Name me a 190lber who could beat Tunney.

[Seamus]

Watch this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

or this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

An absolutely marvelous fighter at the end of his career. Great speed, real sense of space, great defense, exquisite body work and cracking power. I am reversing myself on previous opinions, but I don't think maybe not even Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano beat this guy.

[Longhhorn71]

Many people forget when Cassius Clay came on the scene he was first compared to Tunney in many cases.

That Tunney-Dempsey fight looked a lot like Ali-Frazier in some parts.

It has been 50 years since Cassius Clay arrived and people have just forgotten how good Gene was....obviously he was a "modern fighter".

Put Tunney in with Joe Louis instead of Billy Conn....and Tunney might of won.

And if he had.....where would he be ranked now?

[BlackWater]

Do you guys rank Tunney above Dempsey ATG?

[Longhhorn71]

Do you guys rank Tunney above Dempsey ATG?


In the old books, Nat Fleischer had Jefferies, Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, Louis, and Marciano usually in some similar order.

I think he loved Dempsey from the Roaring 20's and the Golden Age of Boxing, but probably knew Tunney in his prime would have been Jack's poison.

Tunney spent 2-3 years just kinda following Jack around studying him.

When they finally got in the ring, Gene was ready to go.

[BlackWater]

In the old books, Nat Fleischer had Jefferies, Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, Louis, and Marciano usually in some similar order.

I think he loved Dempsey from the Roaring 20's and the Golden Age of Boxing, but probably knew Tunney in his prime would have been Jack's poison.

Tunney spent 2-3 years just kinda following Jack around studying him.

When they finally got in the ring, Gene was ready to go.

Jack Dempsey is one of, my favorite all time fighters..but stylistically Tunney was hard for him to beat.

Do you think a stressless, younger, faster 1919-1922 Dempsey could've have KO'd the Tunney that took the title from him?

[Russell]

Giving Tunney full credit for the Dempsey wins is almost as bad as giving Foreman full credit for the Frazier fights. Both Tunney and Foreman deserve credit for the fights and the manners in which they won them but Frazier and Dempsey weren't the animals they once were.

Really, Dempsey was a passion fighter. Take that away coupled with fading reflexes and the ability to get off his shots and you've crippled his greatest assets. And we saw that Tunney's chin could be seriously dented when Jack did connect.

Now give Dempsey more fire, make him get all of his shots off faster and with more accuracy, basically improve everything and tell me he couldn't of won at least one of the Tunney fights in his prime.

[Seamus]

Really, Dempsey was a passion fighter. Take that away coupled with fading reflexes and the ability to get off his shots and you've crippled his greatest assets. And we saw that Tunney's chin could be seriously dented when Jack did connect.

Now give Dempsey more fire, make him get all of his shots off faster and with more accuracy, basically improve everything and tell me he couldn't of won at least one of the Tunney fights in his prime.

You speak of Dempsey as a shot entity. However, he was only two years older than Tunney and had only fought a few more fights, on record at least. And Tunney had battled Harry Greb 5 times, a guy Dempsey wouldn't even get in the same room as. Dempsey, as much as I love the guy, had a fairly shitty title reign, going life and death with Brennan, Firpo and even getting rocked by Carpentier. The great and underated Gibbons lasted the distance with Dempsey but only two years later got a boxing and power lesson from Tunney.

Tunney was no Fulton or Willard. He was the finest fighting machine Dempsey ever faced- including getting schooled by Greb in sparring. And guess what, the fights were not even close. Tunney won damn near ever round the first time and they traded KD's the second time in another whitewash for Tunney.

[Maxmomer]

I am also of the opinion that Tunney would have beaten Marciano and Louis. I think he had the right style as well as the speed, power, toughness and stamina required to get the job done. Head to head he'd be absolute hell for anyone around his weight. Charles might be able to beat him, Langford, and maybe a prime Dempsey. Not many others.

[AceNguyen]

How would a 190 Evander do against Tunney?

[My2Sense]

You speak of Dempsey as a shot entity. However, he was only two years older than Tunney and had only fought a few more fights, on record at least.

More than that, Dempsey came into the 1st Tunney fight as a huge betting favorite.

[Maxmomer]

That Dempsey was far from his best in those two fights is pretty certain. Many of the contemporary writers took note of it and it's there to be seen on film. How far from his best is up for debate.

[mcvey]

Watch this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

or this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

An absolutely marvelous fighter at the end of his career. Great speed, real sense of space, great defense, exquisite body work and cracking power. I am reversing myself on previous opinions, but I don't think maybe not even Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano beat this guy.
A Dempsey who had not been inactive for three years.
Sharkey would give him an interesting evening too.

[janitor]

[quote=Seamus;3425665]You speak of Dempsey as a shot entity.

He had enough left to beat Jack Sharkey on his A game so he wasnt shot but equaly he wasnt the Dempsey of past years.

However, he was only two years older than Tunney

Jim Jeffries was only two years older than Jack Johnson.

Lennox Lewis was two years older than Mike Tyson.

Relative age means next to nothing in determining where two fighters stand.

and had only fought a few more fights, on record at least.

Well the records are misleading.

Jack Dempseys record is largley incomplete while Tunneys is largley complete.

These fighters were two years apart chronologicaly but came from completely different eras.

Tunney was the fist heavyweight champion to come from a long amateur background and enjoy a relativley well documented early career.

Dempsey evolved seamlesly from being a hobo fighting on the salt flats to a profesional fighter. He had to work his way up first as a fighter on the local circuit fighting for a handfull of change to get a sandwitch, and later as a jorneyman before his talent was recognised.

Even Dempsey didnt know how many profesional fights he had but he reconed it to be more than 120.


And Tunney had battled Harry Greb 5 times, a guy Dempsey wouldn't even get in the same room as. Dempsey, as much as I love the guy, had a fairly shitty title reign, going life and death with Brennan, Firpo and even getting rocked by Carpentier. The great and underated Gibbons lasted the distance with Dempsey but only two years later got a boxing and power lesson from Tunney.


Whatever criticisms you would make of Dempseys title reign it has more meat on it than Tunneys entire heavyweight career.


Tunney was no Fulton or Willard. He was the finest fighting machine Dempsey ever faced- including getting schooled by Greb in sparring. And guess what, the fights were not even close. Tunney won damn near ever round the first time and they traded KD's the second time in another whitewash for Tunney.


To play devils advocate.

How do you know that Tunney was the best Dempsey ever faced?

He certainly dosnt have the best resume of Dempseys oponents or even close to it.

Take away the Dempsey fights and his heavyweight resume is prety ordinary quite frankly.

What if Billy Miske or Tommy Gibbons or indeed Tommy Loughran (who was active at the time) had got a version of Dempsey that had been inactive for three years with eroded reflexes?

I would bet my house that a prime Billy Miske would have beaten that version of Dempsy whether by an inch or by a mile.




Anyway to answer your initial question.

Somtimes the way to beat a guy like Tunney is not to bring a better Dempsey to the table but another Tunney.

One guy who many thought did beat him was Tommy Loughran and Tunney was probably closer to his prime that night than Loughran was. Perhaps Loughran is Tunneys kryptonite.

What about Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore?

Tunney admited that he wanted nothing to do with Tommy Gibbons untill he was past his best.

[mcvey]

Giving Tunney full credit for the Dempsey wins is almost as bad as giving Foreman full credit for the Frazier fights. Both Tunney and Foreman deserve credit for the fights and the manners in which they won them but Frazier and Dempsey weren't the animals they once were.

Really, Dempsey was a passion fighter. Take that away coupled with fading reflexes and the ability to get off his shots and you've crippled his greatest assets. And we saw that Tunney's chin could be seriously dented when Jack did connect.

Now give Dempsey more fire, make him get all of his shots off faster and with more accuracy, basically improve everything and tell me he couldn't of won at least one of the Tunney fights in his prime.

Dempsey and Frazier is a bad comparison. Dempsey was 31 and hadn't fought in over 3 years.Frazier was 29 and had defended his title twice in the previous year ,the last defence being less than 6 months earlier.
Ali comes out of enforced exile after nearly 4 years and at 29 [same as Frazier for Foreman ] is prime.Frazier ,on the other hand is shot at 29, there is also the possibility that Foreman beats the shit out of him anytime ,anywhere.
Frazier apologists say that in the rematch with Foreman, Joe did better because he lasted longer,yes he went nearly 5 rounds ,and might have shared the 4th on the judges card.
Tunney would allways give Dempsey trouble because he was a great ,fast ,shifty fighter with excellent footwork,but imo a prime active Dempsey catches him .Tunney said he noticed the difference betwen the Dempsey of the first fight and the second ,immediately,in the first Jack was lack lustre and appeared disinterested,his legs,and timing were off, in the second ,thanks to the outing with Sharkey, Dempsey had shed some ring rust and was in better shape,he just didnt have the legs to catch Tunney anymore , over 15 rds Tunney would probably have stopped Dempsey.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Tunney got thumbed in the eye while sparing for the Second Dempsey fight and had a blind spot in that eye, so he did not see that punch coming.
I believe Tunney was down only once in his life,and knew dammed well the new rules...and was not as bad hurt as was thought by the Dempsey fans. I believe Tunney also decked Dempsey early in that second fight too.
The Heaney fight, was some one Tunney could beat with one eye, so he rooked the promoter by retiring.

Tunney was hated by the sports writers. My god once he got caught in public at a training camp of his......reading Shakespeare.

Tunney was in love with a rich girl, who waited for him to become rich himself.
It took 7 years. And seeing he was going to be moving in her social circle, he needed to have a bit of Culture. Tunney became CEO of a couple of companies, and did not get wiped out by the stock market crash nor the Great Depression.

A life time later (40-50 years), Paul Gallico, the famous writer and sports writer apologized for his hate campaign against Tunney.

Tunney in his book aslo said he avoided Gibson until he became good enough. Which gose to show you how good Gibson really was.

I always like looking at scranny chested Tunney, who said chest and bicepts were not needed in boxing, lats and a strong back was. He grew naturally into being a heavy.

This was the time when weight lifting was stupid, putting on the wrong muscles.
Often today, I see guys like Hayes with great looking beach muscles, that in the end cause only a chickenwing jab.

[flamengo]

[quote=Seamus;3425665]You speak of Dempsey as a shot entity. However, he was only two years older than Tunney and had only fought a few more fights, on record at least. And Tunney had battled Harry Greb 5 times, a guy Dempsey wouldn't even get in the same room as.


Many GREB oponents lasted the rounds with him... TRY 80%..... and most of them lasted the 'rounds' more than once.....

[PowerPuncher]

Well in that weight range you have:

Jack Johnson
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Roy Jones
James Toney
David Haye
Prime Dempsey
Marciano
M Spinks
Patterson
Bob Foster
Qawi
Calzaghe
Langford
Bivins
Mike Moorer

And I don't think Tunney beats that many of them

[mcvey]

Tunney got thumbed in the eye while sparing for the Second Dempsey fight and had a blind spot in that eye, so he did not see that punch coming.
I believe Tunney was down only once in his life,and knew dammed well the new rules...and was not as bad hurt as was thought by the Dempsey fans. I believe Tunney also decked Dempsey early in that second fight too.
The Heaney fight, was some one Tunney could beat with one eye, so he rooked the promoter by retiring.

Tunney was hated by the sports writers. My god once he got caught in public at a training camp of his......reading Shakespeare.

Tunney was in love with a rich girl, who waited for him to become rich himself.
It took 7 years. And seeing he was going to be moving in her social circle, he needed to have a bit of Culture. Tunney became CEO of a couple of companies, and did not get wiped out by the stock market crash nor the Great Depression.

A life time later (40-50 years), Paul Gallico, the famous writer and sports writer apologized for his hate campaign against Tunney.

Tunney in his book aslo said he avoided Gibson until he became good enough. Which gose to show you how good Gibson really was.

I always like looking at scranny chested Tunney, who said chest and bicepts were not needed in boxing, lats and a strong back was. He grew naturally into being a heavy.

This was the time when weight lifting was stupid, putting on the wrong muscles.
Often today, I see guys like Hayes with great looking beach muscles, that in the end cause only a chickenwing jab.

I beleive Tunney could have gotten up,he said he could have,he also said he wasnt sure he could have withstood Dempsey's attack ,if he had done so.
Tunney did put Dempsey down with a quick right cross,its interesting that Barry the referee immediately started to count ,though Tunney was standing over Dempsey and NOT in a neutral corner ,as the rules demanded.

[janitor]

I beleive Tunney could have gotten up,he said he could have,he also said he wasn sure he could have withstood Dempsey's attack ,if he had done so.
Tunney did put Dempsey down with a quick right cross,its interesting that Barry the referee immediately started to count ,though Tunney was standing over Dempsey and NOT in a neutral corner ,as the rules demanded.

Tunney was obviously taking advantage of the full count to recover and could have got up, but the rules should have been enforced consistently for both fighters.

[flamengo]

I beleive Tunney could have gotten up,he said he could have,he also said he wasn sure he could have withstood Dempsey's attack ,if he had done so.
Tunney did put Dempsey down with a quick right cross,its interesting that Barry the referee immediately started to count ,though Tunney was standing over Dempsey and NOT in a neutral corner ,as the rules demanded.


Very true, as this is well pointed out in numerous tapes of the fight.. clearly a refereeing mistake..

Regarding the knowdown of Tunney.. the long count..etc.. The referee is accountable, as well as the inability to take mention of the 'time keepers' count, assuming a count was being in effect in the day??........ A few hypocracies during the fight.

[janitor]

Well in that weight range you have:

Jack Johnson
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Roy Jones
James Toney
David Haye
Prime Dempsey
Marciano
M Spinks
Patterson
Bob Foster
Qawi
Calzaghe
Langford
Bivins
Mike Moorer

And I don't think Tunney beats that many of them

If you took a $10 bet with me against Tunney on each of those fighters I would be the one who made a profit.

[Seamus]

Well in that weight range you have:

Jack Johnson
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Roy Jones
James Toney
David Haye
Prime Dempsey
Marciano
M Spinks
Patterson
Bob Foster
Qawi
Calzaghe
Langford
Bivins
Mike Moorer

And I don't think Tunney beats that many of them

I think he beats most if not all of them with the only problems being Langford, prime Dempsey and Marciano. Haye? That's a joke, right?

[mcvey]

If you took a $10 bet with me against Tunney on each of those fighters I would be the one who made a profit.

A very healthy one I'd say.

[klompton]

Tunney was always going to beat Dempsey. Dempsey is overrated and protected.

[BoppaZoo]

I think maybe Rocky Marciano just because his Power at that weight was like a Margarito Glove but without the wraps.

[janitor]

Tunney was always going to beat Dempsey. Dempsey is overrated and protected.

If Dempsey was protected then by that definition Tunney would be off the scale.

[klompton]

I didnt say Tunney wasnt protected, my point was that Tunney was best combination of youth, skill, and durability that Dempsey faced as champion. He would have lost to that version of Tunney whether he fought him in 1919, 1923, or 1926. He may have been marginally more competetive but I dont subscribe to the idea that Dempsey was past his prime. I think that idea is ludicrous and overplayed. He was a very well preserved fighter having rarely fought in all the years he was champion and he was barely past 30 yrs old which is still the prime of a man. He showed the same vulnerabilities against lesser competition that he showed against tunney, Tunney was just able to capitilize where as the lesser lights like Brennan and Gibbons couldnt.

[mcvey]

I didnt say Tunney wasnt protected, my point was that Tunney was best combination of youth, skill, and durability that Dempsey faced as champion. He would have lost to that version of Tunney whether he fought him in 1919, 1923, or 1926. He may have been marginally more competetive but I dont subscribe to the idea that Dempsey was past his prime. I think that idea is ludicrous and overplayed. He was a very well preserved fighter having rarely fought in all the years he was champion and he was barely past 30 yrs old which is still the prime of a man. He showed the same vulnerabilities against lesser competition that he showed against tunney, Tunney was just able to capitilize where as the lesser lights like Brennan and Gibbons couldnt.
Ali had a similar period of inactivity befroe coming back at 29 ,do you think he was the same fighter he had been before his exile?
I think Tunney would allways give Dempsey major problems ,but beleive a Dempsey who had kept active and away from the bright lights would have won.

[ChrisPontius]

Dempsey and Frazier is a bad comparison. Dempsey was 31 and hadn't fought in over 3 years.Frazier was 29 and had defended his title twice in the previous year ,the last defence being less than 6 months earlier.
Ali comes out of enforced exile after nearly 4 years and at 29 [same as Frazier for Foreman ] is prime.Frazier ,on the other hand is shot at 29, there is also the possibility that Foreman beats the shit out of him anytime ,anywhere.
Frazier apologists say that in the rematch with Foreman, Joe did better because he lasted longer,yes he went nearly 5 rounds ,and might have shared the 4th on the judges card.
Tunney would allways give Dempsey trouble because he was a great ,fast ,shifty fighter with excellent footwork,but imo a prime active Dempsey catches him .Tunney said he noticed the difference betwen the Dempsey of the first fight and the second ,immediately,in the first Jack was lack lustre and appeared disinterested,his legs,and timing were off, in the second ,thanks to the outing with Sharkey, Dempsey had shed some ring rust and was in better shape,he just didnt have the legs to catch Tunney anymore , over 15 rds Tunney would probably have stopped Dempsey.

I'm glad you acknowledge that Frazier is much better than Dempsey. :D


I'd pick Marciano to break Tunney down and either stop him late or win a decision like the first Charles match. Tough fight... thing is, you can run and hold against a puncher like Tyson or Dempsey, but you can't run and hold from a guy like Marciano or Frazier... they'll break you down and won't give you an inch to breath. I think Charles and Walcott may well pull off a win, too. Schmeling and Patterson have a chance but i'm not sure about them.

Still, the fact that i'm only really sure of one 190lbs fighter to beat him speaks volumes about his pound for pound greatness.

[ChrisPontius]

If Dempsey was protected then by that definition Tunney would be off the scale.

From 1916 on, Dempsey was protected from every black fighter on the planet! If that's not being protected then i don't know what is.

Imagine Ali never defending against Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle and Young because of the color line, but instead fighting Mildenberger, Cooper, Vincente Rondon, John Conteh, Chris Finnegan.

[Bigcat]

I think a guy like Evander when he was a cruiserweight would have had a bit too much in the strength department for Tunney, he had a great science to his game i agree (Tunney) but in some part of the fight he would have been pressured to trade with Holyfield and may have come off second best.. That i add is a Holyfield from 1986 / 87..

[Seamus]

I'm glad you acknowledge that Frazier is much better than Dempsey. :D


I'd pick Marciano to break Tunney down and either stop him late or win a decision like the first Charles match. Tough fight... thing is, you can run and hold against a puncher like Tyson or Dempsey, but you can't run and hold from a guy like Marciano or Frazier... they'll break you down and won't give you an inch to breath. I think Charles and Walcott may well pull off a win, too. Schmeling and Patterson have a chance but i'm not sure about them.

Still, the fact that i'm only really sure of one 190lbs fighter to beat him speaks volumes about his pound for pound greatness.

The more I think of it, the less chance I might give Marciano. Tunney hit very hard according to those hit by him. He was a little of a fancy dan who didn't want to hurt his opponents but when the chips were down he would pop. Dempsey admits that Tunney won the first fight because of a right hand in the first round that almost had Jack out of there. The amount of abuse Marciano would have to take to break down Tunney might break him down first.

[Minotauro]

I would favour a prime Dempsey, Charles, Moore, Conn, Loughran, Holyfield, Marciano and Harold Johnson. Jersey Joe weighed 192 or so in his prime if he counts then him too.

[mcvey]

FRom 1919 Wills was the only real threat to Dempsey I think.Godfrey was kod 5times between 19 and 23, the last time by Jack Renault,who would have been out matched by Dempsey , From 1923 to 26,the rest of Dempsey's reign Godfrey was beaten 7 times ,the last one by Sharkey,whom Dempsey kod and near that time by Larry Gains ,like Godfrey a Dempsey sparring partner.In fairness to Dempsey he did state he was willing to fight Tiger Flowers :oops:

[Ted Spoon]

I always like looking at scranny chested Tunney, who said chest and bicepts were not needed in boxing, lats and a strong back was. He grew naturally into being a heavy.

There is much to be said on this point:

The back and triceps are the muscles that project punches, not so much the biceps and chest, and Tunney was built exactly like the theory.

Tunney did not look like a brute, but he could bust you up just the same.

With Tunney's straight shots, dictating footwork, strength in clinches and general resolve he would be a strong bet to defeat the vast majority of fighters that weigh around 190lbs.

He was a complete package.

[Seamus]

I would favour a prime Dempsey, Charles, Moore, Conn, Loughran, Holyfield, Marciano and Harold Johnson. Jersey Joe weighed 192 or so in his prime if he counts then him too.

Dempsey didn't win more than 3 rounds out of 20 in their fights and he was only 2 years older than Tunney and KO'ing sparring partners left and right. He was fit and ready. Sometimes I think too much mythmaking came from his demolition of Willard, who was as ripe for the picking as any HW champ ever. After that, there are many holes in his reign.

Charles would be an excellent fight. I have to think on that one. You need to really bust up Charles to turn the tide. This would be the best match of your list.

Moore was far too slow. I see a late stoppage for Tunney

Conn would get thrashed by a more powerful, though equally quick puncher. Also, Tunney seemed to have better balance, a better foundation from which to punch whenever he needed to. UD Tunney

Tunney could match Loughran for speed and get beyond that jab with his substantially longer reach. I see a prime Tunney giving Loughran a sustained beating.

Holyfield would be tough but I would favor Tunney. I see a lot of fast combo's with neither going down but both bruised. Another close one.

Marciano I commented on above. I think Marciano pays too high a price getting into Tunney, who whips in and out of range and pounds and cuts the Rock. I don't think either the Walcott or Charles he fought were near Tunney's ability. But of course this was the strategy many tried. And underrating Marciano is a tried and true mistake.

And Walcott, I don't see being that close. Walcott was comprehensively beat by inferior fighters, though I understand there were less than beneficial circumstances to many of his fights.

Just my thoughts. All great fighters, no doubt. I have just been suprised lately watching Tunney films, how seemless and modern he was, and furthermore, the testaments of his opponents to his power.

[janitor]

Dempsey didn't win more than 3 rounds out of 20 in their fights and he was only 2 years older than Tunney and KO'ing sparring partners left and right. He was fit and ready.

Sice you are basing your argument on the wins over Dempsey we have to guage what stage he was at when Tunney beat him.

He had been inactive for three years and many observers had comented on the decline in his prowes even before the fight. After the Tunney fights he thought about atempting a comeback but thought better of it after being handeled in an exhibition by King Levinsky.

Between the two Tunney fights he beat Jack Sharkey and make no mistake about it Sharkey was a handfull for anybody when he was on his A game.

I would say that at the time of the second fight Dempsey was at the same sort of level as a prime Jack Sharkey or sombody like Max Schmeling. That is to say that if he fought them at this stage he would be even money. So still not the kind of fighter that should be dominated in that manner. I also think that even at this stage he would have wrecked anybody who went toe to toe with him like Paulino Uzcdun.

[mcvey]

Sice you are basing your argument on the wins over Dempsey we have to guage what stage he was at when Tunney beat him.

He had been inactive for three years and many observers had comented on the decline in his prowes even before the fight. After the Tunney fights he thought about atempting a comeback but thought better of it after being handeled in an exhibition by King Levinsky.

Between the two Tunney fights he beat Jack Sharkey and make no mistake about it Sharkey was a handfull for anybody when he was on his A game.

I would say that at the time of the second fight Dempsey was at the same sort of level as a prime Jack Sharkey or sombody like Max Schmeling.
Tunney said Jack was a lot sharper in the second fight.Greb and Loughran handled Jack in sparring for the first Tunney fight ,and Greb had a bet ,and told everybody who would listen that Gene would beat Jack .

[PowerPuncher]

Jack Johnson - stronger, faster hands, fought in a similar style, more proven, both excellent defensively, Johnson takes it

Ezzard Charles - Charles is faster, technically better, far better puncher, movement both are good. Tunney has low hands making him easy to hit once hes close down and charles was 1 of the greatest boxer punchers who could destroy his man. Charles mid rounds KO

Archie Moore - much more proven and tested fighter, see this as a close 1, Moore is technically better and a superior puncher, Tunney has the better footwork, both great timing

Roy Jones - Jones would land on Tunney easily, easily beating him to the punch, I see Jones winning every round against Tunney, hes just a far superior boxer and athlete

James Toney - Toney is just a technically superior better boxer at 190, Tunney is a better mover but Toney far slicker. Its a close call

David Haye - just a monster hitter at 190, fast, great timing and good at keeping distance. People give Haye a 50-50 against Wlad, no one would give Tunney a cat in hells chance against Wladdy

Prime Dempsey - faster, better workrate, faster feet, Dempsey gets to him at some stage and puts him away

Marciano - Marciano would just walk down and break Tunney down and KO him down the stretch, Tunney takes the early rounds but he isn't in the league of Charles who lost

M Spinks - Spinks times some big hooks and rights to make the difference.

Patterson - Patterson would dominate Tunney, too fast, skilled and dynamic. A hands down style against Patterson while being weaker at the weight, no contest, Patterson by KO

Bob Foster - underrated boxer, devastating puncher, couldn't compete against Ali/Frazier but Tunney isn't either in their league or their size

Qawi - anyone who presses Holy close can do the same to Tunney

Calzaghe - its likely greb was similar to Joe, but Joes bigger and maybe even better. Calzaghe beating Tunney is certainly possible, a close contest here though

Langford - better puncher, more proven, better wins

Bivins - fought at a far higher level than Dempsey, the dominant Murderers Row fighter, big puncher, strong with better wins

Mike Moorer - very skilled, excellent jab and 1 of the best southpaw straight left that could put a mans lights out, that would hit any fighter who kept his hands low, tunney is no exception

[PowerPuncher]

If Tunney was such as bad ass HW why did he duck most the top10? Tunney is less proven at HW than Spinks

[janitor]

From 1916 on, Dempsey was protected from every black fighter on the planet! If that's not being protected then i don't know what is.

Imagine Ali never defending against Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle and Young because of the color line, but instead fighting Mildenberger, Cooper, Vincente Rondon, John Conteh, Chris Finnegan.

Dempsey fought in an era when most of the top heavyweights were white.

A better analogy would be if Ali had fought Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle and Young but drawn the colour line against Mildenberger, Cooper, Vincente Rondon, John Conteh, and Chris Finnegan.

That is of course without Harry Wills

[janitor]

If Tunney was such as bad ass HW why did he duck most the top10?

Because he was smart.

He was in it for the money and he took the path of least resistance.

When he beat Dempsey I dont think there was anybody around who could have taken him.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;3434781]Jack Johnson - stronger, faster hands, fought in a similar style, more proven, both excellent defensively, Johnson takes it


You would be hard put to find a near prime version of Johnson under 190 lbs.


Ezzard Charles - Charles is faster, technically better, far better puncher, movement both are good. Tunney has low hands making him easy to hit once hes close down and charles was 1 of the greatest boxer punchers who could destroy his man. Charles mid rounds KO


I dont think Charles would knock Tunney out because he was too durable.

It is possible that Charles could outpoint him but not certain.

50/50 fight I say.


Archie Moore - much more proven and tested fighter, see this as a close 1, Moore is technically better and a superior puncher, Tunney has the better footwork, both great timing


As you say it can go either way.


Roy Jones - Jones would land on Tunney easily, easily beating him to the punch, I see Jones winning every round against Tunney, hes just a far superior boxer and athlete


Jones would certainly give Tunney problems and make him look average at times. However Tunney would study tapes of Jones work out how to counter him and would get him before the final bell.


James Toney - Toney is just a technically superior better boxer at 190, Tunney is a better mover but Toney far slicker. Its a close call


I think Tunney is at least equal technicaly and hits a lot harder. Combined with his movment he is probably going to win comfortably.


David Haye - just a monster hitter at 190, fast, great timing and good at keeping distance. People give Haye a 50-50 against Wlad, no one would give Tunney a cat in hells chance against Wladdy


Bear in mind that Haye has to be under 190 lbs.

That is going to be a prety green version.


Prime Dempsey - faster, better workrate, faster feet, Dempsey gets to him at some stage and puts him away


I think so but others disagree.


Marciano - Marciano would just walk down and break Tunney down and KO him down the stretch, Tunney takes the early rounds but he isn't in the league of Charles who lost


Again I think this is what would happen but I wouldnt bet any money.

M Spinks - Spinks times some big hooks and rights to make the difference.

Hard to call.

I would favour Tunney but no money is going down.


Patterson - Patterson would dominate Tunney, too fast, skilled and dynamic. A hands down style against Patterson while being weaker at the weight, no contest, Patterson by KO


Patterson has a style similar to Dempsey but is a lot less durable.

I think Tunney would have him at some point.


Bob Foster - underrated boxer, devastating puncher, couldn't compete against Ali/Frazier but Tunney isn't either in their league or their size


I think Foster had problems as soon as he strayed above 175 lbs and against some fighters who were not greats.

Tunney should be a strong favourite.

Qawi - anyone who presses Holy close can do the same to Tunney

See Patterson.


Calzaghe - its likely greb was similar to Joe, but Joes bigger and maybe even better. Calzaghe beating Tunney is certainly possible, a close contest here though


If you think that Hopkins beat Calzaghe you should make Tunney a strong favourite over him.


Langford - better puncher, more proven, better wins


I concour.


Bivins - fought at a far higher level than Dempsey, the dominant Murderers Row fighter, big puncher, strong with better wins


Bivins was a fine fighter but Tunney was a much better technical boxer and would take him prety convincingly in my opinion.


Mike Moorer - very skilled, excellent jab and 1 of the best southpaw straight left that could put a mans lights out, that would hit any fighter who kept his hands low, tunney is no exception


I would put my money with the more consistent Tunney.

[ChrisPontius]

Dempsey fought in an era when most of the top heavyweights were white.

A better analogy would be if Ali had fought Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle and Young but drawn the colour line against Mildenberger, Cooper, Vincente Rondon, John Conteh, and Chris Finnegan.

That is of course without Harry Wills

You paint a picture that allows you to keep loving your hero, but it is not a very realistic one.

First of all, the "this is without Harry Wills" is not just a little detail, it's the LONGEST ducking job in the history of the sport (any weightclass!) against a top15 heavyweight!

Second, Langford and Jeanette were still among the top10 best heavyweights during the second half of the 1910's and Dempsey wanted no part of them. Brennan, Miske, Firpo, Gibbons and Carpentier were a very poor bunch when he fought them and half of them weren't even heavyweights!

[mcvey]

Jack Johnson - stronger, faster hands, fought in a similar style, more proven, both excellent defensively, Johnson takes it

Ezzard Charles - Charles is faster, technically better, far better puncher, movement both are good. Tunney has low hands making him easy to hit once hes close down and charles was 1 of the greatest boxer punchers who could destroy his man. Charles mid rounds KO

Archie Moore - much more proven and tested fighter, see this as a close 1, Moore is technically better and a superior puncher, Tunney has the better footwork, both great timing

Roy Jones - Jones would land on Tunney easily, easily beating him to the punch, I see Jones winning every round against Tunney, hes just a far superior boxer and athlete

James Toney - Toney is just a technically superior better boxer at 190, Tunney is a better mover but Toney far slicker. Its a close call

David Haye - just a monster hitter at 190, fast, great timing and good at keeping distance. People give Haye a 50-50 against Wlad, no one would give Tunney a cat in hells chance against Wladdy

Prime Dempsey - faster, better workrate, faster feet, Dempsey gets to him at some stage and puts him away

Marciano - Marciano would just walk down and break Tunney down and KO him down the stretch, Tunney takes the early rounds but he isn't in the league of Charles who lost

M Spinks - Spinks times some big hooks and rights to make the difference.

Patterson - Patterson would dominate Tunney, too fast, skilled and dynamic. A hands down style against Patterson while being weaker at the weight, no contest, Patterson by KO

Bob Foster - underrated boxer, devastating puncher, couldn't compete against Ali/Frazier but Tunney isn't either in their league or their size

Qawi - anyone who presses Holy close can do the same to Tunney

Calzaghe - its likely greb was similar to Joe, but Joes bigger and maybe even better. Calzaghe beating Tunney is certainly possible, a close contest here though

Langford - better puncher, more proven, better wins

Bivins - fought at a far higher level than Dempsey, the dominant Murderers Row fighter, big puncher, strong with better wins

Mike Moorer - very skilled, excellent jab and 1 of the best southpaw straight left that could put a mans lights out, that would hit any fighter who kept his hands low, tunney is no exception
Tunney is easy to hit ? Yet he was only down once ,from an atg puncher and never kod,strange that?

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3435070]You paint a picture that allows you to keep loving your hero, but it is not a very realistic one.

First of all, the "this is without Harry Wills" is not just a little detail, it's the LONGEST ducking job in the history of the sport (any weightclass!) against a top15 heavyweight!


We have had this debate before.

Yes Wills does leave a big hole in Dempseys resume I think that is the one point we can all agree on.

Second, Langford and Jeanette were still among the top10 best heavyweights during the second half of the 1910's and Dempsey wanted no part of them.

Rubbish.

They were barley second rate by then.

I am glad Dempsey didnt fight Sam Langford when he was champion because Langford is my favourite fighter (I am the janitor) and I hate to think what Dempsey would have done to him.


Brennan, Miske, Firpo, Gibbons and Carpentier were a very poor bunch when he fought them and half of them weren't even heavyweights!


I strongly disagree.

Gibbons was the No2 heavyweight for a long time.

Firpo for his limitations was probably one of the top 3 challengers when he met Dempsey.

Miske was outstanding when he fought Dempsey the first two times.

Carpintier was the light heavyweight champion so it is no worse than Jermain Taylor fighting Cory Spinks.

[Minotauro]

Dempsey didn't win more than 3 rounds out of 20 in their fights and he was only 2 years older than Tunney and KO'ing sparring partners left and right. He was fit and ready. Sometimes I think too much mythmaking came from his demolition of Willard, who was as ripe for the picking as any HW champ ever. After that, there are many holes in his reign.

Charles would be an excellent fight. I have to think on that one. You need to really bust up Charles to turn the tide. This would be the best match of your list.

Moore was far too slow. I see a late stoppage for Tunney

Conn would get thrashed by a more powerful, though equally quick puncher. Also, Tunney seemed to have better balance, a better foundation from which to punch whenever he needed to. UD Tunney

Tunney could match Loughran for speed and get beyond that jab with his substantially longer reach. I see a prime Tunney giving Loughran a sustained beating.

Holyfield would be tough but I would favor Tunney. I see a lot of fast combo's with neither going down but both bruised. Another close one.

Marciano I commented on above. I think Marciano pays too high a price getting into Tunney, who whips in and out of range and pounds and cuts the Rock. I don't think either the Walcott or Charles he fought were near Tunney's ability. But of course this was the strategy many tried. And underrating Marciano is a tried and true mistake.

And Walcott, I don't see being that close. Walcott was comprehensively beat by inferior fighters, though I understand there were less than beneficial circumstances to many of his fights.

Just my thoughts. All great fighters, no doubt. I have just been suprised lately watching Tunney films, how seemless and modern he was, and furthermore, the testaments of his opponents to his power.

A young green Loughran gave Tunney all he could handle some reports suggest he won in his prime I believe he would have beaten Tunney he had a better jab, defence, foot speed and would make Tunney come to him as would Johnson who from film looks like a better pure boxer then Tunney.

Walcott looked better then Tunney on film he had a more powerful jab was more unorthodox much more powerful and was one of the sneakiest punchers ever very difficult to stop. Tunney never beat anyone as good with the size as Walcott I think Joe would win by a large margin.

Charles does almost everything better then Tunney a bad style for Gene. Moore was more proven and was even more proven at heavyweight he is one of the very few fighters I think is smarter then Gene, Tunney never met anyone like Moore while Archie beat better pure boxers in Johnson and that would be Gene only strategy against Moore because he can't out fight him.

You do make some fair claims especially with relation to Rocky which would be a closer match then I might have insinuated. I also believe that Patterson would beat him.

[Seamus]

If Tunney was such as bad ass HW why did he duck most the top10? Tunney is less proven at HW than Spinks

He fought at HW a little over two years and he got a shot at the title. How many other fights was he supposed to take?

[Seamus]

Jack Johnson - stronger, faster hands, fought in a similar style, more proven, both excellent defensively, Johnson takes it

Ezzard Charles - Charles is faster, technically better, far better puncher, movement both are good. Tunney has low hands making him easy to hit once hes close down and charles was 1 of the greatest boxer punchers who could destroy his man. Charles mid rounds KO

Watching them both extensively on tape I would give the speed edge and better footwork to Tunney. Based on records and the testimonies of his rivals, I say the power is even, WHEN TUNNEY HAD HEALTHY HANDS. Lots of great, FAST fighters held their hands low because they could get away with it. I see this as a toss-up but put to task would give it to Tunney.

[janitor]

Watching them both extensively on tape I would give the speed edge and better footwork to Tunney. Based on records and the testimonies of his rivals, I say the power is even, WHEN TUNNEY HAD HEALTHY HANDS. Lots of great, FAST fighters held their hands low because they could get away with it. I see this as a toss-up but put to task would give it to Tunney.

I think that Johnson had the edge in power because he had one shot knockout power when he wanted it. Ketchel is not the only example.

This would be decided by technique.

That is almost imposible to judge because Tunney was briliant but orthodox while Johnson was briliant but unorthodox.

If Johnson had fought under the modern cameras that filmed Tunney, and vice versa, there might have been a century of Johnson clones rather than a century of Tunney clones.

[Seamus]

I think that Johnson had the edge in power because he had one shot knockout power when he wanted it. Ketchel is not the only example.

This would be decided by technique.

That is almost imposible to judge because Tunney was briliant but orthodox while Johnson was briliant but unorthodox.

If Johnson had fought under the modern cameras that filmed Tunney, and vice versa, there might have been a century of Johnson clones rather than a century of Tunney clones.

I was posting in contrast to Charles, actually. That's the problem with posting at work, looking over your shoulder...

I think Tunney would have eaten up Johnson and most likely KO'd him but then my opinion of Johnson is fairly low. If Hart could do it, if O'Brien could almost do it, if Battlin' Johnson did it...etc... then Tunney would surely have done it.

[mcvey]

I was posting in contrast to Charles, actually. That's the problem with posting at work, looking over your shoulder...

I think Tunney would have eaten up Johnson and most likely KO'd him but then my opinion of Johnson is fairly low. If Hart could do it, if O'Brien could almost do it, if Battlin' Johnson did it...etc... then Tunney would surely have done it.
The Hart fight was VERY debatable,OBrien ran away all night from a hungover Johnson who had done zero training,because it wasa 6 rd NO Dec fight ,Johnson could not lose except by ko ,and O Brien had zero power.Johnson broke his arm against Battling Johnson so lets not get carried away.

[Seamus]

The Hart fight was VERY debatable,OBrien ran away all night from a hungover Johnson who had done zero training,because it wasa 6 rd NO Dec fight ,Johnson could not lose except by ko ,and O Brien had zero power.Johnson broke his arm against Battling Johnson so lets not get carried away.

Don't bother your fingers, I've read all the excuses. No fighter requires more apologies than Johnson.

Burns beat Hart rather emphatically from what I have read, a feat Johnson could nowhere near duplicate. In fact as many said the Hart Johnson decision was just as those who said it wasn't. Barring film evidence, I would say it was a close one that Marvin edged out.

Hungover? Another reason I would not bet on Johnson. Underprepared for too many fights.

I've seen fighters break their arms, ankles, knees in fights. Those fighters are generally ruled as Knocked Out.

[janitor]

[quote=Seamus;3435867]Don't bother your fingers, I've read all the excuses. No fighter requires more apologies than Johnson.

Burns beat Hart rather emphatically from what I have read, a feat Johnson could nowhere near duplicate. In fact as many said the Hart Johnson decision was just as those who said it wasn't. Barring film evidence, I would say it was a close one that Marvin edged out.


OK

We argree that the Johnson Hart fight was probably close.

Look at the competition Johnson fought over the past few years and the frequency that he fought them with.

Sombody was bound to get him on his off night.

No seriously look at it and do the arithmatic.


Hungover? Another reason I would not bet on Johnson. Underprepared for too many fights.


Acording to many sources Johnson won the fight by a significant margin (hung over or not).

Boxrec will change it to a win for Johnson soon (prediction)

I've seen fighters break their arms, ankles, knees in fights. Those fighters are generally ruled as Knocked Out.

Not if they last to the final bell.

[Seamus]

[quote]

Not if they last to the final bell.

Did anyone prove this was not in fact a 20 rounder? I know some of you did research on this.

[Minotauro]

Watching them both extensively on tape I would give the speed edge and better footwork to Tunney. Based on records and the testimonies of his rivals, I say the power is even, WHEN TUNNEY HAD HEALTHY HANDS. Lots of great, FAST fighters held their hands low because they could get away with it. I see this as a toss-up but put to task would give it to Tunney.

Tunney probably had the foot speed over Charles but I think Ezzard had quicker hands equal footwork and definitely had more power especially before he killed Sam Baroudi and even after that he scored some big Ko's I don't see the argument for Gene being the bigger hitter.

[mcvey]

[quote=janitor;3435925]

Did anyone prove this was not in fact a 20 rounder? I know some of you did research on this.
Some one posted a report ,can't remember who, or how conclusive it was.ps Johnson recently got his pardon for violating the Mann Act,better late than never!

[Seamus]

I don't see the argument for Gene being the bigger hitter[/FONT].

Tunney had fragile hands early in his career, his right hand to be specific.

Gibbons said Tunney hit him harder than Dempsey. Greb said Tunney did the most damage to him of any fighter. Dempsey said that a single right hand from Tunney in the first round won him the first fight, said he couldn't remember a thing afterward. Tunney certainly had one of the fiercest body attacks of the early heavies.

People, look at the fucking film. This guy was for real.

[leverage]

evander holyfield, carlos de leon, dwight muhammad quai (formerly dwight braxton).

[ChrisPontius]

Some one posted a report ,can't remember who, or how conclusive it was.

I have a hunch who it was. :yep

[ChrisPontius]

We have had this debate before.

Yes Wills does leave a big hole in Dempseys resume I think that is the one point we can all agree on.



Rubbish.

They were barley second rate by then.

I am glad Dempsey didnt fight Sam Langford when he was champion because Langford is my favourite fighter (I am the janitor) and I hate to think what Dempsey would have done to him.


They were second rate? Then name me 10 heavyweights of the second half of the 1910's that were clearly better than Langford and Jeannette.

As for fearing what Dempsey might have done to them, you need not worry, because he ran out of the ring like a bitch when Jeanette stepped between the ropes in his presence.



I strongly disagree.

Gibbons was the No2 heavyweight for a long time.

Firpo for his limitations was probably one of the top 3 challengers when he met Dempsey.

Miske was outstanding when he fought Dempsey the first two times.

Carpintier was the light heavyweight champion so it is no worse than Jermain Taylor fighting Cory Spinks.

Based on what was Firpo the #2 HW? For "beating" a Miske on his deathbed while also losing to him? For losing to Greb, who Dempsey wanted no part of either? His heavyweight credentials are piss poor and you know it. Another easy pickings fight.

The fact that Firpo and an unproven LHW, along with 4 other LHW's make up the top10 says a lot of about the sorry state of the heavyweight division back then. And that's not even taking into account the shitting on the black part of the division by Dempsey.

Miske was not outstanding during their first fights, he was decent, nothing special. In which, by the way, Miske more than held his own and fought to a rightful draw over 10. In 1921 he was terminally ill and a 9-1 (!!!!!) underdog because of it... another easy pickings fight.


Yes, Carpentier was the LHW champ, but my point is that so many guys he fought were lightheavies.


By the way, what happened last time Carpentier fought a "second rater" in Jeannette? Can we say Carpentier is a third rater then?

[Minotauro]

Tunney had fragile hands early in his career, his right hand to be specific.

Gibbons said Tunney hit him harder than Dempsey. Greb said Tunney did the most damage to him of any fighter. Dempsey said that a single right hand from Tunney in the first round won him the first fight, said he couldn't remember a thing afterward. Tunney certainly had one of the fiercest body attacks of the early heavies.

People, look at the fucking film. This guy was for real.

I've seen the film, just because a couple of guys talk highly of his power doesn't mean he hit harder then Charles who had some serious power in his prime being one of only three men to stop Bivins (Louis couldn't). Even at heavy he was able to stop durable guys like Valentino and quality guys who outweighed him by 20lbs like Elmer Ray. Tunney was a great fighter but his power was not on par with Charles.

[he grant]

I strongly disagree that Dempsey was not past his prime v.s. Tunney. He was six years past his prime. He has highly inactive. He lived a high life in Hollywood . He was no where near the 1919 Dempsey. He lacked the legs and reflexes.

I have always said I just don't know how great Dempsey was because he basically stopped being an active fighter in 1920. Plus he did not fight Wills. I have watched as much Tunney footage as I can find over and over again and find him to be a hell of a fighter inhis own right. I have also watched as much Dempsey / Tunney footage as exists, digitally taped right off Classic, time and again in slow motion to really try and anaylize these two. I personally feel the prime Dempsey and a prime Tunney would have very tough , competitive fights but I can see Dempsey coming out on top over 15 ..

Talk about ducking black fighters, Tunney never fought 1 ...if we go by that, and we should, everychamp from Sullivan to Louis excluding Johnson is very much open to question. And they are ...

[Maxmomer]

I've seen the film, just because a couple of guys talk highly of his power doesn't mean he hit harder then Charles who had some serious power in his prime being one of only three men to stop Bivins (Louis couldn't). Even at heavy he was able to stop durable guys like Valentino and quality guys who outweighed him by 20lbs like Elmer Ray. Tunney was a great fighter but his power was not on par with Charles.

Tunney was the only man to stop Gibbons. Dempsey couldn't over 15 rounds. He also stopped Madden, who went 15 with Wills, and was only ever stopped once more in his career in his 6th fight.

[mcvey]

Firpo never fought Miske or Greb .:huh Carpentier was 20 years old when he lost a contraversial dec to Jeannette and was 167 lbs to Jeannette's 183lbs.Hate ,Hate, Hate,it can eat you up.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3438708]They were second rate? Then name me 10 heavyweights of the second half of the 1910's that were clearly better than Langford and Jeannette.


I would say that most if not all of Dempseys title oponents would have been ranked ahead of these two when Dempsey was champion.

They were still big names but that was all they were.

As for fearing what Dempsey might have done to them, you need not worry, because he ran out of the ring like a bitch when Jeanette stepped between the ropes in his presence.

The same Joe Jeanette who got a gift decision against Georges Carpintier who Dempsey had to carry to keep him on his feet for a few rounds?

I dont think that Dempsey was afraid of him.

In fact Jeanette should thank his lucky stars that Kearns didnt let Dempsey make mincemeat out of him.



Based on what was Firpo the #2 HW? For "beating" a Miske on his deathbed while also losing to him? For losing to Greb, who Dempsey wanted no part of either? His heavyweight credentials are piss poor and you know it. Another easy pickings fight.


Firpo never fought Miske or Greb.

He had wins over Jess Willard and Bill Brenan going into the Dempsey fight.

He was highly touted in the media and would have been seen as a far more serious proposition than either Langford or Jeanette.

Miske was not outstanding during their first fights, he was decent, nothing special.

This tells me that you have a lot to learn about Miske.


Yes, Carpentier was the LHW champ, but my point is that so many guys he fought were lightheavies.


He held the "white heavyweight title" which would be like holding the WBC heavyweight title today.


By the way, what happened last time Carpentier fought a "second rater" in Jeannette? Can we say Carpentier is a third rater then?


Why dont you read some contemporary acounts and find out?

[Boilermaker]

Talk about ducking black fighters, Tunney never fought 1 ...if we go by that, and we should, everychamp from Sullivan to Louis excluding Johnson is very much open to question. And they are ...

Actually, you need to include Jeffries in your list, if anything at the expense of or at least as well as Johnson. He fought great black fighters. The only ones he didnt really fight, simply were not good enough to fight him (at the time he was fighting).

[he grant]

Can someone please fillme in on the Jeanette / Dempsey story ... I have heard fragments of versions but never got it straight ...

[Maxmomer]

Can someone please fillme in on the Jeanette / Dempsey story ... I have heard fragments of versions but never got it straight ...

As far as I know Dempsey arrived to a scheduled fight, the person he was supposed to fight wasn't there and Joe Jeannette had taken their place at the last second. Kearns didn't want Dempsey to fight Jeanette so they left.

[ChrisPontius]

Can someone please fillme in on the Jeanette / Dempsey story ... I have heard fragments of versions but never got it straight ...

You can zoom in on that. It is interesting to note that despite this being in the late 1910's, the title says "Dempsey hides behind "color" line". The quoted color clearly indicates that it's being used as an excuse. I guess that puts the final nail in the coffin of the myth that Dempsey didn't hide behind the color line.


[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Unforgiven]

You can zoom in on that. It is interesting to note that despite this being in the late 1910's, the title says "Dempsey hides behind "color" line". The quoted color clearly indicates that it's being used as an excuse. I guess that puts the final nail in the coffin of the myth that Dempsey didn't hide behind the color line.


[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


Good story, but it's hardly much of a knock against Dempsey or his manager.

I mean, which great heavyweights ever turned up for a routine fight and found a much better fighter (leading contender) as an (unagreed) replacement at LITERALLY the last minute, and then followed through with the fight ?

I cant think of any.
I

[mcvey]

Good story, but it's hardly much of a knock against Dempsey or his manager.

I mean, which great heavyweights ever turned up for a routine fight and found a much better fighter (leading contender) as an (unagreed) replacement at LITERALLY the last minute, and then followed through with the fight ?

I cant think of any.
I
Pontius is a great poster ,but less than objective about Dempsey imo.

[Seamus]

Can we stop making Tunney threads about the guy whose ass he kicked twice?

[red cobra]

Many people forget when Cassius Clay came on the scene he was first compared to Tunney in many cases.

That Tunney-Dempsey fight looked a lot like Ali-Frazier in some parts.

It has been 50 years since Cassius Clay arrived and people have just forgotten how good Gene was....obviously he was a "modern fighter".

Put Tunney in with Joe Louis instead of Billy Conn....and Tunney might of won.

And if he had.....where would he be ranked now?
Tunney was certainly for focused and disciplined than Billy Conn. Tunney didn't have the swagger and the hot blood of Conn, that's for sure. I tend to esteem Gene Tunney more than is the trend nowadays in this forum, and I don't think that his never facing a Black opponent is reason enough to downgrade him like so many posters have done, on the contrary, I believe that he was a great fighter, both defensively, as well as strategically and had a world class chin on top of that. He very well could have defeated Louis. He definitely would have stayed on course better than Billy did, and if he was hurt, or decked, would have dealt with it the same way he did against Dempsey, minus the long count, of course.

[red cobra]

Oh, and as to the topic of the thread, no, there wasn't a 190 pounder that would take Tunney, that is right off the top of my head. I can't think of one, or a lightheavy really, for that matter. Charles and Moore would be the most likely candidates, but really, both would have their hands full with a fast, defensively sound, DISCIPILINED boxer like Tunney.

[red cobra]

Don't think for a moment, however, that Ali wouldn't have beaten Tunney. He was stylistically, much the same as Tunney, and with his superior size and reach, would have had little trouble winning a decision. A subpar Ali, like the version that had so much trouble vs Jimmy Young, may have been upset by Tunney, but more than likely he would have won a decision. Ali was favorably impressed by Tunney, as was revealed on that special episode of Wide World of Sports that has resurfaced recently. He considered Gene to be a "modern style boxer", compared to the other past greats that were featured on that episode.

[janitor]

Don't think for a moment, however, that Ali wouldn't have beaten Tunney. He was stylistically, much the same as Tunney, and with his superior size and reach, would have had little trouble winning a decision.

One factor that might upset your analysis here is that Tunney was much better able to adapt to fighting on the front foot than Ali was.

That might be a critical factor.

[red cobra]

One factor that might upset your analysis here is that Tunney was much better able to adapt to fighting on the front foot than Ali was.

That might be a critical factor.
That no doubt was true, as well as Tunney being more technically "correct" in a textbook, orthodox sort of way, but I still feel that Ali would have beaten him on the basis of size, speed and "natural gifts". My call would be Ali w 15 Tunney.

[janitor]

That no doubt was true, as well as Tunney being more technically "correct" in a textbook, orthodox sort of way, but I still feel that Ali would have beaten him on the basis of size, speed and "natural gifts". My call would be Ali w 15 Tunney.

I am not saying that your pick is wrong.

I just think that there are some important variables and it is hard to see how they would play out. I would be particularly interested in what strategy each fighter would adopt.

[Legend X]

He would have lost to that version of Tunney whether he fought him in 1919, 1923, or 1926. He may have been marginally more competetive but I dont subscribe to the idea that Dempsey was past his prime. I think that idea is ludicrous and overplayed. He was a very well preserved fighter having rarely fought in all the years he was champion and he was barely past 30 yrs old which is still the prime of a man.



"well preserved" because he'd barely fought in 7 years ?! :lol:


He was rusty, or finished even, physically and mentally. Almost every great fighter and trainer has observed that a championship-level fighter cannot take many extended lay-offs (years off serious competitive fighting !) and hope to stay sharp or get back in prime form, whatever their age.
The number of fighters who have gotten away with it you could probably list and count on your fingers.
The number who have suffered from it are hundreds, or more.


Especially damaging is not only the time off, but the life lived during that lay-off. 3-year lay-off in the life of comfort and riches and celebrity, hanging out with actors and businessmen and other civilian dignitaries, is a killer to the fighting spark of a prizefighter.


It's seems ludricrous to deny the impact these lay-offs likely had on Dempsey.


I strongly disagree that Dempsey was not past his prime v.s. Tunney. He was six years past his prime. He has highly inactive. He lived a high life in Hollywood . He was no where near the 1919 Dempsey. He lacked the legs and reflexes.



I agree. :good

[Legend X]

I think a few 190-pounders would have a chance against a prime Tunney.

Sam Langford v Tunney would be interesting.

[frankenfrank]

Langford , Toney , Qawi , Cream , Charles , Holyfield , Dempsey (and he did by KO in their rematch) , Markegiano , Doug Jones , Spinks (possibly , Holmes was h2h superior 2 Tunney) , Bert Cooper , Orlin Norris , Chris Byrd , Al Cole , Juan Carlos Gomez , Vassily Jirov , Michael Moorer , "HW" Roid Jones , John Ruiz , O'neil Bell , Johnny Nelson (at least n even fight) , David Haye , Jean Marc Mormeck and I believe there r more that i simply forgot or still just don't know enough about .

[frankenfrank]

Well i did forget about Floyd Patterson , Ossie Ocasio , Leon Spinks , Jimmy Ellis and i do believe that Quarry could make 190 if it existed during his era , Jerry was very soft 4 a 200 and something man . A bit dieting combined with a slight dehydration would easily put him below d 190 mark .

[Son of Gaul]

Floyd Patterson and Ezzard Charles were the first names that came to mind. They were both very effective in this weight range and would give Tunney fits.

[Stevie G]

I am also of the opinion that Tunney would have beaten Marciano and Louis. I think he had the right style as well as the speed, power, toughness and stamina required to get the job done. Head to head he'd be absolute hell for anyone around his weight. Charles might be able to beat him, Langford, and maybe a prime Dempsey. Not many others.

I can't see Gene beating Marciano and Louis,although he could be leading on the cards before he's stopped in the latter stages.

[Foreman Hook]

OG Holy :rasta

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Stevie G]

OG Holy :rasta

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Good call Hook :good

[Senor Pepe']

No One Beats Gene Tunney at 190 lbs.

The guy left boxing without a mark on his face.

[KuRuPT]

I think he beats most if not all of them with the only problems being Langford, prime Dempsey and Marciano. Haye? That's a joke, right?


This must be a joke friend... he losses most of those... Charles, Walcott, Moore... Marciano... Lanford.. Johnson... I all make clear and decisive favorites to take a majority of a series or sweep it.

[frankenfrank]

No One Beats Gene Tunney at 190 lbs.

The guy left boxing without a mark on his face.
because he didn't have d guys i mentioned in my post in his division .
only d great Harry Greb could beat Tunney and his face d way that would have ensued a stoppage 2day , and Dempsey could KO him (longcount) , but Holyfield , Orlin Norris , Michael Moorer , Qawi , Juan Carlos Gomez ? no way . only a light hitting stocky short middleweight could do that .

[janitor]

No One Beats Gene Tunney at 190 lbs.

The guy left boxing without a mark on his face.

He had pleanty of marks on his face after Greb beat him.

[KuRuPT]

and would have as many if not more from a johnson known for damaging people's face like puddy.

[tommygun711]

Holy and Marciano would be my picks. maybe even prime dempsey

[Senor Pepe']

He had pleanty of marks on his face after Greb beat him.

Look How Pretty,,,,,,,,after he left boxing.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Hookie]

Well, Tunney only lost to one fighter... Greb... but he also beat Greb several times (went 3-1-1 vs. Greb lifetime). Tunney also beat Battling Levinsky, drew with Tommy Loughran, beat Georges Carpentier KO15, beat Tommy Gibbons KO12, beat Johnny Risko, beat Dempsey x2, and beat Tom Heeney KO11 among others.

Greb is one of only three Lineal HW Champs who were never stopped... Marciano and Bowe are the others.

6"1" with a 76" reach and solid at 190 Lbs or even a few Lbs over.

He would beat a lot of fighters 200 Lbs or less.

Some 190 Lbs or less who could beat him IMO?

Ezzard Charles

Rocky Marciano

Evander Holyfield

M. Spinks, F. Patterson, and A. Moore would have a chance.

[Saintpat]

If Dempsey wasn't active, who's fault was that?

If Dempsey wasn't 'passionate' enough, who's fault was that? (Especially considering in the second fight he had every reason to be the best he could be, to avenge the first defeat.)

I always liked what Sean O'Grady once said, giving some insight into how a fighter must think: "When a fighter loses, he's never at his best. Because if he was at his best, how could he lose?"

So the "film shows clearly" that Dempsey wasn't at his best. I say the film shows Tunney kicked that fanny, twice, decisively -- and if Dempsey wasn't at his best, that's credit to Tunney for making him look that way. And if Dempsey's lifestyle and lack of activity took a toll, that's part of his resume and makeup and a fatal flaw.

[Legend X]

If Dempsey wasn't active, who's fault was that?

If Dempsey wasn't 'passionate' enough, who's fault was that? (Especially considering in the second fight he had every reason to be the best he could be, to avenge the first defeat.)

I always liked what Sean O'Grady once said, giving some insight into how a fighter must think: "When a fighter loses, he's never at his best. Because if he was at his best, how could he lose?"

So the "film shows clearly" that Dempsey wasn't at his best. I say the film shows Tunney kicked that fanny, twice, decisively -- and if Dempsey wasn't at his best, that's credit to Tunney for making him look that way. And if Dempsey's lifestyle and lack of activity took a toll, that's part of his resume and makeup and a fatal flaw.

Yeah, but we could say the same for most great fighters. They are all human beings.
Ali lost to Leon Spinks and looked awful losing to Holmes.
We acknowledge that these guys aren't always at their best, and sooner or later they all fade.
That's just the way it is.

[MadcapMaxie]

Charles beats him

Walcott too

Marciano pummels him

Archie Moore perhaps

Floyd Patterson could with his superior speed

Maybe Cruiser Holyfield

Dempsey at no point beats him IMO.

[jyuza]

In his prime, no one beats him at light heavy.

Only one I can think of troubling him would be Roy Jones Jr.

[Hearns]

He was a fantastic talent, no doubt about it.

Marciano fits this criteria though. He had a knack for wearing down fantastic talents with his pulverising shots.


I think cruiser Holyfield is also in with a shout, big time.