Could any middleweight give the young Gene Tunney a fight?

[dpw417]

Besides Harry Greb...

In almost a three year span, Greb engaged Tunney five times...winning the first bout in savage fashion, but then losing the next four (albeit two were disputed)
My question. Do you think any other middleweight in history is capable of giving the young (not prime) Gene Tunney a good fight(s)?

[bumdujour]

roy jones, bernard hopkins, marvin hagler, carlos monzon etc.

[janitor]

Verry few if any.

I cant see sombody like Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins or even Mickey Walker giving him anything he couldnt handel.

It would have to be sombody like Greb who had the style and reflexes to throw Tunney off his game. Perhaps Roy Jones could do it.

[Axl_Nose]

Tunney is a vastly under-rated fighter, possibly the first 'scientific' kind of fighter who really studied kinetics, energy transfer and studied his opponents to the ultimate degree, a master boxer as shown by him beating Greb 4 times, that alone is an amazing acheivement let alone beating Dempsey twice, Dempsey is a god to boxing fans and rightly so but i cant help feeling that too many excuses are made in reference to him losing to Tunney, for my money Tunney would have been too good for Jack if they'd have fought at Jack's best, once the pace slowed Jack could be outboxed its just whether fighters could use the right tactics and get out of them first 4 rounds, Tunney v Johnson would be a different matter, maybe im biased because im a huge Jack Johnson fan but i believe Johnson is on a par with Louis and Ali as the greatest Heavy's of all time ..... As for what Middles could beat Tunney, lets leave out Hopkins because he is a product of the weakest middleweight division of all time, he did what he had to do against welters and 2nd rate fighters but Bernard shouldnt make any top 10 middleweight list, Hopkins in my opinion wouldnt survive with the best at 160. Stanley Ketchel, Ray Robinson, Hagler, Jones jr (he was mentioned in a previous post but im not sure Roy was ever comfortable at 160, he was better than many fans give him credit for), these guys are the obvious candidates to do Tunney, Monzon im not sure about, if Tunney could use the ring for 15 rounds and hit and move, he could beat Monzon buit maybe Monzon would eventually get to him, Monzon was a predictable fighter but he was so good at what he did that stopping him proved to be almost impossible, that shot from Rodrigo Valdes in Carlos's last fight that put him down would have knocked out 99% of middle's, so im goin for the obvious candidates to beat Tunney at Middle

Ketchel
Robinson
Hagler
Jones Jr (if the fight was past 160, Jones was brilliant)
Monzon

[dpw417]

Originally Posted by Axl_Nose

Tunney is a vastly under-rated fighter, possibly the first 'scientific' kind of fighter who really studied kinetics, energy transfer and studied his opponents to the ultimate degree, a master boxer as shown by him beating Greb 4 times, that alone is an amazing acheivement let alone beating Dempsey twice, Dempsey is a god to boxing fans and rightly so but i cant help feeling that too many excuses are made in reference to him losing to Tunney, for my money Tunney would have been too good for Jack if they'd have fought at Jack's best, once the pace slowed Jack could be outboxed its just whether fighters could use the right tactics and get out of them first 4 rounds, Tunney v Johnson would be a different matter, maybe im biased because im a huge Jack Johnson fan but i believe Johnson is on a par with Louis and Ali as the greatest Heavy's of all time ..... As for what Middles could beat Tunney, lets leave out Hopkins because he is a product of the weakest middleweight division of all time, he did what he had to do against welters and 2nd rate fighters but Bernard shouldnt make any top 10 middleweight list, Hopkins in my opinion wouldnt survive with the best at 160. Stanley Ketchel, Ray Robinson, Hagler, Jones jr (he was mentioned in a previous post but im not sure Roy was ever comfortable at 160, he was better than many fans give him credit for), these guys are the obvious candidates to do Tunney, Monzon im not sure about, if Tunney could use the ring for 15 rounds and hit and move, he could beat Monzon buit maybe Monzon would eventually get to him, Monzon was a predictable fighter but he was so good at what he did that stopping him proved to be almost impossible, that shot from Rodrigo Valdes in Carlos's last fight that put him down would have knocked out 99% of middle's, so im goin for the obvious candidates to beat Tunney at Middle

Ketchel
Robinson
Hagler
Jones Jr (if the fight was past 160, Jones was brilliant)
Monzon

Interesting post.
I'm beginning to believe Tunney would be very difficult for Dempsey at any stage in his career as well...Tunney was obsessed with fighting Dempsey...Tunney trained with the mantra "when cometh the man, when cometh the hour..." regarding Dempsey. It sounds as though, Tunney spent almost every waking moment thinking about beating Dempsey...

[klompton]

Tunney did not beat Greb four times. Tunney lost the first fight in one sided fashion. He lost the second but won what was called by many one of the worst decisions ever handed down in new york. Many called for investigations into the decision after the fight and even Tunney admits in one of his bios that there was something to the cries of fix which is why he gave Greb the third fight which he won legitimately. The fourth fight in Cleveland was won by Greb (two of the three cleveland papers had Greb winning the third had it a draw.) The fourth bout was a win for Tunney.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by janitor

Verry few if any.

I cant see sombody like Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins or even Mickey Walker giving him anything he couldnt handel.

It would have to be sombody like Greb who had the style and reflexes to throw Tunney off his game. Perhaps Roy Jones could do it.

I tend to agree.

[dpw417]

Originally Posted by klompton

Tunney did not beat Greb four times. Tunney lost the first fight in one sided fashion. He lost the second but won what was called by many one of the worst decisions ever handed down in new york. Many called for investigations into the decision after the fight and even Tunney admits in one of his bios that there was something to the cries of fix which is why he gave Greb the third fight which he won legitimately. The fourth fight in Cleveland was won by Greb (two of the three cleveland papers had Greb winning the third had it a draw.) The fourth bout was a win for Tunney.

Thank you for your input From what I understand from reading on various forums, you've written a book on Greb...Is it finished?

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by klompton

The fourth fight in Cleveland was won by Greb (two of the three cleveland papers had Greb winning the third had it a draw.)

You need to get onto boxrec to adjust their record. They have it down as a draw with this footnote

Referee stated he would have ruled a draw;
Lima News (AP) called it a draw, but reported that many ringsiders, including those from Pittsburgh thought Tunney had the edge;
Lincoln State Journal stated majority of ringside reporters had it a draw;
Zanesville Signal (INS wire) gave edge to Greb 5-4-1; Oakland Tribune said majority thought it a draw, although Tunney "possibly entitled to the shade";
Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune (United News wire) said newspapermen gave Greb "all but the tenth round"

[JohnThomas1]

A point i will make that some may not be taking into account - Greb was a fully fledged light heavyweight, not a middleweight and 175 is where the Greb fights were taking place.

Anyone summing up these matchups must take into account that Hagler, Monzon and co are facing a fully fledged 175 pound Gene Tunney.

On this basis i am not keen to pick any of them over Tunney but look forward to further insights. Greb must have been some fighter, a damn maniac in the ring.

[dpw417]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

A point i will make that some may not be taking into account - Greb was a fully fledged light heavyweight, not a middleweight and 175 is where the Greb fights were taking place.

Anyone summing up these matchups must take into account that Hagler, Monzon and co are facing a fully fledged 175 pound Gene Tunney.

On this basis i am not keen to pick any of them over Tunney but look forward to further insights. Greb must have been some fighter, a damn maniac in the ring.

good point JT1.
I haven't looked at the weights lately of Tunney and Greb for their fights...But I'm thinking Tunney had a weight advantage of generally 10 lbs. or so...Tunney was the bigger man, no question.
Yeah, Greb must have been a maniac for sure...But I wonder if he really would greatly outclass the other similar come forward fighters such as LaMotta,Fullmer, and Tiger...IMO I'm not so sure he does...I think it's much closer comparison between Greb and those three...I'm problably very much in the minority with that opinion.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by dpw417

good point JT1.
I haven't looked at the weights lately of Tunney and Greb for their fights...But I'm thinking Tunney had a weight advantage of generally 10 lbs. or so...Tunney was the bigger man, no question.
Yeah, Greb must have been a maniac for sure...But I wonder if he really would greatly outclass the other similar come forward fighters such as LaMotta,Fullmer, and Tiger...IMO I'm not so sure he does...I think it's much closer comparison between Greb and those three...I'm problably very much in the minority with that opinion.

I'll take a leap of faith in Greb and say i think Tunney beats the others. He's just too big allied to his obvious skill level. Greb never once weighed below the middleweight line against him in all their battles. I have to think Greb's freakish (and possibly unmatched) intensity matched up ok vs the bigger Tunney (and hundreds of others) and his ridiculous durability did the rest to make things very competitive between the two. I don't think any other middleweight can smother him out of it like Greb may have and Greb must have had some durability as Tunney would have had a rather decent punch at 175.

[klompton]

Part of the problem with those records on boxrec are that they are based off of wire reports sent out to the towns you mentioned, not on the reports of actual ringside observers such as the cleveland newspapers. Lots of people mistake having a subscription to ancestry.com's newspaper files as doing serious research. Its not.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by klompton

Part of the problem with those records on boxrec are that they are based off of wire reports sent out to the towns you mentioned, not on the reports of actual ringside observers such as the cleveland newspapers. Lots of people mistake having a subscription to ancestry.com's newspaper files as doing serious research. Its not.

No worries mate, you've obviously done some serious work in the field.

A question on behalf of our many older era enthusiasts on here - where (numerous maybe) would you direct them in order to further their knowledge of these era's and what comments would you have on certain available sources if any come to mind?

The NO DECISION era poses problems about what should be considered a win or a loss, for obvious reasons. And in some ways that's actually fairer than having decisions. Problem is, people have made newspaper decisions official, and historians argue over source credibility. The last two (4th and 5th) Tunney-Greb bouts were no decisions, I believe.
The 4th is disputed by some.

I've read so many conflicting reports of the Tunney-Greb fights.

What I can gather is that the FIRST and the FIFTH are never disputed. Greb beat the crap out of Tunney first time around - one of the most brutal beatings ever - and Tunney beat Greb pretty good in their last go.

The 2nd and 3rd were rendered decisions in Tunney's favour, and disputed. Some have called the second one an outright robbery, I think.

Many record books, including my 1984 RING record book, have Tunney winning both the NDs by newspaper, as well as the 2nd and 3rd on decision, making him 4-1 with Greb.
Interestingly they list Tunney's fight with Loughran as a newspaper loss, while other record books have him winning.

Another problem with newspaper decisions, IMO, is the fact that many writers were biased and/or on the take. The same problem we have with judges.