Is Gene Tunney the most fundamentally complete fighter ever?

Gomez is a terrific shout, as might be Jofre and Finito Lopez.

 

Gene Tunney was a great fighter....very smart...very intelligent in the ring...he was a thinking man's fighter...

 

I think that to find the most fundamentally complete fighter you shoudl look for someone physically unremarkable, who also did not have great mental attributes, but still managed to attain a lot of success. That is if you meant this as a measure of technique.


A slow, featherfisted, glas-chinned spineless specimen of a pugilist could only attain success through great fundamentals, no?

 

Hate to be a d!ck, but I don't think people here are using the term "fundamental" correctly.

The number of great fighters who have not fully developed fundamentals will be extremely few. In fact, just about any solid trained professional will have mastered or completed the fundamentals of their profession. There will be exceptions, but I suspect people here are talking about talents/skills/abilities BEYOND the fundamentals.

If only a shining few have a complete set, it's pretty clear we aren't talking about fundamentals.

 

Of the big men Tunney had no superiors in all around ability. Take away Ali's gift of gab, bouncing around the ring without throwing punches for seconds, and taunting his opponent, taking his opponents punches on his body til they tired, [rope a dope] was not classic boxing at it's best...You want a true forgotten "classic boxer", take Jack Britton a WW who had 344 fights and was NEVER stopped in his last 335 bouts or so. But of course on ESB he is
never mentioned at ALL.
I think the 3 most complete smaller classic fighters in all around ringmanship and PUNCHING ability were timewise :
Joe Gans
Benny Leonard
Ray Robinson.
They could box classically and had ringmanship, endurance, and Ko poer in both hands...

 

Nice post!!

 

Tunney was one of the earlier examples of a complete fighter but he had some great teachers, Harry Greb being one of them. My Grandfather was a big guy in his day about 6"1 but he said when he met Tunney in the beginning of Tunney's career that Gene looked huge and fit, funny but today Gene would not be so big but I think they used real measuring those days, these days they add 2 inches

Gene was a great fighter and a complete fighter

 

I read an Ali interview once where Ali said that Tunney was the most talented of the heavyweights that preceded him, better than Dempsey or Louis.

Gene was a very complete fighter, but I don't know if I'd call him the best all around in history. I might save that title for Benny Leonard.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Tunney would have beaten a younger Dempsey, but I do think it would have been an extremely close fight.

 

no, you'd have trouble to convince me he was the most complete at the time, let alone in history.

 

On that special episode of Wide World of Sports where Ali and Cosell (at Ali's Deer Lake training camp), of all the fighters they were reviewing on film, Ali said that Tunney was the most modern looking...the most sophisticated in style and technique.

 

Tunney's fundamentals/technique were excellent. Good mobility/footwork, good combinations, jab and right hand. Very intelligent and tough. He's often criticized for keeping his hands low but for his style of fighting the hands low position suited him well. Come to think of it, how many HW champs fought with their hands held high? Tyson and Patterson due to the peek a boo taught to them by D'Amato but other than those 2 I can't think of any others who adhered to the hands high style. Anyway, Tunney was very good though certainly not the best. I once again side with Burt's opinion on this subject. Merry Christmas everyone!

 

Gene Tunney was an avowed disciple of Mike Gibbons, who may have been the most admired pure boxer of his day. Gibbons piled up a tremendous record while seemingly not ducking anyone. Tunney also piled up a tremendous record, but seemed to select his opposition very carefully. As a result, a good case can be made that Gibbons' record is more impressive than Tunney's when taking account of all factors.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Yes Mike gibbons was a great boxer but a light puncher who in about 114 bouts only kod about 35 oppnents. Tunney on the
other hand kod 45 opponents in about 83 fights. As the thread was about the most "fundamentally complete" fighter I chose
the harder punching Gene Tunney as a better all around fighter.
Tunney was a very hurting puncher who quit boxing at his zenith.

 

Punching power is the only category Tunney could be given over Mike Gibbons. The "St. Paul Phantom" was superior in every other way. His resume renders Tunney's almost laughable.