BoxRec

Posted: **12 Feb 2014, 22:49**

Ambling Alp II wrote: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?

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 09:30**

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

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 09:38**

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.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 10:02**

Ambling Alp II wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote: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.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 10:22**

Ambling Alp II wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote: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?

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 14:30**

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.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 14:34**

Ambling Alp II wrote: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.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 14:58**

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 . . .

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 15:45**

Ambling Alp II wrote: How can Frazier decline that much from 1971 to 1974? It makes no sense.

How about his eyesight was getting worse and worse? What is it with you and this age thing? You're not a stupid man, don't let your lust for certain fighters make you into one. You want to talk about how Wilfred benitez was only in his mid-20's when Hamsho mauled him?

To claim that Ali was a better fighter in Manila than he was in the FOTC is one of the more outlandish things you'll ever see. I'm sure Muhammad and Dundee would give you a

on that one.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 16:24**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:To claim that Ali was a better fighter in Manila than he was in the FOTC is one of the more outlandish things you'll ever see.

I like Alp, so I just left that one alone. I guess we can all be blind at times, but that's pretty extreme.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 16:33**

The Great John L wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:To claim that Ali was a better fighter in Manila than he was in the FOTC is one of the more outlandish things you'll ever see.
I like Alp, so I just left that one alone. I guess we can all be blind at times, but that's pretty extreme.

We don't get along, but I respect his knowledge of the sport. He's just insane when it comes to Ali & Leonard and I don't understand it. They're unquestionably two of the greatest fighters of all time. They don't need an excuse for every loss.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 16:59**

The Great John L wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:To claim that Ali was a better fighter in Manila than he was in the FOTC is one of the more outlandish things you'll ever see.
I like Alp, so I just left that one alone. I guess we can all be blind at times, but that's pretty extreme.

Could not disagree with you more. He was dead tired midway in the first fight and only fought in spurts thereafter. He threw many more punches in the 3rd fight despite there being extreme heat. Virtually everyone I have ever talked with outside of this forum has agreed with me about this. Not sure when the Thrilla in Manila went from one of the greatest fights of all time to a fight between two washed up has beens.

Obviously we are miles apart on this and I don't feel it's worth discussing anymore. This thread is supposed to be about Tunney anyway and we have hijacked the thread enough.
I'm going to move on.

John L- Say what you want if want to reply.
Obviously Saad will reply because he always must have the last word even though he rarely has anything useful to say.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 17:21**

Ambling Alp II wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:To claim that Ali was a better fighter in Manila than he was in the FOTC is one of the more outlandish things you'll ever see.
I like Alp, so I just left that one alone. I guess we can all be blind at times, but that's pretty extreme.

Obviously Saad will reply because he always must have the last word even though he rarely has anything useful to say.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 17:43**

@ the question of Ali-Frazier trilogy.... a swarmer will generally burn out faster than a counter puncher, tactician, etc. so I happen to agree with the logic that when Ali beat Frazier in Manila, it didn't necessarily mean much because men of that kind of style are essentially burned out by the time they are late 20's early 30's.... which always impressed me with Tyson that he managed the success that he did into his late 30's, then again Tyson fought alot of set-up's at that stage in his career.... For me, Frazier beat the best version of Ali possible--- Norton didn't beat the best version, etc. but Ali didn't beat the best version of Joe, not even in their rematch.

@ the question of Dempsey-Tunney.... I think it speaks for itself, that it was a passing of the torch, where one man was older, slower, and didn't have the fire in the belly anymore, where a younger, faster guy did... as for Gene Tunney's overall ranking, I think outside of Ezzard Charles he was the best LHW to never win the crown, but as a heavyweight I dont know if I can honestly say he was any better than say Spinks was, in fact I may argue he was less than Spinks.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 18:25**

HomicideHenry wrote:@ the question of Ali-Frazier trilogy.... a swarmer will generally burn out faster than a counter puncher, tactician, etc. so I happen to agree with the logic that when Ali beat Frazier in Manila, it didn't necessarily mean much because men of that kind of style are essentially burned out by the time they are late 20's early 30's.... which always impressed me with Tyson that he managed the success that he did into his late 30's, then again Tyson fought alot of set-up's at that stage in his career.... For me, Frazier beat the best version of Ali possible--- Norton didn't beat the best version, etc. but Ali didn't beat the best version of Joe, not even in their rematch.

Yep. Hijacked . . .

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 18:46**

If the next statement off anyone keys is not about Dempsey or Tunney...I'll be very disappointed.

Ray is 100% correct.

Back to the subject matter.....or I'll unleash a torrid of multisyllabic communication designed specifically to be critical of your judgment, in a focused attempt to steer you down the appropriate path.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 18:49**

I think Tunney would give Ali and Frazier a tougher fight than Dempsey would.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 18:54**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think Tunney would give Ali and Frazier a tougher fight than Dempsey would.

Tunney and Frazier, there's a hypo..... there's a bout that has had little in the way of reflection.

......DOH!!!!! I see what you did there.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 19:30**

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure when the Thrilla in Manila went from one of the greatest fights of all time to a fight between two washed up has beens.

I think those are your words, because I don't recall seeing anybody else say that. Some of the best fights I've ever seen were fights between guys that almost nobody had ever heard of before or after the fight. Talent level certainly contributes to the greatness of an event, as it did in the FOTC, but higher talent levels do not ensure a great fight.

I know of no one other than you who would say that either Ali or Frazier exhibited greater skill in Manilla than in the FOTC. In fact I would call it almost an indefensible position.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 19:31**

Il Duce wrote:Gene Tunney vs. Jack Dempsey

If both of those bouts were Scheduled for 15-Rounds, Gene would have TKO'd Jack in both of them.

Tunney - Dempsey I ................ TKO 14

Tunney - Dempsey II................ TKO 12

Jack would have went down 'swinging'. But Gene would have taken him apart after Round 10 in both bouts.

Jack Dempsey > "It's easy to quit on your stool. Right 'MA'."

I dont get the logic, considering Dempsey was better in the rematch than in the first fight, so how the eff could you assume he would lose EARLIER in a 15 round fight than in the first?

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 19:59**

Il Duce wrote:
Obviously you haven't seen the 2nd-Bout.

Jack was 'on weary legs' at the end of the 10th-Round, as Gene was having a picnic scoring with solid one-two's. Jack could
barely walk back to his corner. He was 'spent'.

FACTS- Before Tunney/Dempsey I the Manassa Mauler hadn't fought in three years, seldom gave exhibitions, etc. he went into that fight in the worst possible shape he could of been

-Before Tunney/Dempsey II, the Manassa Mauler fought the #1 contender Jack Sharkey and leading on all the scorecards, kayoed Sharkey in the 7th round

-Tunney/Dempsey II, need I say more than the LONG COUNT CONTROVERSY?

Dempsey in the rematch was better prepared, and better all around than the version who stepped in to meet the Fighting Marine the first go around--- that version couldn't hit Tunney with a handful of corn, and in the rematch almost kayoed Tunney.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 20:05**

Il Duce wrote:
In the 2nd-Bout,

Jack fought well thru Round 7, and yes scored the Knockdown. But he tired in Round 8.

Are you forgetting that Gene dropped Jack to one-knee in Round 8 = "Flash-Knockdown'.

How could anyone forget the crooked referee, who demanded Dempsey go to a neutral corner after dropping Tunney, but delivered a count as fast as lightning the moment Dempsey's knees touched the ground without ordering Tunney to go to a neutral corner?

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 20:32**

Tunney comfortably win both fights. Dempsey held up the title and did not fight the best men of his day. He was beaten by good but not great fighters before Tunney. Gene Tunney was the best man Jack faces and he was beaten by him twice and ducked out of a lucrative rematch.

Tunney beat Harry Greb one of the greats at his best weights. Dempsey doesn't have wins like that on his ledger. Greb chased a Dempsey fight when he was beating all the best light heavyweights and most of the heavy weights of the day.

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 21:35**

HomicideHenry wrote:
Il Duce wrote:
In the 2nd-Bout,

Jack fought well thru Round 7, and yes scored the Knockdown. But he tired in Round 8.

Are you forgetting that Gene dropped Jack to one-knee in Round 8 = "Flash-Knockdown'.
How could anyone forget the crooked referee, who demanded Dempsey go to a neutral corner after dropping Tunney, but delivered a count as fast as lightning the moment Dempsey's knees touched the ground without ordering Tunney to go to a neutral corner?

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

Posted: **13 Feb 2014, 21:40**

raylawpc wrote:
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.

BoxRec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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