Is Gene Tunney overrted?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Hamburger, Mar 8, 2014.


Page 3 of 6
  1. Hamburger

    Hamburger Guest

    Michael Grant was washed up and never good to begin with. Also what does Adamek have to do with Gene Tunney? Nothing at all. Kevin McBride was washed up and not very good. Jonathan Banks? Yeah we know how great he is and again what does that have to do with Gene Tunney?
     
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    #31
  2. Hamburger

    Hamburger Guest

    Lol Rise Above I asked you about Tunney and you bring up Adamek but I contradict myself? This thread is called is Gene Tunney overrated but you bring up a fighter nobody asked you about. Yep clearly I am in the wrong. Funny guy.
     
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    #32
  3. Rise Above

    Rise Above IBHOF elector Full Member

    8,038
    39
    Sep 20, 2007
    Haha, listen up genius, I didnt mention Adamek, someone else did and for the record youre the one who said Butterbean would be champion back then and if that wasnt bad enough you also claimed no 180 pound man could ever beat a 220 pound man. :patsch

    Maybe you should follow your own advice and learn to read. This forum certainly does have some stupid people posting here....
     
    Rise Above, Mar 9, 2014
    Rise Above, Mar 9, 2014
    #33
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,617
    27,303
    Feb 15, 2006
    I will be brutally honest with you here.

    I really don’t care how big Gene Tunney’s best opponents were.

    I rank him based on their resumes, and what the wins were worth at the time.
     
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    #34
  5. Hamburger

    Hamburger Guest

    Again nobody asked you that. You see my point? You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. I asked you did he beat a modern sized heavyweight? I did not ask you was his wins good at the time. I am talking about him being a all time great because he beat a middleweight and Greb and a washed up 180 pound fighter in Jack Dempsey. And you see why I insult right? Basic questions go over your head.
     
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    #35
  6. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,617
    27,303
    Feb 15, 2006
    Of course he was a heavyweight.

    Back then anybody over 175lbs was a heavyweight.

    We cannot rank him at a weight that did not exist at the time, under a ruleset which did not exist at the time.
     
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    #36
  7. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,617
    27,303
    Feb 15, 2006
     
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    #37
  8. Hamburger

    Hamburger Guest

    Janitor did I ask you that? I said was he a heavyweight by modern standards. Good God are you dense. PLEASE ASK SOME GROWN PERSON TO TEACH YOU HOW TO READ. I SAID WAS HE A MODERN SIZED HEAVYWEIGHT. THE ANSWER IS HELL NO. SO WHY COMPARE HIM TO MODERN SIZED HEAVYWEIGHTS OR RANK HIM AHEAD OF PEOPLE WHO WERE MODERN SIZED HEAVYWEIGHTS.

    Good ****ing grief .
     
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    #38
  9. Hamburger

    Hamburger Guest

    I said I would ignore you now let me just ignore you before I say something rude again. Good bye. I never seen such stupid ****ing people in my ****ing life. A basic ****ing question can't be answered.
     
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    #39
  10. dmille

    dmille We knew, about Tszyu, before you. Full Member

    2,269
    69
    Aug 1, 2004
    Thomas Hearns, a natural welterweight, against Tommy Morrison? Really? Why didn't you just say Miguel Canto?

    "Dude, today's heavyweights are so much bigger." If they are so much better because of size, why don't they all fight with the predatory, search & destroy mindset of Joe Louis or Mike Tyson?

    By today's standard, Tunney would be a cruiserweight. Ok, no problem. Does that make him a bum now?

    Is he over-rated? Sure. Is he under-rated? HELL YEAH!

    This idea that because a guy now runs the 100 meters in 9.58 somehow means that today's boxers are all better is pretty dumb. Boxing isn't like those other sports.

    Tough is still tough. 3 mins. is still a round and ten seconds is still a knockout. You can't out-science, out-nutrition, or out-think a punch to the point of the chin.

    Some past champions regularly fought 20 and 25 rounders. They used to have to weigh-in in the ring right before the fight. Guys used to fight three and four times a month. Propose that now and we'll hear all of today's bad@$$es turn into whiny crybabies.

    Guys like Chavez Jr., for example, step on the scale at 160 and then enters the ring as a cruiser. Yet he can't stop guys who are still middles at fight time and we're being told how he's this huge puncher.

    Make JCCJr enter the ring at 160, like Monzon and Robinson and Greb did, and he'd get his @$$ whipped. Make him fight natural cruisers and he'd get his @$$ whipped.

    And it ain't just Daddy's boy, it's all of them.
     
    dmille, Mar 9, 2014
    dmille, Mar 9, 2014
    #40
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,617
    27,303
    Feb 15, 2006
    The cowards way out.
     
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    janitor, Mar 9, 2014
    #41
  12. timmers612

    timmers612 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,018
    416
    Sep 25, 2005
    Why have the moderators let this idiot Hamburger keep posting? East side still has some excellent posters in Janitor, Burt, Marciano etc., but this guy and several others who have no background at all in boxing and are just jerks are ruining it.
     
    timmers612, Mar 9, 2014
    timmers612, Mar 9, 2014
    #42
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    A great fighter is a great fighter. There never are enough great fighters around at the same time and thats the reason we like to compare them with previous greats to test them.

    Progression does not mean great. A great fighter needs to benefit from the progresion. Progression in itself is nothing. A car needs gas to go.
     
    choklab, Mar 9, 2014
    choklab, Mar 9, 2014
    #43
  14. dmille

    dmille We knew, about Tszyu, before you. Full Member

    2,269
    69
    Aug 1, 2004
    Is anyone who disagrees with you a bigot?
     
    dmille, Mar 9, 2014
    dmille, Mar 9, 2014
    #44
  15. Hamburger

    Hamburger Guest

    Lol no dmille anybody who can't answer a basic question because they are trying to defend somebody because of their race. That is like if I kept telling you Mayweather would be somebody he couldn't be because he is black.

    Also choklab nobody said anything about Progression. I am telling you there are weight classes for a reason. Gene Tunney wasn't even great for a light heavyweight. But lets say he was. How does that equate to him being a great heavyweight when he never fought one. That is the point I am trying to make.

    Also Dmille I used Tommy Hearns and Tommy Morrison just to prove a point. Morrison is a natural heavyweight and Hearns is what a natural welterweight? No matter how skilled he is compared to Morrison he would never be able to handle his punching power or even hurt Morrison even if you do believe for a heavyweight his chin isn't great.

    Fighters fought for 25 rounds but were they throwing punches all those rounds? They didn't throw many punches back then period. Clearly they were tougher. Guys today have no balls. Guys walking around with skinny jeans and earrings and whining like a *****.

    That still has nothing to do with Gene Tunney being ranked high at heavyweight when he wasn't one by modern standards or beat one.

    The logical thing would be for people to just say he was great in his era or he would beat fighters his size. But don't try to compare him to people he would never beat.
     
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    Hamburger, Mar 9, 2014
    #45
Page 3 of 6