Jack Dempsey vs Gene Tunney primes

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Jul 2006, 20:59

dempsey TKO 4 tunney

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 26 Jul 2006, 23:21

As much as I dislike Tunney's wins over Dempsey, he was a tough SOB and a crafty technician. Dempsey wins, but Tunney survives at least until the midpoint of the fight. Dempsey TKO 7.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Jul 2006, 00:22

dec i jsut checked it out. i made a mistake. tunneys manager said they wont fight godfrey cause hes a no good negroe

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 27 Jul 2006, 04:31

IMO it would be a close points decision. I'd go for Tunney.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 27 Jul 2006, 06:00

Decagon wrote:Thanks. If it had been legit, I'd be driving people crazy with it by now. In the middle of Gene Tunney threads, people'd be begging me to tell the story of Art Oliver again.

Hmmm, we haven't heard the Art Oliver story in a few days...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 27 Jul 2006, 06:41

yes we have.... I retold it in my Leon Spinks Max Baer thread it's not due to be retold for another week.

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 Jul 2006, 06:53

In they're prime...Dempsey winner on points in a close fight.

>>>Hmmm, we haven't heard the Art Oliver story in a few days...<<<

But you have to remember...Decagon never told the story...all he did was say the same thing over and over and over again, which I think went something like this, "If Baer could lose to a fighter making his pro debut..." that's all Decagon has ever said about it, that same sentence over and over...though I would love to hear about Art Oliver, what kind of fighter he was and things of that sort about him, or about the issues surrounding the fight!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 27 Jul 2006, 06:56

barry in that case I'm afraid we would have to pick up some shovels and dig through the archeological ruins of local papers throughout the west. I bet the real story on Oliver is a detective's nightmare.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 27 Jul 2006, 06:59

BoxBuzz wrote: ...in that case I'm afraid we would have to pick up some shovels and dig through the archeological ruins of local papers throughout the west.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 27 Jul 2006, 07:07

BoxBuzz wrote:yes we have.... I retold it in my Leon Spinks Max Baer thread it's not due to be retold for another week.

Yes, but that was a few days ago.

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 Jul 2006, 09:19

>>>I bet the real story on Oliver is a detective's nightmare.<<<

Not really...one can learn it from the internet as there are two Chicago newspapers (Olivers hometown) from the day available online, which has quite a bit of info in Oliver...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 27 Jul 2006, 09:36

barry if that's true, can that be said about any fighter you can find here? I figured Oliver to be a bit under the radar screen due to his limited activity....though he certainly did, as does John Carlo, have one "claim to fame.

Would it be as easy to find info on line for say a Rob Galloway? and how would one go about it? God help me if I get started down that road....I'll never be heard from again as I begin to dig up info on every irrelevant fighter in our database. The more insignificant the more likely I would want to find out the story.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 09:42

Tex Rickard wouldn't have matched prime Dempsey with Tunney, anyway:

Tunney by decision.

Dempsey struggled with Bill Brennan and pepole think he would have knocked out Tunney.

barry · Post by **barry** » 27 Jul 2006, 11:15

>>>barry if that's true, can that be said about any fighter you can find here? I figured Oliver to be a bit under the radar screen due to his limited activity....though he certainly did, as does John Carlo, have one "claim to fame.<<<

Oliver was a good amateur thatm was celebrated fairly well. He had won the Olympic Golden Gloves title at heavyweight and gained quite a bit of reporting about him...even though he did not amount to much in the pro ranks he was a very solid amateur!

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 27 Jul 2006, 11:33

Dempsey already knocked out Tunney when Dempsey was a washed up fighter with no legs.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 12:00

granberry wrote:Dempsey already knocked out Tunney when Dempsey was a washed fighter with no legs.

Go home play with your marbles.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Jul 2006, 12:54

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 27 Jul 2006, 15:45

pundit wrote:
granberry wrote:Dempsey already knocked out Tunney when Dempsey was a washed fighter with no legs.

Go home play with your marbles.

Boxing "expert" punkit DOESN'T KNOW that Dempsey knocked Tunney down for a count of 17 in their 2nd fight.

Boxing "expert" punkit thinks Dempsey's legs were in great shape at the time he fought Tunney.

Always good to hear from boxing "experts" like punkit.

.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 15:58

granberry wrote:
pundit wrote:
granberry wrote:Dempsey already knocked out Tunney when Dempsey was a washed fighter with no legs.

Go home play with your marbles.
Boxing "expert" punkit DOESN'T KNOW that Dempsey knocked Tunney down for a count of 17 in their 2nd fight.

Boxing "expert" punkit thinks Dempsey's legs were in great shape at the time he fought Tunney.

Always good to hear from boxing "experts" like punkit.

.

Are you 5 years old?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 16:42

Decagon wrote:It doesn't matter how many seconds you're on the canvas. It only matters if you're down for a 10-count or not. Douglas against Tyson and Tunney against Dempsey; why should they have gotten up at the count of two or three, risking doing the Zab Judah Shuffle, when they can use the count to its fullest to ensure the victory?

The voice of reason.

Dempsey himself - even though he dined out on the "long count" for year - admitted later that Tunney wasn't baldy hurt, and that he could have gotten up earlier if needed.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 27 Jul 2006, 16:55

pundit wrote:
Dempsey himself - even though he dined out on the "long count" for year - admitted later that Tunney wasn't baldy hurt, and that he could have gotten up earlier if needed.

Punkit MAKES UP another "quote."

Show us where Dempsey said Tunney "wasn't badly hurt."

You can't.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 16:58

granberry wrote:
pundit wrote:
Dempsey himself - even though he dined out on the "long count" for year - admitted later that Tunney wasn't baldy hurt, and that he could have gotten up earlier if needed.
Punkit MAKES UP another "quote."

Show us where Dempsey said Tunney "wasn't badly hurt."

You can't.

Same source as for Walcott-Marciano, kindergarden boy.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Jul 2006, 17:36

tunney would not be able to deal with a prime dempsey. a far past his prime dempsey practically knocked tunney out.

tunney avoided a prime gibbons in the early 1920s. didnt fight gibbons until he was washed up. dempsey won 12 out of 15 rounds vs a prime gibbons.

dempsey in his prime was a lot faster, much more aggresive and tiger like and much better reflexes and accuracy then the dempsey of 1927.

the 1918-1919 dempsey takes tunney out. he will chase tunney down.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 17:41

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney would not be able to deal with a prime dempsey. a far past his prime dempsey practically knocked tunney out.

Brockton, this pisses me off. You know better. We have discussed this often enough.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 27 Jul 2006, 17:46

pundit wrote:
granberry wrote:
pundit wrote:
Dempsey himself - even though he dined out on the "long count" for year - admitted later that Tunney wasn't baldy hurt, and that he could have gotten up earlier if needed.
Punkit MAKES UP another "quote."

Show us where Dempsey said Tunney "wasn't badly hurt."

You can't.
Same source as for Walcott-Marciano, kindergarden boy.

I have seen the film of the 7th round of Dempsey-Tunney II.

That is my source.

You, punkit, are dependent on regurgitating the prattlings of those who comprehension of the subject is on a level with your own.