a night of hurt. Dempsey himself introduced the neutral corner rule because the beating he took in the first fight was so bad.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> styles make fights man....so its clear that Tunney always had the style to beat Dempsey no matter where they were in their respective careers. Tunney beat Dempsey, so that shows he had the style to beat Dempsey...
> 
> just like how I think Trevor Berbick always had the style to beat Ali..because you know...he did beat him. :hey


more to do with Tunney holding near every conceivable advantage.

who do you think wins prime for prime: Willard v Dempsey. You know if Willard would have been younger and more active when the fight took place.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Johnstown said:


> styles make fights man....so its clear that Tunney always had the style to beat Dempsey no matter where they were in their respective careers. Tunney beat Dempsey, so that shows he had the style to beat Dempsey...
> 
> just like how I think Trevor Berbick always had the style to beat Ali..because you know...he did beat him. :hey


I agree that using the Tunney fights themselves to "prove" that Tunney would always beat Dempsey is questionable at best. If anything, those fights can be used to make the opposite argument, since they show that even a faded Dempsey can still get to Tunney and put him on the floor even after being outboxed and punished extensively.

The reason I think Tunney has at least a 50-50 shot at beating a prime Dempsey is based mainly on the Brennan title fight, in which Dempsey was clearly outboxed and took some fair punishment before rallying to pull out the fight at the end. Oddly enough, the people here who are arguing that Tunney would always beat Dempsey have seemed to overlook that fight, even though it's probably the best argument in their favor.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> I agree that using the Tunney fights themselves to "prove" that Tunney would always beat Dempsey is questionable at best. If anything, those fights can be used to make the opposite argument, since they show that even a faded Dempsey can still get to Tunney and put him on the floor even after being outboxed and punished extensively.
> 
> The reason I think Tunney has at least a 50-50 shot at beating a prime Dempsey is based mainly on the Brennan title fight, in which Dempsey was clearly outboxed and took some fair punishment before rallying to pull out the fight at the end. Oddly enough, the people here who are arguing that Tunney would always beat Dempsey have seemed to overlook that fight, even though it's probably the best argument in their favor.


that's because boxing is subjective and one man's key to victory can be an other man's weakness.

I think tunney is better than Dempsey at everything aside from power. I see them on a different skill skill level.


----------

