BoxRec

Hello all

I am curious why both of these title fights were only
scheduled for ten rounds, especially in an era when fights
still went (rarely however) for 20 rounds. I can not of the
top of my head think of any other title bouts that were scheduled
for only 10 rounds.

When did the 15 round mark become standardised for a
title bout.

Thanks again

Kym

Hey Robinson,

Dempsey was returning from a long layoff, as you probably already know. He was a fighter of only reasonable stamina at his peak, & that was now somewhere behind him leading into the Tunney bouts.

Dempsey's management felt a ten round bout would be better for their charge as opposed to fifteen. As one observer put it, "Dempsey could not have stood up for fifteen rounds, much less fought for fifteen rounds..." & so where the first bout was staged (was it Philadelphia? I can't recall) ten-round title bouts were permissable. Elsewhere, fifteen was considered standard.

I always wondered that myself, and the first go-around I could understand, but the rematch being 10 as well

HomicideHenry wrote:I always wondered that myself, and the first go-around I could understand, but the rematch being 10 as well

All the more reason after the initial result to have a shorter bout. Over fifteen rounds, Tunney may have knocked Dempsey out, especially in the initial fight when Dempsey was suffering even before he entered the ring. If the fight went the distance again in a rematch, Dempsey would be more likely to score a KO inside ten than fifteen.

I think that the Chicago venue for the return bout had something to do with gate pricing as well, from memory. Rickard I think could successfully charge more in Chicago than New York. This was explained in a doco I watched years ago (From the Boxing's Best series) but the details escape me.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: but the details escape me.

A lot escapes you.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Hey Robinson,

He was a fighter of only reasonable stamina at his peak

I see you never saw the film of his Bill Brennan fight.

You are full of it.

Thanks guys

Would have been nice if it went the full fifteen, atleast then we would have more footage too of them both.

Kym

granberry wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: but the details escape me.

A lot escapes you.

Crankberry, why don't you answer the original posters question?

Go on, I know you have the answers.

Impress me with your knowledge.

No abuse or talk of hitting girls. There are other forums for that sort of thing.

granberry wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Hey Robinson,

He was a fighter of only reasonable stamina at his peak

I see you never saw the film of his Bill Brennan fight.

You are full of it.

Excuse me,

But you are both jumping the gun & out of line. I don't argue with anyone more interested in flaming than debating. Keep your glib assessments of me to yourself.

Btw, Dempsey was a fighter of reasonable stamina.

Dempsey had good stamina.

He'd put a lot into the early rounds and pace himself through the mid rounds so that he could come on strong again at the end.

Dempsey also had a strong mentality. Big punchers with lot of early KO's often begin to lose concentration and confidence when opponents don't fold early (Tyson, Foreman). Dempsey didn't let this happen.

He's a definite all-time great who had one of the best left hooks ever.

It looked like he closed shop against Carpentier when he realised he wasn't going to score the knockout. He slows down dramatically, not because he's short on gas, but because he's pacing himself. He was a fighter of reasonable, not great, stamina.

& absolutely, his left hook was stunning. He & Joe Frazier would've been nice to see. Although Dempsey probably would've blown him out early I think.

& absolutely, his left hook was stunning. He & Joe Frazier would've been nice to see. Although Dempsey probably would've blown him out early I think.

Absolute nonsense. Dempsey would be in way over his head against Frazier.

Well, it's my opinion, that's all. Dempsey is savage & more importantly, a fast starter with crippling power in both hands & perfect finishing instincts. If we hear the bell for the 5th & the fight is still there, Dempsey is in over his head. But personally, I don't think Frazier will survive that long.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It looked like he closed shop against Carpentier when he realised he wasn't going to score the knockout. He slows down dramatically, not because he's short on gas, but because he's pacing himself. He was a fighter of reasonable, not great, stamina.

& absolutely, his left hook was stunning. He & Joe Frazier would've been nice to see. Although Dempsey probably would've blown him out early I think.

There was an article in The Ring in the 1980s in which they reported that Dempsey was asked not to KO Carpentier in the first round and to hold him up so the crowd got to see some action.

Don't know if it's true or not.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well, it's my opinion, that's all. Dempsey is savage & more importantly, a fast starter with crippling power in both hands & perfect finishing instincts. If we hear the bell for the 5th & the fight is still there, Dempsey is in over his head. But personally, I don't think Frazier will survive that long.

It's a fair assessment.

Carpentier? Sorry about that, I meant to say Gibbons, in which the fight went the distance.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well, it's my opinion, that's all. Dempsey is savage & more importantly, a fast starter with crippling power in both hands & perfect finishing instincts. If we hear the bell for the 5th & the fight is still there, Dempsey is in over his head. But personally, I don't think Frazier will survive that long.

It's a fair assessment.

Its not fair whatsoever. Dempsey never put away any fighter of substance that quick, an none approaching Frazier's calbre. Dempsey rushing into the bigger, stronger, tougher Frazier would spell an early evening for him.

theone wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well, it's my opinion, that's all. Dempsey is savage & more importantly, a fast starter with crippling power in both hands & perfect finishing instincts. If we hear the bell for the 5th & the fight is still there, Dempsey is in over his head. But personally, I don't think Frazier will survive that long.

It's a fair assessment.

Its not fair whatsoever. Dempsey never put away any fighter of substance that quick, an none approaching Frazier's calbre. Dempsey rushing into the bigger, stronger, tougher Frazier would spell an early evening for him.

I guess you either accept Dempsey was a great fighter or you don't. If you accept that he is then there's a good chance he could beat Frazier early.

I guess you either accept Dempsey was a great fighter or you don't. If you accept that he is then there's a good chance he could beat Frazier early. - Ezzard

I hadn't looked at it that way before. Good point.

and I suppose after a 3 year rest while holding on to that title
one should have the right to determine just how long they
want there title fight to go for.

Maybe he should have made it a six rounder.

Kym

Robinson wrote:and I suppose after a 3 year rest while holding on to that title
one should have the right to determine just how long they
want there title fight to go for.

Maybe he should have made it a six rounder.

Kym

Kym,

Tell us about our hero Ray Leonard refusing to fight Hagler unless their so-called "title" fight was limited to 12 rounds.

Tell us all about how Leonard dictated that the over half century long legitimate title fight 15-round distance be changed to 12 rounds to accomodate himself

and how the stooge "authorities" went right along with that.

theone wrote:

& absolutely, his left hook was stunning. He & Joe Frazier would've been nice to see. Although Dempsey probably would've blown him out early I think.

Absolute nonsense. Dempsey would be in way over his head against Frazier.

You are in WAY OVER YOUR HEAD trying to discuss boxing.

You are in WAY OVER YOUR HEAD trying to discuss boxing.

Discuss boxing is something you rarely do. All you ever do is troll and sabatoge nearly every topic you post a comment in. You bait everyone else and suddenly the topic is about you. You type so much shit alluding to how beneath you this site is, but here you still are. You must be a miserable, lonely old f*ck.

theone wrote:

You are in WAY OVER YOUR HEAD trying to discuss boxing.

Discuss boxing is something you rarely do. All you ever do is troll and sabatoge nearly every topic you post a comment in. You bait everyone else and suddenly the topic is about you. You type so much shit alluding to how beneath you this site is, but here you still are. You must be a miserable, lonely old f*ck.

You are in over your head when you try to post on boxing.

You are clueless when it comes to the subject.

Your posts show that.

If you don't like being called on what you are, start your own site and ban anyone who calls you for what you are---a phony.

granberry wrote:

theone wrote:

You are in WAY OVER YOUR HEAD trying to discuss boxing.

Discuss boxing is something you rarely do. All you ever do is troll and sabatoge nearly every topic you post a comment in. You bait everyone else and suddenly the topic is about you. You type so much shit alluding to how beneath you this site is, but here you still are. You must be a miserable, lonely old f*ck.

You are in over your head when you try to post on boxing.

You are clueless when it comes to the subject.

Your posts show that.

If you don't like being called on what you are, start your own site and ban anyone who calls you for what you are---a phony.

Cranky, that gibberish about Leonard forcing Hagler to fight over 12 rounds shows exactly what you know about boxing.