Whenever there is a ranking of the best boxers of all time, should not Tunney is name always be above Dempsey's?

Gene Tunney was a better boxing technician than Jack Dempsey. Tunney did not fight with reckless abandonment shooting from the hips & dropping his hands like Dempsey did. Tunney was a master boxer with ring smarts, a great jab, sound defense & excellent conditioning.

Dempsey was a ferocious brawler who went for the kill at the sound of the bell. His tremendous heart, sturdy chin & left hook instilled fear in his opponents & probably won him several fights before stepping into the ring.

Tunney was a better boxer but Dempsey was a better fighter.

That is a very good question. How many boxing fans do u think u can find who would rank Iran Barkley over Tommy Hearns? You have a better chance of seeing flying elephants, yet, Barkley did beat Hearns twice.

Barkley is wins were more decisive than either of Tunney is over Dempsey. Yet u might find a few who would rank Tunney over Dempsey. You r not likely to find anyone who would rank Barkley over Hearns.

In terms of status, Hearns has it all over Barkley. Just like u will find many who would argue that Dempsey was old & unmotivated, so too will u find many who will say Hearns was past his prime. Still, he & Dempsey lost to men who r generally ranked below them.

Does this really mean that Tunney would beat a Prime Dempsey? It is certainly a valid debate. l say he COULD but it is not likely he WOULD. The long count in the second fight offers just as many arguments for one as for the other. Many would say that a younger Dempsey would have gotten to Tunney sooner & would have finished him off. Many will also say that Tunney benefitted from the long count.

Tunney was smart & was alert & well aware of the fact that Dempsey wasted precious time by not going to the neutral corner. He was also well aware of the rules, which Dempsey wasn't, & aware of the referee is count. Tunney just fought a very smart fight & that is the reason there r just as many debates on his behalf.

l tend to rank Dempsey slightly higher but on historical impact more so than on boxing ability. l give Dempsey 60-40 over Tunney, each being in his prime.

l do not have Tunney in my TOP 12 & Dempsey does not rank very high. l just think the later boxers have evolved further than both of them. Still, Dempsey is just a little better.

Of course. Historically speaking, boxers are better than sluggers.

Tunney was the better boxer, but not the better fighter.
Tunney is never given credit since he beat Dempsey and their second fight with the long count made Dempsey a hero.
Rankings depend on a person is total career, so looking at all of Dempsey is fights gives him an advantage over Tunney, who only fought to make money and got out without getting injured.

No. Dempsey was well past prime and coming off a long layoff. He should have won the second fight anyways due to the 'long count'. Tunney was one of the best ever though. He might have been the greatest light heavy of all time.

If the question just means ''A BETTER BOXER'' then yes, Tunney ranks above, but for overall achievement & fighting, then Dempsey tops it. Dempsey was pure ferocious, going in for the kill non-stop, throwing caution to the wind all the time. l am not so sure that Tunney is ''better boxing'' might have prevailed over Dempsey at his very best in his prime. So l think NO, Tunney should not be ranked over Dempsey just on merit of beating him twice. History will never be changed, Dempsey belongs in the top 5 ALL TIME greats, & Tunnet is NOT above him.

jack dempsey was never known as a calculated boxer.he was more of a bull in a china shop.gene tunney was the white version of muhammed Ali.tunney was 10 times better at boxing skill then dempsey