BoxRec

What happens?

I pick Tunney to outbox any version of Dempsey. I'd take Greb over him too. I think Dempseys reign was poor, although Tunneys was worse.

Dempsey by KO.

The kid from Colorado, from the time he left New York with busted ribs (1916), til the Willard bout (1919), was probably the most devestating puncher and most ferocious heavyweight to ever step into a boxing ring. Most guys today chalk up 20-0, 30-0 and consider themselves real pros and threats; what is remarkable with Dempsey is the fact that Dempsey began his career (in the pro ring anyways) in 1914, but between 1916-1919, he compiled a record of 31-3-5 (21). Of the 21 kayos, 14 were in the first round: three in the second round, two in the third round. Among the victims were names such as Gunboat Smith (KO2, Fred Fulton (KO1), Carl Morris (KO1), Battling Levinsky (KO3), Arthur Pelkey (KO1), Fireman Jim Flynn (KO1; revenge of his loss in 1917, this was 1918), and Bill Brennan (KO6). The only man it seems during Dempsey's 'peak' years to give him any real trouble was Willie Meehan, a little talked about fighter who went 2-1-2 (0) against the great Dempsey--- and he had a very similar style to Tunney and was one of the best fighters to never win a title.

Dempsey's career began to wane (imho) after the Carpentier fight (1921) the million dollar gate, combined with Dempsey's popularity (or infamy) led him to be in a number of serials and become a real estate investor, receiving plastic surgery and living the sort of life style that softened him--- the one thing that kept him 'alive' in a sense was the fact he would go on exhibition tours across America knocking out stiffs for $1,000 a week or better. The fact that he struggled to stop Gibbons, a light heavyweight, and avoided Harry Wills and other contenders--- but opted to fight the little known, and wildly sloppy Luis Firpo (who Kearns hand picked to be an easy title defense) and almost lost the title in that fight, goes to only prove my point that from 1916-1919 Dempsey was at his peak.

The question whether Tunney could have beaten Dempsey will always be one that will probably never be conclusively answered--- prime for prime--- however I lean towards Dempsey because the only example I can go by, is how Tunney fared with the smaller, lighter punching (but just as tough) Harry Greb in a prime for prime scenario. Greb had the same swarming, non stop action style as Dempsey and despite what record books show--- Greb won at least 3 of the 5 matches he had with Gene. Now; imagine Harry Greb being thirty pounds heavier, hitting much harder, and being even tougher, well then that is Jack Dempsey. I like how Jay Tunney, Gene's son, said it in an interview once about the famous "Long Count", that his father said (to this effect): "I could of gotten up without the extra four seconds, but I don't know if I could have kept Dempsey off me."

Gene defeated an older, slower, inactive champion whose heart and mind wasn't really in the game; and in the rematch almost got kayoed. Even that version of Dempsey was capable of not only out pointing, but also kayoing Tunney's #1 contender Jack Sharkey. The Dempsey of the 1916-1919 era? I dont know if Gene could have beaten him. Tunney would of had to of used every single trick of the trade and of been on his bicycle double time to of had a chance--- but I see Dempsey kayoing him in around seven or eight rounds.

being a big puncher is not the only thing
that counts. a boxer can outsmart a puncher,
will frustrate him and make him miss. tunney
found a way to handle a man who heavily
relied on punching power.

my guess is that prime for prime tunney wins
two out of three by wide UD and loses one by
TKO.

i do not agree with the idea that jack dempsey
is a bigger harry greb. there isn't even footage
oh greb. it's ok to have strong opinions about
one's favorite guy, but that seems too much of
a stretch.

If Dempsey could have stayed in his corner he would have knocked him out as an old man.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey by KO.

^

This would be my hunch.

man wrote:being a big puncher is not the only thing
that counts. a boxer can outsmart a puncher,
will frustrate him and make him miss. tunney
found a way to handle a man who heavily
relied on punching power.

my guess is that prime for prime tunney wins
two out of three by wide UD and loses one by
TKO.

i do not agree with the idea that jack dempsey
is a bigger harry greb. there isn't even footage
oh greb. it's ok to have strong opinions about
one's favorite guy, but that seems too much of
a stretch.

Greb, though lacking in film (though at one time there were many films of him), is one of the most documented fighters of all time---- "The Human Windmill" threw non-stop punches and was virtually impossible to hurt or stop. His style was the same as Dempsey's. Therefore, when I say imagine Greb being much bigger, stronger, with a more powerful punch, then I am about on the mark when I say that is Jack Dempsey.

True, punching power isn't the only thing that counts--- but sometimes it means everything. Gene for the most part, never fought a man with a serious punch or with a brutal style like Dempsey's, because for most of his career (save for maybe ten fights) he fought middleweights and light heavyweights who by and large are nameless wonders lost forever to history--- maybe they were good, but who knows. The bulk of his wins were during Inter-Allied Marine Corps tournaments and matches in Europe; and no offense, but he may as well of been fighting amateurs or average at best boxers.

As stated before, despite what the record books show, Tunney lost three out of the five matches he had with Greb. If Greb had punching power, he would of been more decisive in those matches. No disrespect to Gene, I think outside of Ezzard Charles he was the greatest LHW to never win the title, and in the p4p sense was one of the all-time greats. However, he (no fault of his own) never met Dempsey in his prime--- he met an inactive Jack Dempsey, who was older, slower, and lived a cushy lifestyle. Ripe for the picking. By the rematch, it was still too late, but he almost got kayoed by the Manassa Mauler.

How can you honestly believe 100% that Dempsey would lose 2 out of 3 fights in a prime for prime scenario with Gene, when truth be told, Gene never really did much at heavyweight? I can name so many others, who I think were better LHW's who went to HW--- Fitzsimmons, O'Brien, Burns, Conn, etc. those guys I think have a higher standing at HW than Gene ever did. Tunney was just lucky in the time and the order of events that transpired to become the HW champion of the world. Not taking away from his skills, or his abilities cus he was awesome---- but prime for prime? Dempsey at his best could box well, and was also the best slugger out there. He wasn't above chasing down opponents, and his constant punching--- combined with tremendous reserves--- would of wore down Tunney and the tide would of turned.

I'll go even further... I pick Marciano to beat Tunney, let alone Dempsey beat Tunney.

From the "For What It's Worth" Department:

William Brady said prime Jim Corbett would beat any version of John L. Sullivan. (Of course, Brady was Corbett's manager).

He also said prime Dempsey would have defeated any version of Tunney.

Prime Dempsey vs Tunney is one that I have gone back and forth on for years. It really could have gone either way. Tunney does tend to get undersold by many people. Watching him being knocked down (the only time in his career he was ever knocked down) is the image that many of us think of when his name comes up. He was a great boxer, hard to hit, fast, and a harder puncher than one might think. Dempsey on the other hand, was a tremendous offensive force. He would also have had Kearns in his corner, which may have helped.
A tossup.

I'm a Tunney win but a prime Dempsey wins via stoppage. He just about did it well past his prime in their rematch.

raylawpc wrote:From the "For What It's Worth" Department:

William Brady said prime Jim Corbett would beat any version of John L. Sullivan.

(Of course, Brady was Corbett's manager).

He also said prime Dempsey would have defeated any version of Tunney.

The irony is that Jim Corbett would more or less admit that had he fought the Sullivan of youth, he would of lost. Which is quite something since most people assume Corbett was light years ahead of everyone else in that era in terms of ability (not true)--- Corbett, imho, was maybe even a shade faster than Muhammad Ali considering he competed at 178 pounds.