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

[raylawpc]

How can one forget that you seem to know nothing about the neutral corner rule?

The rule did not exist until Tunney/Dempsey II

Dempsey insisted on the rule being in play during the contest.

(And yes, I am sure someone will point out 'this rule existed prior', but you got to understand each state has its own commission--- and each state has its own rules, regulations, etc.---- just because a rule existed elsewhere prior to then, doesnt mean it existed in the state that Dempsey/Tunney I & II took place)

The fact remains Dempsey floored Tunney, and the referee told Dempsey to go to a neutral corner. However, the next round, Tunney scored a flash knockdown on Dempsey and the referee didnt even bother to tell Tunney to go to a neutral corner, he just started counting as fast as he could.

You probably need to look at a film of the fight instead of just regurgitating what Roger Kahn wrote in his book.

Dempsey didn't head to a neutral corner - probably intending to stand over Tunney like he had everybody else he had ever knocked down - so Barry forced him to go to the neutral corner. Since Barry hadn't started the count, he picked it up at "one" once Dempsey headed to the neutral corner.

When Dempsey went down, it was a flash knockdown and Jack got up at a count of one. If Tunney hadn't gone to a neutral corner and Dempsey hadn't jumped right up, how do you know Barry wouldn't have stopped the count to make Tunney comply, and then picked it up at "two?" The knockdowns weren't even similar.

If Barry did anything wrong, maybe he should have picked up the count at "two" instead of "one" when Dempsey finally headed to the neutral corner. Not that that would have made much of a difference . . .

[BoxBuzz]

Hey Momo,

Don't blame me that the Referee 'screwed up'.

To "blame" you would be to assume you have the ability to provide oversight in the area of personal responsibility.

I never blame you.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just wanted to make 3 points about Dempsey-Tunney and the neutral corner rule:

1.When Dempsey scored the knockdown, the referee correctly enforced the the neutral corner rule as it was then in effect; he motioned Dempsey to the neutral corner and correctly didn't begin his count at 1 until Dempsey had done so. (Though if you watch him closely, it looks like he was going to start counting immediately, but caught himself.)

2.The neutral corner rule was later changed; the referee makes the fighter who scored the knockdown move to a neutral corner; however, he then picks up the count from the timekeeper/timekeeper of the knockdowns. (So if the timekeeper got to 4 by the time the referee was ready to count, the referee would start with 5.) This is a key change; had that been in effect for Dempsey-Tunney, the referee would have have picked up the count at 4 or 5; which conceivably would have made a difference because Tunney would have to to get up sooner.

3. As for the knockdown that Tunney scored in the 8th round: The referee did make an error. He started to count (he only got to 1) immediately before Tunney could start to move a neutral corner. (Tunney never moved to a neutral corner because Dempsey was up so quickly). This is clearly on video; you can watch it on youtube.

[DrDuke]

Gene Tunney was a phenomenal boxer. I definitely rate him among the top 20 heavyweights of all time. There was no another boxer of such skillset and ring IQ before him. He floated on his feet at ease, he had a great jab, which had settled perfect one-two-combinations. A technical, rational, exciting boxer.

Victories over Dempsey, of course, are his biggest achievements, both of them have been absolutely clear. And I don't tend to support the opinions about the influence of Dempsey's hiatus and the long count in the 2nd bout.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think at the very least you have to take into consideration the first fight that Dempsey had not fought in three years. (He was also supposedly sick). That clearly makes a difference.

[Kalan]

Just wanted to make 3 points about Dempsey-Tunney and the neutral corner rule:

1.When Dempsey scored the knockdown, the referee correctly enforced the the neutral corner rule as it was then in effect; he motioned Dempsey to the neutral corner and correctly didn't begin his count at 1 until Dempsey had done so. (Though if you watch him closely, it looks like he was going to start counting immediately, but caught himself.)

2.The neutral corner rule was later changed; the referee makes the fighter who scored the knockdown move to a neutral corner; however, he then picks up the count from the timekeeper/timekeeper of the knockdowns. (So if the timekeeper got to 4 by the time the referee was ready to count, the referee would start with 5.) This is a key change; had that been in effect for Dempsey-Tunney, the referee would have have picked up the count at 4 or 5; which conceivably would have made a difference because Tunney would have to to get up sooner.

3. As for the knockdown that Tunney scored in the 8th round: The referee did make an error. He started to count (he only got to 1) immediately before Tunney could start to move a neutral corner. (Tunney never moved to a neutral corner because Dempsey was up so quickly). This is clearly on video; you can watch it on youtube.

If the boxer scoring a knockdown doesn't comply with the referee's order to go to the farthest neutral corner the count is paused until he does... If he comes out of the neutral corner the count is paused until he moves back to the neutral corner... In this way the downed boxer is protected from being hit as he rises from the canvas..

In addition to the count, the downed boxer may get additional time to recover if the referee wants to check on the boxer's condition to continue boxing - by asking him to step toward him.. If he stumbles or wobbles the fight is stopped.. If the downed boxer stumbles or wobbles on arising from the canvas, the fight is stopped.

[APerno]

Trivia: Who is Paul Beeler?

[APerno]

Just wanted to make 3 points about Dempsey-Tunney and the neutral corner rule:

1.When Dempsey scored the knockdown, the referee correctly enforced the the neutral corner rule as it was then in effect; he motioned Dempsey to the neutral corner and correctly didn't begin his count at 1 until Dempsey had done so. (Though if you watch him closely, it looks like he was going to start counting immediately, but caught himself.)

2.The neutral corner rule was later changed; the referee makes the fighter who scored the knockdown move to a neutral corner; however, he then picks up the count from the timekeeper/timekeeper of the knockdowns. (So if the timekeeper got to 4 by the time the referee was ready to count, the referee would start with 5.) This is a key change; had that been in effect for Dempsey-Tunney, the referee would have have picked up the count at 4 or 5; which conceivably would have made a difference because Tunney would have to to get up sooner.

3. As for the knockdown that Tunney scored in the 8th round: The referee did make an error. He started to count (he only got to 1) immediately before Tunney could start to move a neutral corner. (Tunney never moved to a neutral corner because Dempsey was up so quickly). This is clearly on video; you can watch it on youtube.

The timekeeper was shouting "five" not four. Barry should have picked up the count at six.

Barry was inconsistent in handling the knockdowns.

You stated that we can't know if Barry would have stopped the count over Dempsey had Tunney failed to retreat to a neutral corner. But that's not the inconsistency in question.

When Tunney went down Barry immediately turns to find Dempsey, Barry does raise his hand as if he will begin the count but never completes the action because he never looks at Tunney, focused only on Dempsey. Barry is pushing Dempsey toward a neutral corner even before he can be sure Dempsey isn't going there himself. Barry's first act is to find Dempsey.

His behavior is then completely different when Dempsey goes down, Barry never looks for Tunney and his first act is to count.

Whether he would have stopped counting over Dempsey doesn't excuse Barry's inconsistent actions. He treated the two fighters differently.

Now, with that said it doesn't necessarily mean Barry was crooked. Dempsey had given good cause to be watched closely; Barry had cause to treat Dempsey differently, but still he shouldn't have.

If, before counting, he was going to confirm where Dempsey was, then he should have first confirmed Tunney's whereabouts as well. He was inconsistent.

[Ambling Alp II]

Al Perno -I think we are on the same page here. The referee acted correctly when Tunney went down (under the rules at the time) but did not when Dempsey went down.

[HomicideHenry]

I think Tunney beat Dempsey fair and square, and could have gotten up sooner and still would have won. Tunney was a tough, well conditioned, seasoned, and quick witted fighter with alot of speed. He had Dempsey's number both times. The fights could have been 20 rounds, and it'd of just made Dempsey look more inept.

[APerno]

Al Perno -I think we are on the same page here. The referee acted correctly when Tunney went down (under the rules at the time) but did not when Dempsey went down.

all that yellen for nuth'in

I noted you thought Dempsey was ill, do you buy into any of the poisoning theories?

Are you familiar with Abe Attell's 1960 quote given to a then little known sports writer Ferdie Pacecho. Pacecho quotes Attell as saying: “What the people don’t know about the Dempsey-Tunney fights is that it was the Jews against the Italians, and the Jews won.”. . . .i.e. that Arnold Rothstein was involved.

[Chuck1052]

A vintage Gene Tunney would have been a terrible matchup for Jack Dempsey on the latter's best day. Early during his reign as the world heavyweight champion, Dempsey had a great deal of trouble with Bill Brennan before finally stopping him. Tunney was a far better fighter than Brennan.

I still can't believe that Dempsey was chosen as the top fighter of the first fifty years of 20th Century in one poll. Joe Louis had a vastly superior resume compared to Dempsey in absolutely every way. There also were plenty of smaller fighters who were far better.

- Chuck Johnston

[Kalan]

I think Tunney beat Dempsey fair and square, and could have gotten up sooner and still would have won. Tunney was a tough, well conditioned, seasoned, and quick witted fighter with alot of speed. He had Dempsey's number both times. The fights could have been 20 rounds, and it'd of just made Dempsey look more inept.

20 rounds and Tunney would have stopped Dempsey... He landed 90% of the punches and nearly stopped him in 10.

[Ambling Alp II]

Al Perno -I think we are on the same page here. The referee acted correctly when Tunney went down (under the rules at the time) but did not when Dempsey went down.

all that yellen for nuth'in

I noted you thought Dempsey was ill, do you buy into any of the poisoning theories?

Are you familiar with Abe Attell's 1960 quote given to a then little known sports writer Ferdie Pacecho. Pacecho quotes Attell as saying: “What the people don’t know about the Dempsey-Tunney fights is that it was the Jews against the Italians, and the Jews won.”. . . .i.e. that Arnold Rothstein was involved.

I don't know if he was sick or not for the first fight. Boxers always have their excuses. Doubt he was actually poisoned.
I do think Dempsey at his best still would have had his hands full with Tunney. I have gone back and forth on this one. I am on the fence. It could go either way. Dempsey at his best had very good hand speed, and threw a lot of punches. Tunney was a great defensive fighter and underrated offensive one.
Could see Tunney out boxing him, though it would have been more competitive than the rematch and certainly their first fight. Could also see Dempsey catching him and putting him away.

[Kalan]

Dempsey was even frustrated by slippery fat boy Willie Meehan.... a fat pig, but a shifty, clever, and quick boxer.

Dempsey also couldn't find Tommy Gibbons with a KO punch... Tunney knocked Gibbons out and was a lot better boxer... Just a lot more accurate than Gibbons, shedding more punches coming at him, and throwing harder shots back... I believe that was the only KO loss Gibbons suffered in his whole career.

[APerno]

Dempsey was even frustrated by slippery fat boy Willie Meehan.... a fat pig, but a shifty, clever, and quick boxer.

Dempsey also couldn't find Tommy Gibbons with a KO punch... Tunney knocked Gibbons out and was a lot better boxer... Just a lot more accurate than Gibbons, shedding more punches coming at him, and throwing harder shots back... I believe that was the only KO loss Gibbons suffered in his whole career.

Gibbons was finished when Tunney caught of to him.

[Kalan]

Dempsey was even frustrated by slippery fat boy Willie Meehan.... a fat pig, but a shifty, clever, and quick boxer.

Dempsey also couldn't find Tommy Gibbons with a KO punch... Tunney knocked Gibbons out and was a lot better boxer... Just a lot more accurate than Gibbons, shedding more punches coming at him, and throwing harder shots back... I believe that was the only KO loss Gibbons suffered in his whole career.

Gibbons was finished when Tunney caught of to him.

Only after Tunney brutalized him... Then Gibbons was finished... So was Dempsey when Tunney got done with him.

[Ambling Alp II]

A vintage Gene Tunney would have been a terrible matchup for Jack Dempsey on the latter's best day. Early during his reign as the world heavyweight champion, Dempsey had a great deal of trouble with Bill Brennan before finally stopping him. Tunney was a far better fighter than Brennan.

I still can't believe that Dempsey was chosen as the top fighter of the first fifty years of 20th Century in one poll. Joe Louis had a vastly superior resume compared to Dempsey in absolutely every way. There also were plenty of smaller fighters who were far better.

- Chuck Johnston

As I mentioned before, Tunney would have always been a tough matchup for Dempsey, even Dempsey at his best. I am on the fence on this one.
Some reasons indicating why Dempsey might win:

Look at all the trouble that Greb gave Tunney. Dempsey could hit a lot harder than Greb. Dempsey at his best had a tremendous workrate and great hand speed. That fight be enough against Tunney's defense.
Yes Tunney didn't look great against Brennan and some other fights. However, there were plenty of other fights where he was devastating.
If Dempsey could come that close when he was clearly past his best, is it really that far fetched to think he could win at his best?

As for him being the top fighter of the first half of the 20th century: I don't think he should have been either . However he was a great fighter. Look at all the blowout wins over contenders that he had before becoming the champion. He was fighting very frequently so naturally he had the occasion unimpressive result. But he had quite a few fights where he rolled over good fighters.

[Kalan]

Yeah... And the unimpressive result for Dempsey was his fight with slickster Willie Meehan who he couldn't find.