View Single Post
Old 01-24-2013, 08:06 AM   #23
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 38,921
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tunney V Sharkey, Willard, Brennan,Miske, Firpo?

Originally Posted by janitor View Post

I think it is very pertinent.
It's an 8 round fight. I'd consider it being evidence of Gene's "vulnerability" to boxers in the same way that Meehan proves Dempsey is so vulnerable. Almost not at all, because whilst it happened, Dempsey and Tunney both excelled against this type afterwards. Trying to paint Tunney's pre-prime draw with Loughran as somehow crucial in deciphering his chances with superb boxers when he thrashed Carpantier, Gibbons, Smith and Levinsky is not really a tenable position. At least in Dempsey's case there are actual losses to Meehan combined with a vulnerability to Tunney himself.

Later in this post you talk about extending the benefit of the doubt to Tunney over a single loss to Miske as Miske merely "having his number". But this 8 round fight somehow proves that Tunney was "vulnerable to boxers". This is contradictory. In fact, believing them both to be true seems rather ludicrous?

The guys that Tunney was steering clear of were not the punchers of the division, they were the other cuties.
But he beat up all the cuties he met apart from Loughran with ease.

I would argue that there are many cases of inferior boxers beating superior boxers, simply by finding the right angle. Unlike punching, boxing is too complex to be absolute.
Can we have some examples?

If my mortgage was on the line, I would rather bet it on Miske finding a technical plane to exploit, than a blindfolded Firpo killing a sparrow with a slingshot.
Here's the problem with that: Miske never - ever - outboxed a great boxer. It literally is something that hasn't happened. Ever. His best result against a boxer was against Dillon where he seems to have done what the big man should always do, turn it into a fight with sheer aggression.

Firpo has never KO'd a great technician - assuming you aren't allowing Brennan, whom Miske also beat - but his power is confirmed. We know of it. It's a fact.

So you are betting your mortgage on something which has never happened against something that is demonstrated. You personally have a great deal less respect for Firpo's power than I do - this is likely why.

It's a little like picking Machen to out-box Ali rather than Shavers to KO him. Both are extremely unlikely but Shavers was probably one punch away from doing just that.

In that scenario, I would conclude that Miske was what I thought he was previously, but that he just had Tunneys number.
As i've said, this would represent a boogeyman encounter, wheras Loughran NOT beating Tunney somehow shows that he is vulnerable to boxers. Makes no sense at all.

These guys were both punchers and technicians in my opinion, with one or two exceptions.
Well the chances of Darrly Pinckney (24-42 for a career, 20% ko) knocking out Junior Jones (who out-boxed Orlando Canizales and Marco Barrera) is, in my opinion, far, far, far less likley than a huge heavyweight puncher KOing a great HW technician. It is one of the most impossible results in the history of boxing, but it occured.

Billy Smith is underestimated technically but I wouldn't describe him as "a technian" by any means. Johnson, on the other hand, is arguably the most definitive technician in boxing history. One punch did it.

Jackson was nowhere near Graham's status in terms of "cuteness". Clear classes between them in that singular aspect. One punch.

Some of the examples i've provided may be objectionable - they were listed, after all, completely off the top of my head. There are dozens more. But I think this contradicts your "lost cause" point. I think that is something you absolutely cannot claim in the wake of these results.

And I don't think that Firpo would win. He might not win a round. But history has shown us, over and over and over again that a big puncher is never out of it. That's just a fact. It's inarguable.

Largley because if you outbox somebody, you are automaticaly deemed to be a better boxer, but when you look into it examples are manifold. There are actualy very few fights where the better techinician on paper lost, where the result was not due to some technical angle.
...but can we have some examples?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote