Tunney & "author" explain the loss to Greb #1

Good stuff there LH !! Any follow up article them explaining his second loss to Greb in their next fight?

 

Thanks for this.

 

It's interesting, but so often fighters make excuses, so I'm not sure how much faith to put in this.

 

2 quarts of blood would have been about 40% of Tunney's total. A person would start going into haemorrhagic shock losing half that amount. No doubt he took a beating but nothing like that.

 

Agreed, 2 quarts is definitely an exaggeration, you'd need blood transfusions, no way could you keep fighting.

 

the Thing i find most concearning regarding all the Reports i have read on greb is how dirty a fighter he was. i know alot of People kinda Relish These "Rough and tumble" type of fighters, but thats usually People that never boxed themselves.
and that fact takes away alot of grebs greatness imo. cause how realistic is a vintage greb getting a Victory over a modern fighter?? he would most likely get dq´ed Right away.

 

Lot of excuses and totally biased article in Tunneys favor. For instance Tunney loved to claim a headbutt broke his nose in the first round. He may have believed that but the majority of rinside accounts stated it was the first punch of the fight that broke his nose.

Its also funny to see how he spins the scenario whereby George Engel caught him trying to load his gloves. It reminds me of when Margarito got caught by Mosleys trainer or Trinidad got caught by Hopkins. Yet somehow Tunney paints himself (in the rold of Margarito or Trinidad) as the victim because Engel was doing his job and looking after his fighter. Of course in Tunneys version of events there was no extra tape used, but in reality he was forced to remove extra tape before the fight was allowed to go on.

This self serving litany of excuses also doesnt explain why the VAST majority of ringside accounts credited Greb with beating Tunney in their rematch and in their fourth fight. In fact some of the accounts stated that Greb gave Tunney as bad a licking in the rematch as he did in the first fight. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

I meant that as no insult to you. Like I said I thought it was interesting, I'm just sceptical of it.

I think it's good to share sources to then be able to figure stuff out. Like I'm commented that I suspect a lot of the stuff I've posted from Pugilistica etc. in the bareknuckle is questionable.

 

I would have to say that Tunney is not the most reliable observer in the history of the sport.

He has a track record of rewriting history to make it more favorable to himself.

If his circumstances were so unfavorable going into the fight, you rather have to ask why he agreed to take it.

He was not in a position where it was unavoidable.

 

This film is missing. Tunney was a bit pre-prime in this match. He improved as the years went on.

I have read some sources saying Greb head crashed into Tunney's nose to create the damage. Other sources say It was a punch.

Which is it? No one can say for sure. In boxing a head clash is 10X more likely to cause a cut or busted nose, and given Greb's style and movement, that could have happened here.

One thing is for sure, a cut back then was tough. These days they use a paste like substance to seal them. Back then you were on your own...I think. I'm not exactly sure when enswell was used, my guess is post 1940. So swelling was even more of an issue back then.

 

Tunney was a racist, a liar, a protected fighter and an overall POS.
The article is one big excuse for the beating he took from Greb, and he wasn't man enough to admit he lost fair and square.

Thanks for the link, amigo.