Gene Tunney vs Joe Louis

Based on Greb's own words.. based on him holding the majoirty in the series... All that make it clear that if anybody mastered somebody it was Tunney mastering Greb. Now, I'm not saying anybody mastered anybody. What i'm am saying is that if anybody did it wasn't greb and the record and the fighter echo those sentiments. You disagree? Based on what?

 

Did Tunney master Greb, or did Greb just get old as Tunney was coming into his prime?

The time scale is suggestive to say the least.

 

Greb never said Tunney mastered him. He gave Gene credit in their final fight for beating him. Nothing more. Just like Gene gave Harry credit for licking him in their first fight.

Based on the info that has been provided on this thread and numerous others, the best you could score the series for Tunney would be 2-2-1. A more logical conclusion, again based upon the ringside reports, is a 3-2 series advantage for Greb.

So nobody got mastered. But I think Greb proved to be the better fighter, especially considering the handicaps he had to endure.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

If you read it more attentively, he did go much harder with his sparring partners at an earlier camp, but then he desided, for unknown reasons, to adopt a style that didn't suit him at all. Didn't change it because of shape, it was a tactical decision. Whoever advised him to do that didn't know what he was doing.
Put younger, more natural version of Dempsey with that Tunney and he gets knocked out quickly. He wasn't a defensive master, dancing around the ring, as has been repeated many times, naturally he leaned more toward close or mid distance fighting. To think that he could do successfully what he had done against old, "unnatural" (stylewise) Dempsey, with a younger, ferocious version, is not based on anything.

 

:good

FINALLY somebody has said it. This is completely true and furthermore it illustrates how badly the Dempsey fights have distorted the truth about Tunney's approach. The way people talk one would think that he was the heavyweight Wilfred Benitez, Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker. He wasn't at all.

And to think that he could successfully do this against a prime, fast-handed Joe Louis who is hunting him down is absurd as well. I actually think a prime Dempsey takes him out quicker, but Louis would get the job done too.

 

SO you want to change the OFFICIAL outcomes of fights U CAN'T SEE based on what the majority of newspapers say? Odd, then I'm assuming you feel like Walcott won the first fight with Louis? If not, I see a big double standard being shown here. You're a very good poster bats.. one of the better ones... but your bias for greb here is not making you be fair and just all the way down the line. This isn't a black or white area... either you can't view the fight yourself to score and thus you have to go with the official verdict.. or you can't view the fights and thus the primary proof is in the newspapers majority not what the judges saw. There are no two ways about it.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

It matters very little the amount of the disparity though. You can't view either fight in its entirety to make your own judgments. So then, you either go with the official verdict no matter the newspapers or press row... OR you go with what press row thought and base your judgment on that. There is very little grey area here at all.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

No. I simply wish to call a spade a spade. Based on the ton of evidence that we have I don't think you can give Tunney any more credit for this win than you can Jack McAuliffe for "beating" Young Griffo, Lupe Pintor for "beating" Carlos Zarate, Park Si Hun for "beating" Roy Jones or JC Chavez for "drawing" with Pernell Whitaker. A robbery is a robbery.

Enough eyewitnesses of Greb-Tunney II saw a robbery for me to be convinced that it was. When there is 19 of 23 sportswriters ringside agreeing that Greb should have left with his title, as well as the Boxing Commissioner and various other boxing people calling it a robbery, and right in the other fighter's hometown, I think we can all be convinced that it was a robbery.

 

This is a myth, 'Doza. Tunney's broken face was due to Greb's punches and you've been given the evidence that supports this. There was nothing tainted. Greb was simply the better man (in most of their fights, actually).

 

Just like the clear majority of ringside reporters felt Walcott won... the crowd felt like walcott won... the ref (closest man to the fight) felt walcott won. ****.. Louis was trying to leave the ring before the verdict because he felt he lost and when it was announced he won.. went over to JJW and apologized to him. You don't see a double standard here bats.. not even a little? Come on man.