BoxRec

Just one defeat in 85 fights on points to the great Harry Greb, which he later avenged 3 times. He was the only fighter to knock out Tommy Gibbons in 106 fights (something Dempsey couldn't manage) and he beat Georges Carpentier.

Plus of course he beat Jack Dempsey twice. So how do you rate these wins and Tunney as a fighter?

Your heading doesn't match your question. Are you asking - despite the heading - how one rates Tunney's career overall or are you asking one to rate his wins for Dempsey?

Sounds like he's asking both.

I rate him and his wins over Dempsey very highly, though many will probably say he didn't face Dempsey at his best.

He's the kind of boxer who demonstrates how important intelligence and discipline are in the art.

I rate him very highly over all, much higher than Dempsey. Probably top 20 all time, as a Heavyweight I think he's very overrated, probably top 25. At his best, I think Jack would have stopped him.

Classifying how I would rate the wins. In the same category as the Spinks/Holmes fights, but probably a notch down.

raylawpc wrote:Your heading doesn't match your question. Are you asking - despite the heading - how one rates Tunney's career overall or are you asking one to rate his wins for Dempsey?

To rate him in general and his wins over Dempsey.

i think he was one of the first totally modern
boxers. his wins over dempsey are difficult to
judge, but IMHO most underrate the achievement
due to jack fading and so forth. i think he would
have given dempsey a difficult fight at his prime.
it could well be that a smart and moving boxer
was jack's cryptonite. who knows. in any case
he might not have been prime with tunney, but
he took a young sharkey out between their fights,
so he was not totally out of it.

overall tunney decided to have a short career
and these are most of the time controversially
judged, especially if someone moves up in weight.
simply leaves too few fights to look at.

They were great wins regardless of the outcome. One of boxing's greatest scientific fighters. I thinking man's fighter like the great Sugar Ray Leonard.

They were great wins over a faded ATG Dempsey. I think Tunney may be one of the most under-rated HWs of all time, probably due to his early retirement.

I agree. Old-time writers almost always had him in the top 10. In the 1980s when The Ring scored the champs with marks out of 10 over 10 different categories I'm pretty sure Tunney came 4th or 5th.

The main problem is that he didn't have a long career at HW and he'd be a tiny HW today...obviously he'd bulk up but as they do, but still...

Controversial wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Your heading doesn't match your question. Are you asking - despite the heading - how one rates Tunney's career overall or are you asking one to rate his wins for Dempsey?

To rate him in general and his wins over Dempsey.

Over Dempsey: Jack was over-the-hill, and I think the 1922 version of Dempsey would have defeated the 1926-27 version of Tunney.

In general: He deserves his reputation as an ATG, and I think probably one of the top four light-heavyweights of all-time along with Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and Bob Foster.

Dempsey had been out for 3 years the first time. I think a lot of good fighters would have beaten that version of Dempsey, but not a lot would have won all 10 rounds.

The 2nd time around, Dempsey was not as rusty, having fought Sharkey 3 months before the rematch with Tunney. (Obviously, he still wasn't at his best.) It probably wouldn't have taken a great fighter to beat this version of Dempsey, but probably would have taken a very good one.

You could make a legitimate argument that he was the best light heavyweight of all time; he and a handful of others are very close. raylaw mentioned Moore, Charles, and Foster; I would add Spinks and Langford if you count him as a light heavyweight. Thats about it.

As a heavyweight, he should be ranked around #15. His speed and boxing skills would give just about everyone problems.

Why do people think Dempsey's boxing hiatus was any different to say Ali, Leonard or Tyson?

Controversial wrote:Why do people think Dempsey's boxing hiatus was any different to say Ali, Leonard or Tyson?

When Dempsey came off his hiatus he was pretty old by the standards of his day (and let's not forget his early life was pretty tough), and he was under a lot of mental pressure - a high maintenance wife who was not happy that he was fighting again and an ex-manager - the wily Doc Kearns - who was driving him nuts with law suits, negative publicity, et al.

When fighter is off for that long, he almost always has declined significantly when he first comes back. If he keeps fighting frequnetly, he get rid of ring rust and get better than his first fight back, but he isn't going to be as good as he was when he was in his prime.

Ali clearly wasn't the same when he first came back, he gradually improved, but was never as good as he once was. Some people that don't like Ali like to pretend that he was better than ever so that they can count his losses against him.

Leonard was not as good against Hagler as he was during his prime, though he was much better than expected. Unlike Ali, he fought sporadically in his comeback and had mixed performances. Some people that don't like Leonard like to ignore the fact that he was off so and somehow claim that he should have not got the decision against Hagler.

As for Tyson, some people want to excuse all of his losses, even the Douglas one. However, sometimes his detractors go overboard. For example, he doesn't get near the credit he should for beating Bruno during his comeback. However, by the time Tyson fought Holyfield, he was fighting an opponent that was clearly past his best. If you could put a numerical value on this, Tyson at about 85-90% of his best lost to Holyfield who was at about 80% of his best. I would argue though, that Tyson didn't look as bad in that fight as some of his detractors claim.

To sum it up, a lot of this goes to bias. Some people are rabidly anti-Ali, Leonard, or Tyson. Other like some of their key opponents that they fought during their comebacks and need to pretend they were at their best so that it makes their favorites look better.

However, if you objectively go through over 100 years of boxing history, you will be hard pressed to find other fighters that got better after a layoff of 3 years or more, and almost all got significantly worse. This certainly applies to Dempsey.

Ambling Alp II wrote:As for Tyson, some people want to excuse all of his losses, even the Douglas one. However, sometimes his detractors go overboard. For example, he doesn't get near the credit he should for beating Bruno during his comeback. However, by the time Tyson fought Holyfield, he was fighting an opponent that was clearly past his best. If you could put a numerical value on this, Tyson at about 85-90% of his best lost to Holyfield who was at about 80% of his best. I would argue though, that Tyson didn't look as bad in that fight as some of his detractors claim.

Aw C'mon. Tyson spent 3 years in prison after a high profile rape trial, had issues with training and partying while Holyfield was supposedly a fitness freak. Holyfield went on to beat Moorer, Rahman, Ruiz and was competitive against Lewis. What did Tyson accomplish after the two Holyfield fights? How exactly do you come up with these silly percentages?

I think Dempsey is very overrated. His title reign was poor, he fought sporadically and held up the title for years. I rate Tunney as a top 15 ATG and he was one of the most intelligent and successful fighters of all time. Retiring with everything intact, his mind, finances and reputation. He picked fights at the right time, I read that Tommy Gibbons had tried to make a fight with him a few times with Tunney saying he wasn't ready. Tunney was the final bout of Gibbons amazing career.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:As for Tyson, some people want to excuse all of his losses, even the Douglas one. However, sometimes his detractors go overboard. For example, he doesn't get near the credit he should for beating Bruno during his comeback. However, by the time Tyson fought Holyfield, he was fighting an opponent that was clearly past his best. If you could put a numerical value on this, Tyson at about 85-90% of his best lost to Holyfield who was at about 80% of his best. I would argue though, that Tyson didn't look as bad in that fight as some of his detractors claim.

Aw C'mon. Tyson spent 3 years in prison after a high profile rape trial, had issues with training and partying while Holyfield was supposedly a fitness freak. Holyfield went on to beat Moorer, Rahman, Ruiz and was competitive against Lewis. What did Tyson accomplish after the two Holyfield fights? How exactly do you come up with these silly percentages?

Tyson lost his desire after the Holyfield fights. Holyfield looked ok against Moorer in the rematch, but to put it bluntly, Rahman and Ruiz were not very good. Holyfield would have beaten them much easier in his prime. The Holyfield-Ruiz fights were awful. Holyfield looked awful in the first Lewis fight, and only fought in spurts in the rematch.

Except for the knockdown, he didn't look good vs Bowe in most of their 3rd fight, he looked awful against Moorer the first time, didn't look impressive vs Bobby Czyz. Going into the Tyson-Holyfield fight, everyone thought Holyfield was shot. No one was saying that about Tyson.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Tyson lost his desire after the Holyfield fights.

I'm sorry Alp, but that comment is just rediculous. I'm the first one to chuckle when appologists make excuses for Tyson in Tokyo, but you're comments on Tysons abilities and desire after 3 years in jail, a rape trial and I'm pretty sure some pretty serious partying are nothing short of an Il Duce.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Except for the knockdown, he didn't look good vs Bowe in most of their 3rd fight, he looked awful against Moorer the first time, didn't look impressive vs Bobby Czyz. Going into the Tyson-Holyfield fight, everyone thought Holyfield was shot. No one was saying that about Tyson.

I agree, he certainly went from looking like a shot fighter to being almost impervious to Tyson's punches, hard to explain.

Holyfield had slipped quite a bit since the 2nd Bowe fight; he was starting to get old and had been in a lot of tough fights where he took a lot of punishment.

Tyson clearly wasn't as good as he was before the prison term. He was never going to be as good. However, he had been back for 15 months and for 4 fights before taking on Holyfield. He had looked reasonably good. He was as close to being at the level he once was as he was ever going to get.

I don't buy the partying excuse; who knows about that. You can throw that out for anyone.
The real clues are pretty clear; Tyson was only 30, while Holyfield was 34. Almost every fighter is significantly better at 30 then 34. Tyson had the layoff which hurt him, but Holyfield was older and had taken a lot more punishment.
Not saying Holyfield beat Tyson at his very best; but Tyson was closer to his best than Holyfield was to his.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Holyfield had slipped quite a bit since the 2nd Bowe fight; he was starting to get old and had been in a lot of tough fights where he took a lot of punishment.

Tyson clearly wasn't as good as he was before the prison term. He was never going to be as good. However, he had been back for 15 months and for 4 fights before taking on Holyfield. He had looked reasonably good. He was as close to being at the level he once was as he was ever going to get.

I don't buy the partying excuse; who knows about that. You can throw that out for anyone.
The real clues are pretty clear; Tyson was only 30, while Holyfield was 34. Almost every fighter is significantly better at 30 then 34. Tyson had the layoff which hurt him, but Holyfield was older and had taken a lot more punishment.
Not saying Holyfield beat Tyson at his very best; but Tyson was closer to his best than Holyfield was to his.

I don't believe Tyson was in better shape. Holyfield has alway been a clean living fitness fanatic, Tyson the complete opposite. Plus Tyson was at his best in his very early 20s, not in his 30s, his style of fighting isn't something that had longevity. Tyson's lifestyle is well documented, the partying, the drink, the drugs, the street fights, arrests etc....Tyson even says himself he was in much better condition in the Holyfield rematch than the first fight, he didn't think Holyfield stood a chance against him, he was just too arrogant for his own good.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Except for the knockdown, he didn't look good vs Bowe in most of their 3rd fight, he looked awful against Moorer the first time, didn't look impressive vs Bobby Czyz. Going into the Tyson-Holyfield fight, everyone thought Holyfield was shot. No one was saying that about Tyson.

I agree, he certainly went from looking like a shot fighter to being almost impervious to Tyson's punches, hard to explain.

Tyson barely landed any punches of significance in the entire fight. His nastiest blow was that wicked headbutt he initiated and he certainly got the worst of that.

Controversial wrote:Plus of course he beat Jack Dempsey twice. So how do you rate these wins?

One win was fair... One was not.

Crease wrote:

Controversial wrote:Plus of course he beat Jack Dempsey twice. So how do you rate these wins?

One win was fair... One was not.

I assume you mean the long count, how was it not fair?

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:Why do people think Dempsey's boxing hiatus was any different to say Ali, Leonard or Tyson?

When Dempsey came off his hiatus he was pretty old by the standards of his day (and let's not forget his early life was pretty tough), and he was under a lot of mental pressure - a high maintenance wife who was not happy that he was fighting again and an ex-manager - the wily Doc Kearns - who was driving him nuts with law suits, negative publicity, et al.

That and Ali had two comeback fights before facing his arch nemesis. Dempsey had none.