Muhammad Ali vs Gene Tunney

I never made my argument on that basis.

 

Tunney does not have a heavyweight resume of note.

Ali has the greatest heavyweight resume in the history of the division.

This isn't close, folks.

 

I do not think it is fair for you to say I did not make a point-nor nice.
If you disagree with it, that does not mean it is not a point.
Also I am correct that being larger is an advantage-of course many people beat bigger guys.
Like many woman are taller heavier even stronger than many men. But there is a large average difference + advantage-especially absent PEDs.

Similarly guys who are this much bigger overall are much more likely to win.
That is why they have weight categories-back in Tunney's time HW started after 175 lbs. mostly because people were significantly smaller overall.

ALso I never heard anyone say Ali's prime lasted only 3 fights!
Possibly if you said "peak" although I doubt you exclude all others of the period like Chuvalo...
But prime is not the very few very best fights.
Ali's peak was 1964-1967: 10 fights, a little over 3 years.
He was robbed of a further peak due to an injustice that the Supreme Court rectified unanimously.
But he was an active champion, likely was peak a 'lil while longer before he inevitably deconditioned-then had a superb second career!

I agree Ali was not dramatically faster than Tunney.
But faster nonetheless.

You will find almost nobody who agrees that the difference in size does not make any difference.
Very few folks, especially who know boxing, would ever pick Tunney over Ali.
Those few who do will almost always agree that size is an advantage.

Start a thread about it, you will have little support for choosing Tunney.
Tunney was likely better pound for pound at LHW than against HWs of his era, or at least it was close.
But in absolute terms he was likely best near 190.

Tunney had a good prime-but very little of it was at HW.
Superb fighter, just very tough-to put in mildly, to beat the consensus GOAT (arguable whether a modern behemoth or three might be better) when significantly smaller...

And another point I made, with no stylistic advantage!

 

According to Klompton, most ringside observers say Greb should have won two more decisions against Tunney.
And you deprived Ali of 1/2 lb.

 

With all due respect my friend you've said a whole bunch of nothing.
Being larger can be an advantage or a disadvantage. It depends on how you use said size or weight or height or reach. It's all in application. Being 20lbs heavier is not automatically advantageous in boxing especially when you cross a certain threshold in weight. Those differences can be ameliorated by the right strategy.
I'm not concerned about how many people agree with me, or how much support I gain.
Ali didn't really come into his own until the Cleveland Williams fight. That was when his prime started in earnest. He was just getting started when the Vietnam thing happened. Angelo Dundee admitted this himself.
Ali being the 'consensus goat' is proof that people don't know boxing.
Your points are all superficial and do not get to the real question which is: How does Ali perform against a master boxer and a crafty ring general? How does he perform against a fighter of equal or even superior ring intelligence? That's the real question which you seem to be eliding.

 

He is the expert and if we ever forget ,he will be sure to remind us !
I don't know of anyone who doesn't think Greb beat Tunney convincingly in their first fight despite conceding 12 lbs to him.

 

Is it superficial to ask how Tunney would manage to concede;
3 inches in height ,2inches in reach and 22 lbs in weight to a faster man?

Emanuel Steward named Ali as the no 1 of all time
Eddie Futch named him, with Johnson,and Louis as joint tops.
A few years ago ,[2017] the Ring polled a list of 30 trainers,boxers, and writers as to their choice, Ali came out on top.
Are these all , "people that don't know boxing?
Is their knowledge of the sport superficial?
From THE RING: The greatest heavyweight of all time - The Ring (ringtv.com)
NB Tunney came in at no13.
Ever seen a heavyweight list in which Tunney's name appears above Ali's?

 

Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis were on that panel and unlike many of the other panelists they know what it's like to get punched in the face.

 

Like I said all these qualities are superficial. The effectiveness of a height or speed or size 'advantage' is dependent on how you use them - physical attributes are nothing without skillful application.
The recognition of Ali is the goat is mostly due to popular culture. The deification of Ali is (for the most part) based on hero worship rather than rational, objective analysis.
Eddie Futch always said that Louis was better than Ali and would've beaten him. D'Amato rated Louis over Ali, so did Ray Arcel, so did his two rivals Foreman and Frazier, even his idol Ray Robinson said there was no one greater than Louis.
Yes. Most trainers around today don't know anything about boxing, why do you think boxing continues to decline precipitously? B-Hop said himself that boxing has a lot of trainers but no real teachers.
I never said that Tunney was a greater heavyweight than Ali or deserved to be ranked higher than him. I simply said he had the tools to beat him and provided an actual explanation of why I thought so. Can't say the same for you.

 

Wow

 

Thank you, sir or ma'am.

 

You're welcome.

 

You provided no explanation.
Does he out jab him?
Does he beat him with counters?
Does he outpunch him?
Does he try and get him on the back foot?
Does he box on the retreat?
Does Tunney hit as hard as Ali?
Does Tunney punch as fast as Ali?
Does he take a punch as good as Ali?
Does Ali know how to use his size? See the Bob Foster fight.

Futch named Louis,Johnson and Ali as equals.


"Most trainers around today don't know anything about boxing,"
Did Steward know anything about boxing?
Teddy Atlas?
Lennox Lewis
Reg Gutteridge
Mike Tyson
Herbert Goldman
Hugh McIIlVanney
Jack Fiske
Mike Katz
Jerry Izenberg
Are all these panelists below know nothings?
THE PANELISTS

Trainers: Teddy Atlas, Pat Burns, Virgil Hunter and Don Turner.

Matchmakers: Eric Bottjer, Don Chargin, Don Elbaum, Bobby Goodman, Ron Katz, Mike Marchionte, Russell Peltz and Bruce Trampler.

Media: Al Bernstein, Ron Borges, Gareth A Davies, Norm Frauenheim, Jerry Izenberg, Harold Lederman, Paulie Malignaggi, Dan Rafael and Michael Rosenthal


Historians: Craig Hamilton, Steve Lott, Don McRae, Bob Mee, Clay Moyle, Adam Pollack and Randy Roberts

Lewis and Tyson also participated in the poll. Neither fighter ranked himself. Instead, a weighted average from the other panelists was assigned to their respective slots on their ballots.
I wonder why you weren't called upon to give your opinion?

 

I mentioned and pondered on all those thngs in previous comments. You were too busy bringing up Marcel Cerdan.
No he didn't he stated very clearly that Joe Louis would've beaten him and even based his strategy for the Norton-Ali fights (all of which Norton won) on how he thought Louis would approach and beat Ali.
Teddy Atlas always ranked Louis ahead of Ali. Jerry Izenberg semi-recently on Teddy Atlas' podcast said that 'Ali was not the greatest heavyweight of all time, he was the heavyweight that made the greatest impact on the world. But as a fighter Joe Louis was the greatest."
Funny how some of the guys you mentioned do not even agree with your sentiment. Nice name-dropping though.

 

You gave exactly zero explanation as to how Tunney beats Ali , nor did you address any of my 9 questions perhaps you were too busy questioning the knowledge of acknowledged experts and, by implication boosting your own? I must have missed the books that rate you as an expert.Can you direct me to them?

Any of those panellists put Tunney anywhere near Ali?