Is Gene Tunney underrated on P4P and LHW lists?

Norfolk and Gibbons never met prime for prime, and Tunney didn't fight a prime Gibbons either, though his performance against Tommy strongly indicates that he could have taken even a prime version of him.

Sharkey was better than Heeney or Risko, regardless of the results on paper. Stylistically he would have presented a different stylistical match-up for Tunney than Dempsey and was also at the peak of his powers in the late 20's.

I don't think it's too much to ask of Tunney to have fought more top names of the era. He admitted to picking his spots, which surely contributes to him not losing but one fight in his career.

 

Who said 'better', I said he didn't face many of the best fighters, he didn't. Sharkey's losses/draws to all 3 were controversal.

As for Godfrey, he was coloured champion when Tunney was active

 

Great List :good:good

 

With all due respect, Tunney had far more effective footwork than Walcott. Walcott was "tricky" made for great 5 second highlights. Tunney used his feet to get him in and out of range and win fights, all but one of his fights actually. He is more suited to the observer with an attention span.

 

With all due respect, Walcott had far more effective footwork than Tunney.

Sure, he looks great against far past their prime fighters(Carpentier, gibbons and Dempsey) and gooftrooper Heeney. But let's see him tested against Walcott's competition. Tunney never fought a 6'2 214lb Combination puncher like a 1947 Joe Louis, he never fought a decent 6'6 220lb heavyweight like Hein Ten Hoff. He never took on switching hitting 6'3 210lb boxer punchers like Lee Q Murray..he never took on a prime ATG fighter as skilled as himself like Ezzard Charles or Harold Johnson. Walcotts footwork was tested against the best of the best..Tunney's was not.


Tunney had predictable footwork...he only knew one way to fight...keep his opponent at a distance. He was not a good infighter. Tunney made a great living beating on smaller opponents..but how would we do boxing against a man who could match him in reach and height, who also had skills?

Walcott could go in and out too...in fact Joe Louis said "Walcott would hit you and then he'd be gone. I'd look for him, find him, then he'd hit me and suddenly he'd be gone again." Walcott's display of footwork in the Louis I fight is better than anything I have seen of Tunney. Walcott took amazing angles I have never seen tunney take before. Believe me when I say his cute misdirections in the walcott waltz worked. They weren't just for show. His switching of the feet..his step over walcott waltz trick...it set up all 3 Louis knockdowns. I personally think Louis is a better fighter than Jack Dempsey, and much harder to beat.

Tunnney:

- Could go in and out. Very fast I might add.

Walcott:

- Could go in and out
- Could take amazing angles in all directions
- Could trick you with misdirections
- knew how to switch his feet
- knew how to escape when trapped off the ropes


Walcott simply had much more to his game than Tunney did..and walcott proved it against far better opposition than Tunney..much wider variety of styles/sizes too

Ahh, there is the seamus we all know. The one who loves to throw in sly, cruel remarks. :good So according to you, anyone who thinks walcott has better feet than Tunney is either unintelligent or suffering from ADD. :roll:


Seamus, you may be very well educated, but some of your opinions are extremely ignorant.

Get your head of of Tunney's ass and realize the guy did not fight anywhere near the competition Charles and Walcott faced.

 

He fought Dempsey (twice), Greb (five times), Gibbons, Heeney, Levinsky, Renault, Spalla, Jeff Smith, and Jimmy Delaney, all of whom were considered rated fighters at the time; plus guys like Loughran, Weinert, and Risko, who went on to be highly rated fighters a year or so afterward.

How many more fights against top fighters would he need to have to qualify as "many" in your book?

And often rated below guys like Gibbons, Renault, and Weinert while Tunney was active.

 

Look, if you prefer fancy steps and trickery as opposed to effective boxing, that's all fine with me.

Tunney's footwork was part of a more effective package that beat better fighters and only lost to one, who was an ATG, and did not lose the masses who were claimed victor over Walcott. It's really as simple as the results.

Again, if you like flash and your appreciation of the sweet science can be boiled down to 5 second clips which display better soft shoe than actual footwork, that's fine. Be happy to be who you are.

 

Godfrey was the # 2 rated heavyweight contender in 1928. It's amazing he received this high of a ranking with all the racism going on, and all the losses he was forced to take while on the Cuffs. You know that bull**** heavyweight title elimination tourney they ran(the one which gooftrooper Heeney "won" it)...Well Godfrey wasn't allowed in it because he was too dangerous! They said they would only put him in it, if it could be gauranteed Knute Hanson would defeat him. When they were told Hanson is not good enough, they withdrew Godfrey from the "tournament!"

Godfrey was a superheavyweight with power and speed. Tunney never fought anything like this before. Tunney even said I will fight Harry Wills only, but I will draw the color line when it comes to George Godfrey. Why is Tunney afraid to fight the younger, bigger, faster, more powerful heavyweight of the two?



"plans for a battle between geney tunney, former american lightheavyweight champion, and george godfrey, negro heavyweight, as the feature attraction on the annuel christmas boxing carnival in madison square garden on dec 18, today were abandoned. it was announced by the officials of the fund. billy gibson manager of gene tunney declinded the prooffered match. according the the fund officials, gibson asserted harry wills is the only negro heavyweight tunney will box." - los angeles times nov. 4 1925





EASTERN SNAPSHOTS by W. Rollo Wilson



Nov.12, 1925-The Baron of Leiperville is home again with wonderous tales of the mighty deeds of the "Shadow" along the gilded slope. The "Shadow" is just another way of denoting Gorger George Godfrey, Jimmy's (Dougherty) outsize white elephant. For white elephant George seems now to be. Nobody wants to fight him for love or money. Mr. Wills unostentatiously draws the color line. Mr. Tunney is more blatant in his announcement to the same effect. "I'll fight Harry Wills," broadcasts James Joseph, "but I draw the color line on George Godfrey."



Two things may be on the mind of the Apollo of Greenwich Village, Perhaps he thinks that one "shot" with Wills would give him enough of the filthy lucre for his future earthly needs. Win or lose he would be "in." Fighting Ole Black Lightning [Godfrey] would be a case of all to lose and nothing to gain, he probably thinks. At this time Billy Gibson and Tunney are saying that the Big Three of Boxing are Dempsey, Wills, and the modest Gene. Godfrey would fain make it a foursome, but you can be jolly well sure that the triumvira will continue to say him nay.



One of the first acts of [Dougherty] on his arrival was to release another challenge in the general direction of the above-mentioned Big Three. His latest offer is this:

All any promoter has to do is get Harry, Gene or Jack to sign the papers and pay them whatever they want. Godfrey will come in without asking for a dollar. The aftermath will provide the Dougherty clan with all they will want, because they feel that George can take any of the three.



As is well known Dougherty and Dempsey are the best of friends. Last summer a year ago (1924) Dempsey visited the baronial halls (Leiperville). While here the subject of a bout with George was broached. Jack declared that if he fought at all he would fight Wills, but not Godfrey. Jimmy pressed him for the reason and he said : "Godfrey is a big strong fellow and is young, Wills is getting older and I think he will be the easier man of the two. That is the reason I prefer to fight him, if I fight." - ROLLO WILSON was often referred to as "The dean of the Black Press.


"Tunney wanted nothing to do with Godfrey--plain and simple--too tough a fight. Godfrey is vastly under-rated. His record and career are somewhat mired in mystery. So many DQ's, knockouts and damn mystifying losses. I have no doubt, for instance, that he had the cuffs on against Sharkey. The high number of DQ's has more to do with him fighting to order than it does with him being sloppy. Tunney could outbox most heavies and I don't doubt that he could outbox George Godfrey for 5 or six or even ten rounds. However, George was fast for his size, was adept at chasing men down and could hit like a team of mules. If this were a fifteen round fight, I see Godfrey having a hell of chance catching up to Gene. Remember that Tunney's heavyweight resume is not that long or overly impressive. His two best wins were against Dempsey--over 10 rounds--and it is probable that Jack was past it then. Godfrey handled Larry Gaines fairly easily and Gaines was a boxer in both the mold and style of Tunney. Gaines stated that he feared only two men in his life, his father and George Godfrey. George was a beast--big, athletic, huge puncher and surprisingly good speed and movement for a man his size. I think in his prime, 1925-1931, he was about as good as it got. Nobody really wanted to fight George, and for good reason. Tunney avoided him like the plague. In his prime, with no handcuffs, and this is strictly my opinion, I think he could have beaten, Tunney, Sharkey, Carnera and maybe even Dempsey(certainly a post 1926 Dempsey)."- Boxing historian Kevin Smith

Being "White" has its advantages in the 20s. All of the heavyweights you mentioned above that were rated above Godfrey were white. You can manipulate the rankings a lot easier if your a aspiring white hope than if your a "no good Negro" being forced to take part in fights while your on the cuffs.

 

Apologist bull****. Godfrey was a dirty fighter and a B+ level heavyweight on his best day. He was low blow artist for sure. Sharkey whipped fair and honest despite being outweighed by 30 some pounds. There were plenty of big, "athletic" fighters out there who still sucked inside the squared circle. Come up with something better than Kevin Smith quotes...

 

Sure he was. That's why he was just elected to the hall of fame. B + my Ass.


Ps Tunney never beat Sharkey, so we don't know if he was better than him. it's alot closer than you think.


Also why didn't Tunney rematch Loughran after Tommy gave him such a hard time at age 19? In fact Tunney never even beat Loughran. Boxrec it seems suddenly decided to change the result from a newspaper decision for Loughran, to a newspaper decision for Tunney! Looks like the result upset to many tunney fans, so they cried about it until the boxrec editor gave in.

Loughran, imo, looks just as good as gene on film..except gene is the harder puncher with both hands. That's the only difference. Loughran might actually be a better boxer. Loughran also defeated a much wider variety of styles at 175lb. Gene didn't really beat any punchers at 175lb. Loughran fought and beat quite a few chin checkers. Also beat some skilled boxers, who were in their primes.

 

I think Tunney is vastly underrated on this forum, but no one has better footwork than Walcott, in fact you could argue that Walcott was the most skilled of all heavyweight champions in the history of the sport.

 

I agree that Godfrey seems to have been a lot better than most people realise, even though his record doesnt realy reflect this, probaly for the reasons you suggested.

It has nothing to do with colour. If you take dives, wear cuffs etc, then you are not going to have a high ranking, no matter how good you really are. Same goes with the white fighters or with any white fighter who wore the cuffs, and i am sure plenty did from time to time.

 

If he was so skilled, why did he get his ass beat so often?

And don't bother reciting the same ol' litany of excuses. I've heard them. He was a decent championship level Heavyweight (which is really a quite elite category) but he was a lot more flash than substance when considered at this level.

 

Wow. He got in the HOF after 80 years. Good for him. Still, he was good but not great. You just can't argue what-if's and what-could have's while ignoring such a spotty record.

Meanwhile Tunney does get newspaper decision...

"TUNNEY HAS SHADE OVER LOUGHRAN; New York Boxer Outpoints Philadelphian in EightRound Engagement.

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 24.--Gene Tunney of New York, weighing 173 pounds, was entitled to the verdict over Tommy Loughran of this city, 163, at the end of the eighth round in the Phillies' ball park here tonight, but his margin of superiority was not large."

And being a Loughran but with pop is the recipe for one hell of a fighter. And that fighter was the great Gene Tunney.

 

Because unlike Tunney..

A. He didn't have a real Manager/Trainer until 15 years into his pro career. Bocchichio and Florio did not come into Walcott's life until 1945.

B. Walcott fought the best heavyweights of all sizes/styles/race in a span of two decades...unlike Tunney who was very selective of his opposition.

C. Tunney didnt have to take fights against top contenders on 24 hr notice, didn't have to take fights with no training and barely a sandwhich in his belly in 48 hours, didn't have to take fights with typhoid fever...All things walcott suffered in the 1930s.