Gene Tunney (heavyweight version) replaces Patterson during his career

And I think it's amazing how good Patterson looked towards the end of his career. Still very fit and fast. Not many has bowed out with as respectable a perfomance as Patterson's last against Ali.

 

I misunderstood Chris' first post. I see that Tunney is supposed to always be at his peak. But I am satisfied with the other post.

Tunney at his peak:

Moore--Tunney probably wins, but I think he has a tougher time than the quick-handed Patterson.
Johansson--I think Ingo would be vulnerable to swarmers who pressured him and didn't give him a chance get set to use his right, such as Dempsey, Marciano, and Frazier, as well as Patterson in their 2nd fight, but Tunney with his low hands and boxing style might be just the wrong sort to exploit Ingo's weaknesses. This could end up a boring boxing contest with Johansson's big right the deciding factor. Styles make fights.
Liston--Same here. Tunney has the perfect style for Liston, I think. I don't think that means he wins, but he would be a very live underdog with a good chance of dancing to a decision, a Machen who scores with his right.

 

A very interesting thread. Tho, as an old friend said, comparing different eras you have to consider so many tangibles.
But, I think, many overrate Tunney a tad. The only given IMHO is a prime Liston seeks him out and destroys him. Ali every time. I see a style vs. style Patterson-Tunney going Floyd's way...my $0.02

 

Tunney could beat everyone of them,Ali would be his toughest fight, he would box Listons ears off

 

tunney won't be favoured against ali or liston. i pick him over the rest.

 

Tunney was not as good as Patterson..Maybe era for era Tunney was better.. But just watch film of the two, Patterson actually had headmovement and really good speed. Tunney was ahead of his time, but not that far ahead.. He looks too predictable on film for me to think he could prevail against any of the guys listed

 

You seem to have been watching a diferent fighter to me.

 

Tunney beats them all, possibly excepting the young Muhammad Ali.

 

Patterson was a good guy for a long, long time, and I may be underrating him.

 

As ever, these comparisons across time are problematic. When I think back on the heavyweight champs there really weren't many if any "pure boxers" before Tunney. Corbett was given that credit by virtue of early comparison and while you might count Burns or someone else there is a long way from Willard to Dempsey to Tunney.

Future champs often stood on the shoulders of guys like Tunney. Tunney was a great fighter, but he also was the new school vs. old school. He fought a Dempsey more full of ring rust than we can currently imaging.

If Tunney brought the same level of innovation to the sport today that he did then he would be successful, but the childhood nutrition and training methods of the time make it very hard to talk about what he would have done against bigger, stronger men.

I think he might have done as well as Patterson, but no better.

yikesyikes:yikes

 

Im not saying Gene wasnt great. I'm saying he fought in a different time with different technique.. He had great foot work, Knew how to use the ring an had stinging power.. Patterson just had years of advancement on him.. Is all im saying

 

What advances?

 

Advancements in speed and technique.. I watch Tunney an he stands upright as hell and he's blatantly stiff.. Maybe im not seeing something that you are.. Times change my friend