Dempsey vs Tunney (primes)

[gambler49]

I go for Dempsey around the 8th by TKO

[Goodnight, Irene]

A classic Boxing debate now running for over sixty years.

Nail-biting call, but I have a hunch Dempsey finds him & gets him outta there on a stoppage in seven.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Dempsey

[klompton]

Tunney, in exactly the same fashion he did in 1926 and 1927. The idea that Dempsey was that far past his prime does a disservice to Tunney.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Tunney, in exactly the same fashion he did in 1926 and 1927. The idea that Dempsey was that far past his prime does a disservice to Tunney.

I am willing to write the first fight off for Dempsey, personally. He was sick as sh!t coming in, & had been off for a damn long time --- in addition to having lost his peak in the process of his inactivity. Those three factors were very significant & cannot be downplayed, IMO.

A sharper, hungrier Dempsey --- with the valuable experience of having fought Tunney once before --- returned in 1927 & was almost beaten as decisively as first go-round...that second fight mounts a very respectable case that Tunney would've bested any Dempsey, but it's not a case I ultimately agree with. Dempsey had eliminated those first two factors against him in the original fight for the rematch, but not the third. He wasn't shot, but he wasn't quite the explosive terror he had once been, either.

Dempsey in seven, likely trailing on the cards at the time. It's no more than a 60-40 bet, & that's at most. I'd make it more along the lines of 53-47.

[ben geoghegan]

Tunney on points. No question!

Tommy Gibbons is the key.

Dempsey can't win rounds against Tunney!

He can only hope for a KO and against a mover like Tunney and if they are both at their best that is just not happening.

Tunney was caught napping in the rematch because the first fight was so easy

[Seamus]

Tunney by a clear decision.

[klompton]

Tunney, in exactly the same fashion he did in 1926 and 1927. The idea that Dempsey was that far past his prime does a disservice to Tunney.

I am willing to write the first fight off for Dempsey, personally. He was sick as sh!t coming in, & had been off for a damn long time --- in addition to having lost his peak in the process of his inactivity. Those three factors were very significant & cannot be downplayed, IMO.

A sharper, hungrier Dempsey --- with the valuable experience of having fought Tunney once before --- returned in 1927 & was almost beaten as decisively as first go-round...that second fight mounts a very respectable case that Tunney would've bested any Dempsey, but it's not a case I ultimately agree with. Dempsey had eliminated those first two factors against him in the original fight for the rematch, but not the third. He wasn't shot, but he wasn't quite the explosive terror he had once been, either.

Dempsey in seven, likely trailing on the cards at the time. It's no more than a 60-40 bet, & that's at most. I'd make it more along the lines of 53-47.

Its dempsey's story that he was so sick coming in to the first fight. Losers always have an excuse, just like his open letter to Tunney after the second fight accusing Tunney of fixing the fight. Tunney lost one round out of the twenty they fought. You can argue that Dempsey ALMOST beat Tunney the second time but Tunney won fair and square according the rules under which they were fighting and came back in the round in question to be beating Dempsey at the end of the round. This is certainly one instance where ALMOST only counts in horseshoes...

[Goodnight, Irene]

Even if you don't believe Dempsey's being ill (& I do), you cannot discount three years of inactivity.

[Ambling Alp]

The 3 rounds of inactivity were huge in their first fight. Tunney does deserve some credit though for beating Dempsey so easily.
Between their first and 2nd fights, Dempsey did have the fight with Sharkey, so he got rid of some of the ringrust before their 2nd fight.
Besides the famous knockdown, the 2nd fight was a bit more competitive though Tunney certainly was the better fighter.
However, the Dempsey from the late teens-early 1920s would have been much better. Though not the skilled boxer that Tunney was, Dempsey would have been able to get to Tunney much more. I think it would have a close fight for several rounds. Either Tunney wins a closer decision win or Dempsey gets him in the mid-late rounds.
This is another fight that could have gone either way.

[raylawpc]

For what its worth, Bill Brady, who saw every heavyweight champion from John L. Sullivan to Ezzard Charles and managed Corbett and Jeffries to the title, said that Tunney would have never defeated Dempsey in Dempsey's prime. That from someone who, unlike us, saw them both live.

[Panzerfaust]

I believe i read somewhere that Greb said the opposite, but i wont bet my life on it :)

[raylawpc]

Jeffries said that Tunney was lucky he never had to meet the real Jeffries.

As I recall, Corbett famously picked Tunney to beat Dempsey. Problem was, that wasn't his real pick. He liked Dempsey, but his ghostwriter had him picking Tunney. Corbett was madder than hell until Tunney won the fight, and then Corbett crowed about what a great pick he made.

I liked the quote from Brady because, as far as I know, he had no ax to grind, and it was an objective comment. Jeffries, of course, hated Tunney, and Greb certainty wanted to play up Tunney's abilities as much as possible.