Does Tunney go 49-0 against Marcianos Opposition?

I agree boxing and baseball are different sports, but how do we approach a premise that in fact flies in the face of boxing history as proven by boxing history. That is the gist of claiming a man being world champion at an advanced age simply proves there aren't any good boxers out there. Well, looking at other sports is one approach.

"Hitting a baseball is a skill of hand and eye coordination"

And outstanding reflexes.

"I doubt Ted Williams was the fastest player at that point on his team or had the best arm let alone in the entire league."

But he never was. Those were talents he never had. But he could hit, and I think that .388 at 39 is the highest average any major league player posted from the early 1930's until 1980 and George Brett at .390, except for Williams himself in 1941. Tons of younger men came and went, but they didn't outhit him.

"constant motion and endurance"

Like the marathon. According to wikipedia, Carlos Lopes was born Feb 18, 1947. He won the Olympic marathon in 1984 at 37. The following year at 38 he set a world marathon record. Certainly Lopes' success seems to prove that legs and endurance can last into the late 30's in a sport which requires them.

"lingering at the top"

Well, here are the Ring top rated heavyweights for close to a quarter century and their ages--

1992-1993 (Holyfield, 30,31)
1994 (Foreman, 45)
1995 (Bowe, 27)
1996-1998 (Holyfield, 34-36)
1999-2003 (Lewis, 34-38)
2004 (Vitali, 33)
2005 (Byrd, 35)
2006-2014 (Wlad, 30-39. His runner-up from 2009-2012, Vitali 38-41)

So over these 23 years, the top rated heavyweight was 35 or more in 12 of them.

Compare to the 1950's,

1950 (Charles, 29)
1951 (Walcott, 38)
1952-1955 (Marciano, 29-32)
1956-1958 (Patterson, 21-23)
1959 (Johansson 27)

Seems what the 1950's are being criticized for is the younger guys winning unlike more recent years.

Here is the top five heavyweights in 2012

1-----Wlad (36)
2-----Vitali (41)
3-----Povetkin (33)
4-----Haye (32)
5-----Kubat (31)

I don't see much evidence of young guys coming up here.

"A lot of talent was lost to the war-again Conn being a prime example."

But even w/o the war, would Conn have likely been a top heavyweight in the 1950's when well into his 30's. Seems unlikely. The fifties were years after the war. What is missing is the champions born in the late 1920's and early 1930's. It goes directly from Marciano born in 1923 to Patterson born in 1935. But at least in America, the war shouldn't have effected that generation.

Also, Conn is interesting in that he apparently slipped because of the WWII layoff. I might conclude that this speaks more to Dempsey and his layoffs than it does to Marciano and his opposition.

 

the gaps between the births of champions interests me.

Between 1875 and 1881, Jeffries, Hart, Burns, Johnson, and Willard, were born. The next champion born is Dempsey in 1895.

Between 1895 and 1906, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, and Braddock were born.

Why the gap between 1881 and 1895? If there were a world war in there, some would jump to the conclusion that the war did it with potential champions dying in the war. But I can't think of any historical reason at all for such a long gap.

 

Good thing Marciano never had to face Dave Tiberi or Drake Thadzi!

 

You’re missing the point now - I never said being a champ at an advanced age is evidence of a lack of talent in the division- I was saying All the preeminent talent during the 50s for a period was at an advanced age which for then was rare unlike today where modern training and nutrition has skewered the age of top level fighters to a more advanced age. It wasn’t that Joe Louis was 37. It was that Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore were all in their late 30s.
I don’t think it’s inconceivable to believe that the war may have reduced the number of next generation fighters for a couple of years. In fact you’re mentioning the age of Marciano and Patterson strengths that argument, Marciano born in 1923 he would of been 18 in 1941 the year America entered the war and then Patterson jumps all the way to 1935 and not being eligible for the war during the war years of 41-45. Their is a gap of talent for 5 years. Which left the older fighters around from the pre war generation to sit at the top. That is exactly my point.
Many of Marciano’s peers disappeared into the war effort. And the gap between Marciano and Patterson shows that and Marciano didn’t even have a long career.

 

The OP asks "does" Tunney go 49-0, not "could" Tunney go 49-0. Surely, Tunney had the talent to potentially do this task but there are so many variables (read:luck) that go into such a streak I will say he does not.

Again, I will restate, Marciano likely "does" not go 49-0 again if you take the same fighter and place him again in front of those 49 opponents over the same time frame. Lowry or Lastarza get the nod. Charles II gets stopped in Ezz's favor. Rock gets DQ'd against Cockell. Any number of punches from Charles and Walcott and Moore land an inch or two toward more vulnerable tissue. And of those 49 land a punch that slices up the Rock's face bad enough to garner a stoppage.

 

I figured that gap would come up as a claim about WWII, so I mentioned the longer gap between 1881 to 1895. What caused that? Not a major war. Marciano's peers disappearing into the war effort? Speculation. But why couldn't you make the same case for the peers of Dempsey and Tunney disappearing into the war effort of WWI and the flu pandemic of 1918-1920? More died from those two than WWII.

"Modern training and nutrition have skewered the age of top level fighters to a more advanced age."

Young fighters have the advantages of modern training and nutrition also, plus youth. So why do these benefit only or mainly the old guys?

My guess is the key to lasting into sporting old age is the commitment to arduous training and discipline. That boils down to motivation, and I think the easy to explain reason that black fighters often lasted into old age is that they didn't have as many outside of boxing opportunities and so were more dedicated to their craft.

And, about the fifties, what is missing among the heavyweights is not the war year guys--Charles and Marciano fill that bill, it is the era from 1928 to 1934, but the war shouldn't have directly affected young boys in that age group in the USA.

 

It’s not about what calamity claimed more lives - WW2 was a national mobilzation of the American youth everyone played a role and all sports took a pause during that time. I think a correlation could be made that Marciano’s peers disappeared into the war effort you cite it as speculation - on a fantasy thread regarding if two deceased men could duplicate the feats each other achieved had they faced each other’s opposition. This whole thread is speculation lol.
As for hard work and dedication prolonging a career that is obvious. However it would be misleading to not recognize that athletes in boxing are putting in better performances at later stages in their careers due to increased sports science and nutrition. In 1990 Foreman fought Gerry Cooney in a fight dubbed the Geezers at Caesar’s Foreman turned 41 that week and Cooney was 34. Just two decades later and that hardly seems to be ages that would be billed as the Geezers at Caesar’s.
Just back to my original point Marciano’s best names on his ledger were old fighters - I think that much is not in dispute - the reason their were so many at that time is anyone’s guess - perhaps they were just better - perhaps it was an anomaly- perhaps the war did play a role - who knows.
Nice chatting. Interesting topic

 

"The whole thread is speculation"

True, but there difference between speculation based on film and records such as the main subject of this thread and one where there is no base of knowledge to speculate off of. Yes, many died in WWII, but all kinds of factors killed or crippled more over the years--WWI & the Spanish Flu, car accidents, murders, childhood diseases, etc.

"Who knows."

Yes. It is sort of like asking what impact did the possible actors who died in WWII have on Clint Eastwood's career? It is a bit different than asking if Clint's career is better or worse than John Wayne's.

As for the old men. Well, Louis was head and shoulders above the heavyweights of the 1930's and most of the 1940's. It is no surprise to me that he could remain a contender to 37, the same age Harry Wills was a contender back in the 1920's. Nothing to explain.

Ezzard Charles is being lumped with men much older. He was actually 32, just short of his 33rd birthday when he first fought Marciano, who was 30. There was only two years difference between these two men. I think it fair to point out that he and Marciano were not that different in ages from Dempsey and Tunney in 1927. Charles turned 33 that year. Marciano 31. Dempsey turned 32 in 1927. Tunney 30. Charles was almost exactly the same age as Ali was when he defeated Foreman in 1974.

That leaves Walcott and Moore. Two guys still fighting very well at 38.

But these two aren't "many"

Here's the top ten heavyweights in the first issue of the Ring after Marciano won the title, for October, 1952 and their ages.

1-----Rocky Marciano (29)
2-----Jersey Joe Walcott (38)
3-----Rex Layne (24)
4-----Ezzard Charles (31)
5-----Clarence Henry (26)
6-----Bob Dunlap (26)
7-----Jimmy Bivins (32)
8-----Johnny Williams (26)
9-----Roland LaStarza (25)
10----Heinz Neuhaus (26)

Really a reasonably young group other than Walcott. "Perhaps they were just better."--That would be my explanation for Walcott and Moore.

"Foreman turned 41"

Older than Walcott or Moore and still several years away from regaining the title.

Boxers "are putting in better performances in later stages of their careers due to increased sports science and nutrition."

Well, as for nutrition, Foreman certainly ate well judging from his physique during his comeback years. Science might have something to do with it, but it does appear to me a very weak argument to first admit that boxers on the whole are fighting successfully to far older ages today, before spinning on a dime to say the actually younger men of the Marciano years were obviously washed up just because of their ages.

Just a comment. Archie Moore, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Joe Brown of the WWII generation entered the 1960's still champions, 15 years after the end of WWII. Whatever the cause, it is hard for me to believe WWII is the reason for their old age success.

"Nice chatting. Interesting topic."

I enjoyed it also. Thanks for the chat.