Gene Tunney v Ezzard Charles at 175/180lbs?

Tunney had the better legs and movement but Charles was the puncher here and had the more dangerous offense but Gene was no slouch. I favor Charles in a close fight and they could split a few

 

I agree with Bummy.

Slight edge to Charles. I think his combination punching would make the difference.

 

One of the best possible match-ups in the sport.

 

He's not going to slow down Charles any more than he could slow down Greb. Big difference there is that the swarming "Cincinnati Cobra" had big power in those fists, which he'd be pumping into Gene head n' body all night.

He'd slow Gene down and cop a clear UD.

 

Yes...

yes...

yes...

and yes.

 

Only his record indicates he did just fine against Greb

 

great fight. The 2 best ltheavies EVER in my mind for sure. I would pick Tunney in a razor tight discision. In a series, they would both win.

 

He had a nice size advantage over Greb too (something he wouldn't have with prime Charles) not to mention power and friendly hometown scoring in their second fight (read: robbery). And yet a strong argument can still be made for Greb being 3-2 OVER Tunney, if one bothers to dig deeper than just "the record"

He'll have no such advantages over Charles.

 

True. Most posters forget or never knew that Gene Tunney always had about 10-12 pounds on the much shorter and lighter
Harry Greb...But Greb had miraculous hand speed and footspeed
that made him so darn hard to beat.
As far as Ezzard Charles greatness there is no denying that, but
he did lose a decision in his 21st bout to Ken Overlin, who was
called "the poor man's Harry Greb", because of his frenetic tactics almost similar to the great man himself...

 

But let's not forget that this was a green Charles, with only 20 bouts under his belt, fighting a world champion with almost 150 bouts to his name. Fought him again shortly after and also world champs like Teddy Yarosz (also had over 100 bouts on his ledger), Anton Christoforidis and Charley Burley.

Know who Tunney was fighting after 20 bouts? Immortals like KO Sullivan, Bob Pearce, Dan O'Dowd and Whitey Allen. Heard of them? Neither have I

You're comparing one of the most recklessly and sternly challenged fighters of all time(Charles) to one of the most carefully matched fighters of all time(Tunney).

 

A series would be interesting as Tunney devised tighter game plans. Prime-for-prime, certainly pre-Baroudi, Charles was the kind of subtle virtuoso that would always be a step ahead of Gene. Get them at 180 lbs. + and things begin to change as Tunney only improved with time, particularly in strength and experience. Charles lost that venom which made him the complete package.

It's just as much of a shame there isn't much out there of Charles at his sizzling best as it that the majority of Robinson's welterweight crusade is nowhere.

 

Yes I know Charles lost to Overlin in 1941 in Ezzard's 21st bout. Yes but Overlin was creaking and drinking by this time in HIS 150th fight...But who knows truly how the outcome of a fight between a prime Gene Tunney and Ezzard Charles would have turned out ? .Remember the Tunney of the Carpentier and Tommy Gibbons stoppages [though they both were on the downside] was a helluva lightheavyweight at this juncture
irregardless of his younger days...Underneath his intellectual façade lurked a tough punishing and sturdy fighter...

 

Sans "intellectual facade", you just described Charles to the proverbial "T" :smoke But with prime Ezzard you could add "devastating", something nobody could ever ascribe to Tunney. Also quality of opposition at light-heavy is heavily in Charles' favor.

I agree, who knows what would happen? But when we look at their light-heavyweight careers I really don't see any advantages Tunney has over Charles. Ezzard was the complete package AND he could knock you out. He was "wow!"-ing and dropping the jaws of the fight public. Tunney wasn't.

 

Tunney. He's smarter, and more durable. I also think he has a reach advantage which he would use.