Gene Tunney vs Rocky Marciano

A good way of putting it.

I'll go with that too.

 

so which footage is beter? when did charles look beter on film? You think charles looked beter against oma, valentino, joe louis or wallcot?

 

I didn't compare the styles of Tunney and Moore. The point was that they are both master-strategists. Neither man had the physical tools to overpower or outrun Marciano, and Tunney's only chance would be to use a perfect strategy. I just do not believe that even that would be enough because Marciano had a way of reducing plans to rubble.

 

Rds 10-15 are hell for Gene who was ahead after 10 and his bicycle starts to drag. Marciano relentless RSC in rd 14...Gene badly beaten around the body arms ands shoulders, goes down in the 13th near the bell RSC early in 14

 

I think Marciano picks the pace up in 6th or 7th, not round ten.

In the first Walcott fight, Rocky gain control of the fight in round 3, before going blinded,

And in Charles I, Rocky Marciano after getting out box in the first 4 rounds, turn the tide in the 6th round.

It would not be 10-0 for Tunney and Marciano comes back.

 

I agree but Gene may be slightly ahead after 10 and then again Rocky may go all out early but he breaks Gene down

 

I have seen this thread before. Tunney UD. Better boxer, smarter fighter, taller, longer and had a top chin. Like Marciano Tunney was tough as nails, and had even stamina.

Tunney would not get cute or tire in the later rounds, which is a reason why Marciano won some of his biggest fights. In addition, tunney footwork would really make Marciano look bad.

 

I think he looked better against Louis and Walcott. Keep in mind that it's Louis and Walcott he's in there against, not a bad imitation of Louis like Coley Wallace or a wild bomber like Satterfield. You could also watch him against Bernie Reynolds, not to mention Lloyd Marshall earlier on in Charles's career. He didn't have the legs he used to have by the Marciano fight.

I think Tunney's style was more suited to fight Marciano though. Moore's strategy was to trade punches with Marciano and get the better of him with upperbody movement and counter punching. Tunney would use his footwork, clinch whenever Marciano got close and punish him with accurate and fast jabs and straight right hands. Tunney is also not going to have as much trouble dealing with pressure as a 40 year old Moore did. Marciano was forcing Moore to fight at a pace that he did not want to.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXRw0XfAsmM[/ame]

 

Nice video. :good

I often wonder how Tunney-Dempsey would have looked had Dempsey been at his best. I believe Tunney was the best fighter he ever faced, and I can see arguments both ways as to the outcome.

 

I imagine in 3 fights Tunney would atleast win one over a prime Dempsey. I don't think Dempsey could outpoint him but there's a very good chance that he catches him based on their second fight when Dempsey was past his prime and Tunney was in his.

 

Tunney would win. His speed of hand and foot, his jab, his stamina, conditioning and toughness would all lead him to a UD over Rocky who would be punching air the majority of the fight.

 

JUst rewatched the third Charles-Layne fight and agree Ez's legs were pretty gone. He got hit a ton by Layne, a limited, one armed fighter ... no where near the fighter he was v.s. Louis ...

 

I could see Tunney giving a 12 rd fight like Vitali a rough night but not a relentless puncher like Marciano...Rocky had the stamina to turn it up at any time. Vs Marciano Gene could run be he could not hide