On the face of it Walcott should have too many tricks for Tunney. But Tunney's one trick as an orthodox boxer was to be simply superb at what he did. I honestly could not say if it was a best vs best scenario. Maybe Walcott. But if it was real life and they met I'd put my money on Tunney simply because he was metronomically consistent and always came in at 100% Walcott had a more hit and miss career and contrived to lose to a few people that Tunny would have mopped up before breakfast.
We are not going to see the Tunney of the Dempsey fight here. He would fight a much more aggressive fight against a man like Walcott, and I suspect that this woudl get a lot more exciting than people think.
Hi Buddy. I get your drift, and share your thoughts on a real fight, It's taken me a long time to appreciate the virtues of Tunney, his stoisiom, his attention to detail, the thirst to learn and become a better fighter, along with Leonard one of the pioneers of the combo punching, and looking at fighting as a science not just a physical encounter, in all earnest wasn't particularly liked or rated in his tenure as champ, beating Dempsey didn't help his cause, for my money he was as tough as they come, a brutal beating at the hands of the merical Greb did nothing to slow him down, to wit the very next day he was at the boxing commissions offices to file a bond regarding a return with machiavellian Greb, brave indeed. stay safe hombre.
Because that was the role he usually took. He only really used his jab and move approach against Dempsey as far as I can tell.
