Gene Tunney Vs Walcott, Charles, and Moore

This on the basis of him keeping his keeping his hands low?


I recall another heavyweight who did that.




I believe he was champion 3 times?

 

Suze ,I'll do another Rocky thread for you. Keep reading:good

 

Keeping hands low does not mean you are easier to hit. Tunney beats all three.

 

I haven't seen enough of Tunney to make an intelligent ****ysis of how he'd do against those men.. But is beating the aged and faded version of Dempsey really a measuring stick we should be going by. Ezzard charles went on a rampage beating some of the best hall of fame fighters ever and when a good number of them were prime. I know a lot of people have picked Gene to beat Ezzard but personally I think Charles has more substance to go by at least at heavyweight.

 

By most all accounts Tunney was one of if not the best hwt boxer we have ever had. Very quick and clever fighter.

 

I wouldn't argue against this. I still think that Tunney beats Charles in a very tough fight. Charles wasn't his best neither at hw nor when he fought Marciano. Still dangerous but on the decline. Tunney, on the other hand, seemed to not only be in his prime but was a master boxer. When he beat Demsey, Dempsey was still very dangerous. And the long count proves that Tunney is tough as nails - something you'd have to be to fight Charles.

 

The Charles who fought Rocky in 1954 was past it yes... But From 1944-1951 Charles won 41 of 42 fights with his only defeat being a robbery to Elmer Ray.. He took care of it in the rematch.. During that time frame and streak he beat Archie Moore, Jimmy Bivens, Elmer Ray, Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Joey Maxim, Gus Leznevich and several others.. I don't think anyone can match that run of wins..

 

I agree. That's an incredible run. One of the many reasons why Charles is my favorite fighter. I think that it's a toss up between the Charles who beat Louis and the Tunney who beat Dempsey. It would depend on whether Tunney could outbox Charles.

But as for the thread, which pits the Charles who lost to Marciano against Tunney, I would still slightly favor Tunney, though it's arguably pretty much a toss up as well, for me.

 

Like Marciano did LOL his elite opponents were all worn out old men.
Louis oposition was generally poor.

 

Yeah that's fair.

 

What ever you think of Marciano and Louis competition,

Fighters like Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles. jersey Joe Walcott, billy conn, max Schmeling, max Baer were levels above dempseys competition of Miske, Gibbons, Fulton, Willard, Fipro, Brennan, carpentier, Sharkey.


Had Dempsey actually take on the elite of his era, Greb and Wills, his resume would stack up next to the other greats, but he didn't.

 

That's promoters and managers that prevented that.we all know that. Dempseys main sparring partners were black so it's not like he was racist. Thank Jack Johnson for other blacks getting frozen out.

 

It wasnt promoters and managers who kept Dempsey from fighting Wills. Thats a convenient excuse but there were plenty of promoters who were willing to stage that fight Dempsey just didnt want it. He could fight for any promoter he wanted. Rickard didnt own him. He fought title fights under other promoters than Rickard. He just chose to fight for promoters who allowed him to do what he wanted. He also wasnt owned by Kearns. When he decided Kearns wasnt right for him he split. It was never more apparent that Kearns wasnt solely to blame than in 1925 when Dempsey and Kearns split and Dempsey continued to do everything he could to avoid fighting Wills. Its all there if people want to look for it but the people who would defend Dempsey absolutely dont want to look, they want to turn a blind eye and pretend he wasnt at all to blame. If you want to argue he wasnt racist because he hired black sparring partners (And I would suggest that racists often hired black cooks, maids, butlers, chaufeurs, etc. they are "the help" they are employees, why would Dempsey be above this) then to suggest he wasnt racist suggest he was afraid. Which is it? Was he racist or afraid or both. I would suggest that he understood the worth of black fighters given that he hired them to sharpen his tools but he certainly wasnt above keeping them "in their place" which was below him on the pecking order.

And as for knocking out the guy who knocked out Wills... Well, he lost every round of that fight until he decided to start playing pocket pool with Sharkey. Its Sharkey's own fault for trying to milk the DQ but Dempsey hardly scored a legitimate KO. Sharkey was grabbing his nuts on the canvas not his jaw.

As for this b.s. about Dempsey fighting a man who beat Greb... BULL****. Gibbons? Gibbons beat Greb in 1920 and fought Dempsey in 1923. In between those two fights Gibbons lost twice to Greb, the last time being a dominant 15 round decision loss in a title eliminator. Spin that however you like. Dempsey fought Tunney twice yes, and Tunney beat Greb (only convincingly in 1925, 6 years into Dempsey's reign) and by his own admission avoided Gibbons until 1925 (six years into Dempsey's reign. So you seem to want to give Dempsey a pass because he fought one guy who beat Greb years earlier despite losing to him twice in the intervening years, and another guy who took years to show his dominance over those two aging stars. Meanwhile Dempsey gets a pass for the PREVIOUS YEARS of doing nothing and fighting nobodies. Talk about some circular logic devised solely to make your hero look better.

 

Dempsey gets no pass from me, I've many times said he should have fought Wills.

I've never said Dempsey was either racist or not racist, I have said a man who at 16 walks into saloons and challenges anyone for his eating money is not a coward and that such a man is not frightened of another because of the colour of his skin.

Dempsey v Greb
Dempsey v Wills

Where's your money?