How do you rate Gene Tunney and his wins over Dempsey?

[raylawpc]

Chuvalo was as "tough" a fighter as Bonavena. In fact, in many ways they were similar fighters. The difference was that Ali was a much better fighter at the time he fought Chuvalo than he when fought Bonavena. As the video clearly shows, Ali had much more speed, and far better reflexes,timing, and stamina against Chuvalo.

This is a perfect example. When Dempsey has a long layoff, everyone understands that he wasn't nearly the same fighter when he came back. When Ali has a long layoff, somehow he magically came back better than ever. That way some people can pretend that Frazier beat the best version of Ali. He didn't.

Frazier fought a great fight, (like he usually did) and was probably one of only a handful of fighters who would have won.
However, like Tunney didn't beat the best version of Dempsey in their rematch, Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.

"Toughness" of the type I am describing is relative. Bonavena was "tougher" than Chuvalo because he fought a bit of an unconventional, awkward style. Chuvalo followed more predictable patterns. Whether Ali was the same, better, or worse when he came back is a debate for another thread, I suppose. The difference I see is that Dempsey had a lot more wear on his body when he fought Tunney, and was older.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.

He certainly beat a better version of Ali than Muhammad ever did of Frazier.

[drunkenpiper36]

Maybe he didn't look as good because Bonavena was a tougher opponent than Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, etc. . .

I was thinking that it had more to do with the fact that he had only seen 3 rounds of boxing action within a near four year period. And not so much a case of Oscar being better than Patterson or Folley who incidentally both beat him.

Never said Oscar was better than Patterson or Folley. Only that Ali may have found him a tougher opponent. I don't recall anybody who fought Oscar saying, "Gee, that was an easy fight."

I saw Ali fight Bonavena and his being slower and more flat footed had nothing to do with anything that Bonavena brought to the table.

[Ambling Alp II]

Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.

He certainly beat a better version of Ali than Muhammad ever did of Frazier.

He certainly did not. But I know, you hate Ali so anything goes.

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.
Are you going to go with your old standby ? The dreaded

[drunkenpiper36]

Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.

He certainly beat a better version of Ali than Muhammad ever did of Frazier.

He certainly did not. But I know, you hate Ali so anything goes.

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.
Are you going to go with your old standby ? The dreaded

**** Posts saad's anticipated reply ****

[Ambling Alp II]

Chuvalo was as "tough" a fighter as Bonavena. In fact, in many ways they were similar fighters. The difference was that Ali was a much better fighter at the time he fought Chuvalo than he when fought Bonavena. As the video clearly shows, Ali had much more speed, and far better reflexes,timing, and stamina against Chuvalo.

This is a perfect example. When Dempsey has a long layoff, everyone understands that he wasn't nearly the same fighter when he came back. When Ali has a long layoff, somehow he magically came back better than ever. That way some people can pretend that Frazier beat the best version of Ali. He didn't.

Frazier fought a great fight, (like he usually did) and was probably one of only a handful of fighters who would have won.
However, like Tunney didn't beat the best version of Dempsey in their rematch, Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.

"Toughness" of the type I am describing is relative. Bonavena was "tougher" than Chuvalo because he fought a bit of an unconventional, awkward style. Chuvalo followed more predictable patterns. Whether Ali was the same, better, or worse when he came back is a debate for another thread, I suppose. The difference I see is that Dempsey had a lot more wear on his body when he fought Tunney, and was older.

Chuvalo and Bonavena were very even. Bonavena was more awkward, but Chuvalo was more aggressive and had a better chin. They fought each and the fight was close. Bonavena could not even beat a 36 year old Floyd Patterson.

I don't see how Dempsey had that much more wear on his body; he had not been in many long fights at all, and not that many tough ones. He didn't take a overly large amount of punishment.

In terms of being close to their best, Dempsey-Tunney is very similar to Ali-Frazier; Dempsey-Sharvey is similar to Ali-Bonavena.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier didn't beat the best version of Ali.

He certainly beat a better version of Ali than Muhammad ever did of Frazier.

He certainly did not. But I know, you hate Ali so anything goes.

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.
Are you going to go with your old standby ? The dreaded

I don't hate Ali at all, I was a fan, and I never said anything about Frazier in the second and third fights. Just countered your point with something you would never say. Something absolutely factual.

I only laugh at humor, not lies. Though I must admit if you're disputing my statement and saying the Frazier from the second and third fights would have beat the crap out of Ali from the FOTC, then that is quite funny.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He certainly beat a better version of Ali than Muhammad ever did of Frazier.

He certainly did not. But I know, you hate Ali so anything goes.

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.
Are you going to go with your old standby ? The dreaded

**** Posts saad's anticipated reply ****

That's just for you sweetheart.

[The Great John L]

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you think Joe had easy fights after the FOTC?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you think Joe had easy fights after the FOTC?

Ali won, so Frazier was clearly at his best. When Ali lost, he was a shell of himself. Vintage Alp.

[raylawpc]

I saw Ali fight Bonavena and his being slower and more flat footed had nothing to do with anything that Bonavena brought to the table.

So did I.

[raylawpc]

I don't see how Dempsey had that much more wear on his body . . .

Well, let's see. I think most people agree that those who lived in the early 20th century generally had a harder life style than those who grew up (as Muhammad and I did) in the middle to late middle 20th century. Dempsey lived in a harsher environment. So Dempsey being three years older than Ali at the time of their respective comebacks is probably more significant in terms of age.

At the time of the first Tunney fight, Dempsey had had almost 80 fights. Ali had about 28 or 29 fights (going by memory on this). You keep talking about how great Clay/Ali was pre-exile, so you'll probably admit most of Clay/Ali's fights weren't too tough. Dempsey, however, learned to fight at age 15 by challenging grown men in bars and pool halls, and then moving to the prize ring. In New York in 1917 (maybe it was 1916 - going by memory), he fought three tough characters in Andre Andersen, Wild Bill Kenny, and John Lester Johnson - the latter breaking three of Dempsey's ribs.

In addition, as an Olympic champion, Clay/Ali was managed by a syndicate and didn't have to work outside of boxing. He could devote himself 100% to boxing under the watchful eye of a great trainer - Angelo Dundee. Dempsey, on the other hand, had to support himself as a coal miner among other things until he came under Doc Kearns' wing.

So, I think I'll stick with my premise that Jack had had more wear and tear on the body at the time of his first Tunney fight than Ali had had when he emerged from exile.

[raylawpc]

Bonavena could not even beat a 36 year old Floyd Patterson.

Bonavena didn't get to fight the Patterson who threw his back out . . . I suspect he would have defeated that Patterson.

[Ambling Alp II]

Interesting comments about life being harder. I totally agree that in general it was for harder for most people. However, Dempsey was not working 80 hours a week or anything like that. He was occasionally doing odd jobs on and off during his first three years as a pro. If you want to claim he would have had a better win-loss record during his early years that is fair enough. However, by 1917 he was with Kearns and was a full time pro.

He had one fight in his entire career that was over 12 rounds; and only two over 10. I don't it was wear and tear that hurt his career, it was mostly ring rust. Had he had a couple of fights a year for the 3 years he was idle, he would not have declined nearly as much as he did.

If you want to argue that Ali has not declined quite as much when he came back as Dempsey, is arguable and fair enough.
However, to say that Ali had not lost anything is quite a stretch.
To say that he was better (which some people claim; I don't recall if you personally claim this) in his just his 3rd fight back after being off for 3 1/2 years is absurd.

Really, I don't mind if people say Ali won twice and Frazier won once. That is always the way that I had thought about it. I just don't think it's fair or accurrate to say Ali magically got better during his layoff, and for no real reason Frazier declined dramatically between their first and 2nd fights.

[Duch]

They were great wins over a faded ATG Dempsey. I think Tunney may be one of the most under-rated HWs of all time, probably due to his early retirement.

I don't get it.

They both, Dempsey and Tunney, spent 13 years between the ropes.
And Tunney fought even more when we count rounds (163 to 56).

Why that should be relevant with Tunney and irrelevant with Dempsey?

[The Great John L]

They were great wins over a faded ATG Dempsey. I think Tunney may be one of the most under-rated HWs of all time, probably due to his early retirement.

I don't get it.

They both, Dempsey and Tunney, spent 13 years between the ropes.
And Tunney fought even more when we count rounds (163 to 56).

Why that should be relevant with Tunney and irrelevant with Dempsey?

Tunney had a much shorter resume than Dempsey at HW.

[Ambling Alp II]

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you think Joe had easy fights after the FOTC?

Going into the 2nd fight with Ali, Frazier had a grand total of 31 fights in his career. He just turned 30 years old. Since the first fight with Ali, he had two easy fights against Stander and Daniels, then Foreman and Bugner. That isn't a lot of wear and tear by any stretch of the imagination.

Ali had 45 fights, had fought tougher competition, and had to comeback after a layoff.

Going into their 3rd fight, Frazier was 31, and had a grand total of 34 fights. A few were tough, but he certainly should have (and did) have a lot of gas in the tank.
Ali had 50 fights by then. He had fought tougher competition and had probably taken more punishment. He had fought Norton twice and Lyle; Frazier fought neither of them.

[raylawpc]

Interesting comments about life being harder. I totally agree that in general it was for harder for most people. However, Dempsey was not working 80 hours a week or anything like that. He was occasionally doing odd jobs on and off during his first three years as a pro. If you want to claim he would have had a better win-loss record during his early years that is fair enough. However, by 1917 he was with Kearns and was a full time pro.

He had one fight in his entire career that was over 12 rounds; and only two over 10. I don't it was wear and tear that hurt his career, it was mostly ring rust. Had he had a couple of fights a year for the 3 years he was idle, he would not have declined nearly as much as he did.

If you want to argue that Ali has not declined quite as much when he came back as Dempsey, is arguable and fair enough.
However, to say that Ali had not lost anything is quite a stretch.
To say that he was better (which some people claim; I don't recall if you personally claim this) in his just his 3rd fight back after being off for 3 1/2 years is absurd.

Really, I don't mind if people say Ali won twice and Frazier won once. That is always the way that I had thought about it. I just don't think it's fair or accurrate to say Ali magically got better during his layoff, and for no real reason Frazier declined dramatically between their first and 2nd fights.

When did I say Ali hadn't lost anything? And what does that have to do with how I rate Gene Tunney's wins over Dempsey?

[Duch]

And how Dempsey rated his lost against Tunney? What he said about him as a boxer? Somebody knows?

[Ambling Alp II]

Dempsey had a lot of respect for Tunney. He said he didn't think he would ever have beaten him even at his best; of course fighters say stuff like just being nice. However, it is clear that he thought highly of him. Tunney thought highly of Dempsey as well.

[drunkenpiper36]

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you think Joe had easy fights after the FOTC?

Going into the 2nd fight with Ali, Frazier had a grand total of 31 fights in his career. He just turned 30 years old. Since the first fight with Ali, he had two easy fights against Stander and Daniels, then Foreman and Bugner. That isn't a lot of wear and tear by any stretch of the imagination.

Ali had 45 fights, had fought tougher competition, and had to comeback after a layoff.

Going into their 3rd fight, Frazier was 31, and had a grand total of 34 fights. A few were tough, but he certainly should have (and did) have a lot of gas in the tank.
Ali had 50 fights by then. He had fought tougher competition and had probably taken more punishment. He had fought Norton twice and Lyle; Frazier fought neither of them.

Whilst I agree that Ali was rusty and never quite the same after the layoff, Frazier actually declined pretty badly between 1972-1975. He had trouble keeping his weight down. Had developed diabetes and high blood pressure. His singing career on the side was starting to interfere with preparation in fights and above all other things, he fought the type of swarmer - high work rate style that typically diminishes by the time people reach their late 20's. I'm sure getting smashed by Foreman the first time didn't help matters either. Going into the fight of the century, Frazier clearly had the upper hand, but probably not in their remaining two fights.

[The Great John L]

Frazier wasn't old, didn't have a lot of wear and tear in the 2nd and 3rd fights.

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you think Joe had easy fights after the FOTC?

Going into the 2nd fight with Ali, Frazier had a grand total of 31 fights in his career. He just turned 30 years old. Since the first fight with Ali, he had two easy fights against Stander and Daniels, then Foreman and Bugner. That isn't a lot of wear and tear by any stretch of the imagination.

Ali had 45 fights, had fought tougher competition, and had to comeback after a layoff.

Going into their 3rd fight, Frazier was 31, and had a grand total of 34 fights. A few were tough, but he certainly should have (and did) have a lot of gas in the tank.
Ali had 50 fights by then. He had fought tougher competition and had probably taken more punishment. He had fought Norton twice and Lyle; Frazier fought neither of them.

A few were tough!!?? Clearly they both declined significantly by the 3rd fight so let's just skip that one.

To imply that Ali had less wear and tear than Frazier going into their second fight is kind of refuting the beliefs of many that he was nearly invincible and had so many easy fights in his first career. Just due to their styles Frazier was more likely to take punishment than Ali, and in general he did. He probably also dished out a lot more for the same reason, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

You can try using the number of fights and their ages, but don’t you think that’s being a little simplistic? Frazier even took quite a few solid shots from Bugner in what was a very competitive fight. Don’t you think that their styles are more significant when discussing the physical damage they both suffered than the simple numbers you looked up?

[Ambling Alp II]

Well I don't think we should just skip the 3rd fight; it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Ali looked better in that fight than he did in the 1971 fight. Frazier put on a great performance himself.

Anyway, yes you can't just go by age and number of fights. And yes Frazier typically took more punishment in a fight than Ali; atleast Ali in the 1960s. However Ali took a lot punishment in several fights in the early 1970s. And since Frazier fought so much less frequently, he didn't that much punishment.

How can Frazier decline that much from 1971 to 1974? It makes no sense. He had just 4 fights, two of which were against tomato cans where he took almost no punishment. The Bugner fight was not that brutal by any means.

[The Great John L]

Well I don't think we should just skip the 3rd fight; it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Ali looked better in that fight than he did in the 1971 fight. Frazier put on a great performance himself.

Anyway, yes you can't just go by age and number of fights. And yes Frazier typically took more punishment in a fight than Ali; atleast Ali in the 1960s. However Ali took a lot punishment in several fights in the early 1970s. And since Frazier fought so much less frequently, he didn't that much punishment.

How can Frazier decline that much from 1971 to 1974? It makes no sense. He had just 4 fights, two of which were against tomato cans where he took almost no punishment. The Bugner fight was not that brutal by any means.

OK.

[raylawpc]

man complained in his Ali thread that you can't post anything on Ali anymore. Yet here is another thread that has been hijacked by a discussion about Ali . . .