BoxRec

granberry wrote:

pundit wrote:

granberry wrote: 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.

Right, your comprehension is visibly not on my level, but this is not my fault.

pundit wrote:

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.

i didnt say he "did" knock him out. i said he "practically" knocked him out which is true.


enough with this gene tunney nonsense. u make fun of marciano for beating old men. tunney made a living out of beating washed up fighters like gibbons, carpentier, levinskey, dempsey or green fighters like loughran, risko. say all u want about harry greb, just remember tunney only went 2-2 with the MUCH lighter greb when both weighed in at 175lb or less.


u just have a bias agenda against dempsey and u are in love with wills and tunney.



btw, harry wills never blamed jack dempsey for not fighting him. he said it wasnt dempseys fault. HARRY WILLS SAID THIS HIMSELF.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:

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.

i didnt say he "did" knock him out. i said he "practically" knocked him out which is true.

enough with this gene tunney nonsense. u make fun of marciano for beating old men. tunney made a living out of beating washed up fighters like gibbons, carpentier, levinskey, dempsey or green fighters like loughran, risko. say all u want about harry greb, just remember tunney only went 2-2 with the MUCH lighter greb when both weighed in at 175lb or less.

u just have a bias agenda against dempsey and u are in love with wills and tunney.

btw, harry wills never blamed jack dempsey for not fighting him. he said it wasnt dempseys fault. HARRY WILLS SAID THIS HIMSELF.

Let's continue when your blood pressure is down a bit.
P

Gene Tunney was a great fighter and an outstanding citizen.

Did he duck black fighters? Probably.

Was he alone in this? Hell, no!

We should judge him on the times he lived in where ingrained racism was accepted as the norm.

pundit wrote: Right, your comprehension is visibly not on my level, but this is not my fault.

It would hard for ANYONE else's comprehension to fall to your level, punkit

since your level of comprehension when it comes to boxing is at zero (a cipher).

granberry wrote:

pundit wrote: Right, your comprehension is visibly not on my level, but this is not my fault.

It would hard for ANYONE else's comprehension to fall to your level, punkit

since your level of comprehension when it comes to boxing is at zero (a cipher).

Did you pick this up from the class bully in your kindergarden?

I'll leave you to wallow in your own juvenile ignorance, punkit.

>>>First, there's no such thing as "Olympic Golden Gloves." There is the Golden Gloves competition, and there are the Olympics. Oliver won the Golden Gloves at heavyweight, and represented America in the Olympics, where he didn't medal.<<<

Of course there isn't Decagon...not in your knowledge, but in the 1930s...well, we have seen what you really know about that time period...though I do have various newspaper articles to back my statement...do you? And for the record...since you again have no clue...it was not the Olympics...I'm not certain, but I pretty sure that it was perhaps a lead up to the Olympics...I'll have to do a little more checking before I yap out anything based on assumption!

Just for you Dec...newspaper quotes...would you like some more?



“ Art Oliver, American Olympic Golden Gloves heavyweight title holder, who won a six round decision over Max Baer last week, has been signed for an appearance at Marigold Gardens next Monday.”

Chicago Daily Tribune
October 13, 1936
Page: 27



“Chuck McCarthy, former Cleveland sectional Golden Gloves heavyweight champion, has been chosen to oppose Art Oliver, American Olympic Golden Gloves champion, in a five-round semi0final at Marigold Gardens Monday.”

Chicago Daily Tribune
October 16, 1936
Page: 36



“The professional debut of Art Oliver, American Olympic Golden Gloves champion, in his home town in conjunction with three wrestling shows…”

Chicago Daily Tribune
October 18, 1936
Page: B7


Why don't you actually try to check something out before you yap incoherently about thingts you have no idea about to begin with...correcting you is getting old!

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.

In the book "In This Corner" by Peter Heller, Dempsey said" I look back on the fight, he wasn't hurt too bad. Tunney would have got up"
p. 61 of the Expanded Edition, Copyright 1994. Orignial Edition was 1973.

On page 60, Dempsey also said "Tunney, I don't know if I could lick him even at my best".

On page 60, Dempsey also said "Tunney, I don't know if I could lick him even at my best".

yea and louis also said he would have never beaten marciano on his best day.


1918-19 wild hungry animal jack dempsey licks tunney IMO. dempsey would have caught up to tunney, no doubt. he was just as fast as tunney at his best.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

On page 60, Dempsey also said "Tunney, I don't know if I could lick him even at my best".

yea and louis also said he would have never beaten marciano on his best day.


1918-19 wild hungry animal jack dempsey licks tunney IMO. dempsey would have caught up to tunney, no doubt. he was just as fast as tunney at his best.

I wasn't saying that Dempsey couldn't have beaten Tunney. I'm just pointing out what Dempsey said. It's obvious from this quote and from what else that he said about Tunney that he thought Tunney deserved respect as a great fighter; something that you don't seem to have figured out yet.

Couldn't help but notice that Decagon yet again runs from a topic when factual evidence is brought forth to refute all the incorrect bullshit he tries to yap...

barry wrote:Couldn't help but notice that Decagon yet again runs from a topic when factual evidence is brought forth to refute all the incorrect bullshit he tries to yap...

Yes you have proven that there was something called an Olypic Golden Gloves title in the 30's, although you admit you're not sure exatcly what that meant. And Decagon seems to have dropped out of the argument. You won one. Congratulations. Your life is complete. Now go back to the Jackson-Duran thread and explain how Duran had only one style in the ring -- a "bull rush" style -- whatever that means.

Decagon wrote:
I admit to being confused.

That's a start.

>>><That's a start<<<

I guess it is something that he admitted to being confused, but he erased the sincerity by trying to pretend like he knew.

John L...I asked you to give some examples of Duran the defensive-wizard as you see, or to explain to us what boxing is all about, which I noticed you were not able to do in the Duran thread...I didn't think you could...so what do you do...you talk about Chuck Wepner...LOL...very good move and can I emphasis the quality of dodging the issue? The way it works is this...you give some examples when asked and then I counter, but if you are unable to give any examples, like you demonstrated, then shut about it because the only other thing you are doing, or accomplishing is yapping incoherently about something that you very much seem to have no clue about!

barry wrote:John L...I asked you to give some examples of Duran the defensive-wizard as you see, or to explain to us what boxing is all about, which I noticed you were not able to do in the Duran thread...I didn't think you could...so what do you do...you talk about Chuck Wepner...LOL...very good move and can I emphasis the quality of dodging the issue? The way it works is this...you give some examples when asked and then I counter, but if you are unable to give any examples, like you demonstrated, then shut about it because the only other thing you are doing, or accomplishing is yapping incoherently about something that you very much seem to have no clue about!

barry, as I mentioned you are incapable of understanding that boxers fight different styles, and that there are more than the two you seem to be capable of recognizing. To you a fighter is either a Pernell Whittaker defensive wiz or fights in a "bull rush style". You were the first to bring up the fact that Duran fights a "bull rush stle", so you need to explain what this means.

barry tell us what a "bull rush style" is??

As far as my examples, you must have skipped the mention of the DeJesus fights, or are those fights examples of Duran's "bull rush" style of fighting? I think he was pretty slick against Buchanan and in Leaonard I as well. Now put up or shut up. As usual, you have absolutely no examples, and no capability of debating. You have researched boxing for years but do not possess the intelligence to assimilate the information in any meaningfull way and simply become nasty and abussive when someone questions your baseless opinions.

Oh yes, the way it works with you is you say something really stupid and then when called out you simply redirect the discussion. You made the stupid statement, not I. Please show me where I called Duran a "defensive wizard", or compared him to Pernell Whittaker. I simply said your statement about Duran's style was stupid.

I don't even think YOU are stupid enough to believe that Duran could only fight one style. The mysterious "bull rush" style. I've listed a few fights where he didn't fight in a "bull rush" style. Don't you agree?

Now again. Tell us what a "bull rush style" is??

As I said...you make a point and answer the questions I asked and then I'll respond, but I'm not going to waste my time stating my thoughts if you are simply just going to ignore the questions that I asked first!

barry wrote:As I said...you make a point and answer the questions I asked and then I'll respond, but I'm not going to waste my time stating my thoughts if you are simply just going to ignore the questions that I asked first!

You actually did state a thought. A really stupid thought.

Barry, this is how it works.

1, Barry makes stupid statement.

2. Someone (this time it was me) calls him on stupid statement.

3. barry makes up things that weren't even posted and evades any explanation of stupid statement.

4. barry claims high ground and continues evasive maneuvers.

barry, I asked the first question in this exchange and then even answered some of your redirection. Now, please answer my original question.

What is Duran’s “bull rush” style?

John L---Blah...blah...blah! Whenever you start trying to make a debate that is not completely ignorant and childish, then I will respond, but as long as you continue to run from and ignore the questions I asked then all you are doing is yapping like an idiot!

barry wrote:John L---Blah...blah...blah! Whenever you start trying to make a debate that is not completely ignorant and childish, then I will respond, but as long as you continue to run from and ignore the questions I asked then all you are doing is yapping like an idiot!

Is that your description of a "bull rush" style? Very simple with absolutely no defense? If so, I think Duran's style was a bit more sophisticated than that.

If that is how you understand it to be...then yeah...that's it!

Tunney would have always been able to beat Dempsey. Dempsey was never that good against boxers. Brennan, who is nowhere near Tunneys level almost gave Dempsey more than he could handle. Fat Willie Mehan made Dempsey look foolish on several occasions.
Dempsey looked the most dominant against big luimbering fighters who might as well have been heavybags with gloves on, or against alot smaller opponents like Gibbons and Carpantier.

theone wrote:Tunney would have always been able to beat Dempsey. Dempsey was never that good against boxers. Brennan, who is nowhere near Tunneys level almost gave Dempsey more than he could handle. Fat Willie Mehan made Dempsey look foolish on several occasions.
Dempsey looked the most dominant against big luimbering fighters who might as well have been heavybags with gloves on, or against alot smaller opponents like Gibbons and Carpantier.

Dempsey KO'd Brennan twice, in six rounds and then twelve rounds in the rematch. He was not in serious danger of losing. Willie Meehan was 2-1-2 against Dempsey in four-round fights, something Meehan was accustomed to. Had he fought Dempsey in a ten-rounder, I don't see Willie winning. Meehan also won a four-round decision over Sam Langford in 1919, but what does that mean? Not much.

Even if you think prime Tunney beats prime Dempsey, it is absurd to suggest that Tunney is leagues above Dempsey. A creaky, post-prime Dempsey badly hurt Tunney in the return bout, something that leads to suggest that Dempsey was very capable of doing it in his prime also. Tunney would never have an easy time with a prime Jack Dempsey standing in front of him. History suggests he'd have his hands full, possibly even tackling more than he could handle.

Dempsey KO'd Brennan twice, in six rounds and then twelve rounds in the rematch. He was not in serious danger of losing.

Most accounts of the 2nd Brennan fight is that Brennan was ahead in the scoring after ten and that Dempsey was wobbled in the second round.

Willie Meehan was 2-1-2 against Dempsey in four-round fights, something Meehan was accustomed to. Had he fought Dempsey in a ten-rounder, I don't see Willie winning. Meehan also won a four-round decision over Sam Langford in 1919, but what does that mean? Not much.

2-1-2 in fourt round fights says alot against Dempsey. Its says that for at least 16 rounds Meehan was competitive with the great Dempsey. I cant imagine a fighter of his quality being that competitive with any other all time great. Dempsey gets cut way too much slack for these losses.

When Langford lost to Meehan, he was past his best, out of shape and not a true heavyweight anyway.

Even if you think prime Tunney beats prime Dempsey, it is absurd to suggest that Tunney is leagues above Dempsey.

When did I state this?

A creaky, post-prime Dempsey badly hurt Tunney in the return bout, something that leads to suggest that Dempsey was very capable of doing it in his prime also. Tunney would never have an easy time with a prime Jack Dempsey standing in front of him. History suggests he'd have his hands full, possibly even tackling more than he could handle.

Dempsey droppped and stunned Tunney, that much was evident. Badly hurt? That is highly debatable. Tunney seemed able to rise early in the count and moved around with no ill effect the rest of the fight. If it were prime Dempsey it can be easily argued that Tunney would have been more careful and not have allowed Dempsey to land the combination that put him done in the first place. After 16 one sided rounds its not surprising that Tunney got careless.