Yes sir, Gene Tunney fought one way and one way only, Circliing his usually much smaller opponents on the outside and using his jab and straight punches to keep them at a distance and outboxing him. Gene Tunney was a horrendous inside fighter. When trapped in a corner, he kept his hands low(he had no high gaurd), but he didnt have the infighting skills to fight his way out. You see with tunney's footwork.......it wasnt rythmatic, stylish, or unpredictable like a prime ezzard charles of the 40s or ali's or walcotts. It was very predictable shuffling back and forth, it was quite stiff. Tunney never faced a big heavyweight in his career.
What heavyweight puncher did Tunney face besides old jack dempsey who put him down for 14 seconds? What big heavyweight did tunney face?
Jack Sharkey was able to outbox and give Max problems, though inconsistantly. How do you consider Sharkey to be superior to Gene Tunney? Tunney would do to Schmeling what he did to Dempsey.
Nowhere near being even close to very one dimensional. There's many that you could list before him in that regard. He was a very well schooled fighter indeed. Taking your Top 30 HW's who do you envisage Tunney beating?
I think Schmeling would actually win this one, Schmeling was a very good boxer, Tunney a great 1, both could bang and were clever, Schmeling more so imo. It would be hard to counter Tunney when he is fighting a bigger man, as i believe he would use the same gameplan as he did in the Dempsey bouts, speeding around the ring throughout the whole bout. However, Schmeling is a different proposition stylistically, and could exploit the low hands at times. But i do think Tunney has a great chance, as i believe him to have a ATG chin and im not sure Schmeling would have the work-rate to keep up with a frenetic pace set by Tunney. Schmeling's great right hand (and it really, really was) is one fine asset, but its not like he's gonna land 1 and finish the fight, not this one. Still, i think Schmeling does knock Tunney down and wins it ever so slightly in a chess match in which he uses his greater strendth and size to a clever advantage to nick it. BTW - Tunney 1 dimensional????
As an FYI, Godfrey did not want to fight Tunney. It is in the papers. I do understand why you think Tunney was a one-dimensional fighter. Tunney was a sharp puncher to the head or body, tough as nails, quick, sharp as a tack, and only beaten once in a very long ring career. Tunney would beat Schmeling via UD or TKO.
Tunney rates # 24 on my all time heavyweight list, he is overated as a heavyweight. On film, he doesnt compare to patterson, walcott, charles, schmeling. On heavyweight resume, he doesnt compare either.
FYI, I have 2 newspaper articles, one which states Gene Tunneys manager in 1925 publicly admits he refuses to ever throw gene tunney in the ring with george godfrey. The other which states in the 1928 Heavyweight title elimanation tournament to determine the challenger for tunney, Tunneys manager publicly claimed he did not want top rated george godfrey to enter the tournament for fear he would win it. The reponse from Tex richard was Godfrey was too good to leave out, so he called one of the tourneys particapants managers of knute Hanson and decided to pair godfrey against Hanson only if they they though Hanson would win. When Hansons manager said "Hell no" they removed godfrey from the tourney all together. Talk about Corrupt white politics. poor Godfrey. I also have another good source who claims Gene Tunney wanted no part of George Godfrey, ducked him like the plague. Claimed he would fight old harry wills but not young George. It is pretty clear. Tunney would retire rather than give george godfrey a shot FYI, Tunney never fought a black fighter, or a 205lb + fighter.
Top 20 is very reasonable, I think he's gone from being overrated to underrated over the years at HW. I have him around #16 infact (just behind Patterson, though I think he'd beat Patterson in head-to-head contest). My 15-20 positions are very closely contested for sure the rest you've named make it. Ps: He's every bit as good as the others, on film.
Gene Tunney is no match for Floyd Patterson. Floyd is in a different league on film compared to Gene. Floyds Boxing Mechanics, Defensive Mechanics, are leagues above gene plus Patterson is tons ahead of tunney in knockout power in both hands and handspeed. Tunney would be very bothered by floyds peek a boo to brawling style in close as well as floyds handspeed in close. When Floyd would catch tunney with that leaping left hook all night. I like floyd by KO.
I actually think he was a decent fighter aswell, i understand your point however. I dont think he was the most skilled on the inside, far from it, but he certainly had the mindset to get rough imo. So, maybe your'e right to a degree, i still disagree though. His offense shown against Carpentier showed he could fight
In Tunney's last 7 fights ,essentially his Heavyweight career,Tunney was actually the lighter man,and in the previous one ,against Gibbons,he was only 2 1/2 lbs heavier,he kod Gibbons in12,something Dempsey failed to do 2 years earlier,he also kod Bartley Madden after flooring him earlier,Madden went the distance with Harry Wills a year earlier despite being outweighed by 25 lbs,Tunney beat him up.If Tunney should have been afraid of anyone it ought to have been Dempsey,but he wasnt,Godfrey was Jack's sparring partner,he wouldnt have beaten Tunney,imo
Tunney was a great lightheavweight no doubt, but I think against bigger fighters and big punchers at heavyweight, he would drastically have to adjust his style if he wanted to be more succesful. Could he do it? we dont know, but Tunneys management and Tunney himself steered him clear of certain fighters for a reason. Carpenter fight is nice, but Georges was pretty mediocre, small, and he was on his last legs at the time of the fight
Yeah , get your point , still , Carpentier was one of the best 175s around, not an amazing win considering though