BoxRec

i must admit when i first read boxingfan 2004`s post about dempsey having plaster of paris on his hands i considered it possible.
the damage willard took was extensive, and he spent most of the bout rolling around the canvas (this man had never previously been floored!).
i thought the bet and the hasty ring exit after thinking he had won was..........unusual to say the least.
but i watched the fight again recently and when its finally stopped in the fourth the first thing dempsey does is go to willards corner and offer his gloves (to shake hands) to willard and his cornermen, even if he did leave the ring after the first there`s no way he could have removed the plaster in so short of time, i think the plaster of paris is a non starter, but i suppose he could have had a metal weight or something but i doubt it.
dempsey, while a hard puncher, never really showed that bone breaking power again, but maybe it was just he was in his prime and fired up for his first title shot against a 37 year old who hadn`t fought seriously for years.
just as plausable as carrying a horseshoe into a bout.
though i have seen a bout where a fighter had a horseshoe in his glove,
the fighter was stan laurel

headhunter wrote:dempsey having plaster of paris on his hands i considered it possible.
the damage willard took was extensive, and he spent most of the bout rolling around the canvas (this man had never previously been floored!).
i thought the bet and the hasty ring exit after thinking he had won was..........unusual to say the least.
but i watched the fight again recently and when its finally stopped in the fourth the first thing dempsey does is go to willards corner and offer his gloves (to shake hands) to willard and his cornermen, even if he did leave the ring after the first there`s no way he could have removed the plaster in so short of time, i think the plaster of paris is a non starter, but i suppose he could have had a metal weight or something but i doubt it.
dempsey, while a hard puncher, never really showed that bone breaking power again, but maybe it was just he was in his prime and fired up for his first title shot against a 37 year old who hadn`t fought seriously for years.
just as plausable as carrying a horseshoe into a bout.

***********

Someone else commented that he wanted to talk about Tunney on this thread and not Dempsey, and I agree; but I just wanted to make one comment - isn't it interesting that Dempsey went over to Willard's corner to shake hands in the 4th round when he won, but he ran out of the ring after the 1st round when he supposedly THOUGHT he had won? Why the difference?

Also, as a number of boxing experts have stated over the years, while Dempsey's legs were gone in 1926 and 1927, his punch wasn't gone - yet he still couldn't even knockout Tunney when he punched him 7 times - including with his left - especially when he was certainly 'fired up' to try to get his title back again.

Also, remember that Willard was primarily suspicious of Dempsey's left glove. Dempsey shook hands with his right glove.

Also, if there was plaster of Paris or a metal object, etc., it only had to be removed from the left glove probably, and Dempsey would have had experienced cornermen helping him. Just think about how quickly a race car driver's tires can be changed at a pit stop by experienced mechanics.

OK, is this thread about Gene Tunney or should I just give up and join in the "Dempsey Sucks" parade? Do we have to trash Dempsey to raise Tunney? I asked earlier how would Tunney fare against foes like Baer or Frazier. Anyone want to address that?

So maybe this thread has gotten a bit old, but since I just registered for this sight tonight--and am a big Tunney fan--I'll go ahead and take you up on the match-ups.
Tunney-Baer: I'd go with Tunney, in a fairly comfortable, though not lop-sided, decision.
Against Frazier, it's a tougher call. Obviously Tunney had the skills to out-box Frazier, but Frazier was good at closing the distance and keeping the pressure on an opponent--even against a boxer as good as Ali--and never cared if he had to get punched a few times to do it. My gut feeling is, Joe catches him late--especially in a 15 round bout. But it's no sure thing.

Was Tunney a great fighter-yes Great Light HW-yes! But how can some people rate him as one of the all time HWs by only a handful of wins at HW, two over an aged great champion and one defense against a fringe contender Tom Heeney?? (before the Dempsey title shot he had around 6 HW wins -all against smallish HWs- the best win being against solid top tener Charley Weinert) I think it's safe to say that he probably would've been a great champion but the truth is we just cannot know how he would've fared and so its an open-ended question. Imagine if Jones Jr had moved up, beat an aged Lennox Lewis (complete with a long count controversey in the 2nd match) and then beaten Lamon Brewster in a title defense, and then retired. Would he be an all time top HW?

I'd agree that there's no way to claim Tunney was an all-time great heavyweight based on his limited record at that weight. But I'd also say that he'd have been a damn competative small heavyweight in most eras, and could have been sucessful outboxing certain types of bigger opponents...including some very good ones, but probably not the very best ones.

Tunney always maintained that he was aware of the count and could have made it up in time.

I dont remember who it was that once said "any fighter who dosnt take every second he is given is a fool". But this is true.
Gene was aware of the count at all times IMO, he rose when the ref counted 9. i have not dobt he could have got up 5 seconds beforehand.

Yes Dempsey may have been past his best for fight no1, thats his problem, if he was unprepared. Truth he he should never have lost fight no1 - no doubt about fight no2

I also read somewhere that Tunney said something to the effect that only an idiot would be in a hurry to getr up in same ring with Dempsey--Tunney was obviously a hell of a smart man.
The "long count" was largely Dempsey's fault anyway--the ref isn't supposed to start counting until the fighter has gone to a neutral corner, and Dempsey didn't. In his defense, this was a relatively new rule, that I believe was not in effect for the majority of his career, but still, he could have shaved several seconds off that time if he'd actually followed the ref's instructions immediately.

I couldn't resist adding a thought on this one, concerning Tunney's loss to a middleweight. He did, but the middleweight in question ranks as one of the finest PFP fighters ever, and in today's boxing realm, Harry Greb would likely have won titles at Middle, Super Middle, Lightheavy, and cruiser, and then taken John Ruiz for dessert. Greb is comparable in many ways to James Toney, both physically and technically, with Greb being a few notches higher in the all-time great catagory. So losing a decision to Greb, especially early in your career, is not much of a black mark--even for a heavyweight. By all accounts, he took Tunney to school and Tunney learned his lessons well. Many of those lessons were in clear evidence in his Dempsey fights.

...and he apparently learned those lessons pretty well, 'cause he beat Greb--who wan not only one of the greatest, but one of the most colorful fighters of all time--3 times if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure Tunney went 3-1-1 against Greb...which would be easy enough to confirm, if I wans't too lazy to go to the bother of checking another part of this very sight.

...harry greb was one of the few who predicted that tunney would beat dempsey.....actually he was certain of it. he said when he fought tunney the first time he gave him bad beating, but by the time they finished their series "i couldn't handle him."

i think tunney would have been a good heavyweight had he stuck around. perhaps if he had fought and beaten jack sharkey instead of tom heeny....they fought a draw and tunney took on heeny instead he might have left a better impression. even though sharkey had been kayoed by dempsey, he was beating him and demspsey said for the first few rounds sharkey was the best fighter he had ever been in with.

Excellent point about Sharkey; he is a missing link in Tunney's heavyweight profile. Supposedly there were no interesting challengers for Tunney, at least in his own mind, hence hanging up the gloves. Sharkey was not a huge guy but he was a natural heavyweight for the day (cruiserweight now) and he beat a lot of good--and a couple of great--light heavies along the way. But he was also quirky and lost to a few little guys plus a draw with Mickey Walker. Still, I agree that beating Sharkey would have indeed taken away much of the questions regarding Tunney heavyweight prowess, and might have set up an aging Tunney versus a prime Schmeling as his swan song instead of finishing against the little-remembered Heeney.

dan1030 wrote:...and he apparently learned those lessons pretty well, 'cause he beat Greb--who wan not only one of the greatest, but one of the most colorful fighters of all time--3 times if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure Tunney went 3-1-1 against Greb...which would be easy enough to confirm, if I wans't too lazy to go to the bother of checking another part of this very sight.

Greb beat Tunney badly in the first fight. He beat Tunney almost as badly in the second fight yet was given what was considered one of the worst decisions in boxing history. Greb accomplished this feet despite giving up height, weight, reach, age, hometown advantage, being harrassed constantly by Gene Tunneys "supporters" with death threats and having to care for a terminally ill wife. The third fight went to Tunney legitimately (although Greb still thought he won, no great fighter ever thinks he lost), The fourth fight which was a no- decision was ruled by 2 of the 3 Cleveland (that being where the fight was held) newspapers as a win for Greb, the third had it a draw. The fifth fight was also a legitimate win for Tunney in which Tunney was not only coming into his prime but was fighting an aged middleweight whom he outweighed by nearly 15 pounds. Contrary to the more recent popular myths to the effect that Greb stated he would never fight Tunney again after the fifth fight, there were actually negotiations for a sixth Tunney-Greb bout to be held in Miami in mid 1926 in conjunction with an auto race. Greb consented to the fight but the match fell through when Tunney was made a front-runner for a Dempsey fight and Greb lost his title to Flowers. So in short: No, Tunney did not go 3-1-1. If you discount newspaper decisions he did no better than 2-1-0-2, unofficially he went 1-3-0-1. That shouldnt be a black mark on him as not many people could do that well against Greb, he being one of the greatest fighters all time of any weight.

As for the stupid myths about Dempsey having loaded gloves versus Willard all I can say is: DO your homework. There are photos of Dempsey climbing into the ring, closeups, in which you can see his BANDAGED hands. His bandages were applied in the presence of one of Willards seconds and he shook Willards hand before the fight (dont you think Willard would have noticed the supposed concrete like substance on Dempseys hands?) The gloves were tied on in the ring in full presence of Willards seconds, not to mention the thousands of people in attendance, camera men, newspaper reporters, etc etc. So goes the myth of the loaded gloves.

Good to see Greb properly lauded, but the accounts I've been able to find all have that second fight as remarkably close, with Tunney pulling it out by having Greb nearly out on his feet in the final two rounds. According to Bert Sugar, most of the newspapers agreed with the decision, although the famous William Muldoon did voice his opinion that Greb should have won. Still, seems to me that it was close enough to have a divided opinion rather than being an obvious miscarriage of justice, not an uncommon occurance for a great fight. But I've never seen the bout, and I would love to have a better contemporary source of reference for how the fight was perceived. Interesting to note that middleweight Greb beat Tommy Gibbons before Gibbons challenged Dempsey, and Tunney KO'd the tough Gibbons later--which Dempsey failed to do. Although it seems an odd comparison, all of this gives creedence to Tunney's fights with the great middleweight as being a good indication of his worth at heavyweight.[/quote]

If you were to compile a list of first hand accounts of the Greb-Tunney 2 bout you would find that overwhelmingly Greb was considered the winner. Many newspapers even demanded an investigation. Prior to the fight Greb had been told by numerous parties that he could not win a decision. After the fight Greb was given a trophy with an inscription stating something to the effect that "in honor of your victory over Gene Tunney, you lost the decision but won the fight".

Jukejar wrote:Excellent point about Sharkey; he is a missing link in Tunney's heavyweight profile. Supposedly there were no interesting challengers for Tunney, at least in his own mind, hence hanging up the gloves. Sharkey was not a huge guy but he was a natural heavyweight for the day (cruiserweight now) and he beat a lot of good--and a couple of great--light heavies along the way. But he was also quirky and lost to a few little guys plus a draw with Mickey Walker. Still, I agree that beating Sharkey would have indeed taken away much of the questions regarding Tunney heavyweight prowess, and might have set up an aging Tunney versus a prime Schmeling as his swan song instead of finishing against the little-remembered Heeney.

Shakey is a real under-rated guy. He was widly inconsistant and often failed to extend himself, but when he was on he was on. If you look at film of him, its remarkable how flashy and fluid he was. He was a white fighter who fought in a more flashy 'black style' and he was truly a well built guy-a 195 lber who trained 'down' to that weight (he had massive shoulders and arms). I think a determined Sharkey is a tough match for almost anyone, including Gene Tunney.

I'm glad Sharkey is getting some good words in this thread. Look at the old films and you see that Sharkey was one of the smoothest heavyweights of his day. He would have been a better match for tunney. I don't know the details surrounding Tunney's last defense vs. Heeney. Maybe he just wanted a payday before leaving.
By the way, on Memorial Day I saw Bob Feller, Cleveland Indians Hall of Famer, talking about his WW2 experience. He said he was in the Navy and spent some time working with Tunney, who was the USN physical fitness director.

crooked nose wrote:I'm glad Sharkey is getting some good words in this thread. Look at the old films and you see that Sharkey was one of the smoothest heavyweights of his day. He would have been a better match for tunney. I don't know the details surrounding Tunney's last defense vs. Heeney. Maybe he just wanted a payday before leaving.

Tunney was quoted as saying that he only agreed to another fight with promoter Tex Rickard because both Tunney and Rickard presumed that they would be able to convince Dempsey to fight Tunney for a 3rd time. Everyone knew that they would probably have a $3 million gate, but Dempsey repeatedly refused stating that he was worried about being blinded. Tunney, obviously, wanted to prove that he could beat Dempsey indisputably, and Rickard, obviously, wanted to make as much money as possible.

Tunney had agreed to a fight in 1928 and Rickard had agreed to a guarantee of a little over $500,000 to Tunney for the fight - without specifying who he had to fight because they both expected it to be Dempsey.

Sharkey had been given 2 chances in elimination fights to fight Tunney - by fighting Dempsey and by fighting Heeney. He lost to Dempsey by a KO, and he drew with Tom Heeney. Tunney could have allowed Sharkey to be the 1928 contender, but by then I think that he really hated Sharkey.

When Tunney was asked to give a lecture about Shakespeare at Yale University during his reign, he chose one of Shakespeare's plays which included a character who was a loud-mouthed braggart and than Tunney compared that character to Jack Sharkey.

That's how he felt about Sharkey, and I think that's why he didn't give Sharkey a chance. Who knows what Sharkey might have said about Tunney as Sharkey was trying to get a chance for the championship title. I read that Dempsey started to hate Tunney when Tunney was clamboring for a chance at the title. Tunney probably rationalized that since he was retiring, Sharkey would be able to fight for the title with someone else.

Tunney was so cool, calm, and collected whenever he fought, and Sharkey was so easily manipulated emotionally that I don't think that there would have even been a true contest between them. Jack Johnson commented in a 1930 Self-Defense magazine article that Sharkey didn't even know how to 'feint.'

Bumping this topic for my favorite boxer of all-time. It's amazing how little respect this guy gets. One of the first and best to "put the science into the 'sweet science'." You'd think his name would pop up more often.

I remember seeing an interview in which Muhammad Ali was asked about how he would fare against some of the great fighters of the past (Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano). Tunney was the only one to which he answered with some uncertainty. That's saying something.

I think Tunney should be given credit as a great heavyweight despite the few fights he had at HW. It's based on quality, not quantity. And while Dempsey was on the downside of his career, he was still formidable. Despite the controversy in the fight, he did find a way to beat Sharkey to earn his second shot at Tunney. Just like a past his prime Charles gave Marciano two good fights, Dempsey was still a tough fighter to beat and Tunney did it twice.

As far as how Tunney would do against Baer and Frazier:

I think Tunney outboxes Baer easily. Baer did not take his training seriously, and a schooled fighter like Tunney would avoid Baer punches throughout the fight while winning a comfortable decision.

Against Frazier, I think Tunney is cooked. Frazier would have no respect for Tunney's punching power and just stand at his chest all fight long. Eventaully a left hook would get him. Greb was a fighter that got in close as well and had success against Tunney, and Frazier is 3 inches taller and forty pounds heavier.

Nice to see this thread back--Tunney definitely deserves to be remembered. And not just for the Dempsey fights--I'd kill for film of any of the Greb matches!

A quick note on the issue of loaded gloves; Gunboat Smith spoke of wrapping his knuckles with insulating tape, said it was common at the time. But back to Tunney, after whom, incidentall, I named my dog after him and I have a picture of him on my wall. From what film I've seen he had exceptional technical skill, movement that was purposeful, not mere skipping around the ring, and he was an effective body puncher. I've read- at a later date I'll post the title of the book, which is the best I've read on the Heavyweightn champions- that his jab was superior to that of Liston and Louis, that his right was quite powerful, especially when landed under the heart and to the solar plexus, and that he and Marciano were 1/2 when it came to being the most disciplinedand determined hws of all time. Dempsey himself said he believed Tunney could've beaten the count and was glad he didn't win the 2nd fight as that would have meant a third and he wanted no more of Tunney beating him about the eyes. And I certainly wish Tunney had fought Sharkey as I've read that when he was on his game Sharkey was truly something to behold.

I reckon he could have been very good, he didn't defend the title like he should have done for a bit. But obviously he just thought mission accomplished i spose. Only ever seen the Dempsey fight with him but he looked great, he just outclassed Dempsey, he would just stand there and look at Dempsey as if to say "come on then m8!" and he would just tie him up in boxing.