Tunney vs Marciano

I mean, this was said after Dempsey's KO of Willard. I don't think it's hyperbole at all to call Dempsey the hardest hitter to ever live, up to that point. Obviously if it was said today, it'd be very different.

 

mcvey…

what black fighters did Tunney fight? What black sparring partners did Tunney employ? Did Tunney ever fight a tall/big ranked contender?

Gene seemed to make a living beating up shorter smaller older white men (most of whom look awful on film). Gene missed out on a lot of big fights at heavyweight during his era. Harry Wills, George Godfrey, Larry Gains, Kid Norfolk, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling were all around during Gene’s era. He didn’t fight any of these men.

 

There is article written right after Tunney won the championship where he states categorically that he is drawing the color line and will not defend the title against a black man.

 

Your point would be good if we were talking about Tunney being a "good" person or something like that, but what's the point in bringing it up in fantasy head to head threads? I've seen you say this stuff for months and months at this point, and the longest I've been on this forum for is since around June. Your point in your previous post was much more solid.

 

A far out of prime Walcott gave Marciano his toughest battle. Walcott's and Tunney's careers are separated by a staggering, era defining, two years.
Schmeling and Sharkey turned pro in the early-mid 20s and they were as sophisticated as they come, Schmeling himself being the HW rated the most amount of times in the 1930s.
Loughran turned pro in 1919 and was one of the top fighters in Lhw and he until the mid 30s, he was giving top contenders like Farr a run for their money (and Tunney beat Loughran). Evidently the top guys of the 20s were more than a match for the guys of the next era.

Dempsey showed a lot of work rate against Sharkey. When he had a target he went to work, Tunney didn't give him one.

That style also seemed to work well in the 60s and 70s, go figure.

How is Mathews comparable to Tunney? He has a good win over Layne, and then 3 losses against Don C0ckell and a draw with Freddie Beshore. His best stuff was at LHW, Tunney on the other hand became hw champ.
Walcott fought with his hands low all the time, and he rarely got caught. The trick is in the head and foot movement. Sure, Walcott didn't have much of the latter by 1952 but he managed alright.

If you think Tunney wouldn't be competitive with the guys of the 1930s onwards, there's a somewhat reputable fighter from the 1960s who disagrees with you

This content is protected

Some of Tunney's opposition were competitive with the best of the division up until the mid 1930s.
Loughran looks better on film than the 40 year olds mentioned above.

I'm sure three 40 year olds, an over the hill ex LHW and Don C0ckell would have Gene Tunney shaking in his boots.

 

Come on man..it’s obvious do I need to even state it? Tunney fought a much easier talent pool due to drawing the color line. His record automatically has an asterisk next to it. He only fought white men.

Had Tunney actually faced the 6’3 225lb George Godfrey in 1925, Larry Gains, Harry Wills pre 1926, or Kid Norfolk…this would tell us a lot more about Tunney’s abilities. Forget the fact he missed out on Sharkey and Schmeling which is a big deal in itself. Tunney is a complete unproven commodity at heavyweight, far more so than Marciano who people love to assault.


imagine if Marciano only fought white men during his era? And refused to defend his title vs black opposition?

 

Yes, it means that there's an asterisk next to his entire career, and we know that it means he didn't fight all of the top opposition, simply because he locked off much of the talent of his era away behind the color line- I agree with you there and I think that it's a major rip on his record, but it's not a gage for his talent. It WAS likely for other reasons alongside simple racism, and he was probably afraid of many of the black fighters at the time, not too unlike Dempsey who refused to fight Langford.

The point is that it can't be used as a measuring stick for his talent at light heavyweight nor heavyweight, we should be comparing their achievements and pure skill from what we can see in their fights. This already massively favors Marciano, and the inclusion of the color line comment simply seems redundant. I've seen it many a time, and I agree every time I see it, but it's annoying. You made a similar point on the Cleveland Williams thread a couple weeks back, and it just seems so unnecessary when you can easily prove that someone would beat him WITHOUT the need of these truths. If we make a Langford - Dempsey thread, are you going to make a post that, "They didn't fight, so it doesn't matter", or, "Jack would never fight Sam in a dream", when you can easily say that Langford would've simply ripped him apart?

Yes, I also believe that Tunney is somewhat unproven at heavyweight. Why don't you make these points rather than clinging to the same point every time that Gene pops up on the forum? It's just an eyesore.

And for clarification, I do think that Marciano would beat Tunney.

 

Tunney crossing his feet is a meme at this point lol, the only times he actually does this is when he shuffles out of range which is what movement-oriented fighters do frequently like Ali when they don’t engage and just want their opponent to give chase. When he’s actually engaging and within range he never crosses his feet/shuffles.

Also, every time Tunney leaned back he immediately brought his head back into position which Ali and other fighters reliant on head movement do.

This content is protected

Tunney isn’t only defensively responsible at all times, he frequently leans back and is back in position immediately and counters effectively.

But he’s a 20s fighter so he’s primitive if he does it lol

 

1. Walcott, the reigning heavyweight champion of the world. Who just knocked out 29 year old Ezzard Charles with perhaps the best looking punch ever thrown on film.

2. How nice of you to talk about the abilities of Schmeling and Sharkey. By the way, Tunney never fought either of them.

3. Dempsey showed a workrate against what? Sharkey’s balls? Sharkey beat him up, and Dempsey went low.

4. Dempsey never in his career (even prime) fought at a human windmill work rate that Marciano displayed on film. We have two rounds on film where Marciano throws at least 112 punches per round (mostly power shots) and doesn’t get tired.

5. Comparing Tunney to Ali now? That’s hysterical. Considering Tunney refused to fight black men his entire life.

6. Matthew’s with Tunney- Comparable in placement of hands/guard, constant throwing of arm punches in combinations on the movement, same type of feints, same lean back defense and similar clinching ability in close. Walcott (yes in 1952) used counterpunching angles/feinting by pretending to walk away, shoulder rolls, head movement, slugged with both hands on the inside, sorry I don’t see a lot of comparisons with Tunney.

7. Never said Tunney wouldn’t be competitive in the 30s. I said his record has gigantic holes in it including never fighting two of the 30s top heavyweight champions and refusing to fight black men.

8. “Some of Tunneys competition was competitive with best in division up until mid 30s?”

oh really? Please name them. Before you laughingly name Tommy Loughran, please carefully revise the version of Loughran Tunney faced under the microscope much like you do Marciano’s competition.

Loughran was 19 years old when Tunney “beat” him in 1922. A teenager, literally. Also, Did he beat him? A newspaper decision in which at least one newspaper scored the bout for Loughran. If you think a 19 year old Loughran would be good enough to hang in the ring with world heavyweight champion Walcott in 52 or light heavyweight champion Moore in 55, then you are living in fantasy island.

9. Well considering Tunney publicly refused to fight George Godfrey, even with Godfrey offering to fight him for free, Tunney was as you say “shaking in his boots” to fight the black men of his era. Would he have fought Louis Charles Walcott Moore? We’ll never know, since he refused to fight or spar black me at all. Tunney’s handpicked opposition mostly consisted of short small white men, most of them not in their primes.

 

You speak very astutely and logically here but to see where I am coming from read the entire thread. Marciano’s record is being given an opprobrium by posters constantly while they try to pass off Gene’s record as immaculate. All I ask if they take off those rose colored glasses.

head to head, I do think having a record without a lot of unanswered questions allows us to more assiduously make an accurate opinion of someone’s head to head ability. Tunney’s talent on film does impress, for his era. However, he missed out on so much quality heavyweight opposition from his own era I really don’t know how great he really was, particularly at heavyweight. I have a much better idea when comparing him 175lb and below.

 

thanks for the clip. Not only was Gibbons very short and aging and looked soft in the gut, but I don’t think he lifted his hands above his waist at all during that entire clip. No head movement, no upper body movement. What did Gibbons bring to the table in that clip? In the modern era, gibbons would be a sitting duck. Compare Gibbons skill set on that clip to a 1955 Moore, it’s really not even close.

 

I might be wrong in this situation, so I'll get to reading through the thread and see where I stand. From what I saw simply above, I do think that you're in the right here, so my apologies for bringing up the issue I had with the Tunney statement in this thread.

I agree. And I think that now that I'm reading some of your stuff in combination with other times that you've mentioned Tunney in a good light (such as your top 20 light heavyweight post), I see the full picture. I was just a bit tired of seeing the same argument over and over- But you have the right here.

 

What made the Gibbons performance so impressive was how he utilized the Gibbons style against him. People in this thread don’t seem to realize how intentional Tunney’s low hands were, he knew exactly what he was doing and people seem to think he just kept them down there without doing anything to defend himself. The low hands were essential to the Gibbons style

 

I’m not comparing the quality of Gibbons in this clip to any of Rocky’s opponents, I’m comparing the quality of Tunney’s skills to Rocky’s era, which I think are best displayed in this clip.

It’s also worth mentioning that this was Gibbons just a few months before fighting Gene, so I think a big part as to why Gibbons isn’t doing much is because he’s just that outclassed. Tunney counters him at pretty much every turn.
When analyzing Tunney and Gibbons, it’s always important to keep in mind that their low hands and stuck out chins were bait to open their opponents up for counters, it’s actually quite a beautiful style.

This content is protected

 

tunney made it work because gene had very fast hands, understood range really well, and had way ahead of his time lateral movement with his feet..gene was also in superb shape and the stronger man in the clinches against his opponents.

would this style have worked against taller bigger stronger men with good jabs and ability to throw punches in combinations?

Gibbons employed a chin out low hands style but he didn’t have fast lateral movement, no head movement, no upper body movement. This St Paulys boxing style was still used by Harry Kid Matthews in the early 50s. Matthews did have success but look at what Marciano did to him with two left hooks when he tried to lean back out of range?