Sam Langford vs Gene Tunney

ah, not as much bias there either.

didnt fight him that much and its not the only decent name on smiths resume, though with smith having beaten him once he might be inclined to speak favorably of him......least its better then claiming he was sick for the boston match.

 

My point was the weapon used to effect the win was entirely the left jab ,and Tunney had a great one,plus his chin was considerably better than Fulton's.

 

When the match between Langford and Dempsey was proposed by Dempsey's then manager John"The Barber " Reisler, Dempsey was a green hobo fighting for a dinner.Reisler was an unscrupulous vulture.Dempsey was right to turn down the fight.
I seriously doubt Dempsey was ever afraid of any opponent.

Dempsey ,like most top fighters has a history of being generous in remarks about his contemporaries ,and those who went before him.
They usually appear to be less generous to those that come after.

 

I found an interesting piece today, where John Lardner criticized Gene Tunney in 1940 (published on March 3 for those who want to look for it) for Gene having published several articles in a short time where he matched Joe Louis against old-timers, Corbett beating him on points, Fitz winning by KO, Dempsey knocking Louis out in the 1st round, and then Louis learning from it and being able to stay several rounds longer in rematch. Curiously enough, Tunney picked Louis to beat John L. and Jeffries, and to draw with Jack Johnson. Absolutely silly picks on Tunney's part.

 

absolutely silly.....John L would have destroyed louis.

 

I agree with Sam. I think Dempsey would KO Wills. But what does this have to do with this thread?

You won't find many fighters, historians or writers who saw both Langford and Tunney who would agree with your assessment that Tunney "was in a different league" than Langford. In fact they would probably say just the opposite.

 

OK, you're asking for unbiased sources. Fair enough. I already gave you Frank Erne(who no doubt saw both Langford and Tunney fight). Here's more:

Grantland Rice, who saw just about every great fighter of his lifetime(including Tunney), called Langford "about the best fighting man I ever watched." You're not going to get a much more powerful endorsement than that.

Hype Igoe, writer for the New York Journal(Tunney's hometown paper) who saw both men at their peak, called Langford the greatest fighter p4p who ever lived.

Joe Williams, writer for the New York World Telegram(another Tunney hometown paper), who saw both men fight, thought Sam was the best fighter the ring ever saw.

Abe Attell, who saw Tunney and Langford fight, said "In my book Sam was just about the greatest of them all. In his day the negro fighter didn't get much of a break. He had to fight the way he was told. Nobody will ever know how many fighters Sam had to carry. If he didn't agree to carry them he wouldn't get any work."

 

Tough one this.

It's going to go many rounds as (aside from their respective powers of duration and wind) both are partial to technical proficiency, which will induce some acquiescence as they come-to and consider stylistic alterations.

Tunney will be eager to set the tone with his feet and stabbing left, plenty of movement and trickery to disrupt the radar for Sam's wrecking balls. For consistent, quality, and safe punching, Tunney must have the edge; his straight punches shone in heated moments and stand a good chance of pelting Langford's noticeably southern forehead.

Citing how very strong and dangerous Langford always was there is a residual feeling that Tunney is going to need a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to indemnify his handiwork. The lack of true power on the marine’s behalf doesn't necessitate the idea of him stopping Sam as things drag on, but he does have fists which possessed an accuracy which terrorized the thin sheets of flesh around the eyes.

Tunney will need to bring the kind of cold precision that his heavyweight incarnation utilised to tame Dempsey and batter Heeney; therein lay a capacity that everyone soon learnt not to doubt.

Langford will invoke boxing's closest thing to hell; thumps to the kidneys and swooping hooks to the neck will be present all driven by the force of a man who literally blasted the best to offer across a spectrum unlike anything else in recorded combat...

But in the other corner; skipping on the spot and altogether shrewd looking, there is something very reassuring about Gene Tunney; the classy boxer who survived and conquered some of boxing's most dismal situations with incredible resolve.

It's not going to be easy, but that is the furthest notion in Gene's mind as he sticks and circles his belligerent adversary, wrapping him up into a nice bloody parcel.

 

Tunney was not a Jeffries fan,don't know what he thought of John L.

 

Langford,after trailing on the cards,knocks Tunney out,in around the eleventh.

 

bump

 

I'll give it Langford. Just based on available footage of him in his prime he seemed to do everything right. And he was very accurate, a good right would catch Tunney at some point. He'd have to use his footwork alot to even stay in Tunney's realm in a Technical regard. But if he could and was in the pocket long enough to KO him, which he might've well done then he obviously wins, but if not then Tunney takes it over 15.
Would Tunney be Langford's best win? I think it would be second after Gans, and would if be Tunney's best win? I'd say yes.

 

I am not convinced that a prime Langford would not have demolished Fulton!

 

A prime Langford does in Tunney at some point in the latter of 15 rounds. But he wouldn't have to be too far off his game to lose to the Tunney that appeared briefly at heavyweight. And that is high praise for Tunney.