jack dempsey is the most overrated.....

[Southpaw16BF]

[QUOTE=TheManchine;5171647]Here's a newspaper account of one of those "draws":

Oakland Tribune, 1917-08-11:

“Willie Meehan got a draw with Jack Dempsey at Dreamland last night, but Willie and Billy Snailham, the referee, were about the only people who saw it that way. For Dempsey hit all the punches of the bout that did any damage. Meehan’s whirling slaps made a lot of noise and made him look as though he were doing something, but that is about as close as he came to doing anything in the way of holding his own with Dempsey.

“Meehan resorted to his old time clown tactics but they did not buy him anything. About all they did was to keep the minds of the spectators off Meehan’s fat stomach. About ten seconds before the final gong, Dempsey brought home a right upper cut that came close to finishing Meehan and the gong was about all that saved him from dropping before the limit.”

Many of these fights may have been pre-arranged draws, which means that in case that the fight goes the distance, no official winner will be announced regardless of who looked better at the end. BoxRec.com often goes by newspaper reports but it's possible that no reports of these particular fights were found so they are listed as draws on Dempsey's record.

For example the Tommy Loughran fight was listed as a win for Tunney for years until a conflicting report was found. At first it was actually changed to a loss for Tunney but now it's a no contest.

BoxRec is definitely not the place to get all of your boxing knowledge from, which is why the site states that "data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate

Agreed, some boxing fans just assume BoxRec is fact, they are inaccurate about a lot of things, especailly in many era's down the line.

[joseph5620]

.When Dempsey fought Gene Tunney the second time a fighter who was in his prime, by many boxing experts Dempsey should of been the winner due the famous long count, in which Tunney was belived to of been down 14 seconds.


I've always disagreed with that. Tunney was clear headed enough to get up before the count of 10. It wasn't like Tunney struggled to get up. Looking at the film shows that. He just took advantage of the long count because he was watching the referee count and he had every right to do that. I will never believe that it made a difference in the outcome.

[JAB5239]

.When Dempsey fought Gene Tunney the second time a fighter who was in his prime, by many boxing experts Dempsey should of been the winner due the famous long count, in which Tunney was belived to of been down 14 seconds.


I've always disagreed with that. Tunney was clear headed enough to get up before the count of 10. It wasn't like Tunney struggled to get up. Looking at the film shows that. He just took advantage of the long count because he was watching the referee count and he had every right to do that. I will never believe that it made a difference in the outcome.

A fighter can only go by the refs count. Tunney did this, same as Douglas vs Tyson.

Now.....had Dempsey not called for the nuetral corner rule before the fight....maybe things are different. As it is..Tunney beat the count fair and square.

[Dave Rado]

A fighter can only go by the refs count. Tunney did this, same as Douglas vs Tyson.

Off topic, but that raises questions about the Ali-Liston rematch though.

[TheGreatA]

The problem a lot of people had with the second Tunney-Dempsey fight was that when Tunney knocked Dempsey down, the referee did not force Tunney to go to a neutral corner but instead allowed him to stand right over Dempsey and continue fighting as soon as Dempsey got up.

[Southpaw16BF]

.When Dempsey fought Gene Tunney the second time a fighter who was in his prime, by many boxing experts Dempsey should of been the winner due the famous long count, in which Tunney was belived to of been down 14 seconds.


I've always disagreed with that. Tunney was clear headed enough to get up before the count of 10. It wasn't like Tunney struggled to get up. Looking at the film shows that. He just took advantage of the long count because he was watching the referee count and he had every right to do that. I will never believe that it made a difference in the outcome.

He may have looked clear headed, but that isn't fact. And there may have been a good chance if Dempsey had got back to a nuetral corner, straight away, Tunney may have not made it back to his feet......

[joseph5620]

[QUOTE=Southpaw16bf;5177477]He may have looked clear headed, but that isn't fact.


And what evidence do you have that it wasn't "fact"? Tunney was clear headed enough to follow the referee's count and get up. That is "fact"

[joseph5620]

The problem a lot of people had with the second Tunney-Dempsey fight was that when Tunney knocked Dempsey down, the referee did not force Tunney to go to a neutral corner but instead allowed him to stand right over Dempsey and continue fighting as soon as Dempsey got up.

That's is a legitimate gripe. The other one is not.

[Southpaw16BF]

[QUOTE=joseph5620;5177885]

He may have looked clear headed, but that isn't fact.


And what evidence do you have that it wasn't "fact"? Tunney was clear headed enough to follow the referee's count and get up. That is "fact"

And was evindence do you have that it is fact? Because he was looking at the ref, while the ref was counting? I belive when the ref was telling Dempsey to go back to his corner, this give Tunney alot of time to regain his senses and come around, it would of been very interesting to see the ref just count staright away.....

[JAB5239]

Off topic, but that raises questions about the Ali-Liston rematch though.

This is just my opinion, but I've felt for some time that that was a poor stoppage that Walcott mishandled. The count wouldn't have been nearly that long had Ali gone to a nuetral corner. Can't blame Liston for that. That said...I think Sonny laid down in this fight. He legitimatley got caught, but looking at the tape I think he could have gotten up but knew he couldn't win.