Mike Tyson v Gene Tunney

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Jul 6, 2007.


  1. Surf-Bat

    Surf-Bat Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,736
    97
    Jul 20, 2010
    Exactly. Tunney has nothing that would keep Tyson off of him. He has two advantages- heart and boxing ability. But neither of those would come into play any more than Bernard Hopkins' heart and ability would come into play if he fought Tyson. Why? Because he would be quickly dispatched.
     
  2. Surf-Bat

    Surf-Bat Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,736
    97
    Jul 20, 2010
    Actually, when he was in his prime he was excellent at cutting off the ring. So you're wrong there. He didn't just follow guys around. He had fast feet and was good at cornering moving targets. Plus his bobbing and weaving made him hard to hit. Tunney's punches, with their light-heavy power, would find a difficult target and when they did land, they would make little impression.

    Old MWs went the distance with Tunney and took his punches. So now Tyson had better watch his step?
     
  3. Joe E

    Joe E Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,361
    42
    May 12, 2007
    2 inch height advantage, 5 inch reach advantage. Bigger than. Oh, Tyson had quick hands, but I see you didn't mention footwork as Tyson had a habit of following his opponents, and Gene had arguably the best in the division, ever. You also refuse to acknowledge, once again, Tysons' habit of failing to over come adversity as if it doesn't matter, due to his over powering strength. Tunney would be well capable of frustrating Tyson with educated feet, a pecking Jab, and ring generalship that Tyson had rarely experienced, and would have possibly had Tyson panicked and flailing eventually. Little Gene Tunney was well capable of making a ****** out of Tyson. Not saying he would win, but he certainly wouldn't be a push over.
     
  4. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,966
    2,410
    Jul 11, 2005
    There must have been a completely different boxer called Gene Tunney that many people here seem to envision, than the one that actually fought in the 1910s-1920s, as seen and reported by newspaper writers at the time. Tunney footwork? I quoted a random half a dozen fights to show that Tunney was no footwork artist by any means. No other explanation than it must have been another boxer by the same name, or maybe a parallel universe or something.
     
  5. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,525
    27,107
    Feb 15, 2006
    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected
     
  6. rusak

    rusak Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,276
    30
    Sep 28, 2012
    In the world of the old time nutbag, that's a perfectly reasonable statement.
     
  7. rusak

    rusak Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,276
    30
    Sep 28, 2012
    Tyson by brutal KO. Tunney would be lucky to see the second round.
     
  8. Joe E

    Joe E Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,361
    42
    May 12, 2007
    So Ali was wrong because he was born after Tunneys' last fight and because you know better.
     
  9. rusak

    rusak Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,276
    30
    Sep 28, 2012
    The most impressive thing Tunney did in the Dempsey fights was tie up Dempsey and outmuscle him in the clinch. His footwork was nothing special by today's standards and would not get it done against Tyson.
     
  10. Joe E

    Joe E Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,361
    42
    May 12, 2007
    Right. :lol:
     
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,525
    27,107
    Feb 15, 2006
    Which of Tysons opponents do you feel displays better footwork on film, and why?
     
  12. Surf-Bat

    Surf-Bat Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,736
    97
    Jul 20, 2010
    "Taller" and "bigger" are two different things. Is Yao Ming "bigger" than Shaquille O'Neal because he's a little taller? Absolutely not.

    Actually, I did. Read post #63.



    No, he didn't. As Senya has pointed out and you don't seem to have an answer for. Your basing this solely on his track meet against a past-prime Dempsey. You have to look beyond the Dempsey fights to get a well-rounded view of Gene Tunney. As a heavyweight, he didn't prove to have the best anything ever. He only had a handful of fights against HWs.


    Mike Tyson experienced more similarities to Tunney in his career than Tunney experienced similarities to Tyson. Tyson fought jabbers, ring generalship and educated feet. Tunney NEVER fought a 220 pound slugger with hands as fast (or faster) than his own. If anyone is going to get surprised in this fight, it's Tunney. Or are you suggesting that he could somehow take Tyson's punches? Or that he is so slick that he'd make Tyson miss(laughable to anyone who has actually bothered to study Tunney's career)?
     
  13. Surf-Bat

    Surf-Bat Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,736
    97
    Jul 20, 2010
    I agree. But adapting and being successful against a past-prime Dempsey and a prime Tyson are two hugely different things.
     
  14. Surf-Bat

    Surf-Bat Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,736
    97
    Jul 20, 2010
    I would say Senya knows better. He's definitely studied more on Gene Tunney than Ali ever did.
     
  15. Surf-Bat

    Surf-Bat Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,736
    97
    Jul 20, 2010
    :good

    There was indeed. I'm not sure if the NY media is to blame or Tunney and Billy Gibson and their machinations or what.

    All one needs to do is compare his record to those of his contemporaries like Greb, Leonard, Walker, etc. to see how carefully managed Tunney was. The more I read about the behind the scenes shenanigans the less respect I have for him. The Jeff Smith debacle was especially nauseating.