Tunney vs Marciano

i dont really think thats a fair criticism of Walcott given he spent much of his early years as a part time boxer whilst working multiple jobs on the side struggling to make ends meat. Walcott once he was able to focus entirely on boxing was much more impressive albeit somewhat inconsistent. To be completely fair though, the version of Walcott that Marciano fought was fresh off the two best wins of his career against Ezzard Charles and looked the absolute goods for majority of the contest, but Rocky's pressure eventually allowed him to find the mark, as i believe he'd do against Tunney.

 

My post was said in jest. You're absolutely correct. Walcott peaked late because of issues outside the ring.

The version of Walcott that Marciano fought was clearly not the best version. He looked much faster, and had much better endurance against Louis.

 

Watch as Tunney throws punches his chin is always exposed. When you’re throwing punches today you throw with your chin properly tucked into ur chest or shoulder. He keeps his hands to low as he’s throwing the punches so his face isn’t protected from his arms or shoulders like his predecessors. I get the arms low style but when he throws punches he should be protected, for his time he did have an exceptional jab. Which helped keep guys off of him…he had exceptionally fast feet but occasionally would stick them together far more often than his predecessors would. I do think Lastarza had more skill (not his power) and I think it shows on film. Tunney was limited by his time. A genius then but others had the benefit of studying him and every other great on film by the late 30s therefore being able to know more tricks. I think the 90s mma is a good example and one that fits fine. The sport advances a lot in the next decade to where men like Charles and Harold Johnson and Moore look far more sophisticated. Better faints better mechanics better footwork better head movement

 

I agree it wasn't the absolute best version of Walcott, but he did look the goods vs Marciano and was coming off of two very impressive wins. Maybe not the best Walcott performance, but definitely one of the better ones before getting slept.

I will say I'm more impressed by the Walcott that lost to Marciano than by any filmed version of Tunney that I've seen as far as eye test is concerned. Walcott's footwork, movement and feints appear far more advanced than Tunney's, his punches also seem much more impactful. I don't think Marciano would have too much trouble getting within range to land a bomb, and I'm more impressed by Rocky's work inside than I am of Tunney.

 

Sixty eight fights ,floored twice.

Lastarza was floored and beaten up by a Lhy journeyman.

 

20's fighters like
Berg
Mandell
Leonard
Tendler
Chocolate
Labarba
Genaro
Terris
Slattery
T Gibbons
M Gibbons
Sharkey
McLarnin
Compare favourably with 50's fighters imo.

 

Ur comparing careers. That’s not the same. What Ken Shamrock accomplished in the 90s he would not be able to do with the same style two decades later. Tunney was a HOF fighter that advanced the sport. Lastarzs was not, Ken shamrock revolutionary of mma but he wouldn’t beat a lot journeymen two decades later. That’s not the insult on him u think it is. He was limited by what he could learn, he had to go c a Dempsey fight to draw up a game plan. Coaches would later study fighters to develop fighters being able to steal all the best things. Tunney was not advanced compared to later years

 

Do you believe that Rocky would've been capable of putting him down for the third time? Imo he's very capable given that he'd likely have been the biggest puncher Tunney faced, not to mention arguably the best and most consistent pressure fighter (i don't have any film to reference Greb with plus hes not known for his power or size).

 

Walcott was more flashy & easy to see what he did well. Tunney was all business & more correct as a fighter. You could think of it like comparing Ali & Holmes…except this time, it’s the less flashy, more conventional fighter who has the superior results.

 

Marciano did not hit harder than Dempsey.

 

Pretty sure Dempsey thought Marciano hit harder than Dempsey. Could be wrong on that but I’m pretty sure he thought so

 

I’ll believe the results & my eyes over fighters’ with vested interests in humility.

 

From what I’ve seen of the two I’d say he did. Rocky produced more devastating results with singular, shorter punches whilst with Dempsey it always seemed to be through combinations. I’d appreciate it if you could point me to a one punch KO from Dempsey comparable to the KO that Rocky produced vs Walcott, I know it’s said that Dempsey wiped out Fred Fulton in short order but I haven’t seen any one punch destructions from Dempsey on film.

 

Would you say he was more correct though? It appears to me like he frequently fell over himself whilst committing to his punches.

I also noticed that Tunney is very comfortable having his hands low against the ropes, which is certainly a danger sign against Marciano. It was a mistake he frequently made vs Dempsey who seemed to lead to the body more often than normal, Dempsey did however make him pay in the long count fight, I think Marciano’s shorter and more impactful right hand would’ve flattened Tunney had he made such a mistake.

 

Dempsey knocked out leading heavyweight contender, 6’5 220 lb Fred Fulton, with one punch in 1918. Fulton lay unconscious for ten minutes.

Of Marcianos stoppage wins 50% were via ten count KO. Dempsey? 80%.

Fleischer who watched both fighters from ringside in all their major bouts wrote:

“You cannot compare Marciano to Dempsey except in terms of punching power. I believe Dempsey hit harder”.