Muhammad Ali vs Gene Tunney

Jones was ranked no 8 in February1966. Ali made him look like a novice!

 

I'm watching it on my big screen. He said he wasn't trying. Why would he follow Ali around and keep getting pot shotted?

 

It looks like the Folley fight except Ali seems to have more bad intentions. He liked Folley and Folley's kid was at ringside. Go to the 3:30 mark. Ali makes him lose his balance.

 

I thought he carried Folley a bit.

 

He genuinely liked him. In the exhibition match Ali is using his left to stiff arm Jones the way Wlad uses his right. He looked like he was experimenting. He also was hitting him with a sidearm motion. Big difference between the 21 year old Clay and the 24 year old Ali.

 

As usual you have said a whole bunch of nada.
It was intentionally patronizing. I'm not actually trying to be your friend.
I call your points superficial because they fail to go beyond the surface. Of course the average person perceives size as an advantage but the whole point of 'the art of self-defense' is that can enable a smaller individual to outwit his bigger opponent. I said that differences in size (or any other attribute) can be ameliorated by right strategy (a point you didn't even acknowledge). For example, Mike Tyson often fought taller opponents but by getting low he was able to hit his opponent and not get hit, the size 'disadvantage' became an advantage. Just being bigger than someone does not make you a superior fighter, fighting is about skill.
As far as Ali and Tunney is concerned, Tunney was the more skilled fighter and he had the tools to give Muhammad Ali a difficult fight. He could fight equally well going forwards or backwards, he was very good at manipulating his opponent (for example he would grab Dempsey's wrists right before moving out of range so that he didn't get hit), he could feint his opponents out of position, he had very fast hands and feet, he went to the body frequently, he could counterpunch effectively and he could take a punch when he needed to. As far as actual skill and technique goes Tunney is a superior fighter to Ali. Ali did not have one punch knockout power and the only weapon at his disposal would have been the jab and the right hand and using his movement on the outside. If Tunney goaded Ali to come forward he would have made him look awkward.
I did not say that Williams was Ali's last fight before the Vietnam debacle, that is inaccurate. Ali quite frankly did not look like the 'complete package' until the Williams fight and afterwards there was the Terrell and the Folley fights - those three fights I believe he was at his physical peak, no version of him before or after comes close.
There are many smaller fighters throughout history who beat bigger opponents: Joe Walcott famously beat Joe Choynski. Jack Dempsey knocked out giants like Fulton, Willard and Carl Morris. Harry Greb beat many LHW's of the era even though he was a natural MW. Sam Langford gave Jack Johnson a hell of a fight even though he was 5 inches shorter and 30lbs lighter. There is no innate-commensurate connection between size and fighting prowess, if there was then Nikolai Valuev would be the greatest of all time.
If you think that Ali would win make your case based on skill or say what specifically he would've done to Tunney. You keep hiding behind this size thing, acting as though it were a valid argument when it really isn't.
The questions you were eliding were: 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? -- Question posed, no answer given = point avoided.
Instead of thinking about the question you have decided to hide behind a lazy explanation. Please educate me on what you 'dove deeper' on.
I guess you must be a Size Queen.

 

Hello Gramps, what tools did Ali have outside if his jab and his right hand?

 

Another couple of questions dearest Gramps: When did I bail? What case did you present?
At least Sir Entaowed attempted to present a case, what did you do outside of hiding behind his point and asking inane questions about 'experts'?

 

Dude you have made a few mistakes here.
I will enumerate some, but I believe you are at least honest-but you are delusional that you have been reasonable & about others avoiding your questions.
McVey described you bailing when challenged-& you seem to be under the ego-gratifying conceit that you are superbly rational when not...
And keep wrongly thinking I am avoiding your questions.

Worse is that you have no problemo being MEAN.
You do not have to "be my friend".
But there is no excuse for being what you confess is patronizing when addressed politely.
That is a marked immaturity!

Now then, a few points:

1) It is not just "the average person who believes size to be an advantage. All other things being equal, it is.
2) You believe you are teaching me something about some using being smaller as an advantage? That is basic info, sure.
3) Not debating something obvious like being smaller can be "ameliorated" is not avoidance. You need me to confirm the obvious?
4) I followed Tyson as he came up & read all about him then. That reminds me, don't get vicious by calling your elders (& seemingly at least much more boxing-wise) "Gramps" like you recently did to you know who.
Unless you had a fond relationship & were just teasing-apologize to him.
5) Ali had other weapons, besides sometimes deploying hooks & body shots...You said he "only" had things, & forgot tying up. Great endurance. Volume punching (setting a HW record when past his peak in Manilla), a great chin (a defensive weapon), great speed, superb judge of distance, deceptive power, evasiveness, intuitive genius...
6) Brings me to teh fact that Tunney was better at formal boxing skills, Ali more instinctive & very adaptable.
7) I did not "hide" behind size. Nor is your smarmy homophobically allusive comment to being a "size queen" true.
If so, I would not have had Ali as my GOAT-although it is unclear to me if he would beat the very best of men way larger, he often would, & could be the H2H GOAT-no "size queens" would entertain such possibilities.
8) I cited a number of ways Ali would win, from the style match up to their physical prowess to things that should not need to be said-like Ali was effectively never stopped (unless you count sick zombified by drugs Ali on his stool), & with greater size & speed could move away & reach Tunney more often, let alone landed more punches in FOTC than Tunney ever did even when a literal LHW...
9) "Master boxer ring intelligence crafty..." you need me to literally tell you the Captain Obvious answer that my previous answers all alluded to, that he would win? I mean I am literal, but even I do not need someone who is citing a bunch of reasons my man would win to pedantically answer what is clearly indicated by the content I included.
10) Ali is approximately a billion times more tested at HW than Tunney.
Against modern sized HW-or even any Ali's size...Infinitely more tested, since Tunney never fought anyone more than someone a bit over 200 lbs., & not very tall or long!
11) I did not say YOU said that Williams was Ali's last fight before Vietnam, nor though you were mistaken on that. Read what I wrote.
I indicated a fact apropos of what Cus said-which again does not mean Ali did not have a superb peak OR you are wrong about the peak-although Chuvalo at least should be added-& again Ali's prime was from early 1964 when he first beat Liston.
12) You citing many who beat bigger guys is like me trying to prove most men are. oh, say over 6'2" by citing numerous examples.
It is a kind of "category error"-you are trying to disprove that something is helpful by showing times it, size, did not result in victory...
But I keep saying it just is one advantage-many other factors contribute to victory, just like you cannot disprove that being very tall & having long arms helps in basketball by showing many were just slightly tall & long & were very good up to NBA All Time Greats.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Incidentally, one of those olds magazines years ago, i think it was BI or World Boxing (around when Ali just retired in 1979) did an Ali vs the greats review- and Tunney was one of the fighters they thought would give him some trouble.

 

He knocked Bonavena out with left hooks, nobody else stopped Oscar.
He floored CharliePowell with a left hook.
Thats one question answered, got any more KID?

 

Johnson beat Langford up ,he floored him 3 times for long 9 counts ,cut his eye and broke his nose.

ELIDING???

 

Yes he probably would, but would he beat him? I say no.

 

Easily dealt with KID I asked you.

How Tunney fights Ali.
Does he attempt to box him at range, by making it a battle of the jabs although he is out reached and has slower hand speed than Ali?
Does he try to beat him by making an attacking fight, although he is conceding 22lbs?

Does he turn it into a punchfest,although Ali has a great chin and faced a long list of heavyweight punchers the likes of which were totally outside Tunney's pugilistic experience?
Does Tunney try to win by making it an inside fight and attacking the body,although Ali took the body shots of Frazier,Chuvalo,Bonavena,Liston Foreman?

Does Tunney try for a ko ,although he only faced one real banger at heavyweight, a past prime Dempsey who on the only time he connected solidly put him down for 14 seconds,and Ali took the shots of some of the greatest hitters the division has seen?

Anyone is entitled to pick whom they want in a match up what we require is an explanation as to how they win.
So,what is Tunney's best winning strategy here?
Out jabbing the longer reached,faster Ali?
Out punching the harder hitting Ali?
Exactly what does he do to win this?
You've got the floor.


KID