Muhammad Ali vs Gene Tunney

Sir Entoawed,
There is nothing irrational about anything I have said or done. I let my sense of humor get the best of me and somehow made the egregious assumption that the individuals here had a backbone which I guess was very presumptuous of me. If my one-liners offended you I offer an apology. However, I cannot guarantee that they will stop. When I see an opening I tend to take it.
McVey never made a point of his own and chose to cheer-lead the ones you made. I have no problem with Grampy McVey, he follows me around and we debate back-and-forth, I even thought we had developed a rapport seeing as we have become so familiar. I consider 'gramps' to be a term of endearment.
1) Not really there are numerous areas where that simply isn't the case. There are disadvantages to being smaller and there are disadvantages to being hefty.
2) Sure. I used that example to show that it is the application of one's physical attributes (SKILL) that makes the difference. And that size in-and-of-itself does not matter as much as people think it does.
3) Nothing to say here
4) mcvey doesn't know anything. I thought it was obvious that I was teasing. I don't think making a teasing, sarcastic comment is 'vicious'. I thought older people were supposed to be more tolerant of these things.
5) Ali rarely threw body shots (hardly ever) and his hooks (though thrown from irregular angles) could be quite sloppy. Frazier scored his iconic know down because of Ali's deficiency in his right hook. Sure Ali was good at tying guys up (and holding the back of their head). Everything you say about Ali is definitely true. My comment (about the jab and right hand) was about specific tools. You did not mention anything that Tunney didn't have too.
6) True. My point was that Ali never fought an opponent with that skill level, that is why I feel he would have had many problems with a fighter like Tunney, Ezzard Charles or even a Joe Walcott. Fighters who wouldn't just follow him around and let him dictate the pace.
7) You did.
8) Gene Tunney didn't fight an opponent like Joe Frazier so he didn't/wouldn't have had to throw that many punches. I don't know of any stats about Tunneys punches per round feel free to pass on that information. I do not recall you giving a particularly detailed explanation but it could just be my memory.
9) Isn't explanation the whole point of having a debate. Why allude when you can simply explain, this is an online forum not a piece of literature.
10) Ali is more tested at heavyweight yes. If you remember one of my earliest comments I said that my picking Tunney was conjecture and he didn't have enough of a HW career for me to go by stats. Ezzard Charles (whose career trajectory is similar to Tunney's) does not have a particularly deep resume at HW either but that doesn't change the fact that he is a great fighter who would've given most heavyweights trouble.
11) Why would you feel the need to clarify that Williams was not his final fight if you didn't think I said it was? Seems unnecessary. And I also didn't say that Ali's career before Williams wasn't 'dazzling' I said he hadn't quite come into his own until the Williams fight. While we are on the topic of Ali's prime why doesn't anyone bring up the fact that he cherry-picked his opponents: a 36-year old Folley, a past-prime Williams, Chuvalo coming off a loss, an injured-washed Floyd Patterson, Henry Cooper after he fought no-names, Brian London after he'd lost to Thad Spencer and Cooper - this never gets brought up.
12) That first statement is kind of ridiculous - a logical fallacy I'm not even going to dignify. I'm not trying to disprove it I'm simply trying to illustrate that it is not the be all and end all. I never said that size wasn't helpful.

No comment. You can come to whatever conclusion you want.
I am open-minded, you just don't give me very much to think about.
You act as though I am reprehensible because I am blunt, but you have also (in this comment) been subtly-disparaging. Just because your not blunt/brash like I am doesn't mean your not doing the same thing. I don't mind but I thought I'd point it out - everybody has an ego.
I will continue as I see fit.

 

What else did he do with this vaunted left-hook!?

 

Despite taking a beating Langford rallied many times.
Why would the GREAT Jack Johnson spend the remainder of his career avoiding a guy if he crushed him so easily?

 

I have gone over this in 2 or 3 different comments. Would you like a play-by-play?
Are you and Sir Entaowed going to answer this question too or are the elderly exempt?

 

Enlighten us chap

 

The left hook that wobbled him was certainly not a 'non-issue'

 

How could a rehydrated Light-Heavy possibly trouble the greatest HW champion of the cosmos?

 

Just establishing Vegas odds V Tunney

Favorites

Foreman -400
Liston -400
Frazier -400

These are pickems but Vegas rarely has even odds so:

Patterson +150
Ellis +150


Tunney is favored but these men are live dogs:

Terrell +200
Norton +200
Quarry +300
Folley +400

 

I am blunt, but me critiquing your behavior & what you volunteer is patronizing is not being disparaging, subtlety or otherwise. Of which you gave no examples.
You confuse things-conveniently but falsely conflating calling someone on being mean with the person doing this!

Nah they were not just "one liners".
And your apology is not honest, & inconsistent with calling me "Sir".
It is the exact same thing as the widely disparaged "apologies" by politicians who continue to insult those who they attack or put down by saying "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" Completely avoiding either apologizing & taking responsibility for doing or saying the wrong ting...And avoiding taking any personal responsibility!

Except you added a false & insulting dig about "assuming people have a backbone".
Dude you talk in a way that unless you are consensually busting balls with friends, would cause strife & maybe get you assaulted in person.
Should I call you a keyboard warrior & safely anonymous provocateur?

A few folks have had problems with you just on this thread. They have not been nasty to you-are they also to blame?

ALSO I could not tell WHAT you said "no comment about".
Maybe you did not want the question even SEEN so were obscure about things. But before I systematically reply to you, I ask again.

This content is protected

This content is protected

The next point you addressed is...

4) You can make a decent case here.
Yet it is ambiguous, the Internet being without vocal inflection & not knowing someone & being new...You must know that at least your intention is unclear-but when in the context of your other comments at least we cannot TELL if you are being ageist & mean.
Ask McVey what he thought.
But when you seem to have been banned a bunch of times in a short period-& create alternate identities to circumvent that...
Don't you think that it is likely your likely I will assume & concede there NEUTRAL teasing will likely be interpreted otherwise?

I doubt you can say the moderators were all being too sensitive & without "backbones" when they banned you each time right?
So if you had good intentions re: "gramps"...At least nobody can really be sure!

5) You are mostly RIGHT about Ali's deficiencies!
I would never argue Ali often went to the body, just showed how he did, & effectively, sometimes.
Tunney WAS more classically complete.
The question was not what Tunney lacked, I simply added some other tools Ali had when your list presumed to be exhaustive-saying he "only" had the several you listed.

However who is better is not simply adding up how many things a man is good at.
HOW good he is at things, & how important they are, makes a huge difference.
Sometimes mere physical gifts mean the most, sometimes greater toughness (admittedly neither lacked there), size...

6) Ali did fight guys near & at Tunney's skill level.
A swarmer has a different set of strengths, but Joe Frazier, & at his PEAK, had superb skills.
And far from just "following Ali around"...Even peak Foreman, although we will likely agree fought foolishly & Ali brilliantly (in part due to emotional manipulation), CUT OFF the ring really effectively!
Ali said he was surprised by how fast George was (on a small, soft, difficult to move in ring), & he would get exhsusted before too long taking 2 steps to every one of Foreman's...

7) I described a bunch of matters of skill, that is not "hiding" behind size.
Although I can give you what you ignored answering-*maybe* you were being jocular & not homophobic w/the "size queen" remark, just teasing.
Again, on the Internet it is hard to tell-& completely opaque given your alleged & never-denied history.

8) I do not KNOW Tunney's punch stats.
But you can easily confirm that Ali (who claimed to have won FOTC due to landing more blows, but few think he won on all that is judged on OR how the bout was scored)...& Frazier set the all time HW record for punches thrown & I believe landed in FOTC.
Although it did not have a 15th round.
And Ali easily landed more shots.
Now it is possible but unlikely that some extremely one sided fight that somehow was not stopped had a single man land more blows than just Ali did.
But kind of unliekly-& at any rate not against a man nearly as good as prime Frazier!

I also know of no MW or LHW bout where Tunney matched Ali's output-it was not alleged say against Greb, described elsewhere-& anyway if he had that would be at up to 175 lbs.
I think even you would acknowledge that being that light would be too difficut to overcome & beat prime Ali at!

9) I AGREE that it is good to explain-but I am saying that my comments clearly showed ways & reasons Ali would win.
My posts here are already really long-no need to belabor what I think was obvious, things like Tunney could not overpower, outpoint, outhrow or outland the highly mobile larger also superb endurance Ali!

10) Fair enough on conjecture-it is just that almost everyone do not believe it is reasonable or well-supported conjecture that Tunney would beat the best &/or best & biggest HWs when he was the size of a rehydrated LHW!

It is also unknown whether Charles, whose HW best was also no more than the late 180's would give guys like the Klitchkos & Lewis much trouble at all!
These guys are AMAZING.
But at best they might give "trouble" like Ali got from Karl Mildenburg...Losing the vast majority of rounds on all cards/referee/press...And knocked in a bunch of rounds.
Well if evasive enough might just lose rounds & rarely or at best ever go down...

11) I mentioned Williams & when Ali fought him since the Cus said Ali effectively lost much potential prime (or could have improved).
I accept that you never believed it was his final fight, I wanted to clarify that he had room to grow & improve after WIlliams too...

It is a fair question about who Ali fought!
You know which ones were rematches-& if Ali was dazed by the Cooper KD, then even without the glove controversy (which amounted only to extra seconds for Ali)...that is a valid rematch.
And Williams was still ranked near the very top.
Foley was Ali giving a payday to a friend...But was he or were the others really undeserving?
Especially when Ali was active as opposed to many more recent champs...Who if anyone was clearly better & deserved a shot at Ali's peak? Yank Durham did not want a part of Ali then while Frazier was relatively green...

12) My comment was not at all absurd.
You seemed to say that size was not even an advantage on average-citing times when it was overcome or being smaller was used to a winning advantage.
You never seem to indicate size IS important.
And I specifically was showing that even when something is statistically undeniably TRUE-that the MASSIVE majority of humans, & even the vast majority of men-are not over 6'2"...
That does not mean that due to a HUGE sample size, you cannot cite huge numbers who ARE taller.

But that does not obviate the facts of what is a large advantage.
Although a smaller advantage-when the size difference is smaller.
Or extenuating circumstances such as just fat, having too much or redundant muscle or say sick from PEDs...

This content is protected

 

Some people seem intent on avoiding the fact that Gene Tunney lacks a heavyweight resume of any note. Two 10 round decisions over a shockingly over-the-hill Dempsey, and then nothing else. Are we supposed to take Tom Heeney seriously, guy who got beat by Phil Scott? Johnny Risko? How about Italian Jack Herman and his 7-11 record? Or Tommy Gibbons in his 800th and final fight?

Ali has the best resume in the history of the division. Liston x2, Williams, Frazier x2, Foreman, Bob Foster, Patterson, Quarry, Norton, Lyle, Shavers.. I would pick every one of those fighters to beat Tunney. Maybe he could scoot around a rainsoaked ring to avoid Shavers but I'm not betting on it.

These two fighters aren't even close in talent, ability or accomplishments.

 

Ok fair jibe, but he is unlikely to trouble him dramatically as in threaten to win.
If you mean win a few rounds but not be competitive, that is the most that is likely.

If size means so little (as you imply)...
Go to my challenge re: the GOAT MW vs. LHWs.
Only 15 lbs., & not even in the lightest divisions where it means more.
Can you find a stylistic match up favorable enough where you believe the smaller man LIKELY wins?
If so, it is the exception that proves the rule.

And adhere to the strictures: Greb fighting as he did overwhelmingly in his prime at not less than in the mid 160's would not qualify.
And no using a MW who REHYDRATES to heavier than in-ring weights before that was allowed.

Just like we cannot deploy a LHW who easily comes in in the 190's/above what Tunney weighed against Dempsey!
Monzon had a natural size advantage then-he's not dominating against the GOAT LHWs without it.
Hagler no matter what chin (untested against LHWs)-even if it held up, is unlikely to beat MANY LHWs.

Name any others-natural size & strength, weight muscle height & length-IS very important in H2H match ups!

 

Sir Entaowed,

What was the comment about psychological stability about then? You made another comment in your comment about 'pathological behavior'. Never said you were 'being mean'. Just pointing out what you said.

You have to admit, 'size queen' was a pretty good line. I think the intentions of my apology were pretty clear. What's wrong with calling you Sir? 'Sir' sounds rather distinguished don't you think? There was nothing 'political' about my apology, I certainly did not feign remorse, it is very obvious that I am being facetious. It is also pretty clear that you can't take a joke, which is a shame considering your age. Responsibility for what? I made some comments on a forum, I didn't poison a well. You're taking this a little personally. This is an online forum not a dinner party. Feel free to report me.

I like to joke around every now and again, whats wrong with a little conviviality? You can call me what you want Sir Entaowed.

Which folks are these? (Out of curiousity) I have issues with people too. I do not think I have been particularly nasty. Presumptuous yes, insensitive perhaps, nasty seems like hyperbole.

Please define 'shady behaviour', if your hypothesis is that I am a nasty troll who goes around upsetting people then please provide evidence for it. Define the parameters for me. I don't care about your 'respect', your respect is just as valid to me as your opinions on boxing.

Doesn't seem intelligent to ally yourself against someone based on hearsay + without seeking clarity on both sides of the story. Please cite the exact comments that got me allegedly kicked off the site.
1) There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Boxing is about how these attributes are deployed. Not the attributes themselves. We are not comparing or matching-up bantamweights with heavyweights you are grossly misrepresenting my argument.
2) My point establishes that it is not as important as skill.
4) Interpretation. It could be ambiguity or it could be tone-deafness.
Whats ageist about calling him gramps? Lets assume me intentions were not friendly, why would you get sensitive over an errant comment?
We might as well hash this out... What do you know that I was banned for? Explain.
5) Nothing to say.
6) Ali did not fight anybody near Tunney's skill level. Stop. He fought guys who were as good at what they did specifically but he never fought anybody on Tunney's level with at that particular skillset. Cutting off the ring isn't necessarily a matter of speed. Foreman had good timing and long strides.
7) How would my alleged history make it any less of a joke? You're male and I assume you have male friends. Have you never heard or made an inappropriate joke?
8) Ali lost FOTC loud and clear. If we do not have punch stats on Tunney then there is nothing to compare.
9) Whatever.
10) It may not be 'reasonable' but I have certainly supported it, just because an opinion is unpopular, doesn't mean it's false.
I feel like we are talking in circles.
Ezzard Charles would have taken both of those guys to school, they did not have his level of skill or the stamina to keep up with him. And they only fought 12 rounds. Bigger is not better.
11) I'll give you the Cooper point because of the controversy of the first fight but the rest of those opponents were handpicked.
12) I don't think that size is important IN-AND-OF-ITSELF.

 

Chappy chap

 

Which fights of those I cited do you think British and American odds makers would make Tunney a prohibitive favorite, a favorite, a dog, and a live dog? Thank you in advance.

 

I think Tunney could take the Williams that fought Ali.