Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

I don't believe anybody--certainly not yours truly--is "ignoring" the data that is being breathlessly presented here, in bold face, again and again and again.

It's fascinating and, yes, a new dawn in more ways than one.

Forgive my ignorance, but allow me to address an elephant I have noticed swaying around in the room for a while now:

If Klompton's info is accurate, it means:

a) 90 years worth of "boxing historians" do not amount to a hill of beans. 90 years of journalists, magazines, books, trainers, and other respected voices are as worthless as a warehouse full of flat-map inventory. Because no one, anywhere, has unearthed the glorious golden plates discovered by Klompton and his ilk.

b) What else don't we know? This is why I suggest caution. I know enough to not immediately jump on loud, garish bandwagons. After all, things considered true for 90 years can suddenly be nothing but fantasy.

c) Why does boxing information suck on the Internet? If I Google anything from Elvis Presley to the deciphering of the human genome, I can reasonably expect to find accurate information on the King's birthplace and beginnings and who Craig Venter is.

But if I search for Jack Dempsey or Gene Tunney, all I will find--from respected boxing historians (all certified members of the International Boxing Research Organization!!!) and big-name boxing websites--is pure regurgitation of nothing but bunk, rose-colored tall tales about beloved, clay-footed heroes.

Why do these shamans have so much power and the truth bearers such as Klompton live in banishment, shivering under a blanket in a cold basement, watching old Harry Greb films, eating cat food out of a can?

What is Gene Tunney's role in all this? The man of honor now a conspiracy ringleader and Greb his saintly victim?

Finally, one thing is facts, extremely slippery things in themselves; another is the interpretation of the facts.

On a personal level, guys like Klompton express themselves as jerks with their own extreme agendas, crude iconoclasts busy sculpting their own beloved idols. I am perfectly entitled to my own viewpoint, which, for the sake of any possible careless reader, I now restate:

I respect Tunney. He seems to say Superfight II was a standoff. On one extreme, some papers gave Tunney one round or no rounds; on the other, the official decision was given to Tunney.

I still largely credit Tunney for the five-fight Greb series. He remains in my top 30. But, sure, I may someday decide he was a conniver, beneficiary of a vast Greb-screwing conspiracy, and send him out into the cold of my top 100.

People are strange creatures. I gave Juan Manuel Márquez the clear nod over Pacquiao in their Superfight III. The officials certainly disagreed with me, as did people on Twitter that night (Piers Morgan among them). Thus is the case of close fights.

Bottom line, boxing--whether it is hitting the gym or reading a boxing book in line at the bank--has always been an important part of my life. Historical research is a hobby for me, and I will do my part to look further into this morass.

But I think a lot of "professional boxing historians" have a lot of explaining to do.

 

This is what I mean: if I didn't know any better, I might read that "Greb beat Loughran" three straight times in their first three fights and perhaps think, "Wow. Greb must have kayoed, otherwise stopped Loughran, or been given a unanimous decision." That is not what happened.

This is what happened: A 19-year-old Loughran began his series with 27-year-old Greb with three fights, all fought out with both men still standing, and the newspapers the next day proclaimed Greb the victor. Less sloppy, no?

Nobody is ignoring anything, buddy. It took 90 years to presumably expose a hoax that, like the Blob, enveloped everything and everybody. Who knows what may be discovered 90 years from today?

 

True. They were No Decision fights, or fights fought to the limit, no official decision given (to my knowledge, because boxing was illegal in Pennsylvania in 1922) and the newspapers gave their verdict the following day.

A No Contest would be a fight ended prematurely due to unusual circumstances, from a Parachute Man to the ring collapsing to early injury to one of the fighters.

 

Hold your pants on.

Believe me, I am hardly impressed by views of individuals such as you, who cannot even correctly construe the gist of a boxing thread.

 

Anyway I think we can all agree that Tunney could fight. Brilliantly.

 

True, again! One fight does not a legacy make or break, especially in a 5-fight series. We would be wise to keep this in mind vis-à-vis Tunney.

 

If they're all drawing from the same tainted wellspring of mythology, then yes. It's kinda like those people who start those urban myths, like the ol' "Richard Gere had a small furry animal stuck in his culo" whopper. Someone started it, someone believed it, spread it and it's been passed down for generations now. Are all those hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions by now) of people wrong?? Yes, they are.

Old West history and organized crime history are the only other historical studies I can think of that are replete with more flat-out lies and distortions of fact than boxing history. The worst thing boxing historians can do is listen to book or magazine writers and not check the sources of those writers' contentions or claims. Boxing book and magazine writers, like old west book and mag writers, have expansive and imaginative minds. Listen to some of those convos they "heard" those boxers say in a clinch (never mind the din of thousands of screaming fans). Some were practically soliloquies of Shakespearean proportions. My favorite is the one where Mickey Walker begged Harry Greb not to "knock him out" in a clinch in the final round of their fight. Laughable to anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge of the type of man and fighter Walker was.

Another favorite is the Papke-Ketchel "sucker punch" that took place during the referee's instructions in the center of the ring. This was gospel for almost a century. Too bad none of the primary sources support such a claim. Such an outrageous act would have at least merited a mention in the newspapers, no? Or at least a protestation from the victim (Ketchel) or his manager, both of whom were interviewed after the fight. Nothing.

Sure they have. And here's the great thing- YOU CAN TOO! All you have to do is go straight to the sources listed. They were all there. Go to newspaperarchive.com, google news, Chronicling America (Library of Congress), Brooklyn Daily Eagle Online, Pittsburgh Courier Online, etc. Those are all great newspaper sources.

 

Holmes believes he would have defeated everyone in his prime, and to be honest he has a good argument, but it is not a good argument to quote Holmes on who he thinks he would have beat, Dempesy was much more of a realist.

 

SLAKKA

 

What about the views of the 21 of 27 he cited who were there for the fight?

 

NY Morning Telegraph: Greb won 10 of 15 rounds[/B]
NY Evening Mail: "Decision depriving Greb of LHW Crown Calls for Sweeping Inquiry"
Newark Star Eagle: Gave Tunney only the 14th round
Newark Evening News: Greb gave Tunney as bad a beating as the first fight, it was one of the worst decisions handed out since the Walker Law
Jersey Journal: The only round Tunney won decisively was the 14th.
Standard Union:After weird decision Tunney is LHW Champion: Judges decide against Greb who had lead on points
NY Sun: Gave Tunney the fight because Tunney scored more points yet then states that Greb scored more points but that the writer took points away because Greb clinched too often...
The NY Evening Telegram: Gave the fight to Tunney
NY American: gave it to Tunney
NY Times: gave it to Tunney
NY Evening World: Scored it a Draw and added that Tunney did not deserve the victory despite the writer stating he was a great admirer of Tunneys
NY Tribune: called it a draw stating the decision met with much disapproval, writing for the same paper Grantland Rice called it a poor decision
NY Herald: Gave it to Greb, another writer for the paper called it a draw
Evening Journal: Gave it to Greb
Evening Mail: Gave it to Greb
Philly Ledger: Gave it to Greb
NY Daily News: Stated a draw would have been a better decision.
Pittsburgh Post: Gave Tunney only two rounds.
Pittsburgh Gazette Times: Gave it to Greb
Pittsburgh Press: Gave it Greb

Bill Muldoon chairman of the NYSAC stated it was a bad decision.

Thats 4 votes for Tunney, 15 votes for Greb, and 4 votes for a draw. So in essence 19 of 23 ringside opinions listed above believed Greb should not have left the ring without his crown. Thats pretty overwhelming particularly considering the strong words used in most of those articles saying things like "robbery" and calling for an investigation, etc. Lets also keep in mind that this was Tunney's hometown and the majority of those papers were hometown papers for Tunney.

Most reports state that when the decision was announced the audience sat stunned and a low murmur was heard throughout, confused by the decision. This was evident even among sections rooting for Tunney. It wasnt until after Greb left the ring and Tunney started out of the ring that he was given his ovation and the paper states this was given to him by his fans, not the entire audience, many of which hooted, hissed, and shouted robbery.

Here is a direct quote from Tunney on the decision: "Realizing there was some justice in Greb's claim of a bad decision, I offered him a return engagement." -Gene Tunney, A Man Must Fight, P. 162

add this as well: The earlier verdict of ten rounds for Greb quoted from the NY Morning Telegraph was from Sam Taub, James Sinnot, writing for the same paper also gave it to Greb by a margin of 8 rnds Greb, 5 Tunney, and 2 even. He added that a draw would have been an injustice. Joe Lynch, then bantamweight champion, interviewed by the Sun felt Greb won it.

The bout is listed on Boxrec as a Unanimous Decision but this was not officially announced as in those days generally only the winner was announced. Two days after the fight the New York Tribune wrote that the decision had been a split decision with 2 votes for Tunney and 1 for Greb.

So now our tally is (excluding Joe Lynch and one of the judges): 6 for Tunney, 17 for Greb, and 4 a draw. or 21 of 27 (77%) who felt Greb should have kept his crown. More than three fourths of some of the most respected boxing minds in the country (that we know witnessed the fight) felt Tunney DID NOT deserve the decision.



I like Dumb Dan Morgans comment best.
It was the most boldfaced robbery Ive ever witnessed
If were Tunneys manager I wouldn't allow him to accept the title on such a decision.

Boxing Blade Feb 1923

Prime, before i go any further absorb.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the small mind.

This research/mountain of evidence was begun by me back in the mid 90s I can add to it another half dozen or so, in addition to the Morgan quote you ignore. Probably never heard of Dumb Dan.
But before I bother. Do you have a tipping point?? Yes or No??

 

During wartime you could be hung or shot for such an act of desertion. :smoke Or in maritime circles, keel-hauled (look that one up. An awful punishment)