Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-05-2013, 06:29 AM   #46
MadcapMaxie
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prime View Post
Tunney bested Greb, not because Greb suddenly grew uselessly old, but because he adjusted successfully and that is my point about Gene: his tactics and skills were first-class, against the first-class competition of the day.

No all-time great has ever beaten only prime, all-time great competition. Even Robinson didn't, and he is consensus top 3-5. I'm arguing for Gene in the top 30.

"Engineering" was perhaps part of Gene's career, but, bottom line--like Sugar Ray Leonard--he beat all the men he had to beat, and--like Mike Tyson--he beat them by an extraordinary margin: Carpentier, Gibbons, Dempsey, they all seemed comprehensively inferior competitors when in the same ring with Gene.

By contrast, Evander Holyfield beat Foreman and Holmes, but left the impression that those guys could whip his butt had they been young. Save the Long Count, this is not Gene's case, and he still won practically 19 out of 20 rounds against the Mauler.

Where do you place Gene Tunney, pound for pound?
I think this about sums it up for me, put damn near anyones record under the microscope and you're bound to find things you don't like but at the end of the day Tunney beat all there was to beat across 3 different weight classes and for that he ranks def. in the top 30 perhaps top 20 if i sat down and could work out a list. I also think he is the most impressive fighter on film from Johnson all the way up until Louis, and especially for his own era looks leagues more skilled than any opponent he faced.
MadcapMaxie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-05-2013, 06:34 AM   #47
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf-Bat View Post
Sure:

Tunney- Jack Dempsey x2
Harry Greb x2
Georges Carpentier
Tommy Gibbons
Battling Levinsky
Jeff Smith
Leo Houck x2

(almost all ready for the convalescent hospital)

Joe Gans- 145-10 with 100 knockouts. With newspaper decisions he is 159-12.

Battling Nelson
Joe Walcott (a draw most thought Gans won)
Young Griffo
Jimmy Britt x2
Jack Blackburn x2
Dave Holly x3
Frank Erne
Kid McPartland
George "Elbows" McFadden x4
Dal Hawkins
Rufe Turner x2
Sam Bolen
Bobby Dobbs x2
Kid Herman
Mike Twin Sullivan (a MIDDLEWEIGHT) x 2 by KO.
Jack Bennett (a welterweight contender) x2 by KO
Eddie Kennedy (a welterweight)
Spike Sullivan
Willie Fitzgerald (a welter)
Martin Flaherty
Wilmington Jack Daly x2

Nothing engineered about that. And I left out many top men that he beat. His resume is as deep as it is vast. He fought many tigers, some bigger, some smaller and faster, most in their absolute prime.

We can't say the same about Tunney.
I said try reading, not writing.

Now go back and see where you made your mistake.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:39 AM   #48
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
Problem?
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:01 AM   #49
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,741
vCash: 1210
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
go back and see where you made your mistake.
The "And then, in no order:" I suppose.

I see no point explaining where there is a problem with #15, or, better yet, #22 because "I think that was too much", as it should be pretty obvious.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:22 AM   #50
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,037
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Would you rate him higher or lower than Gans, senya?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 08:10 AM   #51
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
The "And then, in no order:" I suppose.

I see no point explaining where there is a problem with #15, or, better yet, #22 because "I think that was too much", as it should be pretty obvious.
You do realise most people don't even consider McFarland?

#22 was a rough estimate at the time and you surely see that when I counted the names there were less than twenty two anyway. Feel free to share your top twenty one.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 11:57 AM   #52
Baclava
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 339
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
What are peoples' thoughts on this?

His record is impeccable. He has the following Hall of Famers on his record:

Jack Dempsey x2
Harry Greb x2
Georges Carpentier
Tommy Gibbons
Battling Levinsky
Jeff Smith
Leo Houck x2

Now we know any fighter's can be picked apart (Dempsey was past it! Greb was smaller! Etc...) but Tunney seems to have shown astonishing consistency and beat some of his best opponents with ease.

I've thought of around a #22 placing alongside Packey McFarland (who I previously rated in the top fifteen but I think that was too much).
Tunney beat Greb 3 times, not twice. One fight was a draw, Greb won the first.
Baclava is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:00 PM   #53
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baclava View Post
Tunney beat Greb 3 times, not twice. One fight was a draw, Greb won the first.
Cheers for pointing that out
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:03 PM   #54
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,396
vCash: 1200
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
When he was younger, yes. Bivins also beat my #6, but he's not near the top twenty.
A 21 year old version. He also went 1-4 against Charles respectively, hardly the same as Burley's dominance against Moore. Didn't Moore say Burley was the hardest man he fought? I know testimony alone can't get you into a top 20 seeding but he's got to be somewhat close. Nothing wrong with him not making it, but let's not put him on the same field as Bivins who obviously doesn't make a top 20 P4P list let alone a top 20 LHW list (Well he probably would that).

Quote:
Burley shouldn't be in the top thirty five realistically - you would have to say Jose Napoles, Emile Griffith, Kid Gavilan and Luis Rodriguez had worse records for this to be the case.

People get offended by the numbers sometimes, but they forget how many great boxers there have been.
Not offended, fair enough. I realize Burley's record doesn't merit his placement at times. A lot of it is do to him being viewed as the best of an avoided crew (Although clearly that wasn't even conclusive).
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:06 PM   #55
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,287
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf-Bat View Post
By the time Tunney finally dominated Greb in a fight (their last, the ONLY one Gene truly dominated)) Greb was slipping, already a veteran of 271 bouts, all crammed into 12 years. A dizzying pace. Plus he was fighting blind in one eye and at an almost 14 lb weight disadvantage.
In their five fights Tunney had an average weight advantage of 8.65lbs.

Tunney was twelve pounds heavier than Jeff Smith,and ten pounds heavier than Loughran.

I think Tunneys resume is a bit thin for an ATG p4p .
Two wins over a faded Dempsey ,one of which almost ended disastrously . One over an on the slide middle weight ,Smith.

One over an end of the line Carpentier.
One over a 34 years old Gibbons, having his last fight.

A draw with a nineteen years old Loughran who was conceding 10lbs.
Just my take.

Last edited by mcvey; 02-05-2013 at 02:21 PM.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:19 PM   #56
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,037
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
Cheers for pointing that out
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:26 PM   #57
Vic-JofreBRASIL
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,697
vCash: 1166
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

I rate him highly, generally....inside a top 25 at least.
Vic-JofreBRASIL is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:35 PM   #58
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,083
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
I said try reading, not writing.

Now go back and see where you made your mistake.
I've done all the reading on Tunney and Gans that one can do. I've made and laid out my arguments clearly. Time for you to start addressing the points I made. Or continue to avoid them and hide behind a dismissive demeanor (your usual tactic). Your call.

Last edited by Surf-Bat; 02-05-2013 at 02:50 PM.
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 02:37 PM   #59
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,083
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
In their five fights Tunney had an average weight advantage of 8.65lbs.

Tunney was twelve pounds heavier than Jeff Smith,and ten pounds heavier than Loughran.

I think Tunneys resume is a bit thin for an ATG p4p .
Two wins over a faded Dempsey ,one of which almost ended disastrously . One over an on the slide middle weight ,Smith.

One over an end of the line Carpentier.
One over a 34 years old Gibbons, having his last fight.

A draw with a nineteen years old Loughran who was conceding 10lbs.
Just my take.
This exactly.

It doesn't take much close examination to see the BIG difference between Tunney's resume and the other ATGs. All you need to do is put it next to those of his contemporaries.
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 03:03 PM   #60
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PetethePrince View Post
A 21 year old version. He also went 1-4 against Charles respectively, hardly the same as Burley's dominance against Moore. Didn't Moore say Burley was the hardest man he fought? I know testimony alone can't get you into a top 20 seeding but he's got to be somewhat close. Nothing wrong with him not making it, but let's not put him on the same field as Bivins who obviously doesn't make a top 20 P4P list let alone a top 20 LHW list (Well he probably would that).



Not offended, fair enough. I realize Burley's record doesn't merit his placement at times. A lot of it is do to him being viewed as the best of an avoided crew (Although clearly that wasn't even conclusive).
I hope we can both agree that Burley did great against Moore, who was by then formidable himself, but also that Moore was a different beast in the late '40s and early '50s.

Bivins was an example. Schmeling beat Louis. Morrow beat Moore. That my #40 (or about there, is where I'd put Burley) beat my #7 at some point doesn't matter at all.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013