By Tom Donelson

Conventional wisdom can be correct when backed by facts and years of experience.  Sometimes conventional wisdom is based less on facts and more on opinion and speculation.

Conventional Wisdom: Jack Dempsey was over the hill when Gene Tunney beat him in 1926 and 1927.  In his prime, Dempsey would have crushed Tunney like a grape.

Do the facts support this conventional wisdom?  Here are some facts.  Dempsey did, indeed, take a three-year layoff and much of his championship reign was marred by more time off than actual fighting.  This layoff was due to Dempsey own decisions and not by other factors. Between 1923 and 1926, Dempsey had opportunity to fight Harry Wills, a leading challenger to the title for nearly a decade. This fight never came off for many reasons, not the least due to Wills skin pigmentation.

No doubt that Dempsey was rusty when he fought Tunney for the first time but he was also only 31 years old and over his championship reign, he rarely found himself in a war. His most two more impressive fights against Jess Willard and Luis Firpo were quick affairs that did not see the fourth round.  Dempsey was not that far removed from his prime when he took on Tunney.

The 1919 version of Jack Dempsey was a killing machine at his peak when he devastated Jess Willard.  (It should be pointed out that Willard was past his prime and had not fought in three years.  Often Willard is a much-maligned fighter but he was a decent heavyweight when Dempsey defeated him. Willard place in history is guided by his defeat of Jack Johnson and his lost to Dempsey, but no one ever penalize Dempsey for beating a past his prime fighter to gain the championship but they do penalize Tunney for beating Dempsey.)

In 1923, Dempsey defeated slick boxing Tom Gibbons but Gibbons went the distance.  Two years later, Tunney stopped Gibbons.  While the argument can be made that the 1919 version of Dempsey could have defeated the 1926 version of Tunney but the 1923 version of Dempsey would have trouble-defeating Tunney. 

Tunney easily dominated Dempsey in their two fights. Most boxing observers at that time gave almost every round to Tunney. Most boxing historians often focus on the famous long count in the seventh round in their second fight, what is forgotten is that in the following round, Tunney returned the favor and knocked Dempsey down. In their first fight, Dempsey had to be helped to middle of the ring in order to congratulate Tunney since his eyes were so swollen that he could not see.  If either fight were scheduled for 15 rounds, Tunney most likely would have stopped Dempsey.

Before their second fight, Dempsey had a tune up fight and it would be Tunney would come into the rematch with a 12-month layoff.  It cannot be assumed that Dempsey would have easily defeated Tunney as many often think.  Tunney was a great boxer and had pop in his own punch as Dempsey face showed after their two fights. 

Conventional Wisdom: Mike Tyson would have been one of boxing's great and easily defeated Evander Holyfield had they met earlier in their career.

This is easier to debunk the Tunney-Dempsey controversy. When Tyson defeated Michael Spinks in less than two minutes, he was a killing machine at his peak.  Three years later, he was schedule to take on Evander Holyfield for the title.  In those three years, Tyson lost his title to Buster Douglas and Holyfield snatched the title from Douglas with one of boxing's great uppercuts.   At the age of 25, Tyson would have been the favored just as he was in 1996 when they fought.  Would Holyfield have defeated a younger Tyson?

Here are the facts. When Tyson fought Holyfield, Holyfield was considered the shot fighter and coming off two of his worst fights. Tyson had the disadvantage of three year layoff due to a rape conviction but going into this bout, he had tune up fights and held one of the title belts. 

Holyfield whipped Tyson and the fight ended with Tyson stopped in the eleventh. In their second fight, Holyfield won the first two rounds before Tyson decided to munch on his ear.  Holyfield had the ability to take Tyson's best shots and the boxing skills to make him pay.

If these men fought in 1991, the results would have been the same. The 1988 version of Tyson might have beaten Holyfield at his peak but the 1991 version of Tyson would have encountered the same problems that he faced five years later.  A great fighter who could take his best shot and deliver punches in return. Holyfield did not fear Tyson and at his peak, stood toe to toe with some of the boxing's best.  Holyfield slugged it out with George Foreman and took Foreman's sledgehammer shots.  At his peak, Holyfield had a remarkable chin and recuperative powers in the ring. 

Tyson was a excellent heavyweight in his own right but if Tyson could not have beaten Holyfield at the age of 34, he wouldn't been able to stop Holyfield at his peak.

Conventional Wisdom: Muhammad Ali lost to Joe Frazier due to his layoff.

This is some difficult coventional wisdom to disagree with, but here are some facts to consider. No doubt that Ali lost something by not fighting for three years but the night he fought Frazier, he was still under the age of 30.  He had two tough tune ups so he came into the fight ready.

Frazier was one of the boxing's greats and had the right style to challenge Ali. He could take Ali's best shots and punish Ali to the body.  The night that they fought, Ali fought a great fight in his own right. It was not a one-sided affair like the Tunney-Dempsey fight, and in the ninth round of their first bout, Ali had Frazier in trouble.  This was a close fight and the closeness of the bout gives credence to the conventional wisdom that Frazier could never have beaten Ali if Ali never had his three-year layoff.

There is one thing that needs to be considered. Frazier was a great fighter in his own right and it has to be conceded that maybe Frazier would have found a way to beat Ali at least once.  Finally, there were many pundits and historians in the late 60's or early 70's that felt Ali would have lost to Rocky Marciano.  (Remember the famous computer bout in which a computer had one scenario in which the Rock knocked Ali out in the thirteenth round.) And Frazier could easily be considered Marciano equal in both style as well as power.  Plus Frazier rarely cut whereas Marciano nearly lost his second fight to Ezzard Charles due to cuts.  

Summary

Much of conventional wisdom is often based on opinion and speculation as oppose to facts.  There are no clear facts to indicate that Dempsey would have easily beaten Tunney if he faced Tunney earlier in his career.  If Dempsey had fought Tunney in 1924 or 25, Tunney still would have won.   Maybe the 1919 version of Dempsey would have defeated Tunney but not the 1924 or 25 version or even the 1923 version that defeated Gibbons and Firpo.

Like Dempsey, Tyson exists as much in mythology as what actually happened in the ring. Tyson was one of the best Heavyweights in his generation but he was not the best and one reason for that was Evander Holyfield.  Holyfield defeated Tyson, but going into the fight, the conventional wisdom had Holyfield as being a shot fighter and no true obstacle to Tyson. History showed otherwise.

Finally, conventional wisdom may have been right in the case of Ali-Frazier.  The night that Frazier defeated Ali,  Ali's performance would have beaten any other heavyweight. Instead, Ali was fighting a Frazier at his peak and no doubt that the three-year layoff hurt his timing.  The counter argument was that Ali had two tune ups against top-notch heavyweights and Frazier at the time was one of the best fighters in boxing. After a review of the facts, it could still be conceivable that if Frazier fought Ali three times at their peaks, Smokin Joe would still have won at least once.