Gene Tunney v Joe Louis

Tunney would move well and box but Louis would get to him and stop him. I often see the comparison to Conn and many people say Tunney was better. As a heavyweight Conn had some good wins and a competitive fights with Louis...Tunney runs but can not hide Louis by stop I think later in the fight 10-15

 

True... while Louis wasn't nearly as quick of foot, even as quck as the older version of dempsey... nor was he as good a body puncher as dempsey.. which is a method some thought might put louis over the top of Tunney. In my view, Tunney was the exact type of boxer that did and would give Joe fits. I see this fight being like Walcott I.. Conn all over again.

 

i agree, tunney was the exact type of boxer to defeat louis more times than not. i tend to go with a seasoned louis 2 of 3 times, but what a matchup !!

 

Good fight. But agree with the posters who say that Tunney has never faced anything resembling a prime Joe Louis. Louis gets him med to late, for me.

 

Tunney never faced anyone like a prime Joe Louis because there is nobody like a prime Joe Louis. He was a once in a lifetime talent. An offensive force with both power and precision. I don`t think Tunney was as quick as Billy Conn.

Unlike Dempsey, The Brown Bomber could jab with and most likely out jab Gene Tunney and we know that the jab sets up the lightening behind it. After 6 or 7 rounds of eating Joe Louis`s power jab Tunney`s legs may not cooperate the way they usually do.

The more I think about it the less I like Tunney`s chances of making it the distance unless he goes into survival mode.

 

At the end of the day, it's an ex-middleweight against Joe Louis. Tunney's going to look great until his face splatters onto the canvas.

I imagine Louis will be perplexed at times. At Tunney's ability to outjab him, and when you think you have him in the crosshairs, he does just the right thing to live another day.

But days run out, for everyone.

 

Are people perhaps judging Tunney on the Dempsey fights too much here?

Sure that is what he did, but it was an alien style for him in some ways, that he adopted out of necessity.

Tunneys usual MO was to go toe to toe!

 

When Louis met most anybody that was an all time great boxer/puncher type.. he either lost or looked very suspect. Conn.. Charles.. Walcott.. Max. Against all these guys he either looked very susceptible or flat out lost. If you think about it.. the all time greats he fought... Conn.. Charles.. Rocky... Max.. and Walcott... his record is either 4 -5 (giving walcott the win the first time) or 5-4 (giving louis the nod) we could even call it 4-4-1.. In either case.. against the best fighters he ever fought.. that isn't a very good record at all. Tunney would be another all time great he fought... and to think he would either beat Joe or make him look very susceptible is wishful thinking on Louis supporters here. Tunney would certainly be winning on points by a far margin if he was KO'd or he's straight out beat Louis. In either case, to think this woudln't be the case is going against The Man and his history against greats.

 

You can claim Louis wasn't this or that for the fighters I named.. but those are STILL the VERY best fighters he faced and his record wasn't very good against them. No matter how you wanna spin those losses.. doesn't change that they occured. Louis wasn't not prime agiainst Conn... nor was he some well past his prime fighter against Walcott or Charles. The only fight I would consider him pretty well past his prime was Marciano.

The one thing about Louis that always perplexes me is the statement you made about the best HW in history coming around at a time when the division was crap. Which begs the question.. how can you call somebody the greatest HW in history when he earned that reputation against sub par opposition How can you make such a claim when he literally LITERALLY had a losing record and struggled against the best fighters he did face. It boogles my mind how other fighters can fight meh competition and it be held against them with such vigor.. May... Jones Jr.. Tyson.. etc etc.. Yet somehow Louis gets a pass for this very same thing.. when in many respects the people the guys above beat were better than who Louis beat.

How can you call somebody great or think that highly of them as a fighter when they beat meh fighters. People clammer all the time and use the phrase.. well yeah, anyboyd can look like an all time great if they are fighter average fighters. How and why does this not apply to Louis? Generally during somebody's reign there isn't much revisionist writing... that takes place. Nobody was talking about how crappy Tyson's foes were until many years later. Yet, during Louis reign.. it was opening called the bum of the month club. That is how bad it really was to not even take that long to talk about how bad his foes were.

You can cite those tunney fights but he still comes up with a FAR superior record against all time greats than Louis has. Of that there can be no question.

 

Against a prime Louis Tunney had better stay on his toes and watch for Joe's right hand. I can see Louis countering Gene with a lethal fast right and following that up with an accurate combination. Plus Louis had a potent and accurate jab that he would put to good use as well. I don't think Tunneys fight with a faded Dempsey serves as a good barometer as to how Gene would do against a prime Louis. Still I think this would be a very good fight however long it lasts but I favor Louis...probably by KO late.

 

I dont think Tunney could out jab Louis. Joe had a supreme power jab. He could double it up and hook off of it. Billy Conn said eating Louis`s jab was like someone smashing a lightbulb in your face.

 

Louis wasn't at his best against Walcott and he wasn't even within SEEING distance of prime against Charles.