Would Tunney have beaten Dempsey prior to 1926?

In boxing, timing is everything. Exactly when you fight someone can often be as important and who you fight and catching someone at the right time or the wrong time can have a huge impact. With this in mind consider the fights between two greats - Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney. Tunney as we know we both of these encounters which occured more or less at the end of both mens careers. Neither man was old by heavyweight standards, but both left the sport with little left to acheive in it. But the timing of the bouts favoured Tunney more than Dempsey, so how much did this play a part on what is now a big part of boxing history?

Dempsey won the world title in devasting fashion pulverising the giant Jess Willard in one of the most brutal performances in history. This was 1919. Stoppage wins over the likes of Miske, Brennan and Carpentier would follow over the coming years where most consider Dempsey to be at his finest. 1923 saw him beat the very fine Tommy Gibbons on points, a fight which many observers felt Dempsey seemed to lack a bit of his traditional explosiveness as he failed to put Gibbons away despite sustained assaults. But this was followed up by a quick stoppage of Luis Firpo. Then comes the interesting bit in which Dempsey became largely inactive as a champion. There are marriages, a celebrity fueled lifestyle, splits and legal proceedings from his log time manager Doc Kearns all of which combine to see him out of the ring for the guts of three years. In 1926 he comes back to defend the title against Tunney and the rest is history.

While Dempsey had been inactive for those years, Tunney most certainly had not been. In that period he had racked up multiple wins over the likes of Greb and Delaney, had stopped Tommy Gibbons for the only time in his career (something Dempsey failed to do) and also stopped fellow light heavyweight Carpentier amongst a host of other good wins. When he eventually faced Dempsey the difference in activity and form could not have been more different.

So Tunney as we know beat Dempsey and would repeat the feat again (not without some controversy). Views were held that Dempsey no longer looked himself. Sluggish, lacking the explosiveness which had defined him and essentially out of sorts. How much truth is in this and how much was down to Tunneys excellent display and ability to fight off the back foot will always be debated. But certainly the timing of the fight would appear to have favoured Tunney, who was in the form of his life really. So the question I ask is that had the bout taken place before Dempseys three year abscence from defending his title how different would things have been? Would Tunneys slick boxing have always been to slippery for Dempsey? Or did Tunney catch Dempsey just at the right time in order to win?

Think it has been somewhat popular to throw the view around that Tunney has the beating of Demspey whenever they fought and whilst I am not completely dismissing the view think it does Jack a disservice and underplays how well regarded he was in his pomp and how devastating he was. Think he always struggles with Tunney, because who wouldn't but one has to remember the trouble Greb always gave Gene and whilst Dempsey probably does not match Harry's work rate he is no slouch and also packs the far greater dig than Harry.

Personally prior to the three year lay off I would pick Dempsey, you have to consider at that time he would be facing a far less experienced and rounded Tunney. Also the three year of virtual retirment and good living cannot be overlooked, for a fighter who traded on intensity and work rate such a lay off is absolutely the worst thing for him. Could be argued Demspey always had trouble with slick types as witnessed early against Gibbons but should not be forgotten Tommy was no slouch himself and Jack found the answers and a way to win and for me he would have done similar against Gene.

I'm not sure he does - Tunney used his remarkable boxing brain to defeat Dempsey - a younger fresher Dempsey wouldn't give him that split second. Much like the post prison Tyson - the follow up after hurting someone wasn't there. If Dempsey had his eye in -I think he would have imposed his will on Tunney - Great skill or no. Sometimes the physical attributes combined with a decent mind overwhelm the superior boxing brain. I recenty did a 180 regarding Tyson - Holmes in his peak - initally giving an easy win for Holmes but now favouring Tyson - solely because of his follow up. Recovering from one punch is doable - from several - not so easy.

I've pondered this question countless times, Colonial Lion, have dug out what survives of the Tunney v Dempsey fights to watch them again, watched Dempsey's fights back to back, and then watched Tunney v Carpentier and Heeney.

Every single time I do it I came back none the wiser and I find myself relying on gut instinct.

The old adage says that ' boxers beat sluggers beat swarmers beat boxers ' but Tunney, I believe, is the one pure boxer who could have beaten Dempsey. Tunney was fantastically conditioned, was tough as old boots - vital against Dempsey - had flawless technique and was a master strategist. He could also ' rough it out ' when necessary, as we read in the accounts of his fights with Greb.

Dempsey's elusiveness is under rated, in my opinion, and Tunney himself remarked how difficult he was to catch cleanly, but I still have a sneaking feeling that Tunney would have had the savvy to rack up enough points over the long haul. I could see Tunney beating Joe Louis, too, but that's another story.

I wouldn't bet a cent on the outcome, and I'd be rooting for Dempsey to unleash some of those fearsome combos on the inside to stop Tunney - entirely possible and plausible - but I'd have to make Tunney a wafer thin favourite to hear the final bell and take a decision.

Its as good an example of a pick-em as I can think of. You're either looking at Dempsey winning by ko or Tunney winning on points (Jack may have been able to eke out a points decision against Gibbons but I simply can't see him doing that against Tunney). However, like Windy, I probably slightly favour Tunney to take the decision over 15 rounds.

Tunney was as good as anyone has ever been at figuring out a strategy and sticking to that strategy during the heat of battle. He also had a remarkably cool head and could deal with the inevitable onslaught from Dempsey and ride out the storm (witness how he comfotably saw out the round after the knockdown in their second fight). Gene also hit harder than he is always goven credit for and he would be inflicting enough damage to slow Jack down over the course of 15 rounds.

Great article, Colonial, although I have one small question; when you ask 'Would Tunney have beaten Dempsey prior to 1926?', do you mean a hypothetical match up between the 1926 version of Gene and a, say, 1921 version of Jack (basically prime versus prime), or do you mean what would have happened had the early twenties version of Tunney, perhaps not yet the fighter he'd come to be a few years later, had ventured up to Heavyweight there and then?

I think I'd still favour Tunney most of the time, though not with any real conviction. The fact that he came so close to reversing the first verdict second time out, while decidedly past his best, is a great source of encouragement for the Dempsey argument. However, that famous seventh round aside, Tunney clearly had the upper hand and was largely comfortable. No matter what version of Dempsey we're considering, I just think that Tunney would have always been that little bit smarter than him.

Jack's boxing skills may be underrated in some quarters, but to me he never had that same virtuosity to his work that I see with Tunney, not even in the Gibbons fight where we see another side of Dempsey. Interestingly, Tunney had a decent inside game - I'm not sure that Dempsey would have enjoyed having to work for openings in an area where he usually dominated - and his accuracy and quality of straight punches seem the perfect antidote to Dempsey's sometimes wide and wild swings. Even the more polished version of Dempsey was open to counters.

Tunney on points for me more often that not, though I'd expect Jack to take the odd decision and score the odd knockout if they had a long, long series of fights.

The other thing worth considering is in the early 20s we would also probably see a far more relaxed attitude to the neutral corner rule which whilst in place was rarely enforced. Does not need me to tell anyone on here how frequently Jack benefitted from the lax enforcement of this rule.

I believe Tunney had the beating of Dempsey so yes he would of beaten him. He knew how to hit Jack and stay away from punishment and had a ring articulacy that Willard, Carpentier and Firpo lacked. Tunney is also for me the greatest Light-heavyweight ever in the sense of I would picked him to beat anyone at that weight

88Chris05 wrote:Great article, Colonial, although I have one small question; when you ask 'Would Tunney have beaten Dempsey prior to 1926?', do you mean a hypothetical match up between the 1926 version of Gene and a, say, 1921 version of Jack (basically prime versus prime), or do you mean what would have happened had the early twenties version of Tunney, perhaps not yet the fighter he'd come to be a few years later, had ventured up to Heavyweight there and then?

I think I'd still favour Tunney most of the time, though not with any real conviction. The fact that he came so close to reversing the first verdict second time out, while decidedly past his best, is a great source of encouragement for the Dempsey argument. However, that famous seventh round aside, Tunney clearly had the upper hand and was largely comfortable. No matter what version of Dempsey we're considering, I just think that Tunney would have always been that little bit smarter than him.

Jack's boxing skills may be underrated in some quarters, but to me he never had that same virtuosity to his work that I see with Tunney, not even in the Gibbons fight where we see another side of Dempsey. Interestingly, Tunney had a decent inside game - I'm not sure that Dempsey would have enjoyed having to work for openings in an area where he usually dominated - and his accuracy and quality of straight punches seem the perfect antidote to Dempsey's sometimes wide and wild swings. Even the more polished version of Dempsey was open to counters.

Tunney on points for me more often that not, though I'd expect Jack to take the odd decision and score the odd knockout if they had a long, long series of fights.

Just to clarify, what I mean was would Tunney have won if the bouts were held earlier. Now I think in the very early 1920s when Dempsey was champion and Tunney still upcoming to an extent we could assume Dempsey would have a big advantage but I suppose a good timeframe to look at would be 1924, not long after Dempsey had stopped Luis Firpo. Tunney by this stage was well established himself and had beaten Greb several times aswell as many other good fighters so I think we could confident that this was a Tunney that was firing on all cylindars. What if the pair had met then, rather than Dempseys hiatus from the sport?

Its a very difficult question to answer. With Dempsey many felt, including even Dempsey himself, that he had really been sliding since his wins over Brennan and Carpentier. His fight with Gibbons was seen by many as evidence that Dempsey had lost some of his explosiveness and power. A three year abscence from the ring is always likely to have an adverse affect on top of that. I think had the fights been close, we might give Dempsey the edge in an earlier encounter but given Tunneys clear superiority in them it makes trying to ascertain the effect of Dempseys lay off very difficult. The only other reference point we have really is his contest with Sharkey which ended in rather ambiguos fashion and up to that point had been very hard fought. Would an earlier Dempsey have handled Sharkey better or did the fight show he had slipped? Difficult to say. Obviously the can be no suggestion Dempsey was finished. He was still a formidable fighter. But measuring what kind of impact his break from the sport had, and whether it would have made the difference in an earlier bout with Tunney is a question that still puzzles me to this day.

Tunney himself said he would have stood almost no chance against a younger Dempsey.

Tunney was very respectful of Jack though and also very modest about his own abilities.

Colonial Lion wrote:
Just to clarify, what I mean was would Tunney have won if the bouts were held earlier. Now I think in the very early 1920s when Dempsey was champion and Tunney still upcoming to an extent we could assume Dempsey would have a big advantage but I suppose a good timeframe to look at would be 1924, not long after Dempsey had stopped Luis Firpo.

On that basis, I'd have to change my vote to make Dempsey the slight favourite.

Tunney was as astute a man as ever stepped into the ring, and it's no secret that he devoted his entire mature career to the toppling of Dempsey. Harry Greb made overtures for a shot at Dempsey's title somewhere around 1924, and the fact that Tunney didn't might suggest that he didn't think he was quite ready.

Little doubt that Dempsey was a different animal prior to his layoff; still a bundle of coils and springs and snarling aggression and still with that unerring ability to time his punches.

I'm not saying that I believe it to have been beyond Tunney's considerable abilities to turn the trick in 1924, but I'd slightly favour Dempsey.

If its held in 1923/24 I would back Tunney. Sounds like a bit of a cop out answer but I think he was just a better boxer and significantly better than anything Dempsey had faced before.

I think the lay off obviously was a factor, but more in a sense of how close the fight was might have been rather than changing the outcome.

I think its worth considering that Tunney beat him the second time around so while you might excuse Dempsey in the first fight for being rusty, by the time they fought again a year later he had faced Tunney once and Sharkey once in high level fights since his layof.f Hewas only 31/32 years of age so surely the excuse of being a bit rustly or out of sorts must have only limited mileage?

The second fight is probably a close enough indicator as to what would have happened had they met earlier in my view.

Quick question here for someone who might know. How many times did Tunney hit the canvas in his career? Obviously there is 'The Long Count' but as far as im aware Grebb or no one else put Tunney down

Off the top of my head, Steffan I can only remember the knockdown against Dempsey (from his professional fights - he may have suffered a knockdown when he was fighting exhibitions as a teenager but again I can't specifically recall reading about any). Greb had him in all sorts of trouble in their first fight but Gene stayed on his feet despite his horrendous injuries.

He could have outboxed the prime version of dempsey, but jack would probably have caught him somewhere along the line, like he did during the long count and might not have left tunney off the hook.

I would make Dempsey a slight favourite.

superflyweight wrote:Tunney himself said he would have stood almost no chance against a younger Dempsey.

Tunney was very respectful of Jack though and also very modest about his own abilities.

This is why I never attach any importance to boxers quotes!

We should create a worst Bull*****er thread. Mayorga is probably number 1

ShahenshahG wrote:We should create a worst Bull*****er thread. Mayorga is probably number 1

True. He is funny to watch though when he is giving it the attitude during a press conference

ShahenshahG wrote:We should create a worst Bull*****er thread. Mayorga is probably number 1

James Toney might have an argument there. Id shudder to think in 100 years that people would be taking quotes from boxers made nowadays and basing opinions on them. Threads in 100 years time might include:

"Calzaghe robbed Hopkins - no white man could beat Hopkins"

"The Klitschkos would destroy Foreman"

"Ricky Burns Scotlands greatest ever boxer?"

"Who was more exciting Haye or Tyson?"

I'm not really qualified to answer, but I think prime for prime Dempsey takes him. Probably on points.

Speed, stamina and explosiveness are absolutely critical to a swarmer taking on a razor sharp boxer and those qualities had all diminished in Dempsey. He was on old 31 - just like Tyson was. They both turned pro young and by their 30th birthday had lost a lot.

Dempsey struggled against Miske and said he was the most difficult person to hit i'd ever faced. I looked it up on boxrec - KO 3. Thought eh? Then found out miske had a kidney disease and was half dead for the fight. In their previous two bouts they were difficult to seperate. Guess its just context half the time and delusion the rest.

Would have to go for Tunney at any point, his ring intelligence is unsurpassed and make him a favourite against any light heavyweight as well as the majority of heavyweights. Dempsey had a good volume of punches but not sure he would be able to overwhelm Tunney as Greb once did.

I think Tunney would win Dempsey is very overrated

Why do you reckon Dempsey is over rated, Waingro?

Thank you for that insightful post.

HumanWindmill wrote:Why do you reckon Dempsey is over rated, Waingro?

Many people do not know that Dempsey did not fight black fighters mate how can you be a true champ if you do not fight the best around? Look how many quality black heavyweights there have been if people did not fight them like Dempsey did then the sport would be a joke. Look at guys like Bowe who thew his belt away because he did not want to fight Lewis are these guys true champs? Imo they are not you have to take on the best to cal yourself a true champ and Demspey did not do this that is why I think he is overrated.

Waingro wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Why do you reckon Dempsey is over rated, Waingro?

Many people do not know that Dempsey did not fight black fighters mate how can you be a true champ if you do not fight the best around? Look how many quality black heavyweights there have been if people did not fight them like Dempsey did then the sport would be a joke. Look at guys like Bowe who thew his belt away because he did not want to fight Lewis are these guys true champs? Imo they are not you have to take on the best to cal yourself a true champ and Demspey did not do this that is why I think he is overrated.

How many did Tunney fight?

Mate.

Waingro wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Why do you reckon Dempsey is over rated, Waingro?

Many people do not know that Dempsey did not fight black fighters mate how can you be a true champ if you do not fight the best around? Look how many quality black heavyweights there have been if people did not fight them like Dempsey did then the sport would be a joke. Look at guys like Bowe who thew his belt away because he did not want to fight Lewis are these guys true champs? Imo they are not you have to take on the best to cal yourself a true champ and Demspey did not do this that is why I think he is overrated.

Think almost everyone who knows of Dempseys career knows who he fought and the fact they were white so don't understand your first few words.

Who didn't he face then?

I can a stock phrase coming up here.

He wasn't quality, folks.

i've on record as saying that i've always considered dempsey to be the over-rated super-hero, hype-train of his day, a beckham if you like... clearly very good, but not really in the very top echelons of atg lists. I've had this debate countless times and the majority disagree. Normally, I'd stick to my guns, but as that would mean siding with Waingro against the elite historians of the board i'm going with dempsey to flatten tunney in 1 if the fight happened 1925 or earlier.

There's a saying that two heads are better than one, but the weakness in that theory is it makes no reference as to whether a fully functional brain is included in either head. In our case Waingro, 2 half wits don't make a wit, and i fear we might be owned and schooled by the cognoscenti of the board, so i'll leave you to fight this battle on your own. I'd have been little help regardless.

That one made me laugh out loud, milky.

Without wishing to be unkind to the illustrious Waingro, you and many others could build ( and have done, in the past, ) great arguments to support your opinion. Those opinions are fun to debate, since I hold the opposite view.

Waingro, who clearly knows the square root of sod all about anything which happened beyond approximately three weeks ago, has never yet constructed anything remotely resembling a balanced argument, and that renders sensible debate impossible.

I was quite looking forward to ripping any argument he came up with to shreds though Windy.

Life's little disappointments, Ghosty.

[quote="HumanWindmill"]That one made me laugh out loud, milky.

quote]

always good to bring smile to the face of an old man windy . It would appear from the 'your perspective' thread that Alex is offering an alternative method tp produce the same result... not sure its your bag though

[quote="milkyboy"]

HumanWindmill wrote:That one made me laugh out loud, milky.

quote]

always good to bring smile to the face of an old man windy . It would appear from the 'your perspective' thread that Alex is offering an alternative method tp produce the same result... not sure its your bag though

Is he marketing it as hip replacement?

Can someone do a Boxing Coefficient for Dempsey/Tunney. I don't know enough about the man's opponents to do one. See how they stack up against each other (great idea Ghosty)

Will get on to it in a minute Shah and thank you.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Why do you reckon Dempsey is over rated, Waingro?

Many people do not know that Dempsey did not fight black fighters mate how can you be a true champ if you do not fight the best around? Look how many quality black heavyweights there have been if people did not fight them like Dempsey did then the sport would be a joke. Look at guys like Bowe who thew his belt away because he did not want to fight Lewis are these guys true champs? Imo they are not you have to take on the best to cal yourself a true champ and Demspey did not do this that is why I think he is overrated.

How many did Tunney fight?

Mate.

One less than Dempsey, as an aside here is what Billy Miske who shared a ring with more than his fair share of half decent fighters had to say about Dempsey "I've fought them all except Willard, but Dempsey is by a long odds the best. He hit me flush any number of times and nearly all the blows hurt"

I actually agree with Waingro to some extent. Ive never really discovered what it is about Dempseys opposition that puts him so high. The manner of which he beat them is impressive, but its not unlike Tysons blitz of the 80s scene which I increasingly think is underrated in relation to most other heavyweights.

Also, whatever way you cut it, he did not fight Wills and that will remain a controversial point.

Given how thouroughly and decisively Tunney beat him in the actual fights it seems crazy to pick against him, but I see it in Dempsey's favour.

Dempsey's speed, especially of foot was a shadow of itself by the time they met, I really think it was a washed up Dempsey. Tunney stopping Dempsey is pretty much a no, because he couldn't stop a washed up Jack, I don't see him doing better against him at his best. It's worth pointing out that Dempsey only needs ten seconds to win the fight. As the boxer, Tunney needs to win at least 8 rounds. Dempsey can lose every round and still win the fight.

He got to Tunney once when he'd lost that edge, at his best I think he creates far more opportunities and capitalises on them more. I'd back Dempsey by KO.

Some great high quality good sound Dempsey videos by here fair do:

Jack Dempsey vs Jess Willard

Jack Dempsey vs Tommy Gibbons

Jack Dempsey vs Luis Angel Firpo

Does anyone know why the fights with Tunney were only ten rounders?

manos de piedra wrote:Does anyone know why the fights with Tunney were only ten rounders?

Not sure on the first one but the second fight was in Illinois who basically only sanctioned 10 round fights

Steffan wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Does anyone know why the fights with Tunney were only ten rounders?

Not sure on the first one but the second fight was in Illinois who basically only sanctioned 10 round fights

Thats interesting. Perhaps it was the same with Pennsylvania.

Dempsey was only capable of fighting 10 rounds by then it said on a documentry I watched

I'll dig out my Tunney biography and see if it says anything on the length of the first fight!

Still need to dig out the Tunney biography but something that Steffan said about Illinois rules must have stirred something in the recesses of my brain.

I'll need to confirm but I think the first fight was initially scheduled to take place in Chicago but was moved to Philadelphia (New York not being an option because the commissioner refused to sanction the fight). It may simply be that the 10 round limit was retained despite the move to Philiadelphia.

However, I know that Harry Greb used to fight a lot out of his hometown, Pittsburgh (particularly at Forbes Field) and a quick check of his record shows that he only ever fought 10 rounders when fighting in Pennsylvania.