[Deleted by user.]

Great fighters of the past would have mastered modern techniques and would have been exceptional in any following era.
Tunney was a boxer par excellence for the standards of his time, and if he were around in recent decades, I could actually see him availing of some of the scientific training methods Holyfield used in preparing for a fight.

 

It's simple. I think Tunney was a better boxer.

 

I belive the good man jest s.. I think.

 

I see more chance of Tunney beating Louis tbh. Moving as only Tunney could and building up a considerable points lead, but not blowing it like Conn.

Against Ali, I'm not seeing it really in a month of Sundays.
Ali imo would beat him and over the course of around 10 - 12 rounds stop him.

 

I agree with all of this,Fergy. In fact I would give Tunney a 50/50 shot at beating PRIME Dempsey. No way he beats Ali,though.

 

For the fantasy 67 fight itself, even on a level playing field with Tunney being a size bigger due to better nutrition and training conditions, Ali’s speed and unorthodoxy would drive even the sober minded Tunney crazy.

 

It would mean that a top level boxer following a scientific gameplan and 'best' boxing principles could defeat a boxer riding on mainly athleticism and talent. It would basically be a vindication of boxing itself.

For that to happen we'd have to witness Tunney taking away Ali's jab and timing him on his flurries.

While you'd have to fancy Ali in this, there are worse boxers that you could pick other than Tunney to step in there.

 

It's a shame Tunney didn't come along around 1920 thereabout, and face Dempsey.
Would have been a classic imo, Stevie.

 

Sure would've been,Fergy. A fight of the decade for the Roaring Twenties.

 

The concept isn't preposterous at all. If you remember Eddie Futch said there were two keys to beating Ali. One of them was to jab when he jabbed, because Ali didn't keep his right hand home when he threw his jab, and Tunney was known for having a very fast, stiff jab. The other thing that Futch said was to punch when he punched because, if you slipped and then countered, Ali was too fast.
Tunney was also known for his straight right hand to the heart. This punch is a perfect, natural counter to a left jab; as he jabs you throw the right hand, simultaneously. The motion of throwing the right hand moves your head out of line of the jab. A guy, like Ali, that always moves to his left, moves right into the punch.
There are two ways for Tunney to neutralize the jab of Ali, based on the logic of Eddie Futch and what all accounts say that Tunney was good at. If he can make Ali think about it when he jabs, especially 67 Ali, the fight takes on a different character.

 

I mean, Tunney was a better boxer from technical standpoint than Ali. It would only mean that he was good enough to overcome physical disadvantages like speed, reach and size.

 

I can't see this happening, but if it did, it would show me a good boxer who is bigger and faster can lose to a smaller man who is not as quick and has a much shorter reach.

But given Tunney's style, hard to see how he could deal with Ali. I think Ali would dominate him about like he dominated Jimmy Ellis.

 

Not preposterous at all. Tunney was 65-1. Ali had trouble with some smaller men with fast hands like Doug Jones, Cooper etc. I wouldn’t expect Tunney to win because of physical disadvantages but it’s not out of realm of possibility. I’d expect something of a boring fight unless Tunney became aggressive which he might have to.

 

Have only watched Tunney against Dempsey, but from that I have Ali as better from a technical standpoint. Better jab and better combos. Also better counters. Have seen nothing from Tunney like Ali's pull counter. Both had their chins high and lacked a good guard.

 

It wouldn't change a lot in my eyes.

I would probably just conclude that Tunney was a stylistic foil for Ali, as indeed he might have been.