Does Tunney go 49-0 against Marcianos Opposition?

I have called into question the quality of Marciano's opponents many times in the past and have been put in the unusual position of defending them now. At least he was fighting heavyweights, and if we are to discuss the likelihood of Tunney going 49-0 as a heavyweight, that fact seems pertinent. Beating Gibbons, a guy who never drifted 8 pounds over the LHW limit, in Gibbons' final fight doesn't really do a lot to feather Tunney's nest, HOF or not. Likewise, Carpentier was a non-entity at heavyweight, and not a lot more at lightheavy. Tunney's lightheavy victory of Georges again does little to bolster his credentials as a heavy.

And the diversion of Marciano's brief jail time before he was a pro is far less relevant than the fact Tunney amazingly avoided a single black opponent in 80+ ring appearances. That little detail has most rubbing their chins with some vigor.

 

"I could be way off base"

Well, I think you are (and I could be wrong also), but I don't see age as a very good way of judging quality in any sport. Being American, I will use an American example which should register with general American sports fans.
In 1957 the major league batting champions were the 39 year old Ted Williams at .388 and the 36 year old Stan Musial at .351. Why? Does a lack of young competition explain this? I don't think so, as the young competition included Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, etc. I don't see there was a lack of young competition. Williams and Musial were the batting champs because they hit for spectacularly high averages.

Same in boxing. Lingering at the top might mean the old fighter is great rather than the competition is cratering.

Comparing the title competition in the 1920's doesn't impress me that the 1920's were some golden age of heavyweight competition. Moore beat Clarence Henry, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, Bob Baker, and Nino Valdes to earn his shot at Marciano. How would these men have done against Bill Brennan, Georges Carpentier, Tommy Gibbons, Luis Angel Firpo, and Tom Heeney. We probably will disagree, but I think the 1950's group on the whole is quite a bit better.

Someone might ask, what about Harry Wills? But that raises another problem. Marciano defended against the best of anyone in the division. The 1920's champions didn't. Hard for me to see that making competition better.

I have studied the turnover in the Ring ratings over the decades, and it is true there is less turnover as you move through the decades. There were more rated heavyweights in the 1930's than in the 1950's, but also than in the 1970's. I think there were more rated heavyweights in the 1950's than the 1970's. It sure doesn't convince me that the 1930 to 1935 with its high turnover rate had better active heavyweights than the 1970-1975 era, nor the 1950-1955 era either.

 

Just to expand on one point. I really don't think it useful to use WWII as a pivot for claiming a "cratering" of competition in the 1950's. It is just unconvincing for a whole bunch of reasons.

first, as pointed out, a lot of men in boxing countries died in WWI also. The death rate in WWII was higher, but this included women killed in city bombings, and huge death rates in countries which at that time didn't have boxing such as Russia and China (an estimated 50 million died in WWII in those two countries).

second, the horrendous Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 to 1920 was more deadly than either WWI or WWII off estimates. I happened a few days ago upon an historian who has a site on you tube and covered that flu epidemic. I always knew it was bad, and my mom and dad mentioned it when I was young (born in 1903 & 1907), but I had no idea how severe it really was. Estimates are that up to 5 to 6% of the world's population died, which comes out to up to 120 million in a total world population of 2 billion. Estimates run as high as 675,000 in the United States alone. That is more than died in either the Civil War or WWII. And yes, the death rate was highest among the young. Of course women are probably half of that 675,000, but this still had an awful impact. Bottom line, between WWI and the Flu pandemic, one could make an equal claim that competition "cratered" among 1920's heavyweights because of the lack of young fighters coming up.

I repeat that I don't like this argument at all, because we are extrapolating from guesswork about what never existed to a conclusion. So I would leave it alone. There are so few who can be champion boxers that one could look at almost any factor, such as the improvement of medical care and the development of drugs to stay the impact of childhood diseases as saving a guy who becomes champion, or any random factor which could eliminate him, such as a car accident or a crippling injury or disease.

*just on the 1918 flu pandemic, the usual death rate for those infected by the flu is about 0.1%. The death rate for the Spanish Flu of 1918 was about 20%. This was an unusual and virulent strain.

This was a reply to "a generation of young talent had been lost"

 

Tunney best fights at heavyweight where two against the rusty Dempsey, who else did he beat of merit to speculate he could beat the likes of Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott or Ezzard Charles or even Rex Layne when Rex fought Marciano with his 34-1-1 record and called "the next Dempsey by Nat Fliecher he avenged his loss and draw. Tunney's best fights were south of 200lbs

I think Tunney belongs near some of those guys based on his boxing ability but he also got dropped hard against the rusty inactive JD. I am not sure he could get past Walcott, Charles or Moore or some of the guys that those 3 beat

 

Marciano was court-martialed from the Army and served TWO YEARS in prison. That's not a "brief" stay.

Also, Rocky wasn't fighting beasts as champ. Cockell was a former middleweight until he literally ate himself out of the division. It's rare to see an "obese" heavyweight at 205, except for Don. He was just FAT.

And Moore and Charles were at their best at light heavy. Charles and Moore are often rated by "experts" as the best light heavys ever.

So railing against Tunney for fighting all-time great light heavys or middles when he was coming up, when he was fighting them at their best weights, is a laugh. Especially considering middles and light heavys past their best days were primarily the guys Rocky defended against.

And when Tunney beat great heavyweights, you run them down, too. Looking at the February 1925 Ring ratings, Tunney would face six of the top 10 heavys, three of the top 10 light heavys and the middleweight champ, and only lose to one, who he defeated multiple times after.

You aren't being objective at all about this.

Not in the least.

Of course, Tunney could run the table on Rocky's comp. Gene nearly ran the table on his own comp, and he had almost twice as many fights and faced twice as many Hall of Famers. You could count the best guys Rocky fought on one hand, and they were all past their best and some weren't even fighting in their best division.

People have been debating the merits of Rocky's run since it occurred because the top names had all seen their best days pass them by.

I feel like we're just going in circles now.

If you think Gene loses to one of Rocky's opponents, fine. I don't.

I don't see anyone Rocky fought who could take Gene Tunney. Certainly not the mostly knockovers Rocky fought in his first 40 fights. And not the old-time names Rocky fought when he was in the spotlight.

 

Yes, one thing missing on Tunney's resume is a big man who could throw a jab at him or reach him with long counter punches. Most of Tunney's name opponents were shorter (although Tunney wasn't all that tall for a heavy). I feel a jab and move style works much better with shorter than with taller opponents.

One other factor which hasn't been mentioned is that Tunney is very unlikely to score 43 KO's in 49 fights and therefore in those 43 fights take it out of the hands of the judges. If Tunney's scores KO's in these 49 fights at the same rate he did in his career, he would score 27 KO's, so 22 fights would go to the judges.

I think the more fights which go to the judges the more close fights you might lose by decision.

*by the way, I don't think Tunney would actually match his KO rate of the 1920's against Marciano's opponents.

 

Another "REX LAYNE WAS BETTER THAN DEMPSEY" guy.

This really brings them out of the woodwork.

Jack Dempsey was the dominant world heavyweight champion. In his last year as a pro, Dempsey knocked out the future champ and Hall of Famer Jack Sharkey in seven rounds and nearly knocked out the reigning world heavyweight champion Gene Tunney in seven rounds.

Dempsey was the best heavyweight in the world during his time. And retired as the #2 heavyweight in the sport.

By comparison, Layne was the best heavyweight in Utah during his day.

 

Impressive!

 

Sharkey was inconsistent we know this ,but he also beat up an aging Wills and beat a dangerous Godfrey.
Heeney was fat?

This content is protected

 

Moore never beat a guy who held the heavyweight title. Certainly not future heavyweight champ on the rise.

Moore's record against future or reigning heavyweight champions is something like 0-6 (with 4 KO losses).

Fighting a prime Sharkey, I'm guessing it would go to 0-7.

 

He might beat Lowry if he has Weill and , by extension Carbo behind him,ditto Lastarza.