Replace Tunney with Archie Moore for his title fights with Dempsey - what happens?

I am white and studious. I still know how to treat people. Gene wouldn't even look at you unless you were rich or famous. The guy was the definition of a rich, elitist, arrogant snob. He was also a big time racist too. After reading about him, I don't see how anyone could be a fan of the guy. Gene was a great fighter. He had unbelievable timing, handspeed, sense of range, threw rabid combinations, fantastic textbook fighter. As a person, he was garbage.

 

No. I favor Tunney by decision, though.

 

What have you got to back up this about Tunney, SuziQ he is a fav of mine who I think is underrated but I don't like racists or elitists.

 

No problem ,it just seemed a rather oblique way of answering my point.

So far , some interesting responses.
I'm surprised that even a faded Dempsey gets virtually no support on this, there again, not many hold him in high esteem here.

 

Sometimes you have to separate what's done in the ring from outside of it Suzie. I'm a fan of Tunney's skills in the ring regardless of what he did outside of it

Tunney though in what he did in the ring wasn't completely proven in resume depth. He didn't fight at the level Archie Moore did that's for sure

 

If all that is true about Tunney, it makes no difference to me, any more than Carlos Monzon's being a monster in real life affects my high estimation of him as a fighter...or Sonny Liston's past vs his boxing career...just as Emile Griffith being "gay" has nothing to do with him being a great fighter.

 

agree with the theme going here. plenty of horrible people make great boxers. tunney was a dynamo in the ring. focusing on that, he may be favoured over moore though i certainly don't discard archie's chance against either he or dempsey

 

I believe you're white but question studious based on the immaturity level consistently displayed in your posts ... If you are studious then you should know better than to make such generalizations without far more substantiated facts ... facts show Tunney never fought a black fighter. Facts show he was studious and upwardly mobile. That does not mean he was an elitist. It is arrogant to make such claims in such a definitive manner without first hand exposure. It is slander. Try a bit more objectivity and less belligerence ...

 

Why is it today that a Gene Tunney, a former U.S. Marine in WW1, is called an "elitist", and a "snob", because he chose to read "intellectual" authors
books, was never in trouble with the law and conducted himself with proper conduct during his life, whilst the darling of the progressives condoned an Ali for joining a racist hate group, refused to serve his country, unlike Louis, Charles, Zale, Conn, and called caucasians in general horrible
slogans, demeaned his victim boxers by calling them vile names , but
became an icon.? Truly this behavior on the part of some posters today smacks of tokenism and I just cannot understand their hatred or selective
criticism directed at a Dempsey, Tunney, whilst lauding a Clay/Ali to the skies.? I'm puzzled...Cheers...

 

Gene was not an elitist because he was well educated, he was an elitist because of the way he undermined people who weren't rich or famous.

 

Sounds a lot like Winston Churchill, & plenty of people still love him.

 

HEGrant,

I could care less about what you say. You are like a broken record. Your mind is made up about everything, no more room for growth, for open mindedness.

 

That's kind of sad when society condones behavior like that

 

Tunney came from pretty humble beginnings ,one of 5 children he left school at 15, any education he got,other than the basic 3 rs , he taught himself.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected