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, 03:06 PM   #61
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
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.
Excuse me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
And then, in no order:

Ross
Canzoneri
Ali
Louis
McFarland
Tunney
Gans
Walker
Dixon/McLarnin
R. Leonard (possibly)
Quote:
And then, in no order:
Quote:
And then, in no order:
Quote:
And then, in no order:
Quote:
And then, in no order:
Thanks for reading.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 04:26 PM   #62
prime
BOX! Writing Champion
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico
Posts: 1,229
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf-Bat View Post
If that were the case he would have swept Greb for the rest of their series. The second fight was considered an outright robbery and their fight in Cleveland was a draw that most thought should have gone to Greb. Greb was arguably 3-2 vs. Tunney. If you read the firsthand accounts of the fights you'll see that what I'm saying is true.
Tunney's adaptability sped up Greb's pugilistic demise. Adaptability was a hallmark of Gene's. And it requires studying your opponent and having the skills to impose a winning tactic on that same opponent.

Frazier, for example, in his rematch with Foreman, understood you had to box and punch George, but he lacked the skills to do so.

The better fighter gradually imposes himself in a series. The fact that Gene got progressively better against the great Harry Greb must count for something. Greb was not finished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf-Bat View Post
Of course not, but SRR and most other ATGs did indeed beat the majority of their best comp when they (the comp) were in their primes. The same cannot be said of Tunney.

Top 30 is fine for Tunney. Not sure where I have him.
Actually, beating greats in their prime is rare in boxing. Greb and Robinson certainly did it. It's one reason why they're placed so high.

You can only beat who is there. This is why I look to margin of victory for greater perspective: Mike Tyson beat few greats in their prime, but, oh, what a fighter he was. The way he handled Berbick, Spinks, Holmes, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Biggs, speaks eloquently of his greatness. Same with Tunney.

We basically agree on Gene's place in the ranks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf-Bat View Post
OK, but put him in there with prime versions of Dempsey or Gibbons and you would see VERY different fights. Could Tunney win? Possibly. Would they be by extraordinary margins or would these prime fighters seem comprehensively inferior? No way.
Naturally, prime Dempsey or Gibbons give a much better fight. But the record speaks: Dempsey is on the record questioning whether he could take Gene, both at their best. On the other hand, Larry Holmes, also on record, only wished he could have fought Holyfield in 1980.

The corresponding ring performances show this is all more than just talk.
prime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 05:03 PM   #63
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,116
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
Excuse me?


Thanks for reading.
Ah, go back and read your POST, you meant. Thought you meant go back and study the careers of both gents, which seemed a bit presumptuous. Got it. My mistake and my overlook.
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-05-2013, 05:06 PM   #64
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
Ah, go back and read your POST, you meant. Thought you meant go back and study the careers of both gents, which seemed a bit presumptuous. Got it. My mistake and my overlook.
No worries. Gans was of course greater than Tunney. He is in fact usually the #11 if I do a list and can be reasoned higher. Your anti-Tunney arguments have been noted and after the initial excitement, I'd now compromise at #20-#25 as opposed to inside the top twenty.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 05:08 PM   #65
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,116
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadcapMaxie View Post
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.
True, but in the case of Tunney it doesn't require a microscope. Just a short look beyond the face value of what's on his resume. In fact there are many fighters he didn't face or beat from his era, and most of the "names" he topped were well past it.
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 05:09 PM   #66
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,116
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Just for the record, I consider Tunney an ATG. Not top 25. Top 50
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 05:12 PM   #67
turbotime
Future Hall Of Famer
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LA/Canada
Posts: 18,342
vCash: 816
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf-Bat View Post
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.
turbotime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 05:13 PM   #68
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?

I've been toying with the idea of either Tunney, Gibbons or Loughran in the top twenty.

Which order?

I had initially proposed Tunney and Gibbons be rated anywhere from #19 to #25, but hadn't considered Loughran yet.

(Trying to build a solid, reasonable top thirty after being content with the top ten).
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:07 PM   #69
Lord Tywin
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prime View Post
The better fighter gradually imposes himself in a series. The fact that Gene got progressively better against the great Harry Greb must count for something. Greb was not finished.
One could also say the younger fighter gradually imposes himself in a series.

Greb and Tunney fought five times over three years. Three years after which Greb had over 200 fights, was blind in one eye, and a lot of ring wear.

Tunney by comparison was bigger, younger, and had far less ring wear.

The odds were only going to get worse for Greb as he aged, not better.

Greb had six fights with Loughran winning the first three and going 1-1-1 in the last. He had three fights with Johnny Wilson with the last one being the most difficult. Greb had three fights with Flowers with the last one being the most difficult.

Notice the pattern? All took place after Greb had been blinded and after he started going downhill. Not surprisingly in each case the fighter with far less mileage on his odometer improved on his performance as the series progressed.

Rewind and look at Greb's record in his prime and surprise, surprise you see that it was Greb who got more dominant in a series.

Greb wasn't finished when he fought Tunney the last time but he was rapidly going downhill and only had one more great "Greb" performance in the tank. Walker.

Tunney on the other hand continued to improve right up through his final professional fight.
Lord Tywin is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:28 PM   #70
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,988
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Tywin View Post
One could also say the younger fighter gradually imposes himself in a series.

Greb and Tunney fought five times over three years. Three years after which Greb had over 200 fights, was blind in one eye, and a lot of ring wear.

Tunney by comparison was bigger, younger, and had far less ring wear.

The odds were only going to get worse for Greb as he aged, not better.

Greb had six fights with Loughran winning the first three and going 1-1-1 in the last. He had three fights with Johnny Wilson with the last one being the most difficult. Greb had three fights with Flowers with the last one being the most difficult.

Notice the pattern? All took place after Greb had been blinded and after he started going downhill. Not surprisingly in each case the fighter with far less mileage on his odometer improved on his performance as the series progressed.

Rewind and look at Greb's record in his prime and surprise, surprise you see that it was Greb who got more dominant in a series.

Greb wasn't finished when he fought Tunney the last time but he was rapidly going downhill and only had one more great "Greb" performance in the tank. Walker.

Tunney on the other hand continued to improve right up through his final professional fight.
Good post, with which I agree.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:50 PM   #71
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,116
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Tywin View Post
One could also say the younger fighter gradually imposes himself in a series.

Greb and Tunney fought five times over three years. Three years after which Greb had over 200 fights, was blind in one eye, and a lot of ring wear.

Tunney by comparison was bigger, younger, and had far less ring wear.

The odds were only going to get worse for Greb as he aged, not better.

Greb had six fights with Loughran winning the first three and going 1-1-1 in the last. He had three fights with Johnny Wilson with the last one being the most difficult. Greb had three fights with Flowers with the last one being the most difficult.

Notice the pattern? All took place after Greb had been blinded and after he started going downhill. Not surprisingly in each case the fighter with far less mileage on his odometer improved on his performance as the series progressed.

Rewind and look at Greb's record in his prime and surprise, surprise you see that it was Greb who got more dominant in a series.

Greb wasn't finished when he fought Tunney the last time but he was rapidly going downhill and only had one more great "Greb" performance in the tank. Walker.

Tunney on the other hand continued to improve right up through his final professional fight.
Well done LT
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:55 PM   #72
turbotime
Future Hall Of Famer
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LA/Canada
Posts: 18,342
vCash: 816
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
I've been toying with the idea of either Tunney, Gibbons or Loughran in the top twenty.

Which order?

I had initially proposed Tunney and Gibbons be rated anywhere from #19 to #25, but hadn't considered Loughran yet.

(Trying to build a solid, reasonable top thirty after being content with the top ten).
Loughran>Gibbons all day. Tunney and Loughran is much more interesting. Loughran, Tunney, Rosenbloom fly under almost everyone's radar.
turbotime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:07 PM   #73
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,116
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Just off the top of my head, I'd place these 31 guys all above Tunney(no order):

Langford
Greb
SRR
Armstrong
Fitzsimmons
Gans
B. Leonard
R. Leonard
Duran
Charles
Moore
Pep
Conn
Burley
Louis
Ali
Johnson
Canzoneri
McLarnin
Spinks
Saddler
Ross
McFarland
M.Gibbons
T.Gibbons
Chavez
McGovern
Dixon
Walker
Loughran
Holman Williams
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:24 PM   #74
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

great thread, tough question, awesome fighter. can't add anything that manassa and surf-bat, despite and because of their great debate, haven't already said.

beat some greats but there's a context. an asterix all time great

his record at the top level comes with some scrutiny, but he still looks awesome on film

for the dempsey and greb wins, top 40. if they were prime, top 20
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:27 PM   #75
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
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.
Gotcha.

I still of am the opinion that Tunney doesn't merit a top 20 placement but it's certainly subjective, as all of this is.
PetethePrince 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 10:17 PM.


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