[1974] Tunney: Dempsey kos Ali in 1 round, Greb makes a fool out of Ali

And Daniel Mendoza would have DESTROYED Tunney. Completely and absolutely. There are youtubes out there to prove it.
But none on Greb.

 

Louis's jab was excellent, and the last thing for him to lose really.

 

He was a lower class Irish kid who obviously wanted to escape his humble origins. The intellectual pretentions are a bit obnoxious in today's light. I wonder how people not in the fawning NYC press felt about them.

 

Some great fighters are reliable witnesses, and some are not.

Tunney falls into the latter category in my eyes.

He had a habit of rewriting history in his favor, and it is definitely not a coincidence, that Dempsey and Greb are both men who he had beaten.

I would place more weight on the opinion of Jack Dempsey, or Max Schmeling around that time.

 

Tunney was obviously a clever man, but I would say that Jack Johnson was smarter, and so was Jim Corbett.

 

Shut up Gene

 

Bigger, stronger, Andy r.

 

No more morlocks or mcvey here, damn

 

At 76 yrs of age Tunney had earned the right to have any opinion he wanted, and to be respected for it.
Having said that in my opinion he couldn't have been more wrong, and probably very bias.
It can certainly be argued that Dempsey may not have been the best fighter of his own era because of his refusal to fight the best fighters of different races.
Most sports have progressed, but boxing could be that one exception.
Of course a defensive lineman in pro football today would destroy an offensive lineman from 50 yrs ago and older. They are much bigger, much stronger, much faster. ( But they are not as technically sound, and some today relying strictly on their physicality)
But boxing is very unique, because a welterweight is a welterweight and etc . ( That's if they're fighting on a same day weigh-in, I mean if your fighting for a welterweight title, you should be a welterweight,,,,, right? )
Than, it comes down to skills, competition , and physical ability.
If fighter A is fighting once a month or every couple of months, it's more than reasonable to assume he will have better skills, be much sharper in a boxing ring than fighter B who's fighting once or twice a year.
Than some may think it applies to any boxing weight class other than Heavyweights.
But take a real close look at D.Wilder he looks amateurish in most of his fights, he round house punches, pushes the jab, lands punches with the palm of his hands as opposed to his knuckles, yet, he punched hard enough to put the much heavier Fury on his ass. Wilders max weight is around 213 lbs.
Is it really that difficult to believe a consumate pro like J.Louis with his precision, his accuracy and timing , his professionalism couldn't have done better? Wilder was only a few pounds heavier than Louis.
Boxing is much more about repetition brought on by actually doing it than most sports. Knowing how to fight is much more difficult than simply running fast, or jumping high, or pushing offensive lineman. With modern training techniques and supplements, and drugs yes a football player, basketball player or track stars is no doubt better than they were 30 , 40 yrs ago.
But boxing isn't based mostly on physicality as most sports are.
Boxing is much more about timing, reflexes, techniques, skills and simple old fashion willingness to except getting hurt, perhaps seriously hurt than most sports.
That in my opinion is why in most weight classes (Damn near all) fighters from days past are much better, and can reasonably be matched with fighters of today.
In fact, most of the fighters today are at a disadvantage because they are not required to do it as much to make a decent living , and the rules are geared more towards the fighters safety first ( Rightfully so)
Boxing is that one exception to that rule on the progression of sports.
Boxing is more chess than checkers than most if not all sports, even a novice
Chess player will defeat a player just learning the game more times than not, whereas playing checkers a novice can be beaten by a new player much more often. Reason being checkers is a very simple game. Most sports are much simpler than boxing and Easier to get good at especially if one have born with superior physical ability.

 

Well to be fair picking Foreman to destroy Ali was a consensus pick at the time, but I can't see Dempsey beating Ali prime for prime. Tunney? Nope

 

In one breath he's saying he, Dempsey and a lot of the old champions would have beaten Ali and in the next he's saying how boxing has progressed like every other sport.

So obviously even tho many new era's improved on the previous his own era was somehow still better than 4 or so era's forward of them. Not only could the top of his era beat Ali but others below the top could as well and it all culminates in a natural middleweight not only beating Ali but making a fool of him.

Pure quality.

 

Wrong about big sissy but right about greb

 

I have yet to see an old-timer claim, that the fighters of his time would have little chance if matched, as they were, against modern boxers, 50 or so years forward of his own career. It's simply not in a boxer's mindset to think that way!

 

Yes but he certainly contradicted himself.

 

I think Ali would have a hard time actually feeling the punches Greb would land.