Louis V Tunney 15rds Prime For Prime?

WRONG. Check the film, round 9 or 11. Farr most certainly did stun Louis.

If Tunney can take Dempsy's best, he can do the same for Louis, at least once and I doubt Louis would land his best often on a moving target like Tunney was. This was the only time Tunney was floored in 80+ fights.

Louis was befuddled by movement. By Conn ( 168 pounds ) who did stagger Louis, and by Walcott who floored him multiple times. Except Tunney is not fool as Conn and Walcott were, which is a big reason whey they were stopped late up on points.

 

I agree. In addition, Tunney offered Wills a fight, Wills declined. He was for a 3rd fight with Dempsey, Demsey refused And he offered Greb a 6th fight, Greb said no way, something to the effect that you badly beat me and you're too big.

This forum loves Greb even at 175 pounds, and before we say that's too light, it was the smaller guys who gave Louis tough times, not the slow big one of his time.

 

I think that too much is being made of Tunney's movement.

He was not naturally a mobile fighter, or even strictly a defensive fighter.

He just adopted a totally out of character approach to fight Dempsey.

 

Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I think Tunney (first fight only) could win. Louis imo, movement wise, would play right into Tunney's hands. Tunney has great footwork, and I think that would see him win a decision in the first fight. The rematch... well, that's probably a Louis win there.

 

Prime Joe Louis was never beaten by "movement" anyway.
He knocked those guys out.
Schmeling was the only one to KO him, and Schmeling mostly stood his ground and waited for him, counter punched from a flat-footed stance.

 

Not really true though.. Walcott movement really bothered Louis. By most accounts he lost the first fight, and was KD twice in it. The second fight was going much the same. Walcott decisively winning the fight, and again KD Louis in the process. He was winning the majority of both fights, while still clowning a lot. That is how comfortable he was, and in essence, how easy it was going for him. Shoot, the only time he was even caught in the second fight was when he was clowning again, obviously feeling like he had his number. Bad idea, but then, and only then was he caught. Conn used solid in and out movement in their first fight amassing a lead. Schmeling did use movement though, it was just very subtle. But he did to set up his counters that Joe walked right into. Anyways, yeah, I think Tunney using movement and ring generalship certainly keeps him in the fight and maybe winning imo

 

I said prime Joe Louis, not the version who faced Walcott.
This thread is "prime for prime".

And, as you mention yourself, he did KO Walcott anyway. As I said.
Conn was KTFO by prime Louis, and by past-prime Louis, he was KO'd twice, in two fights. 0-2 (2 KOs).

 

Anybody picking Tunney based on movement, is assuming that he would adopt a styly completely alien to him, as he did against one opponent (Dempsey).

They are further assuming that he would make this work against a prime Louis.

This is possible, but lets not pretend that this style is second nature to him!

 

Well you commented that movement didn't bother him. I know this is a prime Louis, but we're talking styles here. A general discussion on what might have or might not have bothered Louis style. Thus I cited the examples I did, and they are valid. Sure Conn got KO'd but he was winning the fight relatively easily using good movement. He gave Joe and pass and got careless but clearly he was winning the fight and using movement to do so. Tunney wouldn't make the same mistake in going for the KO that Conn did. He'd still to his gameplan

 

Well, there is that. He is a great "what if" heavyweight and "what if" guys always get the extreme benefit of the doubt.

 

I think Tunney was better than Conn and Walcott but did not hit like Jersey Joe ..