The Fighting Marine Gene Tunney, the man who took the title from the Manassa Mauler, Jack Dempsey and retired without ever losing it. A true champ in every sense, thanks for posting.
I now that there is a fast way to convert a book into a ebook, I just don't remember, I'm going to ask to a friend, I think is some parameter on a scanner software, I'm not sure. I'll try to find out. Anyway, you still can type on you keyboard, I have no problem with it, takes a wile, but works, PDF is the best way, I guess.
you know who would have wrecked tunney? Either Firpo or Willard. He may have outboxed some great fighters like greb and dempsey, but he didn't know how to bumrush a giant.
@boxingfan009 I take it!!! My name is Erminio Spalla, just like my grand father. I believe they had 2 confrontations, Spalla was the champion of Europe, and he was trying to be world champion. I have lots of stuffs about him, and always collecting things of fighters that had confronted him. I never found any video of the fight Tunney vs Spalla, I now that there's one somewhere. If you now about, please tell me. Thanks for be a boxer lover!!!
@marcxopoco Eddie Futch said same thing about the jab being the key. Thats why he knew Norton would beat him. He offset his rhythm in all 3 fights by out jabbing him. Norton having a reach equal to Ali's made it easier. The 3rd fight decision is one of those disgusting crimes in boxing that makes you sick. Same with the Young fight. (and a few others. lol)
Tunney & by all reports Corbett too would have given Ali lots of trouble. JAck Johnson said Corbett was the best boxer he ever witnessed.
@1saxonwolf - Ibelieve that Nat Fleishers list of heavys deserves a hell of a lot more respect than it gets. A whole lot of old time heavys would give even the great fighters from the 70's more than they could handle. Do you think prime Schmeling could beat Holyfield?
@1899sharkey I agree about Fleischers list. How can anyone Fairly/Adequately rate someone they never saw ? IMO, they can't. Todays pollsters have no clout with me.
I don't buy into the 70's HW hype. Many good fighters, great ?
Schmeling is greatly under appreciated. I think he's excellent, maybe a top 10. I think the Baer fight was a fluke. Schmeling beats him 8/10.
No doubt Schmeling could beat EH. Esp. EH weighing 220 +. Holyfield under 210 was a good fighter.
@1saxonwolf - You're right about the 70's, a lot of good fighters made it a great era but the word great is overused. I've always been high on Max S. a very good technician. Ialso believe he'd beat EH probably by dec. Thanx
@1saxonwolf Fleischer was far from infallible either. He was very much a yellow journalist (never let the facts get in the way of a good story), perpetuated myths now debunked and his books are full of factual errors and inconsistencies. His pal (and his all time #1 heavy) Jack Jackson could do no wrong in his eyes, yet he treated Sonny Liston shabbily. As for rating people they never saw, bear in mind that Nat was 10 years old when Fitz won the title from Corbett...
id say tunney was something else he beat a great hard fisted fighter in Dempsey ... however greb did give him a terrible beating and greb was a middleweight . This shows he could be beaten by whom im not sure Greb was the only man to do it
Heh, that was poorly phrased on my part, I admit. What I meant was that he lost once but went on to avenge that defeat with three wins, i.e. he never lost any of their rematches.
My God !! This is the man that Ali patterned his style after .To me it's very erie because when i saw this video as well as the Dempsey fight , i thought i was watching the original Muhammad Ali .Tunney is the man Ali got the style from!!! Look at the dempsey fight i believe round 8 you even see Tunney shuffle a bit.
Check Wikipedia...Loughran beat him as an amateur in the army, Tunney admits this, And Tunney offered him a rematch as a pro! Tunney Won!! Then he offered Loughran a third match which Loughran declined! And by the way the great historian Bert Sugar has Tunney rated higher than Marciano in his top 10 heavies!! And also praised tunney on being one of the VERY FEW sportsmen of that time who was not a racist!
@boxingfan009 Who cares about some amateur fight? Tyson lost an amateur fight to Henry Tillman. Proves nothing. When/where did Tunney offer Loughran another fight? Look at Loughran's record and all the greats he fought numerous times, yet he's gonna duck Tunney, who he lost a close decision to at age 19?? And Sugar is not what I'd call a great historian. He's just a name and self-promoter who regurgitates old stories (often apocryphal) from the old Ring mags.
So Tunney was great because he was great, eh? Strange logic. Funny how most of those guys listed...Dempsey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Levinksy were all old when Tunney got to them. Loughran was a teenager who pushed him hard and Tunney never gave him a return. And lots of era names missing from his record. Sorry, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny and to rate him a top 10 heavy based on wins over an old Dempsey, who KO'd him the one time he got to him, is laughable.
@FlaviusConstantius Tunney gave him 2 REMATCHES!!! YOUR CONSTANT ARGUING IS NOT WHAT IS ANNOYING ME BUT THE FACT THAT YOUR STARTING TO JUST FLAT OUT LIE!! (OR YOURE NOT FACT-CHECKING) IS!! CHECK BOXREC.COM IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME!!
@OpioidBoy There's age and there's mileage. Dempsey may have only been 2 years older but he had more mileage and was inactive too. It's not a coincidence that Dempsey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Levinsky etc were all at the end of their long careers when Tunney fought then.
Gene Tunney elected to retire at the top of his game. All this shit about statistics proving who is better is pure b.s.. He was virtually unhittable and was way better than anyone around at the time. Tunney didn't have to fight until he was old and helpless, he accomplished his goals and then retired.
2 leading contenders were Wills & Gibbons. He offered to fight both. After Dempsey 2, Heeney, Delaney,Risko& Sharkey were in contention. Round robin tournament left Heeney& Sharkey at top. GT picked Heeney as best. GT thrashed Heeney, who drew with Sharkey. Sharkey, Schmeling would have faired no better had Tunney stuck around. Different class of fighters.
Tunney is rated top 10 because he was GREAT. Doesn't matter what a numbers guy thinks, who can't see a great fighter when he's shown one !!!
Tunney fought World Champions 9 times, 10 if you count Jeff Smith. Dempsey 2, Greb 5, Carpentier, Levinsky, Loughran 1 each. Gibbons champion caliber. Contenders Houck, Delaney, Weinert, Renault, Madden, Risko, Heeney, etc. All good fighters. Thats credible in any era.
These stat guys r all the same. Talk numbers. Can't swing the bat, can't shoot the BB, throw the FB, can't box.
Tunney fought who he needed to fight to get his title shot. His goal was Dempsey.
@AKAKArnott There's a difference between dismissing a guy for having x number of losses and dismissing a guy for having hardly any fights in a particular division. Norfolk was KO'd by Gibbons at the end of a long career. Why didn't Tunney fight him in 21, 22, 23, 24? Many others did. Of course we have Tunney's own words that he was against black vs white fights so it was never likely to happen.
gene tunney is flatfooted, follows his opponenets, and throws occasional hard shots, ali danced, stayed outside, and threw quick jabs and combinations.
Tunney is not the real inventor of carrying his hands low. It was Frank Craig 'The Harlem Coffee Cooler'. Never heard of him? Not surprising... It is fair to say Tunney was the first to study his opponents and using his footwork to evade punches but Ali popularized it. And obviously Ali used it more effectively... Tunney was a great heavyweight but overshadowed by the sensational Dempsey at that time. But Tunney stood out... But back then, it was all about Dempsey.
You can also watch the Tunney-Dempsey 1 fight!! Again, not enough views!!! Ridiculous. Search for battle of a century and a half, the fight is in 3 separate clips the uploader name is southpawjab another Tunney fan to which much is owed!!
You can also watch the Tunney-Dempsey 1 fight!! Again, not enough views!!! Ridiculous. Search for battle of a century and a half, the fight is in 3 separate clips the uploader name is southpawjab another great Tunney fan to which much is owed!!
@boxingfan009 Look, I love both Dempsey and Tunney. I think we can all admit the reason Tunney took the long count was because Tunney NEEDED the long count, or else, why did he wait til the last moment? There's no argument there, the man took advantage of the opportunity given him and Dempsey's MO was exactly what he crippled at that moment, the ability to take advantage of Tunney being dazed. Jack was gone from boxing how long? But you're right about all these things w/ Tunney, an unsung hero.
@boxingfan009 Look, I love both Dempsey and Tunney. I think we can all admit the reason Tunney took the long count was because Tunney NEEDED the long count, or else, why did he wait til the last moment? There's no argument there, the man took advantage of the opportunity given him and Dempsey's MO was exactly what he crippled at that moment, the ability to take advantage of Tunney being dazed. Jack was gone from boxing how long? But you're right about all these things w/ Tunney, an unsung hero.
Tunney probably would have taken 90% or more of these newer HW champs, these bloated, point scoring, steroid slamming, freakshows who have handlers specially picking opponents for them to beat once every 6 months to a year. Most of the newer guys have nothing on these old timers; Sullivan, Corbett, Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, these were real fighters who fought in brutal conditions against equally brutal opponents and they lived to box.
@1899sharkey Finally, people with some intelligence, I can't thank you enough just for simply existing =) Most fighters today would go into a coma trying to copy the training, fight schedule and facing the same opponents as the old timers did. And I'm talking about all the way back to the John L Sullivan days. These guys trained like Navy SEALs and more sometimes. Dempsey would run, swim, skip rope, do rigorous calisthenics and then chop wood and haul lumber, climb trees and then hit the gym...
Sullivan began boxing when there were no glove rules, he fought more rounds in one day than some new guys do in a year of fighting. Im not an "old man" at all but I see and know the difference between our generation and the past ones. The Irish and Chinese had to work 72 hour shifts on the railroads and if they couldnt keep the pace or had to stop theyd just be replaced, they were forced to become tough as nails. Add A+ medical care and healthy food & you have Gladiators waiting to be trained.
@1899sharkey I have thought the same thing. Today we know more about nutrition, have better training facilities and boxers have had the opportunity to study the champs of the past, but still boxing today is nothing like it was in these old black and white clips form before any of us were born. Thank god for youtube
If you really like Gene Tunney you can catch the FULL Tunney-Dempsey 2 long count match on Youtube. It is a disgrace the 3 parts of the fight only have about 300 views altogether!! Please watch and give good comments. rsmorodinov has posted it! Great post by a great uploader!! Please watch it....also try just searching gene Tunney to find the video
Everything Gene did was calculated. He held his hands low against crouching fighters becauuse they were closer to his target. Genes strategy was simple, hit and dont get hit. One of the best conditioned fighters ever.
Many boxers are overly hyped and getting recognitions they barely deserved. Tunney, is one of those who definitely deserve more! The only man who outpointed Dempsey twice with his intelligence. Don't start with me on the long count battle, because if you study the fight you will notice that Tunney stayed down deliberately knowing time is on his side. He could have got up earlier but he chose to stay which is smart... And he already beat Dempsey a year before. No surprise he could do it again...
Gene Tunney was underrated. One of those intelligent boxers of that era and his perfect body conditioning and strategy makes him a stand out... He may not be one of the most exciting boxers around but definitely one of the most intelligent! As for the technique of carrying his hands low, actually one source reveals that the first ever boxer to use this technique was Frank Craig 'The Harlem Coffee Cooler!' That was back in the bare knuckle boxing era though...
No not a bum and not the brilliant fighter he was 5 years earlier either. I'd be impressed if Tunney beat the 1919 Dempsey. I don't think he would though. It's a close call whether he beats the 1919 Gibbons.
Ezzard Charles' win over old Joe Louis puts him level with Tunney at heavyweight. Wins over Walcott, Layne, Ray, Satterfield, Baksi etc put him over. Historians old and new are not infallible and in this case I think they're wrong.
Dempsey was past his prime but it's not like he was a bum. That combo that put Gene down was a masterpiece.He also took Sharkey out with one shot. Historians old and new rate Gene top ten, if you disagree thats your opinion.
Plain to see, everyone thinks so, expert opinions and so on and so forth, as you keep telling me. But again... he's in the top 10 for beating a past it Dempsey. And you think that's not overrating him. Dempsey was closer to his prime when Willie Meehan beat him and no one puts fatboy Willie in the pantheon. Charles, Moore and Patterson did more at heavyweight than Tunney but no one puts them in the top ten. So why Tunney?
1) A rating is based on 2 things; Physical ability demonstrated in the ring and the fighters record. Tunney clearly looks very good so what about his record? Well he only really fought as a HWT for the last 3 of a 10 yr career. Did he fight any other HWT greats at their peaks - No, but he beat everybody that he fought which is all anyone can do.
Because he was never beaten at HWT we don't know his limits. This unknown factor means that it's right that he should (at least in principle) be considered as eligible to be in the top 10.
2) Charles, Moore and Patterson should not be regarded as top 10 because although they fought more HWT fights than Tunney did, they were all convincingly beaten by other HWT's who could reasonably expect to be in the top 10.
Also, Moore was KO'd by Patterson and totally dominated by Charles.
Patterson tended to get beaten whenever he came up against a genuinely good HWTs at the highest level.
Charles was undoubtedly the best of the 3. A very good but not a great HWT.
At LHWT however, Charles and Tunney are tied for the title of greatest ever in my book. It's probably unfair to rate them as HWTs though - it places an unfair burden of expectation on them. At their peaks they were really 175lbers. It was only the lack of money and status in the LHWT division that made them move up.
1) Sure we know his limits. We know his resume is limited to an old Dempsey and Tom Heeney (who?), a terribly thin record for a supposed top 10 heavy. Can't rate a guy based on what he might have done. Jerry Quarry has a better heavywt record than that.
2) They beat (and lost to) better heavies than Tunney faced. Why should they he be rated over them when he never met a top prime heavyweight? I'm not saying they're top 10 material either but they all have a better heavywt record than Tunney.
We don't know his limits do we because he was never beaten as a HWT. We know Moore's limit (Patterson & Ali) and Patterson's limit (Liston & Ali) and Charles' limit (Marciano). Tunney never came up against anybody that he couldn't beat.
"Can't rate a guy based on what he might have done" - well for the most part that's exactly what top 10 lists are. We guess what might have happened if Ali fought Louis or Dempsey etc.
@AKAKArnott By that logic Roy Jones is also unbeaten at heavyweight. That he only fought 1 (mediocre) heavyweight probably had a lot to do with it. Think if Tunney fought Patterson, Marciano, Ali or Liston he'd still be unbeaten? Those guys lost to better prime heavyweights than he ever faced. We know his limits because his record is so limited.
Depends on how you rate fighters. Me, I prefer to go by record and achievements rather than fantasy match ups.
I think you're missing the point. If you think Jones would've beaten the likes of Ali, Louis, Foreman etc. then yes he should be in the top 10. If you don't think he would then he shouldn't be.
Do I think Tunney would have beaten Patterson - yes, Marciano - yes, Ali - no, Liston - don't know (did Ali ever really beat Liston?)
It's a personal call but I think most people when they look at top 10s are basing it on who would beat who - not on who has the better record.
@AKAKArnott Which is a bizarre way of rating fighters hence why I prefer to rate them on record and accomplishments. That way is more objective and measurable than rating someone #1 because you think they'd beat all the others. You could make the case for anyone on that basis.
Never said it was Tunney's fault, though beating a faded Dempsey is obviously not the same as beating a prime Dempsey. Take away Dempsey and there's nothing else.
"an old Dempsey and Tom Heeney (who?), a terribly thin record for a supposed top 10 heavy"
Dempsey was only 2 years older than Tunney and he only fought as a HWT for 3 years. But yes - by today's standards it's a thin record. However things were different back then. Look at Dempsey's 7 years as champ for example. Willard, Misk, Brennan, Carpentier, Darcy, Gibbons, Firpo, Sharkey, Tunney. The fact is that Tunney was by far the best fighter that Dempsey ever fought.
@AKAKArnott Dempsey was faded and hadn't fought in 3 years. Saying he should be rated highly because he never lost is meaningless given his limited opposition. A very thin record and Moore, Patterson and Charles all have a better heavyweight record than he does.
Quarry also beat Lyle, Shavers, Patterson, Mathis, Foster etc and again he lost to fighters Tunney probably would have lost to as well. Quarry is the more proven heavyweight. Did Tunney even beat a prime heavy of Quarry's caliber?
Maybe Dempsey had faded but that's not Tunney's fault. You can only beat the guy that is put in front of you and that's what he did. Dempsey never fought any top class HWT (except Tunney) but you would presumably include him in the Top 10.
Incidentally, I didn't say he should be rated highly because he never lost - I said that you can't rule him out because of the quality of the people that have beaten him, like you can with Patterson Moore etc.
@AKAKArnott How about ruling out Tunney because his heavy career lasted about 10 fights? If he fought a few top class prime heavies he'd have boosted his ATG status or lost to some of them. He didn't do either so he's unproven, not Top 10 material IMO.
They lost to better heavywts than Tunney faced and also beat better heavywts. Patterson beat Johnasson, Moore, Machen, Chuvalo, Ellis and Quarry (both gifts he should have won) which to me is more impressive than Tunney's heavywt career.
"Quarry is the more proven heavyweight" well of course he is. He was a HWT all his career as opposed to 3 years for Tunney. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's a better fighter at HWT though or that he'd have beaten Tunney if they had fought.
"he lost to fighters Tunney probably would have lost to as well" - Ali / Frazier - yes, Norton / Ellis - that's 50/50, Chuvalo / Machen / Patterson - I think Tunney would have beaten.
Which is why I see no reason to rate Tunney ahead of him. Quarry did more at heavy than Tunney did. We know how Quarry fared against the best heavywts of his era. We don't with Tunney. One is proven and the other isn't.
JQ would probably handle Tunney's comp as well as he did. Gene would have major issues with Ali/Frazier and Norton/Lyle/Patterson/Shavers etc are not going to be a picnic either. He never beat that class of prime heavy, so on what basis can you say he could?
Do you read any of my comments before you respond to them?
"He never beat that class of prime heavy, so on what basis can you say he could"
I haven't said that he could. You're answering an argument that I'm not making.
"We know how Quarry fared against the best heavywts of his era. We don't with Tunney" - who do you think he should have fought that he didn't fight? Wills was at the end of his career and Sharkey had just lost to Dempsey. There wasn't anybody out there.
@AKAKArnott I never said you said that. You're saying Tunney can't be counted out because he was never beaten as a heavy and that you rate to heavies on a who would beat who basis. Are you now saying you don't rate Tunney based on whether he you think he could beat Louis, Klitschko etc?
Plenty Tunney didn't face... Kid Norfolk, Paul Berlenbach, George Godfrey, Young Stribling, Harry Wills, no multiple bouts with Loughran after a close decision and he didn't stay on to face the 30s heavies.
"Plenty Tunney didn't face.." .You're not being objective here. If GT had fought these guys and I cited them in support of his record, you would have (quite rightfully) dismissed them as either old, not top class or not HWTs.
Kid Norfolk was a LHWT and retired with 15 losses before GT won the HWT title.
Berlenbach never even fought as a HWT. The one opponent they shared was Johnny Risko. GT beat him PB lost to him.
@AKAKArnott Nice bit of Boxrecing there, though unfortunately that doesn't tell the full story. Dismissing Kid Norfolk based on his numbers is laughable. Last I checked Tunney was a light-heavy for most of his career and most of those guys often fought at heavy. Norfolk was a great fighter often touted as an opponent for Dempsey. Strange that Tunney's contemporaries fought most of them yet he didn't. Strange also that recent losses didn't stop Risko or Foley getting a shot at Tunney.
"Dismissing Kid Norfolk based on his numbers is laughable" What ? Your dismissal of GT is on the basis that he doesn't have the numbers as a HWT. But with KN the numbers don't matter? This is your methodology.
But I dismissed him not because of the losses or the fact that he was KO'd by the same Tom Gibbons that Tunney KO'd 6 months later, but because he was 32 when Tunney started fighting as a HWT and he retired before GT won the title.
Tunney was indeed a LHT for most of his career. He only really fought above the LHWT limit during the last 3 years of his career between 1925 - 1928. Hence my comment that it's not really fair to rate him as a HWT.
Godfrey was a pretty good HWT but when Tunney was active as a HWT GG had just lost to Sharkey. Shared opponents Risko & Wiggins - GT beat them GG lost to them.
Young Stribling was a very good LHWT but he wasn't really a HWT until after GT had retired. When GT was fighting at HWT YS lost to Berlenbach and Loughran - both at LHWT.
Wills was good but he was well past his best when GT was HWT champ. HW only fought twice when GT was champ - both losses to Sharkey and Uzcudun
@AKAKArnott Some of these excuses are very vague. Berlenbach lost to someone Tunney beat therefore Tunney had no need to face him? Stribling lost to Berlenbach therefore he had no need to face him either? 18 losses didn't prevent Tunney facing Dan O'Dowd. Who's to say Tunney wouldn't have lost if he fought some of them. Boxing doesn't work that way, otherwise only unbeaten fighters would get big fights.
They are not excuses. You have stated that Tunney never fought any prime HWTs to which I replied that he fought the best of the HWT's that were around at the time and asked which prime HWTs you thought Tunney should have fought but didn't.
There are no HWTs on the list that you gave that were in their prime when GT was fighting as a HWT. The point is that Tunney wasn't ducking anybody - there just weren't many good HWT's around at that point.
@AKAKArnott Which top prime heavies did Tunney face? Tom Heeney and that's it. No Stribling, no Sharkey, no Uzcudun, no Godfrey as well as the slew of top light-heavies he missed earlier.
Given that he missed a lot of the top light heavies of his time and only beat one prime decent heavyweight, I dunno how you can claim "none of the fighters you named fit the bill". Plenty fitted the bill.
It's not a case of there being no need to face him. It's a question of whether there was anybody out there that had such a good record that you could reasonably say that GT couldn't claim to be the best unless he has beaten the guy. Example: when Leonard and Hearns were welters neither one could credibly claim to be the best 147lber without having beaten the other. Same deal with Ali / Frazier.
None of the fighters you named fit the bill in GT's time.
Jack Sharkey was one of the best at the time GT was champ but during that time he lost to Dempsey & Risko and drew with Heeney - GT beat all of these guys.
Loughran was a great LHWT but in the 12 months following his loss to GT he lost 5 times. Over the next 12 mths he lost 4 times & drew twice. Where's the incentive for GT to fight him again? As for not staying on to fight the 30's HWTs. GT would have been 33 in 1930. You said Dempsey was past his prime when he was 31.
@AKAKArnott I'd hazard that having a tough fight with a teenage Loughran outweighed by 10lbs was more of an incentive for Tunney not to face him again. People thought Loughran won or at worst deserved a draw. BTW, most of those losses you listed are only newspaper decisions. See how often Tunney's contemporaries fought Loughran.
We already have a good guage on Dempsey as a heavyweight. With Tunney we don't so to prove himself he'd have had to stay on into the 30s.
I don't think we do have a good gauge on Dempsey as a HWT. Who did Dempsey fight that was good? Tunney was the best he fought. There's a good argument that Dempsey should have fought the likes of Wills and Norfolk when they were in their prime and didn't. He wouldn't even fight Greb who Tunney beat multiple times. You discount GT's wins against JD because he was past his best at 31 but then say that GT should have fought on past 33 to prove himself - it makes no sense.
@AKAKArnott It makes perfect sense. Dempsey had a decade to prove himself as a heavyweight. Tunney had a handful of fights in the division. To prove himself as a heavyweight he'd have had to stay on longer and take on all the guys he never faced.
It only makes sense if Tunney was thinking about how he could convince a cynic about his skills 80 + years in the future. There's no other context in which anybody would say that it's sensible to go on fighting past your prime.
Dempsey did indeed have a decade to prove himself - but did he do it? Again I'll ask you who was the best guy he fought?
Yes it was a close fight as GT acknowledges. But you are looking at Loughran with the benefit of hindsight. In the 2 years following their fight TL's record was 12 wins, 9 losses, 2 draws. He's not exactly a promoters dream opponent for GT at this point.
However, there is a good case for GT and TL fighting in 1928 when they were world HWT & LHWT champs. However, TL waited until 1929 after GT had retired to make the move up to HWT.
@AKAKArnott Once again you're counting newspaper decisions as losses. They are not real decisions, just what the Boxrec editors have determined based on newspaper reports. Dan O'Down was 15-18-1 when he fought Tunney. Was he a promoter's dream? Greb, Delaney and Stribling all fought Loughran many times.
You're also overlooking that the gap between light heavy and heavy was not what it is now. Light-heavies like Norfolk, Gibbons, Loughran, Greb had many fights against heavyweights.
"You're also overlooking that the gap between light heavy and heavy was not what it is now. Light-heavies like Norfolk, Gibbons, Loughran, Greb had many fights against heavyweights".
I'm not overlooking it - you are. If I were to say that GT beat 3 out of the 4 guys you named you'd say it doesn't mean anything because they weren't prime HWTs
@AKAKArnott Yes you are. You're saying there was no one around for him to fight, except there were, including the top heavies he never faced and the top light-heavies he never faced, and a few he did. How about a Loughran rematch?
Just to clarify - IMO, would Tunney beat Ali/Frazier - no, Norton would be a big problem. Lyle/Shavers - it's possible because he had the right kind of style but with these guys anybody was only one shot away from defeat. I believe that Tunney would beat Patterson relatively easily though.
@AKAKArnott Except you have nothing to base any of that on since Tunney never beat a prime heavy in Patterson's class. With Tunney it's all in the realms of fantasy... what he could do, who he might beat. We know how Patterson fared against the best of his time, who he beat/lost to. Tunney is unproven and IMO overrated based on beating a legendary figure like Dempsey who himself is overrated.
Just to clarify something - you seem to be under the impression that I have said that Tunney should be in the Top 10. This is just your imagination, what I actually said is; "Because he was never beaten at HWT we don't know his limits. This unknown factor means that it's right that he should (at least in principle) be considered as eligible to be in the top 10"
"It's probably unfair though to rate him [and Charles] as HWTs"
We also don't know how limited his limits were. There's nothing in his career to say he could beat top prime heavies, because he never fought any. Hard to make a case for him beating a Joe Louis or a Vitali Klitschko on that flimsy basis. Like I said, he's unproven in the division. It's much more logical to rate these guys on what they did, who they beat etc instead of unprovable fantasy fights. I could just say Ike Ibeabuchi whips them all and no one could ever prove me wrong.
"Hard to make a case for him beating a Joe Louis or a Vitali Klitschko on that flimsy basis" That's why I haven't made a case for him beating Louis or Klitschko.
"Jerry Quarry has a better record than [Tunney]" That depends on what you mean. He fought more times at HWT and against better opposition than Tunney did but he was beaten by Ali, Frazier and others. So we know where he fits within the overall HWT picture. Tunney wasn't beaten so we don't know for sure where he fits in - we have to speculate.
A top 10 list isn't a statistical analysis of fighters records, it's speculation on who at their peak would haver been the best.
Tunneys greatness is plain to see. We dont have to guess about it or project it. Coupled with what kind of man he was made for a special fighter. Compare that to a man who resorted to eating his opponent to make SURE he was d.q.d immediately.Mike Tyson shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Gene.
That Tyson would be an 'easier' opponent for Tunney, all 185lbs of him, is laughable. Ask yourself why it's been 50 years since a guy Tunney's size made any impact on the heavyweight division.
I prefer to rate fighters based on what they did, not what they might do. On that basis I could say Ike Ibeabuchi whips everyone and no one could prove me wrong. Rating on accomplishments; who they beat, who they didn't beat, manner of said wins and losses etc is at least measurable and based on fact.
Tunney is a top ten all time heavy possibly top five.I dont make my ratings on historical significance, length of reign, or especially the size of a man. I base mine on who would beat who on their respective best day. Tunney would have one of his easier fights against Tyson. Ali would be a tough fight for Gene, but not unwinnable.
The big difference is Norfolk survived them and got destroyed by Gibbons. Did Gibbons hit that much harder than them or, like I said, was Norfolk simply at the end of the road?
As to not fighting blacks, it's pretty relevant when there's a lot of top black fighters around, whom many of his white contemporaries did face. Again, why didn't he fight Norfolk? And please, let's not pretend that Norfolk losing to Gibbons at the end of his career somehow shows he was no good all along.
Oh, and Gibbons a harder hitter than Wills, Tate, McVea, Clark, Miske etc? That Norfolk suffered a first round KO against the legendary Bob Lawson in his next fight is a good indication of where his career was when he lost to Gibbons.
@FlaviusConstantius Those fighters aren't listed because everyone rated Tunney higher. SIMPLE. He's considered one of the GREATEST boxers ever ! Not refuted? U just don't agree.Not the same thing. Your only supporting my view on Norfolk pertaining to the original question as why not fighting any blacks.{like it matters}
My question is WHY is he rated higher? His rating as a better heavy than those guys just doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you compare their accomplishments in the division with his. It comes back to my original point, that beating a faded Dempsey has got him overrated.
What have you refuted? Dempsey, Gibbons etc were past prime, he did miss numerous top contenders, the Loughran fight was close and there was no rematch (contrast with Greb, McTigue, Stribling etc who faced Loughran many times).
@FlaviusConstantius His higher rating is simply a matter of opinion. If you play the statistics game A. Moore came out on top according to a published book. Is he the best HW? or LHW ever? MAtter of opinion. People rate him high based on his performances. What don't you see? That faded JD still KO'd Sharkey, the next best HW. Gibbons was still beating everyone he fought. How faded were they?
Tunney dropped Loughran for a 9 count in rnd 1. He won the decision 8 rnds to 5. Why keep bringing it up
Yes an opinion and to me, a flawed one. I see no rational basis for rating Tunney in the top 10. I don't even see how he can be rated a better heavy than Charles, Moore or Patterson.
Gibbons was 34 and never fought again. I don't think Gene wanted that fight a few years earlier. And Dempsey was struggling with Sharkey before landing that prayer.
Because it was a close fight against a quality opponent who he never rematched. All his peers had multiple bouts with Loughran. Why not Tunney?
Where do you come up with a skinney 185 ? He walked around at over 200, after retiring kept his weight between 210-220. He was over 6ft 1. He trained down to 192-194 as a HW. Tyson?? gotta be kidding! Tunney would box his ears off. What black fighter was there to fight? Wills? Norfolk had his ass handed to him by Gibbons, KO!!! Godfrey?
I'll stick with the opinions of the ATG fighters & trainers.
Question?? Whose opinion has more clout, the people I mentioned or yours ???
Ha yeah, box Tyson's ears off for the 2 minutes he lasted, lol. Tunney weighed what he weighed. Think Tyson walked around weighing 215? Just a much larger, more powerful man against someone whose best wins were against shopworn greats and whose admirers make him into Superman because he beat an old Dempsey. That's why he's overrated.
Norfolk was past it when he faced Gibbons. All his wins over quality contenders and top black fighters mean nothing cos he got KO'd at the end of his career?
@FlaviusConstantius Your Norfolk remark? Excuses? Gibbons was older ! This is going nowhere. Tyson will never be rated top 10. Tunney has been for 80 years.
@faltagh 'Top ten' is not a definitive statement, only someone's opinion. Rating Tunney as a top ten heavy based on nothing but 2 wins over a past it Dempsey is ridiculous.
So what Norfolk was older? Hopkins is older than Jones but who is more shot? Implying that Norfolk wasn't worth Tunney facing because he lost to Gibbons right at the end of his career is also ridiculous. Norfolk in his prime survived much bigger bangers than Gibbons and would be a dangerous fight for anyone.
Is it not ridiculous to make Tunney a top 10 heavy given his limited resume in the division? Moore, Charles, Harold Johnson and Patterson to name 4 had better heavyweight careers than him and I don't see them on anyone's list.
It does highlight the flimsy basis of many of these ratings. I rate Tunney, just not as highly as everyone else does. I've outlined my reasons, and no one here has yet refuted them.
Mike Spinks had 15 round stamina too and against Tyson it did him about as much good as it would do Tunney, who would be horizontal long before he needed it. Tyson is beatable but a skinny 185lber with 0 wins against top prime heavies is not the one to do it.
@FlaviusConstantius - A frozen Spinks? You couldn't have drove a spike up his ass with a sledge hammer. You know that Spinks had a very weak psyche. I dont think Gene would have that problem. Tyson fans just cant grasp the fact that he did not have inside him what it takes to be an atg. Tunney would win every round until the tin man surrendered.
You mean Spinks the HOFer who hadn't lost as a pro? The guy who was the #1 light-heavy in a top era?
Tyson was beat by guys who would utterly dwarf Tunney. No 185lber is surviving 215lbs of enraged rhinoceros, walking through his punches, cutting the ring (which Dempsey never did) and pounding that skinny frame of his. Gene would be a battered wreck. Tunney's fans can't grasp that beating a faded Dempsey doesn't make him Superman. Every man has his limits, as Gene would discover against Tyson.
@FlaviusConstantius - Yup thats the one I mean. Hell, even with his self admitted weak psyche ( he was also petrified against Quawi) I still rate him very high all time. But against Gene it would be a much differnt fight. imo tunney had the best wheels of any heavy. His power was underated and was the best at following his game plan.I dont think he'd have much trouble with Tyson at all.
He was in tears before Qawi because he still hadn't recovered from losing his wife in a car crash. This supposed mental weakness didn't stop him going undefeated against quality comp til his final fight.
The Dempsey fights have given the false impression that Tunney was a heavyweight Willie Pep, which he certainly wasn't. Hows he going to take punches from a great hitter 30lbs heavier? He can't hurt Tyson, can't keep him off, can't tie him up and if he just runs he'll lose a decision.
@FlaviusConstantius - I'm not here to change anyones mind. You can have Tyson, I'll take Gene. Tyson couldn't go fifteen rounds in his dreams. Enough talk about the tin man! Peace
@1899sharkey Tyson won't need to go 15 in this one. Tunney would go out on his shield, but he will be exiting the ring feet first. Maybe in Tunney's dreams he'd beat Tyson, although the reality would be more like a nightmare! All that being said, I doubt we'd find out even if Tyson was around in the 20s as Gene probably wouldn't have fought him anyway.
Tunney wouldn't have to have great power to k.o. Tyson. In a 15 rounder Tyson would start running out of steam in 8 and be stopped in 10 or 11. Tyson never had 15 round endurance, he would have to k.o. his opponent or lose. Atg's dont k.o. easy.
Overrated ???? Greb called him great. Battling Levinsky called him great. Said a prime Dempsey might not even beat him. Gibbons called him great. Hall of fame trainer Whitey Bimstein said Tunney would beat anyone after him, includes up to Marciano. Teddy Hayes didn't want the Tunney fight believed him to good for Dempsey at the time. Called him one of the best ever. Arcel said we never saw his best. etc etc etc..... JUst watch him fight ! You don't see???? Ali saw it !!
Yes overrated. Not as good as some make him out to be. That doesn't mean he was a bad fighter. Doesn't mean he wasn't one of the greats. The fighter I'd compare him to is Ray Leonard; first rate talent but a businessman first and foremost who picked his fights carefully. His rep at heavyweight is based on beating a faded Dempsey and nothing else. Many of his other wins were against shopworn greats and a close call against a young Loughran. I ain't turning the guy into Superman for that.
@FlaviusConstantius His rep was made by beating Greb, enforced by the only man to KO Gibbons & beating Dempsey. Agreed Demps was not what he was, still the second best HW . Loughran was as slick as they come in boxing. Reps are made in the gym through hard work, conditioning, intelligence, sacrifice, attitude & performance in the ring. Tunney excelled in all these attributes. He wasn't liked by the press, he didn't receive many accolades. His peers respected
Beating a faded Dempsey is what made his legend as some sort of unhittable, untouchable phantom. That is overrating him. So is making him a great heavy solely for those 2 wins. He outweighed Greb in all their fights and only won 2 of 5 clearly. Gibbons was at the end of his career. Don't think Gene wanted that fight a few years earlier. Loughran a wonderful fighter, but it was very close and he was young. And why no rematch? And is it not strange that he never faced a single black contender?
" Advising newspaper men why he was going to bet on me against Dempsey, he would say, "I have boxed Dempsey and Tunney. You never know how good Tunney is until you do box him."
@gothamette Greb had his opinion as did Jim Jeffries who said of Tunney: "Fairly fast, fair defense. Very light hitter, absolutely no color. Lucky for him he didn't have to fight the real Dempsey." Or Sam Langford, who said "if Tunney had been in the ring in the years gone by, he would not have had a chance against the fighters we had in those days."
We all have our opinions, no one is necessarily right or wrong.
Gene Tunney overated ? Not too many people think that. Tyson imo is the most overated fighter in history. Tysons weaknesses would have surfaced at ANYTIME during his career. I'm tired of hearing about " mikes speed and accuracy ."He was an overhyped product of Jim Jacobs who lacked the great willpower of the atg's. He's not even top 20 all time.
@FlaviusConstantius ....again! Tunney wud av no problem KOing Tyson.....Tyson was the overrated heavy. He held the title for a shitty 2 years tunny held it for 3!!! Tunney fought in a time wen deer was 1 title not 3 which means he wud av 2 fite THE TOP MEN to actually get shot at it. Tyson beat a shot Larry holes in his most famous opponent and spent the rest of his career fighting second tier opponents until he was BEATEN by a second tier opponent in Buster Douglas which unlike tunny he DIDN'T
@boxingfan009 Tunney fought his fair share of second tier opponents too, as well as a few faded greats.
You think 185lb Tunney is going to have "no problem" KO'ing Tyson? How many top heavyweights did Tunney KO again? I'd hope that even Tyson's sternest critics would concede he was much better than Tom Heeney. Tunney has not the punch nor the size nor the strength to keep 215lbs of solid muscle off him. Sorry, Gene's legend will always surpass Tyson's but he ain't winning this one.
@FlaviusConstantius Tunney is hailed by many for being one of the few world champions from the old times to not have been a racist. Wills was the one who turned down the fight and when, If I'm not mistaken, a few months after he called out Dempsey as the no.1 contender!! Tunney had never refused any black man of a fight but because he was so underrated as a fighter until he fought Dempsey, none of them wanted to fight him. I have read two of Tunney's autobiographies and a biography and he has n
"I don't wish to hurt anyone's feelings, but I have never boxed a Negro and have never even had one as a sparring partner. Somehow, it seems to me, that it is not for the best interest of boxing that heavyweights, and champions in particular, shall clash in mixed matches" -- Gene Tunney
Yes it's true Tunney was willing to meet Wills, who turned him down, but it's also true that he never fought a black opponent when many of his white contemporaries did.
I know there was an attempt to match Wills and Tunney before he faced Dempsey, and Wills turned it down. Remember Wills was 37 by then and near done as a contender. Elsewhere Tunney stated his unwillingness to face black challengers. In Khan's Dempsey bio he reprints a letter from Tunney to Tim Mara (founder of the NY Giants), in which he said he would not face Wills. Seems to me he wasn't interested in Wills until he thought he'd have to face him to get a shot at Dempsey. Businessman again.
@FlaviusConstantius I just want to wrap up this Conn/Louis thing, FC. I don't want to get into a side issue. I'm simply responding to your comment, "Seem to recall Louis knocking Conn smack cold. Don't seem to recall Tunney doing that to Loughran". My basic point is that the two fights are not comparable, because Conn lost due to his stupidity. Your mileage varies...but you are the only one who says this.
@gothamette You were the first to bring up Louis-Conn. The key difference is, though behind after 13, Louis ended the fight by putting Conn down for a count of 100 while Tunney could only make away with a disputed decision against Loughran. We may disagree about the reasons why Conn got KO'd but that's the bottom line.
@FlaviusConstantius Regarding the letter - I'd have to know where in the negotiations this letter was written. Tunney's people at one point offered Wills $200K to fight.
@gothamette Re: Wills and Tunney (and Dempsey) - frankly I haven't got the time to go into this. The negotiations went on for years. Yes, it was race. But it was also that boxing was illegal in NY State until 1920 and was very frowned upon for years afterwards....Rickard was leery of an interracial fight because of Johnson....Rickard was on trial on morals charges....Wills was surrounded by the usual parasites. "It's complicated."
Indeed it's complicated. When is boxing not? My view is there were times when Tunney wanted Wills and there were times when he didn't. It's the businessman again. He wasn't interested in Wills until he thought that was his only way to get to Dempsey. In his interview with van Every, Tunney stated his objection to black vs white contests, although added that he was nonetheless willing to meet Wills, who he says turned down an offer of $150k the previous year.
Rocky versus Tunney....whew what a fight that would be! Could Genes legs and brilliant boxing skills overcome Rocks indomitable will? If it went the distance I think Gene would win, if there was a k.o. it would be by Rocky.
tunney vs marciano probably the 2 most unappreciated heavies tunney becuse he did lose to greb 300 fights 150 blind in one eye. Rocky lets see he was short, slow, not to smart, fought old overthe hill no names (charles, walcott, moore, louis) anything else? How did he win every fight maybe he was the best!!!
tunney looks more like an actor, male model, or a singer, he doesnt look like a boxer in those days, he is one of the top 5 great heavyweight champions of all time.
The Fighting Marine Gene Tunney, the man who took the title from the Manassa Mauler, Jack Dempsey and retired without ever losing it. A true champ in every sense, thanks for posting.
nextmovebestmove 1 month ago
I now that there is a fast way to convert a book into a ebook, I just don't remember, I'm going to ask to a friend, I think is some parameter on a scanner software, I'm not sure. I'll try to find out. Anyway, you still can type on you keyboard, I have no problem with it, takes a wile, but works, PDF is the best way, I guess.
erminiospalla 4 months ago
did you film this with a... oh never mind
baroh2413 5 months ago
A middle weight Harry Greb, beat the hell out of a lightheavy weight Gene Tunney.
Harry greb p4p best.
illpusher 5 months ago
you know who would have wrecked tunney? Either Firpo or Willard. He may have outboxed some great fighters like greb and dempsey, but he didn't know how to bumrush a giant.
tommygumport 5 months ago
Tunney and Dempsey would waste any of today's heavyweights!!
sosdkny 5 months ago
Adamek fights like him
luisvega666 6 months ago
Cool vids, if it wasn't for your channel i'd never have known about some of these greats. Thanks v. much
dasmonkeyman 6 months ago
I got 2 of Tunney's autobiographie's!! was thinkin of puttin up on the internet to share??? Any takers??
boxingfan009 8 months ago
@boxingfan009 I take it!!! My name is Erminio Spalla, just like my grand father. I believe they had 2 confrontations, Spalla was the champion of Europe, and he was trying to be world champion. I have lots of stuffs about him, and always collecting things of fighters that had confronted him. I never found any video of the fight Tunney vs Spalla, I now that there's one somewhere. If you now about, please tell me. Thanks for be a boxer lover!!!
erminiospalla 4 months ago
@erminiospalla great...need 2 know how to convert an ordinary book into an e-book though...any idea?
boxingfan009 4 months ago
@boxingfan009 Man i want it too !!!!
DranzieBooy 1 month ago
@DranzieBooy Any idea how to make an ordinary book into an ebook?
boxingfan009 1 month ago
Tunney would have boxed Ali silly.
Ali couldn't handle an opponent who had a good left jab.
Doug Jones jabbed his head off.
And of course so did Jimmy Young.
Ali was a human punching bag---as his current condition shows.
marcxopoco 10 months ago
@marcxopoco Eddie Futch said same thing about the jab being the key. Thats why he knew Norton would beat him. He offset his rhythm in all 3 fights by out jabbing him. Norton having a reach equal to Ali's made it easier. The 3rd fight decision is one of those disgusting crimes in boxing that makes you sick. Same with the Young fight. (and a few others. lol)
Tunney & by all reports Corbett too would have given Ali lots of trouble. JAck Johnson said Corbett was the best boxer he ever witnessed.
1saxonwolf 8 months ago
@1saxonwolf - Ibelieve that Nat Fleishers list of heavys deserves a hell of a lot more respect than it gets. A whole lot of old time heavys would give even the great fighters from the 70's more than they could handle. Do you think prime Schmeling could beat Holyfield?
1899sharkey 8 months ago
@1899sharkey I agree about Fleischers list. How can anyone Fairly/Adequately rate someone they never saw ? IMO, they can't. Todays pollsters have no clout with me.
I don't buy into the 70's HW hype. Many good fighters, great ?
Schmeling is greatly under appreciated. I think he's excellent, maybe a top 10. I think the Baer fight was a fluke. Schmeling beats him 8/10.
No doubt Schmeling could beat EH. Esp. EH weighing 220 +. Holyfield under 210 was a good fighter.
What do u think?
1saxonwolf 8 months ago
@1saxonwolf - You're right about the 70's, a lot of good fighters made it a great era but the word great is overused. I've always been high on Max S. a very good technician. Ialso believe he'd beat EH probably by dec. Thanx
1899sharkey 8 months ago
Comment removed
FlaviusConstantius 8 months ago
@1saxonwolf Fleischer was far from infallible either. He was very much a yellow journalist (never let the facts get in the way of a good story), perpetuated myths now debunked and his books are full of factual errors and inconsistencies. His pal (and his all time #1 heavy) Jack Jackson could do no wrong in his eyes, yet he treated Sonny Liston shabbily. As for rating people they never saw, bear in mind that Nat was 10 years old when Fitz won the title from Corbett...
FlaviusConstantius 8 months ago
id say tunney was something else he beat a great hard fisted fighter in Dempsey ... however greb did give him a terrible beating and greb was a middleweight . This shows he could be beaten by whom im not sure Greb was the only man to do it
fischparov 10 months ago
@fischparov
Didn't Tunney win all of the rematches with Greb though?
cet0708 10 months ago
Yes @cet0708 .
Tunney won all his matches with Greb (except when he lost to Greb).
LOL
marcxopoco 10 months ago
@marcxopoco
Heh, that was poorly phrased on my part, I admit. What I meant was that he lost once but went on to avenge that defeat with three wins, i.e. he never lost any of their rematches.
cet0708 10 months ago
I heard Ali say he got his style and inspiration from sugar ray robinson
hearns00001 11 months ago
i think if ali and tunney fought it wood go the distance and u wood have to realy tired men cus they both work hard
lee1990lee 1 year ago
Tunney could have gone on at least a couple more years as champion. They just dont make 'em like Gene anymore.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
My God !! This is the man that Ali patterned his style after .To me it's very erie because when i saw this video as well as the Dempsey fight , i thought i was watching the original Muhammad Ali .Tunney is the man Ali got the style from!!! Look at the dempsey fight i believe round 8 you even see Tunney shuffle a bit.
TheAldonjor 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Check Wikipedia...Loughran beat him as an amateur in the army, Tunney admits this, And Tunney offered him a rematch as a pro! Tunney Won!! Then he offered Loughran a third match which Loughran declined! And by the way the great historian Bert Sugar has Tunney rated higher than Marciano in his top 10 heavies!! And also praised tunney on being one of the VERY FEW sportsmen of that time who was not a racist!
boxingfan009 1 year ago
If @boxingfan009 thinks drunken Bert Sugar is a "great boxing historian" then he knows zilch about boxing.
Sugar is a drunk, period.
marcxopoco 10 months ago
@boxingfan009 Who cares about some amateur fight? Tyson lost an amateur fight to Henry Tillman. Proves nothing. When/where did Tunney offer Loughran another fight? Look at Loughran's record and all the greats he fought numerous times, yet he's gonna duck Tunney, who he lost a close decision to at age 19?? And Sugar is not what I'd call a great historian. He's just a name and self-promoter who regurgitates old stories (often apocryphal) from the old Ring mags.
FlaviusConstantius 8 months ago
@FlaviusConstantius "apocryphal" is a great word. Love the English language!
busybeepromotions 8 months ago
So Tunney was great because he was great, eh? Strange logic. Funny how most of those guys listed...Dempsey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Levinksy were all old when Tunney got to them. Loughran was a teenager who pushed him hard and Tunney never gave him a return. And lots of era names missing from his record. Sorry, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny and to rate him a top 10 heavy based on wins over an old Dempsey, who KO'd him the one time he got to him, is laughable.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius Tunney gave him 2 REMATCHES!!! YOUR CONSTANT ARGUING IS NOT WHAT IS ANNOYING ME BUT THE FACT THAT YOUR STARTING TO JUST FLAT OUT LIE!! (OR YOURE NOT FACT-CHECKING) IS!! CHECK BOXREC.COM IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME!!
boxingfan009 1 year ago
@boxingfan009 Who did Tunney give 2 rematches to? Not Loughran...
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius "...old when Tunney got to them"??? Dempsey was only 2 years older than Tunney...
OpioidBoy 10 months ago
@OpioidBoy There's age and there's mileage. Dempsey may have only been 2 years older but he had more mileage and was inactive too. It's not a coincidence that Dempsey, Gibbons, Carpentier, Levinsky etc were all at the end of their long careers when Tunney fought then.
FlaviusConstantius 8 months ago
Gene Tunney elected to retire at the top of his game. All this shit about statistics proving who is better is pure b.s.. He was virtually unhittable and was way better than anyone around at the time. Tunney didn't have to fight until he was old and helpless, he accomplished his goals and then retired.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
2 leading contenders were Wills & Gibbons. He offered to fight both. After Dempsey 2, Heeney, Delaney,Risko& Sharkey were in contention. Round robin tournament left Heeney& Sharkey at top. GT picked Heeney as best. GT thrashed Heeney, who drew with Sharkey. Sharkey, Schmeling would have faired no better had Tunney stuck around. Different class of fighters.
Tunney is rated top 10 because he was GREAT. Doesn't matter what a numbers guy thinks, who can't see a great fighter when he's shown one !!!
faltagh 1 year ago
Tunney fought World Champions 9 times, 10 if you count Jeff Smith. Dempsey 2, Greb 5, Carpentier, Levinsky, Loughran 1 each. Gibbons champion caliber. Contenders Houck, Delaney, Weinert, Renault, Madden, Risko, Heeney, etc. All good fighters. Thats credible in any era.
These stat guys r all the same. Talk numbers. Can't swing the bat, can't shoot the BB, throw the FB, can't box.
Tunney fought who he needed to fight to get his title shot. His goal was Dempsey.
faltagh 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott There's a difference between dismissing a guy for having x number of losses and dismissing a guy for having hardly any fights in a particular division. Norfolk was KO'd by Gibbons at the end of a long career. Why didn't Tunney fight him in 21, 22, 23, 24? Many others did. Of course we have Tunney's own words that he was against black vs white fights so it was never likely to happen.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
yea right Ali used a boxing style known as bribry thuggery and intimidation and threatening to kill Liston and his family
deltapunk21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deltapunk21 is right on the money.
marcxopoco 10 months ago
gene tunney is flatfooted, follows his opponenets, and throws occasional hard shots, ali danced, stayed outside, and threw quick jabs and combinations.
gune tunney is nothing like ali
Robstailey 1 year ago
Tunney is not the real inventor of carrying his hands low. It was Frank Craig 'The Harlem Coffee Cooler'. Never heard of him? Not surprising... It is fair to say Tunney was the first to study his opponents and using his footwork to evade punches but Ali popularized it. And obviously Ali used it more effectively... Tunney was a great heavyweight but overshadowed by the sensational Dempsey at that time. But Tunney stood out... But back then, it was all about Dempsey.
expressivechild 1 year ago
@expressivechild doesn't know that Joe Gans, San Langford, Benny Leonard ever existed.
marcxopoco 10 months ago
Comment removed
expressivechild 10 months ago
You can also watch the Tunney-Dempsey 1 fight!! Again, not enough views!!! Ridiculous. Search for battle of a century and a half, the fight is in 3 separate clips the uploader name is southpawjab another Tunney fan to which much is owed!!
boxingfan009 1 year ago
You can also watch the Tunney-Dempsey 1 fight!! Again, not enough views!!! Ridiculous. Search for battle of a century and a half, the fight is in 3 separate clips the uploader name is southpawjab another great Tunney fan to which much is owed!!
boxingfan009 1 year ago
@boxingfan009 Look, I love both Dempsey and Tunney. I think we can all admit the reason Tunney took the long count was because Tunney NEEDED the long count, or else, why did he wait til the last moment? There's no argument there, the man took advantage of the opportunity given him and Dempsey's MO was exactly what he crippled at that moment, the ability to take advantage of Tunney being dazed. Jack was gone from boxing how long? But you're right about all these things w/ Tunney, an unsung hero.
N1k1mon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boxingfan009 Look, I love both Dempsey and Tunney. I think we can all admit the reason Tunney took the long count was because Tunney NEEDED the long count, or else, why did he wait til the last moment? There's no argument there, the man took advantage of the opportunity given him and Dempsey's MO was exactly what he crippled at that moment, the ability to take advantage of Tunney being dazed. Jack was gone from boxing how long? But you're right about all these things w/ Tunney, an unsung hero.
N1k1mon 5 months ago
Tunney probably would have taken 90% or more of these newer HW champs, these bloated, point scoring, steroid slamming, freakshows who have handlers specially picking opponents for them to beat once every 6 months to a year. Most of the newer guys have nothing on these old timers; Sullivan, Corbett, Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, these were real fighters who fought in brutal conditions against equally brutal opponents and they lived to box.
N1k1mon 5 months ago
@N1k1mon - Agreed 100%. The evolution theory on boxing has one small problem, its ass backwards.
1899sharkey 5 months ago
@1899sharkey Finally, people with some intelligence, I can't thank you enough just for simply existing =) Most fighters today would go into a coma trying to copy the training, fight schedule and facing the same opponents as the old timers did. And I'm talking about all the way back to the John L Sullivan days. These guys trained like Navy SEALs and more sometimes. Dempsey would run, swim, skip rope, do rigorous calisthenics and then chop wood and haul lumber, climb trees and then hit the gym...
N1k1mon 5 months ago
Sullivan began boxing when there were no glove rules, he fought more rounds in one day than some new guys do in a year of fighting. Im not an "old man" at all but I see and know the difference between our generation and the past ones. The Irish and Chinese had to work 72 hour shifts on the railroads and if they couldnt keep the pace or had to stop theyd just be replaced, they were forced to become tough as nails. Add A+ medical care and healthy food & you have Gladiators waiting to be trained.
N1k1mon 5 months ago
@1899sharkey I have thought the same thing. Today we know more about nutrition, have better training facilities and boxers have had the opportunity to study the champs of the past, but still boxing today is nothing like it was in these old black and white clips form before any of us were born. Thank god for youtube
baroh2413 3 months ago
Comment removed
1899sharkey 3 months ago
If you really like Gene Tunney you can catch the FULL Tunney-Dempsey 2 long count match on Youtube. It is a disgrace the 3 parts of the fight only have about 300 views altogether!! Please watch and give good comments. rsmorodinov has posted it! Great post by a great uploader!! Please watch it....also try just searching gene Tunney to find the video
boxingfan009 1 year ago
Everything Gene did was calculated. He held his hands low against crouching fighters becauuse they were closer to his target. Genes strategy was simple, hit and dont get hit. One of the best conditioned fighters ever.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many boxers are overly hyped and getting recognitions they barely deserved. Tunney, is one of those who definitely deserve more! The only man who outpointed Dempsey twice with his intelligence. Don't start with me on the long count battle, because if you study the fight you will notice that Tunney stayed down deliberately knowing time is on his side. He could have got up earlier but he chose to stay which is smart... And he already beat Dempsey a year before. No surprise he could do it again...
expressivechild 1 year ago
Comment removed
expressivechild 1 year ago
Gene Tunney was underrated. One of those intelligent boxers of that era and his perfect body conditioning and strategy makes him a stand out... He may not be one of the most exciting boxers around but definitely one of the most intelligent! As for the technique of carrying his hands low, actually one source reveals that the first ever boxer to use this technique was Frank Craig 'The Harlem Coffee Cooler!' That was back in the bare knuckle boxing era though...
expressivechild 1 year ago
No not a bum and not the brilliant fighter he was 5 years earlier either. I'd be impressed if Tunney beat the 1919 Dempsey. I don't think he would though. It's a close call whether he beats the 1919 Gibbons.
Ezzard Charles' win over old Joe Louis puts him level with Tunney at heavyweight. Wins over Walcott, Layne, Ray, Satterfield, Baksi etc put him over. Historians old and new are not infallible and in this case I think they're wrong.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Dempsey was past his prime but it's not like he was a bum. That combo that put Gene down was a masterpiece.He also took Sharkey out with one shot. Historians old and new rate Gene top ten, if you disagree thats your opinion.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
Plain to see, everyone thinks so, expert opinions and so on and so forth, as you keep telling me. But again... he's in the top 10 for beating a past it Dempsey. And you think that's not overrating him. Dempsey was closer to his prime when Willie Meehan beat him and no one puts fatboy Willie in the pantheon. Charles, Moore and Patterson did more at heavyweight than Tunney but no one puts them in the top ten. So why Tunney?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 1.
You raise 2 questions:
1) Why should Tunney be rated in the top 10
2) Why shouldn't Charles, Moore and Patterson be
1) A rating is based on 2 things; Physical ability demonstrated in the ring and the fighters record. Tunney clearly looks very good so what about his record? Well he only really fought as a HWT for the last 3 of a 10 yr career. Did he fight any other HWT greats at their peaks - No, but he beat everybody that he fought which is all anyone can do.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
2.
Because he was never beaten at HWT we don't know his limits. This unknown factor means that it's right that he should (at least in principle) be considered as eligible to be in the top 10.
2) Charles, Moore and Patterson should not be regarded as top 10 because although they fought more HWT fights than Tunney did, they were all convincingly beaten by other HWT's who could reasonably expect to be in the top 10.
Also, Moore was KO'd by Patterson and totally dominated by Charles.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
3.
Patterson tended to get beaten whenever he came up against a genuinely good HWTs at the highest level.
Charles was undoubtedly the best of the 3. A very good but not a great HWT.
At LHWT however, Charles and Tunney are tied for the title of greatest ever in my book. It's probably unfair to rate them as HWTs though - it places an unfair burden of expectation on them. At their peaks they were really 175lbers. It was only the lack of money and status in the LHWT division that made them move up.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
1) Sure we know his limits. We know his resume is limited to an old Dempsey and Tom Heeney (who?), a terribly thin record for a supposed top 10 heavy. Can't rate a guy based on what he might have done. Jerry Quarry has a better heavywt record than that.
2) They beat (and lost to) better heavies than Tunney faced. Why should they he be rated over them when he never met a top prime heavyweight? I'm not saying they're top 10 material either but they all have a better heavywt record than Tunney.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 1.
We don't know his limits do we because he was never beaten as a HWT. We know Moore's limit (Patterson & Ali) and Patterson's limit (Liston & Ali) and Charles' limit (Marciano). Tunney never came up against anybody that he couldn't beat.
"Can't rate a guy based on what he might have done" - well for the most part that's exactly what top 10 lists are. We guess what might have happened if Ali fought Louis or Dempsey etc.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott By that logic Roy Jones is also unbeaten at heavyweight. That he only fought 1 (mediocre) heavyweight probably had a lot to do with it. Think if Tunney fought Patterson, Marciano, Ali or Liston he'd still be unbeaten? Those guys lost to better prime heavyweights than he ever faced. We know his limits because his record is so limited.
Depends on how you rate fighters. Me, I prefer to go by record and achievements rather than fantasy match ups.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
I think you're missing the point. If you think Jones would've beaten the likes of Ali, Louis, Foreman etc. then yes he should be in the top 10. If you don't think he would then he shouldn't be.
Do I think Tunney would have beaten Patterson - yes, Marciano - yes, Ali - no, Liston - don't know (did Ali ever really beat Liston?)
It's a personal call but I think most people when they look at top 10s are basing it on who would beat who - not on who has the better record.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Which is a bizarre way of rating fighters hence why I prefer to rate them on record and accomplishments. That way is more objective and measurable than rating someone #1 because you think they'd beat all the others. You could make the case for anyone on that basis.
Never said it was Tunney's fault, though beating a faded Dempsey is obviously not the same as beating a prime Dempsey. Take away Dempsey and there's nothing else.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
So who was the best fighter that Dempsey beat then in your opinion?
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 2.
"an old Dempsey and Tom Heeney (who?), a terribly thin record for a supposed top 10 heavy"
Dempsey was only 2 years older than Tunney and he only fought as a HWT for 3 years. But yes - by today's standards it's a thin record. However things were different back then. Look at Dempsey's 7 years as champ for example. Willard, Misk, Brennan, Carpentier, Darcy, Gibbons, Firpo, Sharkey, Tunney. The fact is that Tunney was by far the best fighter that Dempsey ever fought.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Dempsey was faded and hadn't fought in 3 years. Saying he should be rated highly because he never lost is meaningless given his limited opposition. A very thin record and Moore, Patterson and Charles all have a better heavyweight record than he does.
Quarry also beat Lyle, Shavers, Patterson, Mathis, Foster etc and again he lost to fighters Tunney probably would have lost to as well. Quarry is the more proven heavyweight. Did Tunney even beat a prime heavy of Quarry's caliber?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 1
Maybe Dempsey had faded but that's not Tunney's fault. You can only beat the guy that is put in front of you and that's what he did. Dempsey never fought any top class HWT (except Tunney) but you would presumably include him in the Top 10.
Incidentally, I didn't say he should be rated highly because he never lost - I said that you can't rule him out because of the quality of the people that have beaten him, like you can with Patterson Moore etc.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott How about ruling out Tunney because his heavy career lasted about 10 fights? If he fought a few top class prime heavies he'd have boosted his ATG status or lost to some of them. He didn't do either so he's unproven, not Top 10 material IMO.
They lost to better heavywts than Tunney faced and also beat better heavywts. Patterson beat Johnasson, Moore, Machen, Chuvalo, Ellis and Quarry (both gifts he should have won) which to me is more impressive than Tunney's heavywt career.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Hence my comment ""It's probably unfair though to rate him [and Charles] as HWTs"
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 2
"Quarry is the more proven heavyweight" well of course he is. He was a HWT all his career as opposed to 3 years for Tunney. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's a better fighter at HWT though or that he'd have beaten Tunney if they had fought.
"he lost to fighters Tunney probably would have lost to as well" - Ali / Frazier - yes, Norton / Ellis - that's 50/50, Chuvalo / Machen / Patterson - I think Tunney would have beaten.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
Which is why I see no reason to rate Tunney ahead of him. Quarry did more at heavy than Tunney did. We know how Quarry fared against the best heavywts of his era. We don't with Tunney. One is proven and the other isn't.
JQ would probably handle Tunney's comp as well as he did. Gene would have major issues with Ali/Frazier and Norton/Lyle/Patterson/Shavers etc are not going to be a picnic either. He never beat that class of prime heavy, so on what basis can you say he could?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Do you read any of my comments before you respond to them?
"He never beat that class of prime heavy, so on what basis can you say he could"
I haven't said that he could. You're answering an argument that I'm not making.
"We know how Quarry fared against the best heavywts of his era. We don't with Tunney" - who do you think he should have fought that he didn't fight? Wills was at the end of his career and Sharkey had just lost to Dempsey. There wasn't anybody out there.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I never said you said that. You're saying Tunney can't be counted out because he was never beaten as a heavy and that you rate to heavies on a who would beat who basis. Are you now saying you don't rate Tunney based on whether he you think he could beat Louis, Klitschko etc?
Plenty Tunney didn't face... Kid Norfolk, Paul Berlenbach, George Godfrey, Young Stribling, Harry Wills, no multiple bouts with Loughran after a close decision and he didn't stay on to face the 30s heavies.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 1
"Plenty Tunney didn't face.." .You're not being objective here. If GT had fought these guys and I cited them in support of his record, you would have (quite rightfully) dismissed them as either old, not top class or not HWTs.
Kid Norfolk was a LHWT and retired with 15 losses before GT won the HWT title.
Berlenbach never even fought as a HWT. The one opponent they shared was Johnny Risko. GT beat him PB lost to him.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Nice bit of Boxrecing there, though unfortunately that doesn't tell the full story. Dismissing Kid Norfolk based on his numbers is laughable. Last I checked Tunney was a light-heavy for most of his career and most of those guys often fought at heavy. Norfolk was a great fighter often touted as an opponent for Dempsey. Strange that Tunney's contemporaries fought most of them yet he didn't. Strange also that recent losses didn't stop Risko or Foley getting a shot at Tunney.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
"Dismissing Kid Norfolk based on his numbers is laughable" What ? Your dismissal of GT is on the basis that he doesn't have the numbers as a HWT. But with KN the numbers don't matter? This is your methodology.
But I dismissed him not because of the losses or the fact that he was KO'd by the same Tom Gibbons that Tunney KO'd 6 months later, but because he was 32 when Tunney started fighting as a HWT and he retired before GT won the title.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Tunney was indeed a LHT for most of his career. He only really fought above the LHWT limit during the last 3 years of his career between 1925 - 1928. Hence my comment that it's not really fair to rate him as a HWT.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 2
Godfrey was a pretty good HWT but when Tunney was active as a HWT GG had just lost to Sharkey. Shared opponents Risko & Wiggins - GT beat them GG lost to them.
Young Stribling was a very good LHWT but he wasn't really a HWT until after GT had retired. When GT was fighting at HWT YS lost to Berlenbach and Loughran - both at LHWT.
Wills was good but he was well past his best when GT was HWT champ. HW only fought twice when GT was champ - both losses to Sharkey and Uzcudun
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Some of these excuses are very vague. Berlenbach lost to someone Tunney beat therefore Tunney had no need to face him? Stribling lost to Berlenbach therefore he had no need to face him either? 18 losses didn't prevent Tunney facing Dan O'Dowd. Who's to say Tunney wouldn't have lost if he fought some of them. Boxing doesn't work that way, otherwise only unbeaten fighters would get big fights.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
They are not excuses. You have stated that Tunney never fought any prime HWTs to which I replied that he fought the best of the HWT's that were around at the time and asked which prime HWTs you thought Tunney should have fought but didn't.
There are no HWTs on the list that you gave that were in their prime when GT was fighting as a HWT. The point is that Tunney wasn't ducking anybody - there just weren't many good HWT's around at that point.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Which top prime heavies did Tunney face? Tom Heeney and that's it. No Stribling, no Sharkey, no Uzcudun, no Godfrey as well as the slew of top light-heavies he missed earlier.
Given that he missed a lot of the top light heavies of his time and only beat one prime decent heavyweight, I dunno how you can claim "none of the fighters you named fit the bill". Plenty fitted the bill.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
It's not a case of there being no need to face him. It's a question of whether there was anybody out there that had such a good record that you could reasonably say that GT couldn't claim to be the best unless he has beaten the guy. Example: when Leonard and Hearns were welters neither one could credibly claim to be the best 147lber without having beaten the other. Same deal with Ali / Frazier.
None of the fighters you named fit the bill in GT's time.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 3
Jack Sharkey was one of the best at the time GT was champ but during that time he lost to Dempsey & Risko and drew with Heeney - GT beat all of these guys.
Loughran was a great LHWT but in the 12 months following his loss to GT he lost 5 times. Over the next 12 mths he lost 4 times & drew twice. Where's the incentive for GT to fight him again? As for not staying on to fight the 30's HWTs. GT would have been 33 in 1930. You said Dempsey was past his prime when he was 31.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I'd hazard that having a tough fight with a teenage Loughran outweighed by 10lbs was more of an incentive for Tunney not to face him again. People thought Loughran won or at worst deserved a draw. BTW, most of those losses you listed are only newspaper decisions. See how often Tunney's contemporaries fought Loughran.
We already have a good guage on Dempsey as a heavyweight. With Tunney we don't so to prove himself he'd have had to stay on into the 30s.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
I don't think we do have a good gauge on Dempsey as a HWT. Who did Dempsey fight that was good? Tunney was the best he fought. There's a good argument that Dempsey should have fought the likes of Wills and Norfolk when they were in their prime and didn't. He wouldn't even fight Greb who Tunney beat multiple times. You discount GT's wins against JD because he was past his best at 31 but then say that GT should have fought on past 33 to prove himself - it makes no sense.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott It makes perfect sense. Dempsey had a decade to prove himself as a heavyweight. Tunney had a handful of fights in the division. To prove himself as a heavyweight he'd have had to stay on longer and take on all the guys he never faced.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
It only makes sense if Tunney was thinking about how he could convince a cynic about his skills 80 + years in the future. There's no other context in which anybody would say that it's sensible to go on fighting past your prime.
Dempsey did indeed have a decade to prove himself - but did he do it? Again I'll ask you who was the best guy he fought?
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
Comment removed
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Yes it was a close fight as GT acknowledges. But you are looking at Loughran with the benefit of hindsight. In the 2 years following their fight TL's record was 12 wins, 9 losses, 2 draws. He's not exactly a promoters dream opponent for GT at this point.
However, there is a good case for GT and TL fighting in 1928 when they were world HWT & LHWT champs. However, TL waited until 1929 after GT had retired to make the move up to HWT.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Once again you're counting newspaper decisions as losses. They are not real decisions, just what the Boxrec editors have determined based on newspaper reports. Dan O'Down was 15-18-1 when he fought Tunney. Was he a promoter's dream? Greb, Delaney and Stribling all fought Loughran many times.
You're also overlooking that the gap between light heavy and heavy was not what it is now. Light-heavies like Norfolk, Gibbons, Loughran, Greb had many fights against heavyweights.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
"You're also overlooking that the gap between light heavy and heavy was not what it is now. Light-heavies like Norfolk, Gibbons, Loughran, Greb had many fights against heavyweights".
I'm not overlooking it - you are. If I were to say that GT beat 3 out of the 4 guys you named you'd say it doesn't mean anything because they weren't prime HWTs
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Yes you are. You're saying there was no one around for him to fight, except there were, including the top heavies he never faced and the top light-heavies he never faced, and a few he did. How about a Loughran rematch?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Just to clarify - IMO, would Tunney beat Ali/Frazier - no, Norton would be a big problem. Lyle/Shavers - it's possible because he had the right kind of style but with these guys anybody was only one shot away from defeat. I believe that Tunney would beat Patterson relatively easily though.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Except you have nothing to base any of that on since Tunney never beat a prime heavy in Patterson's class. With Tunney it's all in the realms of fantasy... what he could do, who he might beat. We know how Patterson fared against the best of his time, who he beat/lost to. Tunney is unproven and IMO overrated based on beating a legendary figure like Dempsey who himself is overrated.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Just to clarify something - you seem to be under the impression that I have said that Tunney should be in the Top 10. This is just your imagination, what I actually said is; "Because he was never beaten at HWT we don't know his limits. This unknown factor means that it's right that he should (at least in principle) be considered as eligible to be in the top 10"
"It's probably unfair though to rate him [and Charles] as HWTs"
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
We also don't know how limited his limits were. There's nothing in his career to say he could beat top prime heavies, because he never fought any. Hard to make a case for him beating a Joe Louis or a Vitali Klitschko on that flimsy basis. Like I said, he's unproven in the division. It's much more logical to rate these guys on what they did, who they beat etc instead of unprovable fantasy fights. I could just say Ike Ibeabuchi whips them all and no one could ever prove me wrong.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
"Hard to make a case for him beating a Joe Louis or a Vitali Klitschko on that flimsy basis" That's why I haven't made a case for him beating Louis or Klitschko.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius 3
"Jerry Quarry has a better record than [Tunney]" That depends on what you mean. He fought more times at HWT and against better opposition than Tunney did but he was beaten by Ali, Frazier and others. So we know where he fits within the overall HWT picture. Tunney wasn't beaten so we don't know for sure where he fits in - we have to speculate.
A top 10 list isn't a statistical analysis of fighters records, it's speculation on who at their peak would haver been the best.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
Tunneys greatness is plain to see. We dont have to guess about it or project it. Coupled with what kind of man he was made for a special fighter. Compare that to a man who resorted to eating his opponent to make SURE he was d.q.d immediately.Mike Tyson shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Gene.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
That Tyson would be an 'easier' opponent for Tunney, all 185lbs of him, is laughable. Ask yourself why it's been 50 years since a guy Tunney's size made any impact on the heavyweight division.
I prefer to rate fighters based on what they did, not what they might do. On that basis I could say Ike Ibeabuchi whips everyone and no one could prove me wrong. Rating on accomplishments; who they beat, who they didn't beat, manner of said wins and losses etc is at least measurable and based on fact.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Tunney is a top ten all time heavy possibly top five.I dont make my ratings on historical significance, length of reign, or especially the size of a man. I base mine on who would beat who on their respective best day. Tunney would have one of his easier fights against Tyson. Ali would be a tough fight for Gene, but not unwinnable.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
The big difference is Norfolk survived them and got destroyed by Gibbons. Did Gibbons hit that much harder than them or, like I said, was Norfolk simply at the end of the road?
As to not fighting blacks, it's pretty relevant when there's a lot of top black fighters around, whom many of his white contemporaries did face. Again, why didn't he fight Norfolk? And please, let's not pretend that Norfolk losing to Gibbons at the end of his career somehow shows he was no good all along.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Oh, and Gibbons a harder hitter than Wills, Tate, McVea, Clark, Miske etc? That Norfolk suffered a first round KO against the legendary Bob Lawson in his next fight is a good indication of where his career was when he lost to Gibbons.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius Those fighters aren't listed because everyone rated Tunney higher. SIMPLE. He's considered one of the GREATEST boxers ever ! Not refuted? U just don't agree.Not the same thing. Your only supporting my view on Norfolk pertaining to the original question as why not fighting any blacks.{like it matters}
TG beat Miske twice. Wills KO% 51, Mcvea 49% TG 46%, big difference? No.
Your question is valid IMO. My answer is NO. I rate him top 10.
You never answer my question.
faltagh 1 year ago
My question is WHY is he rated higher? His rating as a better heavy than those guys just doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you compare their accomplishments in the division with his. It comes back to my original point, that beating a faded Dempsey has got him overrated.
What have you refuted? Dempsey, Gibbons etc were past prime, he did miss numerous top contenders, the Loughran fight was close and there was no rematch (contrast with Greb, McTigue, Stribling etc who faced Loughran many times).
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius His higher rating is simply a matter of opinion. If you play the statistics game A. Moore came out on top according to a published book. Is he the best HW? or LHW ever? MAtter of opinion. People rate him high based on his performances. What don't you see? That faded JD still KO'd Sharkey, the next best HW. Gibbons was still beating everyone he fought. How faded were they?
Tunney dropped Loughran for a 9 count in rnd 1. He won the decision 8 rnds to 5. Why keep bringing it up
faltagh 1 year ago
Yes an opinion and to me, a flawed one. I see no rational basis for rating Tunney in the top 10. I don't even see how he can be rated a better heavy than Charles, Moore or Patterson.
Gibbons was 34 and never fought again. I don't think Gene wanted that fight a few years earlier. And Dempsey was struggling with Sharkey before landing that prayer.
Because it was a close fight against a quality opponent who he never rematched. All his peers had multiple bouts with Loughran. Why not Tunney?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Where do you come up with a skinney 185 ? He walked around at over 200, after retiring kept his weight between 210-220. He was over 6ft 1. He trained down to 192-194 as a HW. Tyson?? gotta be kidding! Tunney would box his ears off. What black fighter was there to fight? Wills? Norfolk had his ass handed to him by Gibbons, KO!!! Godfrey?
I'll stick with the opinions of the ATG fighters & trainers.
Question?? Whose opinion has more clout, the people I mentioned or yours ???
faltagh 1 year ago
Ha yeah, box Tyson's ears off for the 2 minutes he lasted, lol. Tunney weighed what he weighed. Think Tyson walked around weighing 215? Just a much larger, more powerful man against someone whose best wins were against shopworn greats and whose admirers make him into Superman because he beat an old Dempsey. That's why he's overrated.
Norfolk was past it when he faced Gibbons. All his wins over quality contenders and top black fighters mean nothing cos he got KO'd at the end of his career?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius Your Norfolk remark? Excuses? Gibbons was older ! This is going nowhere. Tyson will never be rated top 10. Tunney has been for 80 years.
faltagh 1 year ago
@faltagh 'Top ten' is not a definitive statement, only someone's opinion. Rating Tunney as a top ten heavy based on nothing but 2 wins over a past it Dempsey is ridiculous.
So what Norfolk was older? Hopkins is older than Jones but who is more shot? Implying that Norfolk wasn't worth Tunney facing because he lost to Gibbons right at the end of his career is also ridiculous. Norfolk in his prime survived much bigger bangers than Gibbons and would be a dangerous fight for anyone.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius So what your saying according to your logic is that everyone who rates Tunney high is ridiculous and your not. LOL !!
Norfolk wasn't older, Gibbons was older. If so called bigger bangers didn't KO Norfolk why would you assume they are bigger bangers than TG.
Listen Roman, you don't have to like Tunney. You are entitled to your opinion. At least you can maintain a debate, unlike so many.
faltagh 1 year ago
Is it not ridiculous to make Tunney a top 10 heavy given his limited resume in the division? Moore, Charles, Harold Johnson and Patterson to name 4 had better heavyweight careers than him and I don't see them on anyone's list.
It does highlight the flimsy basis of many of these ratings. I rate Tunney, just not as highly as everyone else does. I've outlined my reasons, and no one here has yet refuted them.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Mike Spinks had 15 round stamina too and against Tyson it did him about as much good as it would do Tunney, who would be horizontal long before he needed it. Tyson is beatable but a skinny 185lber with 0 wins against top prime heavies is not the one to do it.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius - A frozen Spinks? You couldn't have drove a spike up his ass with a sledge hammer. You know that Spinks had a very weak psyche. I dont think Gene would have that problem. Tyson fans just cant grasp the fact that he did not have inside him what it takes to be an atg. Tunney would win every round until the tin man surrendered.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
You mean Spinks the HOFer who hadn't lost as a pro? The guy who was the #1 light-heavy in a top era?
Tyson was beat by guys who would utterly dwarf Tunney. No 185lber is surviving 215lbs of enraged rhinoceros, walking through his punches, cutting the ring (which Dempsey never did) and pounding that skinny frame of his. Gene would be a battered wreck. Tunney's fans can't grasp that beating a faded Dempsey doesn't make him Superman. Every man has his limits, as Gene would discover against Tyson.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius - Yup thats the one I mean. Hell, even with his self admitted weak psyche ( he was also petrified against Quawi) I still rate him very high all time. But against Gene it would be a much differnt fight. imo tunney had the best wheels of any heavy. His power was underated and was the best at following his game plan.I dont think he'd have much trouble with Tyson at all.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
He was in tears before Qawi because he still hadn't recovered from losing his wife in a car crash. This supposed mental weakness didn't stop him going undefeated against quality comp til his final fight.
The Dempsey fights have given the false impression that Tunney was a heavyweight Willie Pep, which he certainly wasn't. Hows he going to take punches from a great hitter 30lbs heavier? He can't hurt Tyson, can't keep him off, can't tie him up and if he just runs he'll lose a decision.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius - I'm not here to change anyones mind. You can have Tyson, I'll take Gene. Tyson couldn't go fifteen rounds in his dreams. Enough talk about the tin man! Peace
1899sharkey 1 year ago
@1899sharkey Tyson won't need to go 15 in this one. Tunney would go out on his shield, but he will be exiting the ring feet first. Maybe in Tunney's dreams he'd beat Tyson, although the reality would be more like a nightmare! All that being said, I doubt we'd find out even if Tyson was around in the 20s as Gene probably wouldn't have fought him anyway.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Tunney wouldn't have to have great power to k.o. Tyson. In a 15 rounder Tyson would start running out of steam in 8 and be stopped in 10 or 11. Tyson never had 15 round endurance, he would have to k.o. his opponent or lose. Atg's dont k.o. easy.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
Overrated ???? Greb called him great. Battling Levinsky called him great. Said a prime Dempsey might not even beat him. Gibbons called him great. Hall of fame trainer Whitey Bimstein said Tunney would beat anyone after him, includes up to Marciano. Teddy Hayes didn't want the Tunney fight believed him to good for Dempsey at the time. Called him one of the best ever. Arcel said we never saw his best. etc etc etc..... JUst watch him fight ! You don't see???? Ali saw it !!
faltagh 1 year ago
Yes overrated. Not as good as some make him out to be. That doesn't mean he was a bad fighter. Doesn't mean he wasn't one of the greats. The fighter I'd compare him to is Ray Leonard; first rate talent but a businessman first and foremost who picked his fights carefully. His rep at heavyweight is based on beating a faded Dempsey and nothing else. Many of his other wins were against shopworn greats and a close call against a young Loughran. I ain't turning the guy into Superman for that.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius His rep was made by beating Greb, enforced by the only man to KO Gibbons & beating Dempsey. Agreed Demps was not what he was, still the second best HW . Loughran was as slick as they come in boxing. Reps are made in the gym through hard work, conditioning, intelligence, sacrifice, attitude & performance in the ring. Tunney excelled in all these attributes. He wasn't liked by the press, he didn't receive many accolades. His peers respected
him though. He's not overrated.
faltagh 1 year ago
Beating a faded Dempsey is what made his legend as some sort of unhittable, untouchable phantom. That is overrating him. So is making him a great heavy solely for those 2 wins. He outweighed Greb in all their fights and only won 2 of 5 clearly. Gibbons was at the end of his career. Don't think Gene wanted that fight a few years earlier. Loughran a wonderful fighter, but it was very close and he was young. And why no rematch? And is it not strange that he never faced a single black contender?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
Who should we believe, you or Harry Greb?
" Advising newspaper men why he was going to bet on me against Dempsey, he would say, "I have boxed Dempsey and Tunney. You never know how good Tunney is until you do box him."
gothamette 1 year ago
@gothamette Greb had his opinion as did Jim Jeffries who said of Tunney: "Fairly fast, fair defense. Very light hitter, absolutely no color. Lucky for him he didn't have to fight the real Dempsey." Or Sam Langford, who said "if Tunney had been in the ring in the years gone by, he would not have had a chance against the fighters we had in those days."
We all have our opinions, no one is necessarily right or wrong.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FlaviusConstantius "Greb had his opinion as did Jim Jeffries who said of Tunney"
Greb fought Tunney five times. Jim Jeffires never fought him at all. You are clearly impossible to reason with, so I'll stop trying. Peace out!
gothamette 1 year ago
Gene Tunney overated ? Not too many people think that. Tyson imo is the most overated fighter in history. Tysons weaknesses would have surfaced at ANYTIME during his career. I'm tired of hearing about " mikes speed and accuracy ."He was an overhyped product of Jim Jacobs who lacked the great willpower of the atg's. He's not even top 20 all time.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius ....again! Tunney wud av no problem KOing Tyson.....Tyson was the overrated heavy. He held the title for a shitty 2 years tunny held it for 3!!! Tunney fought in a time wen deer was 1 title not 3 which means he wud av 2 fite THE TOP MEN to actually get shot at it. Tyson beat a shot Larry holes in his most famous opponent and spent the rest of his career fighting second tier opponents until he was BEATEN by a second tier opponent in Buster Douglas which unlike tunny he DIDN'T
boxingfan009 1 year ago
@boxingfan009 Tunney fought his fair share of second tier opponents too, as well as a few faded greats.
You think 185lb Tunney is going to have "no problem" KO'ing Tyson? How many top heavyweights did Tunney KO again? I'd hope that even Tyson's sternest critics would concede he was much better than Tom Heeney. Tunney has not the punch nor the size nor the strength to keep 215lbs of solid muscle off him. Sorry, Gene's legend will always surpass Tyson's but he ain't winning this one.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Got to throw in the towel here. I will end by quoting the great Greb:
"you don't know how good Tunney is until you box him."
Does that count for nothing??
gothamette 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius Tunney is hailed by many for being one of the few world champions from the old times to not have been a racist. Wills was the one who turned down the fight and when, If I'm not mistaken, a few months after he called out Dempsey as the no.1 contender!! Tunney had never refused any black man of a fight but because he was so underrated as a fighter until he fought Dempsey, none of them wanted to fight him. I have read two of Tunney's autobiographies and a biography and he has n
boxingfan009 1 year ago
"I don't wish to hurt anyone's feelings, but I have never boxed a Negro and have never even had one as a sparring partner. Somehow, it seems to me, that it is not for the best interest of boxing that heavyweights, and champions in particular, shall clash in mixed matches" -- Gene Tunney
Yes it's true Tunney was willing to meet Wills, who turned him down, but it's also true that he never fought a black opponent when many of his white contemporaries did.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius
boxingfan009 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstatius
boxingfan009 1 year ago
I know there was an attempt to match Wills and Tunney before he faced Dempsey, and Wills turned it down. Remember Wills was 37 by then and near done as a contender. Elsewhere Tunney stated his unwillingness to face black challengers. In Khan's Dempsey bio he reprints a letter from Tunney to Tim Mara (founder of the NY Giants), in which he said he would not face Wills. Seems to me he wasn't interested in Wills until he thought he'd have to face him to get a shot at Dempsey. Businessman again.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius I just want to wrap up this Conn/Louis thing, FC. I don't want to get into a side issue. I'm simply responding to your comment, "Seem to recall Louis knocking Conn smack cold. Don't seem to recall Tunney doing that to Loughran". My basic point is that the two fights are not comparable, because Conn lost due to his stupidity. Your mileage varies...but you are the only one who says this.
gothamette 1 year ago
@gothamette You were the first to bring up Louis-Conn. The key difference is, though behind after 13, Louis ended the fight by putting Conn down for a count of 100 while Tunney could only make away with a disputed decision against Loughran. We may disagree about the reasons why Conn got KO'd but that's the bottom line.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius Regarding the letter - I'd have to know where in the negotiations this letter was written. Tunney's people at one point offered Wills $200K to fight.
gothamette 1 year ago
@gothamette Re: Wills and Tunney (and Dempsey) - frankly I haven't got the time to go into this. The negotiations went on for years. Yes, it was race. But it was also that boxing was illegal in NY State until 1920 and was very frowned upon for years afterwards....Rickard was leery of an interracial fight because of Johnson....Rickard was on trial on morals charges....Wills was surrounded by the usual parasites. "It's complicated."
gothamette 1 year ago
Indeed it's complicated. When is boxing not? My view is there were times when Tunney wanted Wills and there were times when he didn't. It's the businessman again. He wasn't interested in Wills until he thought that was his only way to get to Dempsey. In his interview with van Every, Tunney stated his objection to black vs white contests, although added that he was nonetheless willing to meet Wills, who he says turned down an offer of $150k the previous year.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
Gene Tunney is an absolute master at boxing, who is unfortunately underrated. I have him in my top 10.
Rockyfan10060 1 year ago
I love that ending. Great vid!
mongoose7777 1 year ago
The Fighting Marine.Born James Tunney, the son of an Irish immigrant longshoreman.What a fighter he was,He was so far ahed of his time!!
papadoc711 1 year ago
The Fighting Marine.Born James Tunney, the son of an Irish immigrant longshoreman.What a fighter he was
papadoc711 1 year ago
Rocky versus Tunney....whew what a fight that would be! Could Genes legs and brilliant boxing skills overcome Rocks indomitable will? If it went the distance I think Gene would win, if there was a k.o. it would be by Rocky.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
tunney vs marciano probably the 2 most unappreciated heavies tunney becuse he did lose to greb 300 fights 150 blind in one eye. Rocky lets see he was short, slow, not to smart, fought old overthe hill no names (charles, walcott, moore, louis) anything else? How did he win every fight maybe he was the best!!!
fischparov 1 year ago
great video for the greatest light heavyweight champion ever!
landreev 1 year ago
tunney looks more like an actor, male model, or a singer, he doesnt look like a boxer in those days, he is one of the top 5 great heavyweight champions of all time.
nightdave 1 year ago
this is pretty epic. nice job dude.