Gene Tunney vs Joe Louis

I'm a little shocked by this statement. Based on what?? Conn was the type of fighter who took all the chances the careful Tunney NEVER took in his career. He was thrown against dangerous fighters, contender and champion, while they were in their PRIME. Tunney made his rep by beating on has-been MWs, LHWs and a past-prime HW champ.

If any fighter proved more and answered more questions about their abilities, it was Conn. It isn't even close, actually.

Yeah well, you know what they say-- EVERY fighter has a game plan until he gets HIT :bbb. And Tunney's gonna get hit here. Harder and more frequently than he has ever gotten hit before.

Jack Blackburn could help Joe devise a stellar game plan as well, one that would certainly trouble Tunney.

Gene likes to work off his jab. But what happens when he meets a fighter who could outjab him?? Louis fought some pretty great jabbers in his career and still stretched them. What great jabbers did Tunney beat?

I think Joe saw more fighters of Tunney's stripe in his career than Tunney saw of Louis' stripe. If anyone is getting surprised in this bout, it's Gene.

I don't know about that. Tunney was no defensive master. His rep as a great defensive fighter is based almost entirely on his performances against a past-prime Dempsey. That's not enough for me. I've done lots of research on Tunney's career and believe me, he was no Willie Pep. If one reads the fight reports it becomes clear that he wasn't that hard to hit in his career. A good defense, but nothing exceptional. Not easy to hit, but not all that hard, either.

Again, based upon what exactly? Walcott and Conn both have better resumes than Tunney by FAR. And what superb boxer did Tunney beat at HW who compares to Jimmy Bivins (whom Pastor beat)? What prime, murderous HW puncher did Tunney beat who compares to Lem Franklin (also beaten by Pastor)? Nobody. I think it is safe to say that Walcott and Pastor both fought in a MUCH rougher HW era than Tunney did.

Tunney did almost nothing at HW, certainly nothing that merits the lofty ranking that people here seem to give him in these head-to-head matchups.

But put Gene in dream matches at light-heavy and I agree that he comes out sparkling.

 

I always look to the masters who saw the fighters in question and they all rate Tunney very highly. Few hwt champions have as spotty a record as Walcott and technically I see a far greater fighter in Gene. The same goes for both Pastor and Conn. I've watched them all and again Tunney is just eons past both. Those that watched Conn during his time never rated him high all time. Tunney fought more aggressively for most of his career developing more of his boxing style later on culminating in his bouts with Dempsey. All...I mean all those from Arcel to Fleischer to Stillman rated Tunney very highly for his Boxing skill. Gene had a great jab and if Walcott pastor and conn could out jab Louis Tunney would also. Again I could also see Louis power winning out as he eventually did with all three of these boxers. Gene was the greater fighter than any of them and as such I see him having the best chance than all three.

 

I guess we're just seeing something different then. Like you I've seen all available film of Conn and Tunney and I don't see how Gene is eons ahead of Conn at all. And any perusal of the fight reports from the bouts of both boxers tells the same story. Tunney wasn't always wowing people with his skills. He stunk out the joint when he fought old Jeff Smith in New Orleans and his fight with Jack Renault was stopped for lack of effort. In fact after his unimpressive go with Smith in New Orleans the sportswriters wrote that Tunney had been spending too much time fighting "clowns and fourth-raters" (Times-Picayune, 12/10/1924).

Definitely not the sparkling review revisionist history has attached to him. And that's no isolated thing either. Tunney was often unimpressive. And also keep in mind that he had some of the best PR men in the business. The way they convinced everyone that Gene "figured-out and beat" Harry Greb decisively in four of their five bouts was a masterpiece in revisionism (so effective that this distortion of the truth still permeates today). In fact one could make a solid case for Greb being 3-2 over Tunney!

Gene NEVER "figured-out" or "mastered" Greb.

And if Tunney had had the type of opposition Walcott had to contend with, you might see a few more "spots" on his ledger as well! ;-)

Nor was Tunney. It is rare when a fighter gets placed in the pantheon of the greats during his career. Oftentimes it is not till after their careers are wrapped and the fight watchers have had years to assess them that the fighters are given their due. For the most part, Tunney and Conn share that.

You're a good poster and a gentleman, Houdini. And I respect you, but you're just plain wrong here. Tunney wasn't even in the same universe as Conn as far as aggressiveness is concerned. In fact Gene was often criticized for his LACK of aggression (the Smith bout is a sparkling example) whereas Conn was criticized for being TOO aggressive! :smoke Tis' true.

Sure, a lot of those guys rated Conn highly too. Look at any all-time p4p greats or light-heavy greats list and you'll see Billy's name ranked very highly.

Gene beating Dempsey rocked the world in a way we hadn't seen since Corbett beat Sullivan. An American icon was taken down and in order to justify this in the collective consciousness of the public a few superlatives have to be attached to the offender. Fleischer, Stillman and the others all held Dempsey in high regard. So Tunney's skills (as well as Dempsey's slide) were underscored as the grounding, logical reason just like Corbett's skills and Sullivan's dissipation were underscored to aid in the digestion of such an earth shattering loss. Douglas-Tyson can be scrutinized along these lines, too.

The opinions of all those old-time fight watchers contains value, yes. But we shouldn't allow it to distort the historical evidence, which is available to anyone who bothers to do a bit of digging and research.

Keep in mind that Fleischer also rated Jack Root over Conn (laughable), Harry Lewis over Henry Armstrong and Battling Nelson and Owen Moran over Tony Canzoneri!

Ray Arcel said Marvin Hagler could "never have beaten Rocky Graziano".

Don Dunphy said Henry Armstrong would have knocked out Roberto Duran in five rounds.

 

Your just...wrong.

You don't find Conn rated highly all time until the last 20 years. Why?....those that saw men like Phil Jack Obrien and Root die off and These fighters are passed Away to memory while more recent fighters move ahead. That does not mean those more recent figters were better. Those that saw both Conn and Loughran as an example never rate Conn ahead of him. Today it's the opposite and it's not because of Conns merit.

You need to read when Tunneys trainers said of the evolution of his boxing style. He went from a boxer puncher to more pure boxer as his career unfolded. Part of this had to do with his development of a style to beat Dempsey.

Greb himself stated that Tunney was his master after bout one. The only revisionism taking place is posters trying to change history well placed for the past 85 years.

Again no historian or trainer who saw both men rate Conn anywhere near Tunney. If you know anything about boxing just watch both men and the skills they demonstrate. Tunney is far ahead.....jab, being able to parry, block, feint and then counter to vital regions of an opponent....all in Tunneys favor.

Never said Tunney was more aggressive than Conn. Tunney was the FAR FAR greater fighter. This is why once again you won't find conn rated very highly until relatively recently while Tunneys star has shown the past 80 years. Tunneys style did evolve being more aggressive early in his career and developing his classic boxing style ala Ali (Tunney was the original Ali in many ways in terms of boxing style) later on.

Just watch both men fight. Tunney was miles ahead of Conn in ability. Again this is why Conn was never rated quite high while Tunney was.

 

Why would Greb say Gene was his master after bout one? He just gave the guy a thorough 15 round shellacking. You'll have to show me a quote here cuz this makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I think that Tunney was a better fighter than Conn, though I grew up hearing Billy Conn (and Fritzie Zivic) stories from my father. My reasoning is that the Tunney approach is more thoughtful and careful, but, at the same time, he could hurt you. Dempsey said that the first right hand in the first fight got his attention- indeed, that was the punch Tunney had planned for years. But, against Gibbons, Tunney punches very well to the body with the hook, and he was noted for his right hand to the heart.
I agree with the above, that Tunney hit hard enough to keep Louis honest. I also think that he could be more aggressive than many think; in the first Dempsey fight, I think it is, he takes advantage of Dempsey looking for the right to land several good body punches. So I think that a Tunney win is very plausible.
The thing that sticks in my head, however, is the Louis jab. He had a great jab. If his methodical footwork will keep him in aplace to be able to jab effectively, then Louis could win this fight going away.

 

I misquoted........greb told Tunney after their last bout he did not want to fight him again.

Fight five. No official verdict given. Newspaper decision for Tunney in a one sided fight.

AP...."Whatever doubt existed as to the superiority of Gene Tunney over Harry Greb was dispelled today as a result of Tunney's decisive victory over the world's middleweight titleholder here last night. No decision was involved. Tunney gave Greb as thorough a beating as he has ever received. So completely was Greb outclassed and outfought in six of the ten rounds, that he resorted to a defensive fight after the 3rd round and thereafter was guilty of persistent holding and stalling, varied only by a rare flash of offensive fighting, which Tunney quickly terminated by a devastating body attack."

Fight four no official verdict but ref and AP called it a draw. Close bout.

Referee stated he would have ruled a draw. AP called it a draw, but reported that many ringsiders, including those from Pittsburgh thought Tunney had the edge

Fight three official decision W15 for Tunney.Tunney dominates the late rounds.

The consensus was that Tunney won 9 rounds, Greb four, and two were even. Tunney mounted a body attack that allowed him to dominate the fight from rounds 8 to 14. The first seven rounds were evenly fought and Greb rallied strongly to win the 15th. Greb landed many more punches but Tunney's were harder and cleaner. There were no knockdowns.

Fight two official verdict W15 Tunney

Nat Fleischer, “Gene Tunney, the Enigma of the Ring”:
It was a spectacular affair that had 15,000 persons--a packed house--at a high pitch of excitement from start to finish. The marine carried off the unanimous decision of Judges Charles E. Miles, Charles Meighan, former sports editor of the New York Morning Telegraph, and Referee Patsy Haley after one of the stormiest ring encounters seen in the Garden since boxing was revived in New York. Pandemonium reigned when the decision was announced by Joe Humphreys and for a time, the police were kept busy quelling riots in various parts of the arena. The Pittsburgher's friends felt that he had been jobbed, but those who watched the bout closely, saw no basis for complaint. Sharp as was the division of opinion among the boxing fans as to who won, there was just as sharp a difference of opinion among the newspapermen. Some agreed with the official verdict; others felt that the least Greb should have gotten was a draw, and still others believed that Greb had won. Yet the officials voted unanimously in Gene's favor and that was sufficient to gain for him the title he had lost almost a year previously to the same 'Pittsburgh Windmill'.

Fight one official verdict W 15 Greb.

Pittsburgh Post reported that Tunney fought extremely well. He made a great fight for 10 rounds, but Greb set a pace in the last five that overwhelmed his opponent. Tunney's eyebrows were cut and he bled at the nose and mouth. Greb fought his usual fight, all over his man, and chopping him up. Tunney fought Greb much better than Tommy Gibbons had done in New York.

So of the three official verdicts Tunney wins 2-1. Of the two ND fights one is a draw while the other is one sided for Tunney. That's 3-1-1 for Gene. The only bout that's disputed is fight two but it's an official verdict. So unless you want to play the game of reversing a decision of a fight that took place 90 years ago the decision stands. Tunney became Grebs master as the series developed and this showed itself in both fight three and especially fight five. This led to Greb visiting Genes dressing room after fight five and telling him he did not want a fight six.

 

i can tell you are a tunney fan...me, too:hi:
What makes me think about this fight, is the comparative footwork of the two, and who wins the battle of the jab. These are my two favorite HWs, possibly my two favorite fighters overall, but I had never thought about this fight before.
Tunney is well known as a guy that could move. Louis gets short changed; his footwork is exactly what it needs to be and no more. Substance, not flash. Can he cut the ring off and/or be where he needs to be to jab effectively with Tunney? I think that this is important- if memory serves, the Tunney jab and the louis jab were long held to be the best in the division, and Liston came later.
If tunney wins the jab battle, he'll win easily. If Louis does, he'll stop Tunney. I cannot see tunney stopping Louis, though I know for certain that he could really hurt him.

 

Gray....you know your boxing. On any given day Tunney could beat anyone. Smart smart fighter. I could see Tunney befuddling louis to win over 15 or Louis doing what Louis does and koing Tunney late. It would be a great fight. I would lean towards Tunney winning over 15.....at least in fight one!

 

I see it as a very tactical fight, but with some very sharp exchanges. But if louis can get that jab working...

 

I must plagiarize Klompton's research a bit here. Just for the record, in early 1926 Greb and Tunney were being matched for a bout in Miami that Greb was more than willing to sign. Tunney backed out when he was called up as Dempsey's logical next opponent.

No dispute. Tunney was better against a one-eyed Greb who was near the tail end of his career and was at a weight disadvantage of almost 15 pounds.

Cleveland had three newspapers. Two had it for Greb and one called it a draw. That means NO ONE voted Tunney the victor of any local paper. And if you're going to quote from Boxrec (which is what you've done here), then don't just quote the sources that support your contention. The rest of it says:

"Cleveland Plain Dealer scored for Greb 6-3-1. Zanesville Signal (INS wire) gave edge to Greb 5-4-1; Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune/Milwaukee Journal (United News wire) said newspapermen gave Greb "all but the tenth round"; Jim Jab from Pittsburg Press (a notorious Greb detractor) scored for Greb 7-3.

That's pretty heavy evidence in Greb's favor. The majority were with him, not Tunney.

No dispute

Nat is VERY liberal with his facts. All of these decisions were rendered by papers directly from ringside, not wire reports:

NY Morning Telegraph: Greb won 10 of 15 rounds

NY Evening Mail: "Decision depriving Greb of LHW Crown Calls for Sweeping Inquiry"

Newark Star Eagle: Gave Tunney only the 14th round

Newark Evening News: Greb gave Tunney as bad a beating as the first fight, it was one of the worst decisions handed out since the Walker Law

Jersey Journal: The only round Tunney won decisively was the 14th.

Standard Union:After weird decision Tunney is LHW Champion: Judges decide against Greb who had lead on points

NY Sun: Gave Tunney the fight because Tunney scored more points yet then states that Greb scored more points but that the writer took points away because Greb clinched too often...

The NY Evening Telegram: Gave the fight to Tunney
NY American: gave it to Tunney
NY Times: gave it to Tunney
NY Evening World: Scored it a Draw and added that Tunney did not deserve the victory despite the writer stating he was a great admirer of Tunneys
NY Tribune: called it a draw stating the decision met with much disapproval, writing for the same paper Grantland Rice called it a poor decision
NY Herald: Gave it to Greb, another writer for the paper called it a draw
Evening Journal: Gave it to Greb
Evening Mail: Gave it to Greb
Philly Ledger: Gave it to Greb
NY Daily News: Stated a draw would have been a better decision.
Pittsburgh Post: Gave Tunney only two rounds.
Pittsburgh Gazette Times: Gave it to Greb
Pittsburgh Press: Gave it Greb

Bill Muldoon chairman of the NYSAC stated it was a bad decision.

Thats 4 votes for Tunney, 15 votes for Greb, and 4 votes for a draw. So in essence 19 of 23 ringside opinions listed above believed Greb should not have left the ring without his crown. That's pretty overwhelming, particularly considering the strong words used in most of those articles saying things like "robbery" and calling for an investigation, etc. Lets also keep in mind that this was Tunney's hometown and the majority of those papers were hometown papers for Tunney.

Most reports state that when the decision was announced the audience sat stunned and a low murmur was heard throughout, confused by the decision. This was evident even among sections rooting for Tunney. It wasn't until after Greb left the ring and Tunney started out of the ring that he was given his ovation and the paper states this was given to him by his fans, not the entire audience, many of which hooted, hissed, and shouted robbery.

Here is a direct quote from Tunney on the decision: "Realizing there was some justice in Greb's claim of a bad decision, I offered him a return engagement." -Gene Tunney, A Man Must Fight, P. 162


So I think it's safe to say that your point of view on the Greb-Tunney series is a bit off

 

I like this. For the most part, Tunney could likely use his legs and outbox Joe but he would have his mettle tested at some point. Louis isn't Dempsey. The Brown Bomber was a more devastating puncher and a more potent finisher. I would expect Joe to maneuver himself into that middle range he loved so much and eventually be too much for the Fighting Marine.

 

If there is an exchange of leather at any point in the fight Tunney is going down. And there would be. Tunney was no Willie Pep. I think you two overrate him based on two fights against a past prime Dempsey. Tunney was a great fighter, yes. But a great heavyweight? I don't see what he did at HW to procure himself so lofty a tag as being a "great heavyweight". His HW resume is anemic compared to Louis. Absolutely anemic.

 

I can't even imagine what Greb would really look like on film.

 

What I strongly disagree with in the post you quoted was McVey's contention that Tunney was the "equal" of Conn in the chin department. That is totally laughable. Tunney's chin wasn't tested even half as much as Conn's was. It's crazy to suggest that Tunney was the equal of Billy Conn in that area. Billy fought big punchers at MW, LHW and HW. Tunney fought NONE at ANY weight (except a past prime Dempsey). That's not strong enough evidence for me and shouldn't be for anyone else.