Gene Tunney vs Joe Louis

Tunney rewrote history regarding his series with Greb, in a somewhat self serving manner.

I think it is now safe to say that the cut Tunney sustained in the first fight was not caused by a head but.

Tunney just got dominated pure and simple.

 

Fighters were saying one thing and then taking their words back all the time. The fact is Garry Greb did want to meet Gene Tunney again. He wouldn't have posted a $35K guarantee if he didn't really mean it. I'm aware of what Compton said.

 

Whose Garry Greb? A brother? LOL?

But seriously can you imagine the Greb twins? My head just exploded.

 

Thomas Rice of Brooklyn Eagle, who was harshly against Greb, doesn't mention a foul in the 6th round, and actually gives Tunney the 7th round, with 9th round even:
"Tunney's nose began to bleed in the first round and in the sixth Tunney incurred a bad cut over the left eye that bothered him, as the blood interfered with his vision."


Harry Newman (NY Daily News) wasn't sure it was a headbutt that caused it:
"For the first five rounds Tunney enjoyed a slight edge, cuffing the Pittsburger around with left and right shots to the body and at times appeared to be on his way to victory when he suffered a severe cut over the left eye during a scrimmage in the sixth round. The cut over his eye proved too much of a handicap, the steady stream of blood blinding him, and Greb, taking advantage of the situation, never failed to make the damaged optic his target. There was some who said it was a butt from the Pittsburger that caused the cut, although those up close were satisfied that it was a hard right smash straight from the shoulder."


Jack Lawrence (NY Tribune):
Tunney began to show an improvement in the fifth, which is the first that could be said to have been even. He drove in many punishing body blows and some of these made the Pittsburgher wince. In this session Greb tore a ragged gash over Tunney's left eye with a vicious right swing. This added to the scarlet deluge that by the end of the sixth round had made the ring look like an overworked abattoir.
Tunney's Eye Cut
Greb took the sixth by five punches to one, but Tunney came back, and by rushing tactics and a series of left and right hooks to the body managed to get an even break in the seventh. All of Tunney's attempts to reach Greb's jaw were futile. The challenger always had flitted out of range by the time Tunney got a jab or a hook started to the face.
In the eighth Greb was a marvel of speed, and he slapped the champion from all points of the compass at once. In this round he opened a cut over Gene's right eye and the Greenwich Village boy had the grotesque appearance of having eyebrows of brilliant red.


George B. Underwood (NY Evening Telegram, thought a draw would have been just in this bout, btw, just to show how hostile some NY writers were towards Greb) wasn't sure either:
"He dealt out terrific punishment in the sixth, but midway in the session, as the pair emerged from a mix-up, it was seen that Tunney was gushing blood from a cut over the left eye. The writer could not see whether it was from a butt or one of Greb's overhand rights."


NY Times writer thought it was an old wound opening:
'Sixth Round.
Greb led a left to the face. They both almost fell out of the ring in a wild attack near Tunney's corner. Their heads came together and an old cut was opened over Tunney's left eye. Tunney bled freely from the wound."

 

:thumbsup Good stuff Senya :thumbsup

 

To look at the relevant questions.

1. Are the two Dempsey fights representative of Tunneys style?

No in a word. It would be like assessing David Haye’s style solely on the Valuev fight. Tunney was in against somebody much more destructive than any of his previous opponents, and consequently adopted a far more defensive style. He won the only way he could. You might of course argue that he would likely make the same choice against Louis.

2. How good is the win?

Pretty good actually. Although Dempsey was undoubtedly well past his best, he would go on to beat Jack Sharkey who was clearly the best heavyweight in the world outside that ring. Given the domi9nant nature of the win, and the adaptability that Tunney demonstrated in order to get it, it should be regarded very highly indeed. Even so, I cant help but think that Tunney’s heavyweight resume hangs very heavily a single fighter, and that always concerns me.

3. Are we justified in picking Tunney over Louis based on these wins?

I would personally say not. While it possibly points to a stylistic advantage in favour of Tunney, there is still a huge gulf between their heavyweight resumes at world level, and Tunney’s resume outside of these two fights is pretty thin. The safer assumption is probably to go with the much more proven fighter, and call the fight in favour of Louis.

If we were bookmakers here, I would suggest instaling Louis as a 2/1 favourite.

 

I agree. The problem is that people don't pay attention to or just flat-out resist when any new info that debunks their beliefs comes their way. It's human nature, I guess. Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster to the ground than light ones. Because he was one of the greatest thinkers of all time people believed him. Years later Galileo summoned learned professors to the Tower of Pisa. He pushed a 10 lb weight and a 20 lb weight off at the same time. To everyone's amazement, they landed at the same time.

But the power of belief in conventional wisdom was so strong that the profs refused to believe what they had just seen. They denied Galileo's experiment and insisted Aristotle was right. The strength of their belief in what they had been taught would not allow them to admit they were wrong. Rather than accept the truth, they persisted in believing an inaccurate teaching. Many people are taught wrong (me included) and thus believe wrong, and yet they hold on to it so strongly that they would rather stay wrong than admit it and change. Like I said before, if someone says something wrong and 50,000 people repeat it, it is still wrong. So it's safe to say that sometimes change is vital.

I've had life and death struggles with people on these boards re: the Papke-Ketchel "sucker punch" myth, the Greb-Walker streetfight myth and the Greb-Tunney series myths and it goes along those lines every time. They hold on for dear life to their beliefs despite the avalanche of evidence to the contrary (example: 19 of 23 ringside newspapers felt Greb should have left with his title in fight 2, yet some still insist Tunney was Greb's "master" after fight 1). Senya has given irrefutable proof of the points he is arguing, too.

Time to start reconditioning our minds, folks :smoke

 

@Senya :happy

(well done, sir)

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

In what earlier fights does Dempsey display the sort of style he used vs Tunney? And, please, don't tell me Tunney made him fight that way. One of the sporting writers visited Dempsey's training camp and observed this strange change of Jack's style (he practiced it against his sparring partners) and predicted correctly the disadvantages it would bring. He published his analysis some time before the bout had taken place, I think I posted it here several years ago.

 

1926-09-12 The Charleston Gazette (page 20)
DEMPSEY EARLY TARGET PRACTICE NOT IMPRESSIVE
------
Has Some Old Punching Power But Lacks Old Art of Concentration and Murderous Instinct That Wins
------
DEMPSEY OF TODAY
MAN HE WAS IN 1923
------
BY FRANK G. MENKE

Jack Dempsey's target practice during his first week in Atlantic City was not impressive. The likelihood is that he will improve tremendously before the 23rd of this particular month. But if he doesn't--well, he's no 2 to 1 shot in any fight.

Dempsey has the same old punching power, but just now he lacks the old art of concentration. The murderous fighting instict that was Dempsey's of yore, and that whipped men even as they saw it flame, is not conflagrating so brilliantly; Dempsey is easier to hit than was once the case, when he was weaving, shifting, ducking, bobbing, instead of attempting the orthodox ring defense.

Of course, all these things are happenings in his opposition to sparring partners. He naturally would show a bit indifferent against them, for the simple reason that he must go easy and not try to commit too many assassinations. In his first few days at Saratoga, he did pug the boys rather viciously and dropped some of them, whereupon, they showed heap much fear and sort of served the ultimatum:

"You killer, we quitter."

So Dempsey pulled up somewhat in his punching.

But in the face of the fact that Dempsey is pulling his punches, it is still obvious that the Dempsey of just now isn't quite the Dempsey of 1923. He's become sort of tame, civilized. No longer is he so fiercely savage. No longer relentless, coldly merciless. No longer does he tip and tear and whirl and dash in and upon his foeman and smother them with the very ferocity of his attack.

His stance has changed. He does not weave and bob as he once did. Rather, he is attempting the average ringman's pose of left arm forward for jabbing purposes. And he's cultivated a jab--a really new asset. But he assumes such a pose rather awkwardly, with the result that he is neither as he was, nor is he converted into an orthodox swarsmith in the matter of boxing position.

The very change of that style makes Dempsey easier to clip with a right hand: for, in the extension of that left hand, he holds it low--drops it on an angle below his shoulder. The result is that his chin is wider open than usual for wallops. Being new in the use of something to protect his chin, he does not accomplish it well. He usually pulls his guard up far too late to avoid being smitten upon the smile department of his preface.

Placed in such a position Dempsey is not the free, two-handed hitter that he used to be. For, naturally, his left is not constantly ready for a swishing left hook. He must shift to get it into driving action with that left. And generally before he can do it, the opportunity to hit is gone.

When you take away, or minimize the punching worth of Dempsey's left hand, you are deducting about 60 per cent from his walloping assets. For Dempsey is naturally left handed, gets terrific power into drives with his left, and has scored more than half his greatest triumphs with his paralyzing left hook.

When Dempsey hits these days he doesn't follow up. He steps back. Maybe it's because he has promised his partners not to follow up, so as to save them from being clubbed to the ground. On the other hand, maybe Dempsey has come to believe that men ought to fall each time he hits and he steps back so as not to impede them in their collapse. Which is a bad idea.

For men do not always collapse when hit, and if Dempsey steps back to watch Tunney fall, and Tunney doesn't happen to do that obliging thing with the first few punches, the champion may find himself the victim of a surprise attack.

It may be that Dempsey, up to now, has been trying out a new style of attack and defense so as to "cross" Tunney. He may succeed. But as between his old style of facing straight on at his foeman, in position to hit with both hands from any angle, and this new position that almost all other fighters assume--well, Dempsey's sensible move is to go back to the old way.

Of course, what Dempsey has been doing in the first week of training at the seashore is not definite criticism of what he'll do in later training--or what he will do in the ring. He may go back to his old way of attack, or he may, before he is through here, perfect a far better defense, plus an attack equal to that of the old days. Certainly he seems to be working out some new idea, which may make him a greater defensive warrior than ever before.

But at this moment, it seems that the experiment of the champion has fliwed; it has made him an easier target than before and forced him to sacrifice fast and accurate punching. For Dempsey, through the first week, was not landing with great violence, or jolting force, because he was hitting from a position which made it rather impossible.

--------

So Dempsey, at this particular moment of his training, while in perfect physical condition, isn't in anything closely allied to perfect punching or defensive position.

Copyright 1926, Ring Features Syndicate, Inc.)