Gene Tunney Circa 1926 Versus George Foreman Circa 1994

Tunney gets underestimated as a tough guy and as a puncher. Maybe it's because he was such a well-schooled boxer. Maybe it's because he liked to read books and plays. In the ring he was no Little Lord Fauntleroy. He would have whipped many a modern heavyweight. I'd give him an excellent chance against the young Foreman and prime Liston. He had all the tools. I'm very high on him.

 

He was a superb boxer.
And extremely tough.

However he would have been at a disadvantage against World Class larger HWs.
Who did he ever beat that makes you think he would have a very good chance against prime Liston or Foreman?
Who was nearly that good & strong?

 

Yes, Tunney would have been at a weight and strength disadvantage. No doubt about that. But he would have had other advantages: He was smarter, mentally tougher, more resourceful. He had better footwork. Certainly better boxing skills and more endurance than young Foreman. He would've gone in with a smart game plan. Wasn't Tunney better than Jimmy Young or Greg Peralta? Liston had trouble with shifty, elusive opponents. He knew only one way to fight. Tunney would have resisted the efforts of both men to cut off the ring. He wouldn't freeze at the mere sight of Liston like so many fighters did. And I wouldn't discount the chances of a man who lost only once -- to the great Harry Greb -- and then reversed that loss three times. And I haven't even mentioned Jack Dempsey yet. Was Tunney better than Marty Marshall? Who among prime Liston's opponents was better than Tunney? Name one.

 

tunney pts.

same reasoning as the others who picked him.

 

I'd actually fancy Tunney against Old Foreman. Top class skills and enough smarts not to get dragged into brawls. Old Foreman I reckon would be too slow.

 

Guys did not have to be better in terms of skill than Tunney to be better in direct competition.
Like how many folks say the division is worse now-although folks say this since forever-but given increases in size & strength-& sometimes PEDs-those preceding them may be overmatched.
Someone like prime Cleveland Williams may well have beaten Tunney due to size & strength-or may not, although Tunney would be incapable of destroying him in a couple rounds.

It is a fair question how well Tunney could do.
But you use folks that only gave Liston or Foreman some problems as examples-but when you beat these guys-including say having the toughness to suffer a broken jaw & win in the middle rounds, then polish him off in a rematch-or Peralta when pre-prime-it is only possible, not nearly convincing, that Tunney could or would defeat these men.

Most who fough Liston did not freeze.
You could take those who gave Tunney trouble & do the reverse calculations-like Greb in a bunch of fights-but this would not be as convincing as considering size.
Also while Greb was great, he was much smaller & lighter than Tunney.
So just like how Greb may be even greater than Tunney but even with a stylistic advantage he was not better head to head than Tunney...
And Greb said Tunney "outgrew him" or something like that in later fights...

It is not the most tenable conclusion to favor Tunney over much bigger & stronger ATGs.
Think of the history of those who faced such a size discrepancy & the fight outcomes.
Assuming both fighters are roughly as accomplished...

It is a BIG DEAL that Tunney, overwhelmingly fighting a MW...
Never fought anyone who was over the early 190's until his final fight, against a non-immortal Heeney @203.
And himself only barely cracked 190 in that last fight...

Tunney was AMAZING.
65-1-1.
But to favor him over prime Liston & Foreman is pretty extreme.
If you said very green, way past prime etc...Maybe. Arguably.
Even Jimmy Young time you know was weaker for Foreman since his confidence was damaged & he was using a too-conservative, unnatural style...

But just like you would not compare LHW Tunney to Foreman & Liston, or speculate about how he would have done throughout his early 30's, we must take the best versions of each fighter.

 

I say Tunney was the prototype of the smaller fighter who might have beaten a prime Liston or Foreman. Both of those relative behemoths would have been favored by oddsmakers. What would the odds be? 3-1? 2-1? 8-5? Would you take any of those wagers? Suppose you had placed half of your life savings on either one against Tunney, would you feel comfortable?

 

Good question!
I would be at least a little bit uncomfortable.
Because while I strongly favor them over Tunney, & feel the odds at just 2-1 or 8-5 would be too pessimistic, that is still a big risk.
He double l would you be comfy placing half your life savings against a machine that randomly guessed a # from 1-10 that you placed a bet on?

Tunney was great-& may well be great enough to challenge fighters-& beat almost all of them-who had all the modern technological advantages over the next about full CENTURY.
But not also elite fighters, ATGs, who were naturally somewhat larger than them.

Great enough so that there would be some reasonable possibility he won, not like if I had 1/2 my money on say Hagler/Monzon/SRR...The latter at least likely the GOAT, but for his *size*.

But still quite unlikely.

 

Good question!
I would be at least a little bit uncomfortable.
Because while I strongly favor them over Tunney, & feel the odds at just 2-1 or 8-5 would be too pessimistic, that is still a big risk.
He comfy would you be on wagering half your life savings against a machine that say randomly guessed a # from 1-10 that you placed a bet on?

Tunney was great-& may well be great enough to challenge fighters-& beat almost all of them-who had all the modern technological advantages over the next about full CENTURY.
But not also elite fighters, ATGs, who were naturally somewhat larger than them.

Great enough so that there would be some reasonable possibility he won, not like if I had 1/2 my money on say Hagler/Monzon/SRR...The latter at least likely the GOAT, but for his *size*.

But still quite unlikely.

 

Modern technology has nothing to do with Sonny Liston's success. What was modern about how he trained or lived? He skipped rope to an old blues tune played loud on a $25 record player. He let Willie Reddish slam a medicine ball into his bread basket. He knocked the stuffing out of a heavy bag, sent the light bag flying, At night he drank vodka or J&B scotch, drove drunk entering the exit of a fast food restaurant, jammed his gigantic salami into some unfortunate prostitute, impersonated a cop in a city park while tracking down more poontang. . . These were all primitive forms of training not substantially different from how they did it in Jack Johnson's day except they didn't have Burger King back then.

 

But I did not suggest Liston was a product of modern technology.
You did not address my points about favoring arger stronger heavier men: IF they were ATGs.
Tunney even at his biggest would be the size of a typical rehydrated LHW today,

He was likely the best in absolute terms when he fought Dempsey the first time right?
Almost 190 lbs.
He may well have been better p4p as a LHW, but in terms of taking on all comers & especially naturally larger men, not so.

Compare him to CW Holyfield-when the limit was 190 & Holyfield came in under that.
This would make a good thread-& if he could beat the greatest at least non-Usyk (who got to come in heavier, not counting rehydration) ever, WITH the advances in technology that Evander must have availed himself of before even meeting Lee Haney & stacking PEDs...

That would be almost tremendously impressive.
There like many I would give him a very good shot.
Maybe against Patterson, although that might be even tougher since I believe Floyd was even faster.

Now what I said was...

• Tunney was great-& may well be great enough to challenge fighters-& beat almost all of them-who had all the modern technological advantages over the next about full CENTURY.​
• But not also elite fighters, ATGs, who were naturally somewhat larger than them.​

That text means I am crediting The FIghting Marine with possibly beating ATGs that have advantages in training & related technologies (like nutrition), his size.
I did not mean that literally every fighter had all tech at their disposal-or would have used it.
This advances over time, & some avail themselves more than others.

By the why, why do you even think Liston was so well endowed?
Or if he was maybe he still exercised care with the ladieieies-of the evening or otherwise.

What is substantially different about that regimen & many others before him is only some of them were heavy drinkers or alcoholics.

 

I know because his friend and sparring partner Foneda Cox told me. He said Sonny "put prostitutes in the hospital from jamming them."
And Gil Clancy was quoted somewhere sai g this: "Did you ever see him in the locker room? He could choke a horse!"

As to your other point about modern advances in nutrition, etc.: I believe that 1) food was better in the old days and 2) so were fighters. They grew up tougher, fought more often and fought against better competition when boxing was a major sport and the NFL and NBA weren't luring away most of the greatest American athletes.

 

OK so you know things from Ye Olde Ancient Tymes & the horse's mouth.
Although why Sonny would wanna choke a horse...Jokes aside, then I guess he was not just incautious, but Brutal w/hookers. If so that is pretty evil.

Fighting more often helps.
But you are doing the opposite of what young guys do-automatically cherry-picking facts to fit your bias.
You cite only real factors that help them.
But not things like a dramatically larger world population with folks coming from more places & the repercussions of better science & technology...
And the PEDs I am so opposed to DO make fighters better.

Even if they were not better in some cases, if they are bigger-in an unlimited division, due to dehydration-they still may be superior head to head due to size & strength...

Food was more pure then, and the average man was healthier-more active & less fat!
But top athletes have access to the best of everything-& the gap between them & the average person has just grown.

Even correcting for the advances equipment makes on times & distance, where we can *measure* performances, they improve significantly over time.

IF we had no stop watches nor ways to measure things...
Some would be arguing that the older guys were faster & stronger in absolute terms!!