Gene Tunney vs Ezzard Charles

I do think that taking advantages of perceived flaws in Ezzard Charles' make-up would be more difficult than that of a past prime Jack Dempsey though. personally. Assuming this is a prime Charles.

 

What makes you think that Charles wouldn't study Tunney in the same way?

As far as I can see the only way anybody got the strategic edge on Charles was by switching styles in a way that he would not have been able to anticipate.

 

Especially a fully primed Charles. Definitely.

 

He very likely would. Whether he would be as thorough about it is anyone's guess.
Tunney was extremely dilligent in keeping up to date with his competition, and supposedly had a very detailed account of every fighter on his radar. If Ezzard does his homework as thoroughly as Tunney did, then more power to him.

 

It could come down to small details...maybe something that's not apparent until they're facing each other.

 

But does Charles actually have a weakness to build off of? :think

 

Just try and knock him out is about the most creative i can come up with, and i doubt it comes to fruition.

 

I get the idea that Archie Moore compliede the "Ezzard Charles manual" about as comprehensivley as was possible.

It almost worked for him but not quite.

 

Both Tunney and Loughran ended up using some highly unorthodox tactics that you would not asociate with them against Harry Greb.

You might be surprised what you would see here.

 

Anything's possible with fighters of this ilk, but i wouldn't bet on it personally.

 

every fighter has a weakness.....its just a metter of his oppenet being able to spot it and use it to the best of his Abilitys

 

Tunney was the smarter fighter and that prevails.

 

Charles is the technically better fighter and his speed of punch would punnish Tunney for his low guard time and again. Tunney has very good defensive skills aside from this but the low guard would be his downfall. I couldn't think of many fighters it would be worse to keep your hands down against with Charles excellent speed, timing and skill.

Charles also has the better range of punches, overall arsenal and better puncher. He may well take Tunney apart and KO him but Tunney's counters most likely keep Charles off him to that degree and ofcourse has his own successes.

 

I just feel Charles has more tools and a better arsenal. Charles power was also better at LHW. I'm going to go with Charles. But it would be interesting to see if Tunney fights off the back foot while Charles moves forward. Both fighters seemed to be ahead of their time.

 

Again, I don't see the evidence of this assumption that Charles is faster. Looking at film, I dare say Tunney is faster, certainly of foot but also seemingly of hand. Is this heresy?

Tunney held his hands low because, as with RJJ or Ali, he was fast enough to get away with it.

Charles has some great infighting skill, very rough and tumble when necessary. Of course, even a depleted Dempsey had high marks in this department.

I think it comes down to each timing the other, and at their respective bests, they were two masters of timing. It would be a close decision either way. I don't think either are getting KO'd, though Charles is more likely to hit the canvas than Tunney.