Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 74

Thread: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    797
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    dang, they used part of the 4th round as round ten. Than they clip it to the end of the round,

    Dempsey was not relly hurt in round ten. But there rewritting history when they switch flop rounds like that.

  2. #32
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    tunney at nine to possibly 10 seconds--well he would have had to scramble up real fasr. tunney was a remarkable fighter. i dont know if he would make it cause it was at LEASTnine seconds when he saw the ref. thanks

  3. #33
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    agree with pete and mr. e on this one.

  4. #34
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    pete--you know --that is a real losey quality fim. towards the 12 second mark something jerked on that thing. the speed is off. tunney was on his ass--at least 17 seconds in real time off of first generation film. i didnt even consider time getting up etc. tunney was also nine seconds fully when he saw the ref--and would have to get up immediately within one second or less from a postion he would not have . eighter way--dempsey won. the only person not that confused was dempsey -who knew he was going to hit something, the timekeeper, and some exfighters near ringside.

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    289
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    I just watched it on youtube and looks to me like he picked up the count around 7.I guess there's a question as whether the time was accurate on that clip, but if it was, I think it's possible he could have gotten up, but it would have been awfully close. I also think there's a good chance that Tunney would have finished the round even if Jack had a few more seconds to work with. I know Dempsey didn't let up on a guy when he had him hurt, but Willard and firpo made it out of the first round, so maybe Tunney makes it out of the 7th?

  6. #36
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    this particular film was not done on 35mm nor 16 mm--it was done of 8mm!! ill go by the fingings of leanord and igoe, beeler the time keeper, and my own version--not 8mm. igoe and beeler--beeler had three stopwatches, one used specfically for kndowns--tunney was on the canvas for 17 seconds--as well as speed real time of lenard-17 to 18.anyhow if tunney makes it up,without being counted out on the way up--odds are against his surving.

  7. #37
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    this particular film was not done on 35mm nor 16 mm--it was done of 8mm!! ill go by the fingings of leanord and igoe, beeler the time keeper, and my own version--not 8mm. igoe and beeler--beeler had three stopwatches, one used specfically for kndowns--tunney was on the canvas for 17 seconds--as well as speed real time of lenard-17 to 18.anyhow if tunney makes it up,without being counted out on the way up--odds are against his surving.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,407
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Most here are leaving out the obvious in that before the ten count Tunney with clear eyes locked in on the ref, digested the situtation and went on to win. If he was so badly hurt, he would not have survived no matter a few seconds of rest. The only question was if he could have gotten up before ten and I say yes.

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Saved my ass. First of all this is the biggest non controversy in boxing history. There is no controversy. The neutral corner rule was in effect, Dempsey did not go there, which caused a delay in the count. Period.

    Now, for you speculators, even if the count was continuous anyway, I have little doubt that Tunney would have beaten the count, and if he had, that he would have done exactly what he did do and had been doing and continued to do for 20 rounds of their fighting, and that's run, stick and tie up, and completely outbox Dempsey. Even during the very round that Dempsey dropped him, Jack never laid another glove on Gene. He had Jack's number, and the knockdown was more of an anomaly than anything, just like Shavers decked Holmes only once in two fights, but in most every other round Larry dominated.

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    289
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike
    this particular film was not done on 35mm nor 16 mm--it was done of 8mm!! ill go by the fingings of leanord and igoe, beeler the time keeper, and my own version--not 8mm. igoe and beeler--beeler had three stopwatches, one used specfically for kndowns--tunney was on the canvas for 17 seconds--as well as speed real time of lenard-17 to 18.anyhow if tunney makes it up,without being counted out on the way up--odds are against his surving.
    Both Firpo and Willard were dropped seven times (and without Dempsey going to a neutral corner!) and they managed to get through the round. Why not Tunney?

  11. #41
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    tunney was saved -big time.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,407
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Apollack: I give Dempsey far more credit than Shavers over Holmes. Shavers basically landed on shot in those 21 rounds....Dempsey was far more competitive as a whole. While he lost rounds, he was deeply in many. The knockdown was the result of a brilliant combination that reflected Dempsey's past speed. It was no one shot it was half a dozen, thrown at close quarters in a blur of a second. IT adds to the rub of the whole thing.

  13. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    "Why is the Long Count" even considered controversial?
    Oh, I don't know, maybe due to the fact that Tunney was down longer than any other fighter I can remember without being counted out? That the referee obviously blew the call by starting at one rather than picking up the count from the scorer at ringside? That once Gene looked at the ref "with clear eyes" at the real count of nine he then stares off into the distance with all of the coherence of a block of aged cheese? That Angelo Dundee called Barry's count the worst/slowest he had ever seen (Angie described the ref as a Lawrence Welk wannabe: "A one-a and a two-a and . . . .")? That sports writers in general -- not only boxing writers -- who seem adverse to giving boxing any publicity at all continue to vote "The Long Count" one of the greatest sports controversies ever? That Tunney was still flat on his ass at the "official" count of nine, after which Barry (for some unfathomable reason) stopped counting, even though Gene was still holding onto the rope at what should have been "eleven"?
    Gosh, how is that anyone even remembers this inconsequential instant some sevety-nine years later? PeteLeo.

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    A lot of referees count too slow. I don't think it is right at all, and I think they should be encouraged or taught how to do a proper ten count. Some count too fast. Tyson-Douglas was a slow count. At 10 seconds, Dougals was clearly down. Should that have been a KO for Tyson? If you think Dempsey should have won, then to be consistent, you should also think Tyson won.

    Also, sometimes the penalty for not going to the neutral corner is that the count is suspended. If you don't want it suspended, go to the neutral corner.

    For example, when Ali failed to go to the neutral corner against Liston in their rematch, Walcott should have considered the count suspended until he did. When he returned to Liston, he should have picked up where he left off, which is at 1. Otherwise, you don't give the fighter a count and penalize him for what the other guy did wrong. The fighter should get a count. Do you agree that Liston shouldn't have received a count because Walcott should have picked up the count at where it was, which was 10, and therefore agreeing with his stopping the fight without giving him a count?
    Last edited by apollack; 09-24-2006 at 05:07 PM.

  15. #45
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    tunney was saved by incompetant ref --thats it . he slowed the count. the steped right on the next count -when dempsey went down--he sure worked fast when a couple of minutes later--dempsey goes down - maybe too fast for comfort--or at least --comoeteancy.

  16. #46
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Quote Originally Posted by HE Grant
    Apollack: I give Dempsey far more credit than Shavers over Holmes. Shavers basically landed on shot in those 21 rounds....Dempsey was far more competitive as a whole. While he lost rounds, he was deeply in many. The knockdown was the result of a brilliant combination that reflected Dempsey's past speed. It was no one shot it was half a dozen, thrown at close quarters in a blur of a second. IT adds to the rub of the whole thing.
    agree above. dempsey was definately in there. tunney did just enough to win--all he wanted to do. dempsey too dacerouf to play with. the RUB was what grant was reffering to those blurr of payooff ,short punches. i do need to stopwatch the kndown again re tunneys time to look at ref. if it was 9 seconds --he woulnt have made it. if not he would have. dempseys fault to begin with--but the ref didnt help matters both-knockdowns- to clarify anything.

  17. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    The Douglas-Tyson matter has been dealt with. There was no suspension of the slow count, Buster used the ref's cadence to gauge when he had to rise (and still it's damned close to a count-out -- I was elated when Douglas got up and resumed kicking Mike's ass, but if you watch the tape, you'll see that the official ten could have been called without controversy; I wouldn't have liked it, but I couldn't have argued it too much). Tunney was in no shape to judge anything until ten or twelve seconds had passed. The two incidents don't equate.
    You're not saying that every count has to be "suspended" until the standing fighter is in the neutral corner, are you? (Certainly Barry didn't think so, given the knockdown of Dempsey and his response.) In that case EVERY knockdown would have to begin at one after the upright contestant was safely nestled in the appropriate corner, and that ain't the way things operate. According to the writer of THE LONG COUNT (whose name escapes me), it was agreed before the fight that the ringside knockdown official would start counting in the event of a flooring and the referee would take up the count from him. Even given the "suspending" of the count due to Dempsey's reaction ("I stay here"), three or even four seconds would have passed before Barry signalled for such a suspension, and he (Barry) then should have resumed tolling at four or five, NOT one. Watching Tunney's vacant, braindead expression immediately after the point when he first looks to Barry (it's only on faith that anyone can say Gene was picking up the count then, anyhow -- he may have been saying to himself, "What the hell's this bastard doing in my bedroom?") leads me to believe that Tunney didn't have enough time to recover and rise if Barry had resumed at five rather than starting over altogether.
    No matter how long such arguments continue, the films show incontrovertibly that Barry reacted in two completely diametric ways to the two knockdowns . . . and both reactions favored Tunney.
    Dempsey was screwed. PeteLeo.
    Last edited by PeteLeo; 09-25-2006 at 03:18 AM.

  18. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,295
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Well, you might be right. I am also troubled by the fact that Barry did not send Tunney to the neutral corner when Dempsey was dropped. Only defense there is that Dempsey rose at one, so Barry may have just thrown in a one count as a recognition that it was a knockdown. Also, yes, you are correct in that Tunney looked awfully silly and out of it there for a number of seconds while he was on the floor. But ultimately, I think really what beat Dempsey was father time and most importantly, inactivity. It got almost every champ before Dempsey, and it got him too. A young Dempsey wouldn't have had to worry about a long count because he would have been able to finish Gene off, long count or no, if he had the younger legs and the sharper legs and consistent offensive output that he had in his younger days. Three years of inactivity is the deathnail of a great fighter. And Dempsey knew it too. He really didn't want a third fight with Gene, and notice, he didn't want more than 10 rounds. He was happy with the long count because it helped with his legend and the fans sympathized with him. That way, he could go out with the fans saying, "You got screwed," rather than, "Damn, Gene beat you three times in a row, boy he's got your number." There's no doubt that he wasn't the same. Hell, even Jack Sharkey was doing well with him. And I tell you a young Dempsey would have easily KO'd Sharkey within 3 rounds.
    Last edited by apollack; 09-25-2006 at 12:45 AM.

  19. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Quote Originally Posted by HE Grant
    Most here are leaving out the obvious in that before the ten count Tunney with clear eyes locked in on the ref, digested the situtation and went on to win. If he was so badly hurt, he would not have survived no matter a few seconds of rest. The only question was if he could have gotten up before ten and I say yes.
    No, another question is, "When, in real time, did Tunney pick up the count?" It wasn't 7-- more like 9 or 10 -- if you're looking at a clip adjusted to reflect a 3-minute round, as opposed to the high-speed, Jimmy Jacobs version.

  20. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Quote Originally Posted by apollack
    Saved my ass. First of all this is the biggest non controversy in boxing history. There is no controversy. The neutral corner rule was in effect, Dempsey did not go there, which caused a delay in the count. Period.

    Now, for you speculators, even if the count was continuous anyway, I have little doubt that Tunney would have beaten the count, and if he had, that he would have done exactly what he did do and had been doing and continued to do for 20 rounds of their fighting, and that's run, stick and tie up, and completely outbox Dempsey. Even during the very round that Dempsey dropped him, Jack never laid another glove on Gene. He had Jack's number, and the knockdown was more of an anomaly than anything, just like Shavers decked Holmes only once in two fights, but in most every other round Larry dominated.
    No, upon Dempsey's ultimate retreat to the neutral corner, the ref had discretion to start the count anew or to pick up the count from the timekeeper. Question is, did he exercise that discretion properly under the circumstances? If he was influenced by forces outside the ring, such as the Capone set (and if you don't think those forces were truly and consistently in play in boxing during the 1915-1955 era, you are kidding yourself), then the decision was corrupt.

    The statement that Jack never 'laid another glove' on Gene is inaccurate and indicates to me that it may have been some considerable time since you watched the last three rounds of that fight.

    The statement that the knockdown was 'more of an anomaly than anything else' is, in my humble opinion, also inaccurate. Tunney was a great great fighter-- he didn't give Dempsey many chances but when he did misjudge the distance between his back and the ropes -- perhaps his lone blunder in 20 rounds -- Dempsey recognized it and pounced. And that, at least, was a point w/ respect to which both Dempsey and Tunney concurred.

    Again, real time film makes it seem like Tunney doesn't even lift his head and start focussing until at least nine. Had the ref picked up the count from the timekeeper, Tunney would still have been figuring out where he was when Dempsey's hand was being raised as the first fighter to regain the heavyweight championship of the world.
    Last edited by Mr E; 09-25-2006 at 01:01 PM.

  21. #51
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    main thing here is real time film. i have it as does mr. e. thats nine seconds when tunneyjerked his head--no way from his position is he getting up --its that simple. dempsey was smart enough not to have a rematch--if dempsey knew he could win--bad eye or not--he would have had the rematch. he couldve won--but its best to pack bags. THE RUB of course was that whole kd sequence. had those punches and quickness been anything less than sensational--as opposed to long distance, sloppy garbage--no body would have thought much about --dempsey REALLEY got lucky. but that sequence was dramatic in its effetiveness and technique, speed, power. thanks

  22. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Dempsy v Tunney. The stuff legends are made of. Hell even my old man had a opinion. Mine? I think Tunney could have gotton up. Jack had no legs to catch him. BUT, take away the neutral corner rule and Jack kos Gene when he gets up. Jack, given leverage was some killer. Hes one of the few who hurts EVERYONE he hits...............
    The ref was in the Tunney camp far as Im concerned. Tunney was connected with guys who could make that happen. But Gene was great, a all time great and didnt need much help.

  23. #53
    mike
    Guest

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    tunney was great,no doubt. just the way that 7 th round-beginnig to the kndown --was all very, very impressive. had it been a lucky punch, some wild arm puching disply--nobody would care about it,at all. but it wasnt , and as you say rocky, a legend revolves around it. like louis, dempsey was no arm punching, lucky punch one punch killer--they did the most effective thing in punching--short, hard, flurries and sequences--as you know --anbody who ever been hit woth such short, one hand from another--is the ONLY way to go. all fighters try to do it --few can do it so well. thanks

  24. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    311
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    The thing that strikes me when you watch the film is just how effective Tunney is in avoiding Dempsey's attack when he gets up. He does seem to struggle to beat even the ref's long count and could easily have been counted out - the ref is looking at Dempsey as he starts (and stops) bringing his hand down for the 10 - but Gene appears to be in total control of his legs and his senses from that moment. I'm not sure he could have risen at a genuine 9-count - that he struggled at the ref's count perhaps suggests no - but that he was so in control of his senses thereafter perhaps points in the otehr direction.

  25. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,503
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    where do these stories come from?

    never heard of jack saying "i stay here"

    tunney had his eyes on the refs count...has it was presented to him and responded by getting up and on his bike.

    in every interview i always heard was of tunney saying he was aware of what was happening and could have beaten the count as presented by the ref.

    my grandfather heard the fight on radio and truly believed jack regained the title that nite...just on instinct...but counts and rules coming into play also believed jack simply fucked up.
    greg

  26. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    394
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Maybe it bears repeating that a knockout results from a 10 count by the referee, not being on the floor for 10 seconds. A referee dealing with a rule violation suspends the time clock. The rule violation was in not proceeding to the neutral corner; a count can begin (or be picked up as a fighter "proceeds to the neutral corner, if he doesn't proceed, the referee deals with that as a violation. In the case of Dempsey being knocked down, He was up so fast that Tunney didn't have time to get to a neutral corner, if he had lingered over Dempsey, maybe Barry would have stopped that count as well, but it didn't go on long enough to matter.

    Greg's Dad is right...Jack fucked up. And by the way, I think Gene got his ass knocked out and was indeed lucky with the way events transpired.

  27. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    I give little weight to Tunney if we are looking for him to be self-deprecating. Tunney's penned pieces reinforced his image as the cool-calculating renaissance man, as likely to pen a master-work as he was to throw a double hook while perfectly balanced against the toughest tuff imaginable. Of course the Manly Marine says he was ok. that was his deal.

    I am sure he felt he could have gotten up at any time. My deal is that had he HAD TO GET UP after 9 seconds instead of 14, 13, 12, whatever... it is an entirely different ballgame against finisher like Dempsey. More importantly to me is that had Dempsey not screwed up and gotten his ass neutral, perhaps HE is in better capacity to mete out the finishers?

  28. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Good points Sharkey!

  29. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    Ever read Tunney writing about himself? Excellent writing.. but man was he pompous and affectacious(sp?).

  30. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Tunney Saved by Long Count?

    I’m sorry, but I have looked at that film a bunch of times now, and I just don’t see how Referee Dave Barry “screwed” Dempsey.

    Regarding the so-called “long count” knockdown: When Tunney hits the canvas, Barry immediately raises his arm as if to start the count. It is only when Barry sees that Dempsey isn’t heading to a neutral corner – as the rules required – that Barry fails to bring down his arm; instead, he goes right to Dempsey and then urges him to go to the neutral corner. Barry did exactly what was required in the rules agreed to by the principals before the fight: that is, he didn’t start the count until Dempsey headed to the neutral corner. Furthermore, it is clear to me that Tunney got up after Barry counted nine and before he reached ten. From the film, it appears Barry calls out the count each time his arm reaches the end of its downward swing. When Tunney arises, Barry’s arm is in the air and he has neither completed his downward swing nor called out the ten count.

    In short, it appears to me that Tunney beat a legitimate count, started fairly and squarely when Dempsey refused to go to the neutral corner. But was it a slow count? Who the heck can tell from this old film? Actually, it looks to me like Barry was taking his count from the timekeeper (so maybe the blame, if any, rests with that guy!). Could Tunney have beaten the count if Dempsey had headed to a neutral corner and Barry, thus, had started the count immediately? Could Tunney have survived even if he had beaten a count that started immediately? I don’t know and I don’t care. I agree with James Dawson of the New York Times who was there at ringside that night: “His refusal to observe the boxing rules of the Illinois State Athletic Commission, or his ignorance of the rules, or both, cost Jack Dempsey the chance to regain the world's heavyweight championship . . . in the ring at Soldier Field.”

    Regarding the knockdown in the eighth round: Barry does rush toward the fighters with his arm upraised – apparently in anticipation of a count - when Dempsey hits the canvas. Problem is – Dempsey is already on his feet before Barry's arm reaches its full downward motion and he apparently calls out “one." (In truth, Tunney is blocking a clear shot of Barry's face, so one can't be sure whether or not Barry actually called out a count.) Although Barry appears to start the count, Dempsey certainly arose before Barry could finish the swing of his arm, or count "one." And, if Dempsey had stayed down and Tunney had failed to go to a neutral corner, can anyone say with complete and absolute certainty that Barry would not have stopped the count until Tunney made his way to a neutral corner?

    I don’t buy that Barry screwed Dempsey, or somehow favored Tunney. In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, Dempsey rabbit punched Tunney throughout the early rounds, but received not one warning from Referee Barry! Chicago Tribune, 9/23/1927, p. 1. One of the judges – George Lytton – was quoted in the Tribune saying that “he believed Referee Barry had been fair throughout, but had made one mistake in failing to penalize Dempsey for the use of the rabbit punch. The challenger used this forbidden blow at least twenty-five times, he declared.” Chicago Tribune, 9/27/1927 p. 1 (emphasis added by me). (Incidentally, Lytton did not believe Tunney could have beaten the count had Dempsey gone to a neutral corner and the count began immediately.) Furthermore, I recall reading once that Barry made Dempsey's seconds remove the Vasilline from Dempsey's face only after Tunney's cornermen protested its use (it apparently was not within the rules to put Vasilline on a boxer's face in those days.) If Barry was biased in Tunney’s favor, why didn’t he penalize Dempsey for repeatedly fouling the champion with rabbit punches, and why did he let Dempsey wear Vasilline until Tunney's seconds protested?

    I also searched “Dave” “Barry” “referee” in the Chicago Tribune from 1/10/1910 to 12/31/1950 on ProQuest and got 167 hits. None of those stories told of any serious complaints against Berry as an Illinois referee. If he was the crook Kahn and others have made him out to be, he must have been very good at avoiding detection.

    Does anyone have real evidence that this referee was on the take, other than speculation born out of admiration for a beloved champion like Dempsey? Even if Barry made a bad call, isn't it possible he just made a human mistake? How does that make him totally incompetent or a crook. Even the best officials occasionally screw up. (And I'm not saying he did. . .)

    In my mind, Jack Dempsey lost fair and square, with nobody to blame but himself.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home