BoxRec

Curious what the official scores were in these three bouts. Sure they were lopsided against Dempsey in all three fights, but I'd love to see what the actual scoring was. Anyone know the particulars?

Come on historians, someone has to know the particulars in regards to scores of Dempsey-Tunney I and II and Dempsey-Sharkey.

evndrbsn wrote:Curious what the official scores were in these three bouts. Sure they were lopsided against Dempsey in all three fights, but I'd love to see what the actual scoring was. Anyone know the particulars?

- I find historical scores and weights problematic in general because they're like moving goal posts.

Sorta like Gene Tunney's record on box rec, some days it's just one loss, other days it's two losses to Greb on his record.

I can recall reading the scores which were somewhat lopsided. Having viewed what's available, it's easy to understand that Rickard was having a go at Dempsey. At very least he was much more competitive than reported. He hurts Tunney in both fights but in a world of expectations that the press often whips up, he can't finish, thus losing the war of expectations a proper Great Monster is supposed to exhibit.

Add on the long count with rules Dempsey was unfamilar with, he never gets credit for the fights although the manner of his class of defeat insures his lifelong popularity. Always found it the height of the inexplicable that the fighter who'd watched tapes of that long count more than all the fighters in history combined would lose his title on the exact 14 sec long count under similar circumstances, ie, Tyson/Douglas

I have a book with the NY Times coverage of big fights from back then on til the late 70's,I'll look it up.As I recall from most accounts Dempsey only won the famous 7th round of their 2nd fight.They were apparently that one-sided.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:Curious what the official scores were in these three bouts. Sure they were lopsided against Dempsey in all three fights, but I'd love to see what the actual scoring was. Anyone know the particulars?

- I find historical scores and weights problematic in general because they're like moving goal posts.

Sorta like Gene Tunney's record on box rec, some days it's just one loss, other days it's two losses to Greb on his record.

I can recall reading the scores which were somewhat lopsided. Having viewed what's available, it's easy to understand that Rickard was having a go at Dempsey. At very least he was much more competitive than reported. He hurts Tunney in both fights but in a world of expectations that the press often whips up, he can't finish, thus losing the war of expectations a proper Great Monster is supposed to exhibit.

Add on the long count with rules Dempsey was unfamilar with, he never gets credit for the fights although the manner of his class of defeat insures his lifelong popularity. Always found it the height of the inexplicable that the fighter who'd watched tapes of that long count more than all the fighters in history combined would lose his title on the exact 14 sec long count under similar circumstances, ie, Tyson/Douglas

I love the last line of your post about Tyson-Douglas. Props to Douglas for an excellent performance but he was the beneficiary of the long count of the decade. He DID NOT make it to his feet by the count of ten, and unlike the Dempsey-Tunney debate where some say Tunney was just waiting for ref's count of nine, there is no way Douglas would ever have made it in time. I heard that Don King petitioned this but dropped it after pressure by the WBC I think. Can anyone clarify? Still bothers me to this day to watch that eighth round :x

pete wrote:I have a book with the NY Times coverage of big fights from back then on til the late 70's,I'll look it up.As I recall from most accounts Dempsey only won the famous 7th round of their 2nd fight.They were apparently that one-sided.

Thanks, pete, I'd really appreciate to finally get a peak at the official scores.

I finally found the book.Strangely announcing the actual scores of the individual judges apparently wasn't the norm back then.Merely that the decision was agreed to be unanimous that Tunney won the first fight and won every round.
From the article Tunney battered Dempsey the entire fight,was the aggressor,and Dempsey bore little of his former ferocity,though he never stopped trying.
The Sharkey fight was no different,Dempsey did decent in the 3rd where apparently Sharkey coasted but otherwise he outfought Dempsey easily until the fatal 7th.The scoring of the fight was not
listed,only a description of the fight.
The Tunney rematch it says was announced as a unanimous decision without the judges scores.The reporter says Tunney won 7 rounds,losing the 3rd,6th,and 7th rounds.
The predominant theme through the 3 fight desriptions was that Dempsey was way past what he had been.

Thank you, pete, I appreciate your promptness. Interesting to hear those reports. I didn't think Dempsey was getting beaten that badly by Sharkey minus getting staggered in the first (I think?). Anyway, didn't matter after that left hook to the chin, did it?

I can look through the Sharkey bout to come to a consesus on the scoring.It does say as bad as Dempsey was(he was merely a shell of his former self the reporter writes) Sharkey was only slightly better and no danger to Tunney's reign.Not high praise for either fighter.
The book is reprints of the NY Times actual newspaper reports and the print is very small and the articles are very long on all 3 fights,not too easy to read through.

I dont have the scores but I just read an interview with one of the judges in 1926 right after the first Tunney fight. I cant remember the judges name but he was from Pittsburgh and was being interviewed in Pittsburgh upon returning home from Philly. He said he gave every round to Tunney.