Are you talking about Weinert? or perhaps Walker? Anyway, with Sharkey having fought Dempsey and Louis and Schmeling, his picking someone else as the "greatest I ever fought" would be too idiosyncratic to take all that seriously. At least as a heavyweight.
And Tunney beat Weinert decisively. So did Wills and Fulton. Like I posted, Sharkey's opinion on Weinert is too idiosyncratic to be taken all that seriously. Sharkey's opinion on Greb was widely shared, I am certain.
This article is absolutely untrue. The simple fact is that while Gene Tunney was laying in his recovery bed in Red Bank, NJ after losing to Greb Doc Bagley (one of the most respected handlers of fighters in the game) was in the offices of the New York State Athletic Commission posting a sizeable forfeit to bind Tunney and Greb to a rematch. Throughout the rest of 1922 he worked hard to get Tunney that fight. What Tunney wanted was someone who had enough connections to get him what he wanted BEHIND THE SCENES and thats why he chose Gibson. And as for Weinert you can bash him all you want but Weinert was considered one of the most talented stylists of his era. His problem was that he liked the night life and hated to train. When he fought Greb, a year before Tunney, he was on a heck of tear after having rededicated himself to the sport. He was boasting wins over LHW Champ Levinsky, Bob Roper, Dempsey conquerer Meehan, a media attention getting win over Carpentiers sparring partner Journee, and Bartley Madden who at the time was being touted as an opponent for Dempsey by Kearns. Greb dropped him in the first with a lightning fast right hand and dominated there after. Then over the next year Weinert struggled, winning one of four before he gave Tunney a rough way to go in Newark. Three months later he was stopped by Tunney in four. Weinert would go on to be stopped in 2 by Firpo the next year but came back and completely schooled Firpo the year after that, in addition to beating Jack Sharkey twice.
You keep wiggling back and forth OF: This is your statement: "As for the "vast majority", they seem to have thought Tunney won, but, in fairness, they were Tunney partisans. " Its been shown now, painfully so, that indeed a vast majority, of even those "partisan" New Yorkers, thought Greb won the fight. You dont want to accept the draws? Fine, throw those out, what do you call a margin of 6 for Tunney to 22 for Greb??? In politics that would be called a landslide. Im curious to hear what you call it.
1. "Simple fact is that Tunney was laying in his recovery bed in NJ after losing to Greb Doc Bagley was in the offices of the NYSAC posting a sizable forfeit to bind Tunney and Greb to a rematch" Perhaps, but this is the account given by Jack Cavanaugh--TUNNEY, page 161-162 "After more than two hours of being treated and resting in his dressing room, Tunney, aided by Bagley, McCormack, and several others, was helped out a back door of the Garden and into a taxi. At Bagley's suggestion, the cab driver headed for Central Park. Bagley and some of the others in the car thought the air might do Tunney some good on this lively May night. Later, Tunney checked back into the hotel where he had stayed the night before. He had planned to go home to Greenwich Village, but there was no way he would ever let his mother and father see him looking the way he did. As it was, Tunney returned the next day to Barry McCormack's New Jersey farm, where he had trained for the fight, to recuperate. "Before he left for Red Bank, Tunney, along with Bagley, went to the Manhattan offices of the State Athletic Commission to file a challenge to Greb for a return bout, accompanied by a $2,500 check. There, the commission chairman, William Muldoon, looking at Tunney's bruised face and his stitched-up eyes, mouth, and nose, said, "Son, why don't you forget about Greb. He's not a normal fighter. There's no point for you to fight him again." But Tunney insisted, telling a very dubious Muldoon he was convinced that he would beat Greb in a rematch." I am just a layman here. No dog in the hunt for me. But this did seem rather detailed to be made up from whole cloth. Cavanaugh is apparently quoting a Look Article from 1956. As I said, I have no dog in the hunt, but as a reader I go with the author who provides detail and evidence rather than ukases from the throne, especially about events from 1923. 2. I did not quote an earlier section from the Wood article on Tunney asking Bagley immediately to begin working on a rematch: "As he licked his wounds, he had only one thought in mind--to get in there again with Greb and reverse the decision. "Get me Greb again and soon,' Gene told his maager, the late Frank (Doc) Bagley. "I know how to fight him now and I will beat him the next time.'" All I know about this is that Wood actually knew Tunney and Bagley and certainly could have had private conversations with them that you know nothing about. I take what he said seriously as someone who was actually on the ground at the time. Tunney wanting Gibson because of his "connections" is not mutually exclusive with Bagley and him disagreeing on a quick return with Greb and that being in factor in dumping Bagley.
Weinert certainly was known as a playboy. I would refer you to an article on boxing's playboys by Ted Carroll in the September, 1950 Ring. Weinert is mentioned along with Lee Oma and Tony Janiro as fighters with talent who never got as far as they should have because of their night life. But would have and could have and should have don't cut any ice. Weinert consistently lost his crucial fights to the top men, such as Fulton early, and Wills late. He was simply an erratic contender. It is your business if you judge him better than Pastor. I don't. By the way, who trashed him. I just out that his record is too spotty to name him "greater" than Louis, Dempsey, and Schmeling, regardless of what Sharkey said.
You are refuting apples with oranges. The quote about the Tunney partisans was about the five minute standing ovation Tunney recieved which the New York Times judged was by the majority of the crowd, a crowd which was from the beginning was pro Tunney. Greb was actually booed leaving the ring according to several sources I have read. The press, and some individuals you are quoting, is a different issue. They can not speak for the crowd. I didn't say I didn't accept draws. I said they are evidence the fight was close and disputed rather than one-sided. When I score a fight a draw, I consider it close.
All of the accounts taken THE DAY IT HAPPENED stated that it was Bagley who posted the forfeit to ask for rematch with Greb while Tunney was laying in bed in Red Bank. I'll take those accounts over anythng Ted Caroll wrote 30 years later, or Jack Cavanaugh wrote 80 years later. And thats the crux of the argument, you have bought into all of these stories which were flawed from the time they were printed without going back and doing the leg work. Rather than try to gain a concensus of opinion you simply looked for opinions that back up your already distorted view of what as happening. Thats **** poor research. You say draws are proof that it was close. 4 sources out of 32+ list the bout a draw. Thats a pretty shitty ratio to be basing your argument on. You ignore the fact that you stated a vast majority of people voted for Tunney and when thats thrown in your face you deflect the argument into a million different avenues and always the basis is a book written 20 years later, an SI article written 45 years later, another book written 80 years later, etc etc. You have quoted one single source who was on the ground at the time and wrote their opinion down ringside and thats the New York Times, the newspaper that had the most slanted coverage in favor of Tunney. Until you have actually gotten away from your monitor and gone to a library and looked up the sources Slakka, Senya, and myself have been kind enough to cite for you dont bother responding, because you can come up with a million articles written half century after Greb died stating Tunney won 4 out of 5 and the simple fact is that is what we are arguing against: the mythologization of Tunney's legacy at the expense of Greb's. When that is the basis of your argument it is flawed before you ever touch the keyboard. Your argument is essentially that all of those stories and all of those myths which you read in the magazines have some basis in fact. You are right. That basis is that Gene Tunney fought Harry Greb five times. Most of the rest of what you have read is completely distorted to make it look like Tunney was the dominant fighter over the course of those fights when in fact there was a hell of a lot more going before, during, and after those fights, behind the scenes and in the ring, that contributed to those facts being distorted either out of ignorance in many cases or outright deception in others. Until you have done the work that lays bare these facts then why are you even arguing?
Bagley worked awfully ****ing hard to get a rematch with Greb for a guy who didnt want the fight... In fact it was Bagley who signed Tunney up for the Greb rematch in the first place. Billy Gibson, despite being in Tunney's corner at the time of the fight did not get paid his managerial fee for that fight because it was made under Bagley, so there goes that theory... "I am just a layman here. No dog in the hunt for me. But this did seem rather detailed to be made up from whole cloth. Cavanaugh is apparently quoting a Look Article from 1956. As I said, I have no dog in the hunt, but as a reader I go with the author who provides detail and evidence rather than ukases from the throne, especially about events from 1923." That source you quoted, the Look Magazine article, it was written by Tim Cohane who was 9 years old when the events he was writing about took place... Thats the evidence you put so much weight in... The fact is myself and others have provided you a veritable mountain of evidence and detail, you have chosen to ignore and pick and choose only those details which suit you.
1. You brought up the silly issue of whether Tunney was in his bed at Red Bank to rebut Wood who in fact knew these men and never said anything about that. Honestly, I don't think it makes much difference if Tunney was personally there or simply instructed Bagley to post the bond. Either way, Wood knew these men and you don't and I, at least, would hesitate to dismiss a man who has first-hand knowledge. I did quote Cavanaugh as he gives a different viewpoint. You offered no evidence except your say-so to rebut his version. 2. If you have all the evidence, you should have no trouble changing public opinion. 3. I agree, there is no reason at all going on with the discussion. I heard too many old-timers say this was a tough fight, with Greb badly bruised about the body and having difficulty raising his arms after the fight to simply dismiss all of them. Perhaps they were all corrupt or deluded, but they were from that era and that does count with me. 4. It is a trifle odd to me that the popular Greb was screwed historically by the often unpopular Tunney. But Greb is still more popular. 5. Best wishes on your book and have a good day.
Fair play to FOGEY for sticking to his guns, but there's a time to admit you're a beaten man, and that time was pages and pages ago from my point of view. This has been a great read, though.
Based on the plethora of PMs, and emails Ive gotten in response to this post, and those who posted their opinions as well Id have say I was successful. I have yet to hear anyone back you vis a vis Greb-Tunney 2...
