Can Gene Tunney go 53-1 against Joe Louis’ competition up until WW II?

Overcoming Buddy Baer x2 would set records for overcoming weight disparity in heavyweight title fights I believe. Considering Buddy might just scrape into Louis' top 10 wins I'm finding it hard to envisage him succeeding in the task that's been put in front of him and that's only a small factor to be added to the equation.

 

Tunney was an even 6 foot, Louis by his own mouth 6 foot and one half inch. Tunney was only 192 pounds once and never even190 pounds in another fight,you can massage this as much as you want but that is the basic fact.
He was not as fine for the Heeney fight because he was fighting a limited, slow mauler, with crude skills, and no big punch. You are extrapolating what he would have weighed for future fights and its a nonsense.
If he had fought a Sharkey or Schmeling he might very well have come in at his usual weight ,ie ,below 190pounds! Tunney's chin wasn't often tested, the only real puncher he fought dropped him for 14 seconds when he finally managed to connect!
Carpentier was at the end of the trail and he never stopped a world class heavyweight even in his prime!
"Chins are best tested when they are hit," remember that statement? You should do, you've said it often enough times!

 

"Tunney's height and reach were even with Louis."

Tunney was 6' and Louis about 6' 2"--a problem with these tales of the tape is when were both men measured? If Louis was measured in 1934, it is conceivable he could still have grown some. He was only 20.

"You expect Tunney to lose 10 times to Louis' opposition."

Actually, maybe more. These fights would be over an eight year period. Louis was 20 to 28. If the Tunney we are picturing goes from 20 to 28, I think he loses more than 10. Hard to see the probably still middleweight 20 year old Tunney a likely winner over Poreda, who was nearly 6' 2" and 202 lbs. and had recently scored back to back victories over Ernie Schaaf, Tommy Loughran, and Primo Carnera.

I don't think Tunney would be capable of holding his own with world class heavyweights at 20 and with less than a year of pro experience. There is nothing in his actual record to justify such a leap. At 21 he has to fight Max Baer and Primo Carnera, plus Ramage, Levinsky, Uzcudun, etc.

If we give Tunney a better chance by moving his age up to 23 to 31, I still think he loses a lot. At 23 and 24 Tunney was fighting light-heavyweights. Quite a leap to expect him to beat even King Levinsky. Let alone Max Baer and Primo Carnera?

"Risko"

Tunney fought Risko in 1925 when he was on a 7 win, 9 loss run. Risko by 1927 and 1928 had gotten better. Risko has some good wins, but he certainly came up short more often than not. Schmeling crushed him in 1929. Risko brings up an issue with Tunney's opposition. Other than Dempsey, his heavyweights are a pretty erratic and ordinary bunch. They compare with Louis' bum of the month club fighters rather than with his top opposition. Risko in his prime was the best of them. Weinert was another in and outer. The others? Heeney. Madden. Spalla. All together no better than guys like Red Burman and Gus Dorazio for certain, and possibly not as good in most cases. I don't see any of these guys matching Farr, Nova, Mann, and Pastor, let alone the champions.

I don't see what the swarming Risko beating some big men proves about the jab and move Tunney.

"Lou Nova and Tommy Farr"

Two guys who could box and were something like 6' 2" and 6' 1"--It is easy to say Tunney handles Nova, but whom that big with a jab did he ever fight? And Nova twice slaughtered Baer. The 1941 Nova would be an interesting test.

And the giants. Shot in the dark about how a jab and move style works against a Buddy Baer. Louis could take the fight to the big guy and out slug him. Tunney will have to box him, but how will that work against a guy that much taller and with that sort of reach advantage? And Tunney will have to often be in slugging range of this huge slugger.

"Tunney was only floored once"

By the one guy, Dempsey, whom I would rate among a top ten of sluggers Louis met. The rep of Tunney's great jaw rests almost completely on his surviving Dempsey, but he needed a long count to do that, and with an aging and inactive Dempsey.

My take is that the Dempsey of 1926 and 1927 might have had more than he could handle with several of Louis' opponents. Does that version out slug the 26 year old Baer? Is he going to catch the Conn of 1941 over 10 rounds? Is he up to beating the Schmeling who KO'd Louis? I don't think so.

 

"it is unreasonable to argue that Tunney would do this."

I agree. The record Joe Louis ran up is unique. I can't think of any heavyweight who met so many good men so early in his career, (not even Ali, although Ali started younger).

In comparison, Tunney was cautiously managed. He fought no one who was 6' or over and 195 lbs. or more. The rather ordinary Tom Heeney at about 5' 11" and 203 lbs. was the only fighter over 195 Tunney met. Heeney was a decent contender, but he would fit easily into the 1941 bum of the month club as a warm-up for the really serious fights that year against Baer, Conn, and Nova.

 

Do you really think there is a big difference between 190 and 205? I'll take the more skilled and durable fighter every time. That would be Tunney, who would have an easy time with the same men Louis beat above 205, likely without getting floored as often.

Didn't I show you that Risko, who Tunney beat defeated several men over 205 and he was about 190-200 for the most part? You comment here is???

The big men Louis beat was a shot Primo Carnera, a human tough guy with very limited ability in Abe Simon, and Buddy Bear, who wasn't very good either. The fact that they might have been ranked only shows how weak the era was.

No less authority than Ring Magazine, who loves Joe Louis said the decade was the worst in boxing history

 

Tunney wasn't tested against many quality heavies so there is no reason to assume he does well without evidence

 

"No less authority than Ring Magazine"

I will start with this one. There are at least 20 posters on this board whom I would credit an opinion from before I would Ring Magazine. This is an appeal to an authority (a logical fallacy in and of itself) that I wouldn't even consider that much of an authority.

"Risko"

Actually he was a much bigger man, although shorter, than Tunney. He was 187 in his 4th fight. The lowest he ever weighed was 182. In comparison Tunney has a listed weight of 165 in 1918, when 21. Most of his career Tunney was a light-heavyweight, weighing in the 170's. As late as 1924, when 27, he made the light-heavyweight limit for Greb, Carpentier, and Foley, going 173 for Carpentier. Tunney weighed over 190 once, at 192. Risko weighed 193 or above 48 times.

But what is the point anyway? That someone in the 180's or 190's can beat big men. Everyone knows that has been true throughout boxing history. Bearcat McMahon at 175 beat Willard, for one example. This doesn't cancel that Tunney never beat a really big man and so in his case it is guesswork.

Much is made by some of Sharkey beating Godfrey and Wills in 1926, but Uzcudun did better with Wills in 1927, and Risko beat Godfrey in 1928. Both were beaten very badly in 1929 by Schmeling.

The one aspect of this argument I agree with is that the big fellows of that era weren't that good on the whole.

Still, what Tunney does with a big man like Buddy Baer with a big punch is guesswork. What Tunney does with less than a year of pro experience with Carnera is a shot in the dark also. You can't just pick out the best night the guy ever saw to judge how he is going to do over an eight year period against much better competition.

"the more skilled and durable fighters"

From a heavier weight division?

"Tunney . . . would have an easy time with the same men Louis beat above 205, likely without being floored as often."

Not as easy a time as Louis would have with middleweights and light-heavyweights. For example, how long would Carpentier last with a 27 year old Louis? 15 rounds? I doubt it. How long would a 34 year old Gibbons last with a 28 year old Louis? 12 rounds? I doubt it. Does a 25 year old Louis lose to a 162 lb. Harry Greb and essentially fight an older Greb on even terms through five fights?

Conn is picked on as small among the Louis opponents, but was actually an inch taller than Tunney and was heavier against Louis than Tunney was against Carpentier.

"without being floored as often"

I doubt it if Louis would have been floored very often by middles and light-heavies. Reversing that to say much bigger men wouldn't have floored Tunney now and then is wildly unproven. Other than Dempsey, who floored him, his heavyweight opposition didn't include punchers, and Tunney didn't even meet smaller men who were known that much as punchers.

Strange that you spin on a dime from your usual "big guys beat small guys" position in favor of assuming increased size of the opposition wouldn't matter to Tunney.

I think a better question than the one asked would be how Dempsey and Tunney would have done with Max Schmeling's competition.

 

I think skilled big guys beat skilled small guys almost always, unless its is styles thing and the big guy does not take a good punch.

You said it best

We agree! So why would Tunney have trouble with someone heavier then? Who's out boxing him? He's mobile with a 76" reach and a solid punch.

I also think 190 with skills beats bigger men without. Tunney is a pound for pound talent, only floored once in a long career and battle tested vs many hall of fame guys.

Another example is Greb. A skilled smaller man, beating guys 10-25 pounds heavier. Yes, yes, the bigger men from 1920-1945 were not very good. This Risko example I think is fair and illustrates this point.

 

One thing that you have to factor in, is the sheer speed at which Louis was moved forward!

He fought Primo Carnera nine months after his debut, and Max Baer a year after his debut.

At this point in his career, Tunney was fighting local level fighters who were basically nobodies, and sometimes coming away without the win.

He would have been hopelessly over matched against somebody like Lee Ramage, never mind Primo Carnera!

 

As H. E .has pointed out and you reiterate here, Tunney ,not being the puncher Louis was has more limited options to win. he might wear down some of these big guys,tire them out pursuing him ,then begin to hold his ground as they slow down,but whatever way you slice it he is going to go more rounds,and,consequently take more punches than Joe did,the more I read these responses and the more I think about these fights the higher the mountain appears that Gene will have to climb to preserve a clean sheet.

 

Ramage fits the bil when anyone asks about clever boxers Louis met.

 

Not sure but then again Gene had one loss only, so, maybe.

 

You can make a case for Tunney, but it is a large extrapolation here that he would be so good as Louis was against bigger men.
He was not the height of Louis: you can find a variation of 1" for both fighter, but average it out & Louis was not less than 1" taller.
That is not a great amount, but you did not mention difference in weight & strength.
That Tunney might be able to fight as well or better heavier is both unknown & not the question: we are asking about how good either guy would be as they

This content is protected

.
Louis could have put on muscle & it would likely effect his speed & effectiveness less than Tunney who needed that foot speed-but again what they might have been is not what is being asked.

But the main thing you left out is the difference in power.
Louis hit somewhat harder & had the best combinations imaginable.

I love Tunney, but he did most everything of note at 175 max.
Beating nearly everyone + larger men in a short time frame is something beyond what we can see evidence is likely.

Although we could say try a 190 max (CW limit then), likely before PED Holyfield in place of Tunney!
He might do a little better...

 

You conclusions make sense, but Tunney only lost to Greb once, & I have only ever seen one draw on his record.
[url]https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/9046[/url]

 

Morbius stripped it down quite finely!

But did you mean that since Dempsey of his last year would have not been able to handle a few Louis opponents, by extrapolation Tunney could not? Or you meant to say/type Tunney of 1926/27 all along?