Gene Tunney vs Joe Louis

Do you honestly think conn would have gotten up from the hook that dropped Tunney in round 7 of his second bout with Dempsey? That was a ko blow. That was the only time in nearly 80 bouts that Tunney was floored.

Regarding fight two the issue is those officials at ringside and the ref saw the bout for Tunney. This was not a newspaper decision affair nor have I ever found that any fraud was determined regarding the officials decision. If you read A man must fight by Tunney he states that he went into the fight recovering from the flu. He was way ahead over the first 7 rounds then found himself exhausted allowing Greb to come on in the middle rounds. Tunney found the energy to battle back over the last four rounds to pull out the victory. He further states that it was a close fight. The varying opinions point to a very close fight. Fleischer who was at ringside however felt the verdict was fair and to me that says plenty.

In any case they fought again soon after in fight three with Tunney in perfect shape and Gene won handily.

In all honestly this Conn Tunney comparison is a farce. Again....all time Conn is no Gene Tunney....not close. Conn was never rated as a top all timer until relatively recently. This is due to modern historians ignoring past greats such a jack Obrien, Root, Levinsky etc. Just watch the skills both men exhibit. Tunney ...all time great boxing ability. Conn a scrappy performer but you just don't see skills at a high level Clear as night and day if you know boxing.

 

Tunney never stopped and only knocked down once. That one time by one of the hardest punchers in hwt history.

Conn was stopped three times and koed for the ten count twice. Conn was knocked down at lest 8 times in his pro career.

Now who had the better chin?

 

Yes

That's because that's the only time in nearly 80 bouts where Tunney fought someone who COULD floor him. Name another big puncher Tunney fought? You can't. Conn fought MANY.

Getting a fighter's point of view or assessment of one of his own fights is about the worst thing a researcher can do. The flu indeed. A typical fighter's excuse. Tunney was "way ahead after 7 rounds" huh? According to whom? Tunney? Laughable.

Want to get a good, unbiased account of a fighter's fights? Ignore their autobiographies. This goes not just for Tunney, but for Jim Corbett and his silly self-congratulatory book The Roar of the Crowd or any account Tommy Loughran gave in interviews (he never lost a fight in his life. Just ask him!).

Bottom line: "4 votes for Tunney, 15 votes for Greb, and 4 votes for a draw. 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."

That says a LOT more than anything Tunney or Fleischer (obviously boosting his NY boy) could say. You seem to be good at cherry picking a couple opinions here and there that support your opinion while ignoring the avalanche of testimony to the contrary.

Yeah, and then they fought again in fight four with Tunney in perfect shape. And guess what? Two out of three of the hometown papers had Greb winning, the other a draw. Jim Jab of the Pittsburgh Press, who hated Greb with a passion and always gave his opponents the benefit of every doubt he could, gave it to him 7-3. Bottom line- few people thought that Tunney won. So much for Gene "mastering" Greb.

 

Tunney, never fought a class-A puncher in his life until he fought Dempsey. He spent his entire career padding his record on middleweights who were well past their best and fighting way above their best weight (like Leo Houck, Jeff Smith, Fay Keiser and Whitey Wenzel) and former great light-heavies who were also past their best and at the end of their careers (Carpentier, Gibbons) and avoided black fighters.

No, he was stopped twice. And that by perhaps the most lethal heavyweight puncher in history (who also would have stopped Tunney, imo). I've researched that first stoppage loss to Pete Leone (have you?). Conn retired in his corner even though he was handily beating his opponent. Do you know why? I don't think you do, or else you wouldn't have cited this bout. Let's just say that it had nothing to do with his chin.

Conn fought these power-punchers: Solly Krieger (x3), Oscar Rankins, Fred Apostoli (x2), Ray Actis, Lee Savold and Joe Louis (x2).

Tunney fought these power-punchers: NONE....except a past prime Jack Dempsey (x2)

Conn fought these world champions while they were in their primes: Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz (x3), Young Corbett III (x2), Fred Apostoli (x2), Melio Bettina (x2), Gus Lesnevich (x2), Solly Krieger (x3), Tony Zale, Joe Louis (x2).

Tunney fought these world champions while they were in their primes:

Harry Greb (x4 [Greb was past-prime in their last bout]),

Battling Levinsky

Tommy Loughran (Gene had a 10 lb weight advantage and never bothered to fight him again)

That's pretty much it.

Needless to say, Conn took MANY more risks in his career than Tunney. If Gene fought the type of guys Conn fought on his way up you might see quite a few more knockdowns on his ledger.

Conn has the more battle-tested chin and thus, must be ranked above Tunney in the chin dept.

 

I don't agree with that initial statement, that meaning that I think that tunney could survive an exchange with Louis, but not on a regular basis. That said, and after playing this fight through in my head several times, i think that the exchanges would be minimal.
If Schmeling was able to make his fight with louis a battle of the Louis jab vs the Schmeling right, then Tunney will try and do the same. He will minimize the exchanges, limit the contact to him picking his spots.
I think, for a minute, I confused myself with Gene Tujnney. If I was fighting joe Louis and landing the jab I'd look to lay in and throw the hook to his belly. Which is why, I guess, that Iam not Gene Tunney and am instead typing about him on-line.

 

Re: Tunney's autobiography as a source, our crack researcher Senya reminded me of this in another thread in which "A Man Must Fight" was cited:

"In sheer desperation I came out at the start of the twelfth and luckily hit Greb with a long right on the cheekbone that had everything I had in it. It knocked him to the ropes. He slowed up considerably." –-“A Man Must Fight”.


Tunney doesn't even remember the round when he caught Greb with a long right hand to the head. It was in the 14th, not the 12th, and it wasn't at the start of the round.

We had a thread a few months back regarding all this, in which a poster also believed the myth of Tunney "mastering" Greb and had an awful time letting it go. It's worth a read before continuing on this road:

***********.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=458158&highlight=tunney

I'll "bump" it up just in case the link doesn't show.

 

Well Greb never mastered Tunney that is for sure. Maybe neither mastered anybody at the end of the day.. but if one day more than the other it was undoubtedly Tunney.

 

Based on what exactly?

 

How can one fight Greb 4X, Loughran, Dempsey 2x, and Gibbons and not be battle tested? Tunney was only down one time in his entire career that had over 80 fights. His chin was very good, far better than Conn's.

Saying Conn's chin was more battle tested thus better is like saying Tommy Morrison's chin is better than Tex Cobb's because Morrison fought more punchers.

 

Greb and Loughran weren't the types of fighters to test someone's chin at their own weight, let alone a fighter like Tunney, who was much bigger than both. Neither man was a chin-tester.

Dempsey and Gibbons were at the end of their careers.

I've already given my rebuttal for this in the very post you quoted. Conn fought more big punchers than Tunney by far. Also more prime champions and prime contenders. To say that Tunney has a "far better" chin than Conn isn't supportable when one considers whose was tested more severely. Was it Conn, who sometimes would go toe-to-toe with some of the most feared bangers in boxing and come out on top? Or Tunney, who almost always used a safety-first approach and avoided contact at all costs (which he was roundly criticized for), and never fought any big punchers?

I think it's safe to say Conn proved more here. MUCH more.

 

Young Corbett could not break an egg and he knocked Conn down. It took Dempsey and only Dempsey to do the same to Tunney.

I just watched Conns first bout with Louis and Tunneys first bout with Dempsey. You cannot compare the two in terms of boxing skill. Conns a scrapper while Tunney a technical wizard.

Greb told Tunney he would not fight him again after fight five. Why would he do so if he were Tunneys superior? Fleischer confirmed Tunney recovering from the flu entering fight two so this collaborates Tunneys story.

Gibbons was a feared right hand puncher and a top contender for Dempseys title...Tunney dominated and never came close to being floored.

 

This is a really good post

 

So Conn, a 19 year old kid who hasn't even come into his own and has a mere 41 fights, right after after being headbutted and bleeding, suffers a 3-count flash knockdown vs Corbett, a 145 bout veteran with a world of experience over Billy, and this to you is indicative of Conn somehow having a less than solid chin?

You're getting desperate here.

Yeah well, maybe if careful Tunney had taken a few more risks in his career, didn't sidestep blacks and stopped mugging washed up former greats and took on a few big punchers, we would have seen his posterior on the canvas a few more times.

Conn took all the risks in his career. Tunney took almost none. You cannot compare the two as far as risk taking and nerve is concerned.

Conn is facing probably the most lethal puncher in heavyweight history and fighting with a HUGE weight disadvantage. Tunney is fighting a past-prime Dempsey with no appreciable weight disadvantage. You tell me who is fighting in the more favorable conditions. It's easy to look like a "technical wizard" when fighting a has-been. Tunney was admired in his day, but he was not considered to be some proto-Willie Pep in his day. The current stock in Tunney's reputation as a boxing "wizard" (a funny term to anyone who has bothered to study the man's career) is based almost solely on the Dempsey fights. When you read deeper into his career, a deeper truth emerges.

And yes, Conn was considered a superb boxer in his day. You can't just go by what limited film we have on both Conn and Tunney. You need to research, which I can safely say you haven't done based on so much of what you've said in this thread. Conn wasn't considered just some scrapper at all. To dismiss Conn as a mere "scrapper" tells me everything on how much research you HAVEN'T done on him. He possessed remarkably fluid boxing skills that were lauded in his day (look it up) and, unlike Tunney, could slug it out and win, too. He had more dimensions than Gene.

And yet Greb was ready, willing and able (in fact was actively seeking) a bout with Gene in Miami at the time Tunney took the Dempsey fight. Actions speak louder than words to me, especially the words of an aging fighter speaking right after he took a pasting.

Why would he be clamoring for a sixth fight with Tunney if he felt he were Tunney's inferior?

More likely he's just repeating Tunney's nonsense. How would Nat know? Why did no one else mention this bout of the flu?

A lie repeated by a thousand different people is still a lie. I need more proof than Tunney's excuse and Fleischer's repeating of it.

Gibbons was an old man in the FINAL fight of his long career. Prime for prime it is a different fight, one in which I would favor the FAR more tested and proven Gibbons who, unlike Tunney, fought EVERYONE.

 

Really, Tunney being such a boxing master is funny to hear.

 

Good point.