Tunney vs Marciano

Whether or not it would work against someone taller, bigger and stronger with good jabs and distance management is not certain, because Tunney wasn’t exactly in a rush to fight in matchups like that. Tunney seemed to, for the most part, want to easiest matchups and most stylistically favourable matchups on his way to the top. I’m not sure if this type of style would’ve worked against Wills in the way it’s displayed in the clip against Gibbons. I see this aggressive counter-punching style being effective against someone like Marciano though, especially with Gene’s height advantage and management of distance, as well as apparently having underrated power according to Dempsey

The thing with Gene, is that he’s always alert in case of being countered himself. That’s why he’s so quick to counter when he pulls back and moves his head. Even against someone as helpless as Gibbons was in their fight, he’s still never in a rush to initiate the exchanges and doesn’t take risks that put him in detrimental situations.

I find Gibbons incorporates head movement, rolling, countering well in his footage against Bloomfield. Tunney reducing him to the state he was in during their fight imo attests to Tunney’s efficiency more than anything.

 

I think it is a fascinating fight between two evenly match men of different styles ... I may favor Tunney as I never saw Rocky take on that sort of skill and speed in the opponent's physical prime but who knows ? Again, a terrific match up.

 

Gene was firing on all cylinders toward the end of his career, most considered him to be peaking when he chose to walk away. Look at what he did to the durable Bartley Madden. He took him apart in 3 rounds. Madden was only stopped twice in his career, and right before and after Gene, he lasted the distance with Tom Heeney and Harry Wills over 20 and 15 rounds respectively.
He dominated Gibbons like no one before in the much talked about match on this thread. Completely nullifying him and making him look like a 2nd rater. Becoming the only man to stop Gibbons.
He outclassed the Rusty Dempsey. He likely stops Dempsey in both fights if the distance is over 15 rounds and not 10.
Even lesser known fighters of the era like the Italian Erminio Spalla who was a good size for the 20s at 6'1 195 were taken apart by Gene.
Finally in his last fight he gave an epic beatdown to Tom Heeney of Australia a man just over 200lbs, but Tom had fought Sharkey to a draw (and Sharkey still had a chance to be Gene's opponent until losing to Johnny Risko, another opponent Gene just happened to totally outclass), Heeney was fighting every top contender on nearly even terms going into the fight against Tunney and had never been stopped. Drawing with Uzcudon, defeating Risko, Delaney, Maloney and drawing with Sharkey. Tunney outclassed him easily. Ruining Tom in the process.
What we have is a pretty clear indication that by the mid-to late 20s Tunney was clearly a level above the field. A special fighter and while he held abhorrent views on race at the time he lived, I don't believe Wills would of posed any challenge to him by the time their paths would of crossed. It would of been nice had Gene stayed and hung around for a more complete picture of him at heavy but it was not to be.
The 3 most likely challengers to Gene, before the rise of Schmeling would of been Risko (Tunney already held a win over him), Uzcudon (a poor man's Dempsey, slower and easier to hit but tough as nails) and Sharkey.

 

Tunney is, as usual, being put through a woke purity filter. He’s failed - that’s all that matters to many of his detractors here.

 

Were any of them Black, though? That’s the real gauge of greatness.

 

Man following the conventions of his time is upset Gene Tunney…followed the conventions of his time.

You have the self-awareness of a flea.

 

I'll get back to you on this later.

 

Briefly on the subject of Tunney and race during the 20s, Tunney was an intellectual (at least he thought so) of the day, and he had many views on race that were ridiculous but commonly accepted among the elite. It wasn’t straight racism in his mind, but basically a warped social order, he felt he was doing black people a favor by not fighting them.
However I might add, by this point in time, many leading contenders were crossing the color line. This is not the era of Sullivan and Peter Jackson or the era that followed, where black fighters were completely frozen out for their skin color. If anything financial reasons played a large part in many fights not materializing. Supply and demand.
While I don’t believe in triangle theories in boxing it should be noted that Harry Greb routinely crossed the color line and had tremendous success. He was probably the first white superstar that was willing to engage black fighters anywhere anytime, from Allentown Joe Gans, to Jack Blackburn, Tiger flowers, kid Norfolk and on, Greb fought them all, and he also faced Tunney. And as we know Tunney had the most consistent success against Greb and decisively defeated him in their final bout. I believe it is easy to infer by this - that Tunney was at least as good as his black contemporaries and likely would have found similar success as Greb. Let’s not forget that Sharkey defeated the two top black contenders of the 20s in Godfrey and Wills rather easily and yet struggled with Risko and Heeney. Two men Tunney dominated.
So in case anyone is trying to say that Tunney by fighting only white fighters is somehow the junior varsity of the sport - they would be clearly wrong. The outcomes among his peers shaped the landscape, to know that Tunney was the top of heap regardless who he stepped in the ring with.

 

Keep with your gut and stay away from triangle theories.

 

A good ko, a past prime Walcott could still bang, and after 30 rounds of fighting Charles he learned how to deal with him. Louis knocking out Walcott in 1948 doesn't make Louis prime again, the same way Walcott knocking out Charles doesn't magically take away the side effects of being 37 years old.

That's too bad, but those were his contemporaries, which disproves the idea that Tunney's era was more primitive in terms of skill than Marciano's division of 1930s leftovers.

Yes he showed workrate in the Sharkey fight, regardless of what he was hitting. The fouling wasn't dignified but remember who we are comparing Dempsey to

This content is protected

Not the point, I wasn't trying to prove that Dempsey had Marciano's work rate, only that he had work rate and it showed when he had someone who let him actually work.

Your comparison to Mathews is even more egregious, the guy had one win at heavyweight to speak of.
Ali himself admitted that Tunney looked very good to him and would be competitive in the 70s, which is hard to argue against, fast legs, fast & accurate jabbing are two things that will never go out of style.
Walcott had a very deep set of skills but he had painfully slowed down by 1952, watching him fight Marciano and then contrasting it to the version who fought Louis is just sad.

"Tunney fought in a primitive era, where boxers were tougher than perhaps ever but had not developed technically yet to the skill level of future eras"
So what does this quote mean? If Tunney could be competitive with the 1930s guys who were the same guys initially ruling Marciano's division, why make the argument that he is more primitive than those guys?

I brought up Loughran to address the claim that Tunney's opposition were not as technically adept as Marciano's opposition, whether Loughran was green or not has little bearing on that. Sure, he adjusted with age and was better when he entered his prime, but is still the Loughran who would beat Greb the next year (and already had two fights worth of experience against Greb before the Tunney fight), he already had wins over McTigue around that time period as well.
If you think Loughran was good enough to actually hold a victory over that version of Tunney then it backfires because that would make him better than the 40 year olds you mentioned because a win over prime Tunney is better than anything those guys had in the 50s.
In any case, if a 20 year old Loughran can beat Greb, a 19 year old Loughran can make himself look competitive in a loss to Tunney.

Interesting point to argue given the grief Marciano gets for not fighting the one good sizeable black man of his era who also happened to rank number 1 and beat the Ezzard Charles who defeated Marciano but got robbed on the cards. I am just kidding, I am sure it was a close fight that could have gone either way.

 

Thanks, appreciate it.

I’m pretty consistent across the board here. I pick on other white men from the era who hid behind the color line. Tunney is not singled out.

To me, white men who only fought other white men have a huge question mark on their careers, they essentially didn’t fight a big portion of the talent pool available.

According to Steve Compton, Greb had a great deal of respect for Harry Wills and thought he was the best heavyweight in the world. Greb was quoted in interviews stating that wills is the best heavyweight in the world regardless of color. He basically felt that there were two men in the world who would without a doubt beat Dempsey, Wills and himself.

 

I don’t doubt Marciano would have problems with Tunney, especially early. Tunney has very fast hands, threw straight combinations, and was a master at understanding range on film (albeit vs short small white men who couldn’t cut off the ring). LaStarza outboxed Marciano for the first 6 rounds in both fights, so did Ezzard and Walcott. Even Louis did at times utilizing his height weight and great left jab. That said…Marciano was the rings ultimate animal. And I assure you Tunney never fought anything like a peak Marciano. When Tunney got to the championship rounds, he would be in for pure hell. Marciano would throw brutal two fisted haymakers from all angles, anywhere, everywhere non stop. With brutal power. And he wouldn’t get tired. And he was very unpredictable the way he rolled, weaved, and threw punches from his crouch. Lastly, Marciano was not only strong he may have been the strongest ever p4p. Moore Charles Louis Walcott fought many 210-220lb men. None of them said Marciano was the hardest puncher they faced. However all of them stated Marciano was far and away the strongest. Marciano was also an expert at getting himself out of a clinch. Gene hoping he can control Marciano in a clinch like he did butterball Heeney, flabby soft Gibbons or retired gassed out Dempsey is wishful thinking.

 

Your acerbic wit and revised narrative is tiresome. Given your propensity for finding Holmes & Marcianos records overrated, yet you are vanglorious in your praise of Tunneys record…I don’t quite understand the way you think.

 

Very solid post.

 

Don Dunphy emphatically stated it was Walcott's greatest performance. Given how often he watched him close up i'm inclined to agree.