Championship. Gene Tunney vs Jack Dempsey (2nd meeting). All rounds. Sep. 22, 1927. Soldiers Field, Chicago, Illinois, United States. Джин Танни против Джека Дэмпси, 22 сентября 1927 г., все раунды, поражение Дэмпси (UD).
Gene Tunney was a GREAT fighter. The most underrated and under appreciated HW champ. He should have been and should still be a iconic example of a Champion, inside and outside the ring. Better than Dempsey?, NO. Very few contemporaries believed that statement. Top fighters and trainers have attested. The two times they fought Dempsey was past prime. First fight he was 3 yrs out of the ring and in total turmoil in his life. He figured he KO Tunney in under 5 rnds. Tunney fought great, my opinion , his best fight on tape. Would be very hard to beat by any HW of any era in that fight. Second fight, very different fight. Dempsey was respectful and changed his strategy. Much closer. Finally tagged him on jaw but..... Prime Dempsey beats Tunney. As most experts of the time have stated. Ex:. Journeyman LHW/HW Martin Burke fought Tunney twice, both going to decisions. He was a regular sparring partner in JD camps. He laughed at prospect of outcome of Tunney/Dempsey in JD prime. Said JD would destroy Tunney by quick KO. He also told JD to retire before Tunney fights as did JD former trainer Teddy Hayes among others. JD still good enough to beat Sharkey & almost KO Tunney. Tunney himself called JD best of his generation. Either or I think they r both top 5 in HW history without question.
I can’t see Dempsey beating Tunney any time. Tunney was too technically advanced he was fighting in a style 50 years ahead of his time. Not until Ali came along had there been a champion like that. Tunney is highly underrated and his record is one of the best beating every opponent and never losing at heavyweight
Why do you say that??? Only because Jack Dempsey is "the legendary boxer" and Gene Tunney isn't very famous today???? Gene Tunney was a great boxer, if you look at his record, he only lost one fight, and by a very questionable decision, and the most of his victories were by knockout. So don't say Dempsey could kick Tunney's ass, because Tunney was a very honourable boxer, and he won clearly that fight. I like Jack Dempsey too, but we should admit that this fight was winned by Tunney by far.
I think Tunney will standed up anyway. Tunney was a strategic fighter, and he take advantage of the extra time to recover. If you look at him, he is ready to rise up before the original count ends.
ik it’s 5 years later but i’ll say it anyway. the first one was because of the rules of the commission and the second fight was because Dempsey wanted it to be 10 rounds because of the beating he took.
Dempsey seemed to be alot more serious for this one, knowing his oppurtunities to win the title were very less. He was stupid though, cause he had tunney, but wasn't\ thinking, cause he knocked him down for 10 count.
No Jack Dempsey was the Greatest fighter & not Gene Tunney . Gene Tunney was only able to defeat Jack Dempsey because Jack Dempsey went into retirement & then came back to the ring . Gene Tunney wouldn't have stood a chance against Jack Dempsey ' that is if Jack Dempsey didn't go into Retirement . That is pretty much the only reason why Gene Tunney dominated Jack Dempsey .
And his fighting genius. I am myself a huge Dempsey fan,hell Even my name is Jack (I know thats not his birth name) but Gene Tunney won this one with his masterfull execution of his excellent plan on Dempsey.Afterall he planned it 6 years before fight itself!
Disagree completely. Tunney beats Dempsey 9 of 10 times in their primes. The great boxer will beat the slugger as long as his chin isn't glass most times.
You have to feel bad for Tunney. Jack Dempsey was no match for him either time they fought, and until that 7th round, he hadn't been knocked down, and he'd only lost once in a decision years earlier. He was Ali before Ali, and he would have beat Dempsey 10 out of 10 times no matter what point of Demsey's career. That rule of a neutral corner was being used for the first time because Jack demanded it, knowing that if Tunney put him down, it would be over for him. Dempsey saw first hand in that first fight that Tunney was miles ahead of him as a fighter. People lionized Dempsey even more after both fights with Tunney being one sided losses, and never embraced Tunney as a great champ. He probably would have went on longer and fought some great fights.
Agreed..Tunney was a splendid example of an almost perfect boxer-technician. He was so very good, but never seems to get his due when people talk of the GREAT heavies. Dempsey, Louis, Johnson, Marciano, Walcott, Ali, etc...but rarely does Tunney get his due. I love Dempsey, but Tunney was perfection. Anyone who can't appreciate what Tunney was DOESN'T know boxing.
Scott Q Hi Scott, I agree Tunney was a great fighter and I rank him between 12th to 15th of all-time as a heavyweight, but he beat an old Dempsey who was a shell of himself and should have fought until 1930 to 1932 and beaten Baer, Schlmeing and Sharkey and others. If Tunney had stayed on longer, he would get more support. But I agree, a great fighter and the second or third best light-heavyweight ever.
Tunney was hard to fight, but Dempsey won that second fight via KAYO. 1 each, IMO. that's all it takes-1 punch. dempsey hit him with about 5 to make sure. almost like the tyson//douglas round when douglas got up around 12 or 13 seconds later...Tyson's first loss was vs holyfield, IMO. long counts happen, and i just posted two of them.
I'm not taking anything away from Tunney, but claiming that he would have beaten Dempsey soundly at "any point of his career" is absolutely ludicrous. Compare what Dempsey looks like in this fight to even 3 -4 years prior against Firpo - better yet compare it to the Willard fight - Dempsey was old, slow, and tired at this point. There is a near zero chance that Tunney would have been able to hold off a prime Dempsey - he was too fast, too strong, and he simply never stopped attacking.
