Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Whoops! Apologies for not dispensing proper credit, Slaks. Didn't know :thumbsup.

 

Cool Bat
Your a gent
Living in nyc has its advantages.
Mondo access!!

 

Well, after reading this thread and talking with others. I think a case can be made for top 50.

Top 20-30? No.

 

My pet-peeve myth is Foreman lifting Frazier off the canvas with one punch. And that, despite CLEAR, VISUAL proof of its falsehood you can SEE with your own eyes in film narrated by Cosell, by Dunphy, take your pick!

Thanks for the sources. I am sure I am not the only one who is peeved also that "professional boxing historians" for 90 years have neglected the legwork to dispel at least rose-colored versions of Tunney's thrashing Greb in the second fight.

Before I continue, let me repeat an obvious, but necessary truth: one thing is a wedge of the pie of 90-year-old facts (which Klompton has gloriously unearthed); another is the interpretation of facts.

Based on Klompton's work--laudable, but hardly something any dedicated historian could not have done before--the Tunney-Greb rematch was close. That is my take. Tunney won the third fight; he romped in the fifth.

I value Klompton's numbers; I have NEVER said otherwise. BUT, why must I hit the ground and begin worshiping? Will nothing more ever be discovered? And why must I accept the OPINIONS of a man banned from this forum, who oozed condescension in practically every one of his posts?

Another thorn: you, our good friend Surf-Bat, have been credited here, through no fault of yours, by respectable posters, as providing this evidence, when it has been Klompton who has provided it, in his seminal debate with Old Fogey in 2010? If even this is muddled, why should we shut the book, NOW, IMMEDIATELY (lest we be deemed stubborn, or worse), on Tunney-Greb?

Again, we all have our biases, and see what we want to see.

I have provided first-hand evidence of Loughran and Tunney adapting to Greb and meeting with success, yet this holds no weight for some, because of the glorious Klompton list of newspaper decisions.

The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Nat Fleischer, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunney, Ring Magazine, Mike Casey...they are all instantly disqualified, yet, to some, these little Klompton newspapers are completely irrefutable.

One little sample: the Klompton crew has quoted Tunney saying he felt the decision was close enough to merit giving Greb a third fight; this is considered almost the ultimate zinger, yet the man never, to his dying day, said anything about losing this fight. The fight was close and could have gone either way.

I, too, will use my right to repost:

"I entered the ring with Greb determined either to win or to die in the attempt. I reasoned with myself that it would be much better to die than to lose. While training for this match I contracted influenza. It increased as my training progressed. I could not call off the contest or ask for a postponement. The Garden dates were filled. There could be no chance of getting another match with Greb until the following autumn, so I had no choice but to go through with it. After doing well for the first six rounds, I suddenly became physically exhausted. Greb relentlessly battered me about the ring from the sixth to the eleventh round. They told me in my corner I was losing, that if I wanted to win I would have to capture the remaining rounds or knock him out. In sheer desperation I came out at the start of the twelfth and luckily hit Greb with a long right on the cheekbone that had everything I had in it. It knocked him to the ropes. He slowed up considerably. Fight, fight; hit, hit. I kept on repeating to myself -- and did. I was given the decision at the end of fifteen rounds. It is only fair to Harry to say that there was a great deal of disagreement as to the accuracy of the decision. The judges, newspaper men, and spectators were divided." –-“A Man Must Fight”.

Is it not reasonable to say Superfight II was close? That, for the purposes of my original comment made eons of pages ago, Tunney--the thinking fighter--adapted from a disastrous first fight and met with success?

A rundown: Fight 1: Greb; Fight 2: Pick your favorite (Tunney wins officially); Fight 3: Tunney; Fight 4: Pick your favorite (slight edge perhaps to Greb); Fight 5: Tunney.

Yes, I missed the 2010 Klompton thread back in 2010. Was it so terrible, based on the pre-Klompton information available to all for 87 years, for me to have said, in generic fashion, and discussing Gene's place in history, "Tunney mastered Greb"? I accept, repeat, accept the validity of Klompton's research. But I know it is not yet the whole story. What is so bad about this?

As things stand, is it unreasonable to say Tunney fought the great Greb to a standoff? I am in awe of Gene; I am in awe of the great Greb. Greb is in my top 5; Gene in my top 30. Is this so terrible?

One more thing: yes, Greb was slipping, but Tunney himself was not yet at his best. Greb never met the best Tunney. Poor Harry if he had. The Greb series made Tunney a better fighter and Tunney dominated Jack Dempsey.

Moreover, Tunney looks leagues ahead of his foes on film. He is in my top 30. These are opinions, not facts. Facts should not be disputed; I can have my opinion, and it is a reasonable one.

So, to you few sneering clowns out there, where's the beef?

 

I have? I made it clear from early on that Klompton was the provider of that info on this forum. So credit was given, irrespective of any credit given me after that fact.

Because we pretty much have every single primary, firsthand source.

The fight took place in Tunney's backyard, so rest assured, most of those NY sportswriters, fans, etc wanted to see their man (Tunney) win over the despised Greb. I'm sure the ones supporting Greb saw exactly what they DIDN'T want to see that night. The biases were heavily slanted in Gene's favor that night, yet the large majority saw it in Greb's favor anyway. That's some pretty crucial evidence there.

firsthand sources

NOT firsthand sources. Mike Casey wasn't born and Sports Illustrated didn't exist.

Unreliable firsthand sources (as are most boxers talking about their fights, as Senya clearly pointed out). Especially Loughran.

Not according to the majority of firsthand sources.

Again, Tunney's recollections are unreliable and self-serving for the most part (as are most boxers if one reads their autobiographies). Loughran's are beyond absurd. They're so self-serving as to be rendered laughable and dismissible.

If it were as close as you're implying then there wouldn't have been so many cries of robbery. No, it wasn't close. Competitive? Yes. But Greb, according to an overwhelming majority, was the clear winner. And in Tunney's own backyard.

Nothing at all. We're just debating. It's what these boards are for. :bbb

In their second fight? Yes, it is. Because it ignores the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

I think it should be mentioned one more time that there was a campaign in the press and via mail (anonymous letters) before the 2nd fight about how Greb fought dirty, threatening Harry and his wife if he fights rough, and that the referee should be 10-times more harsh and attentive to what Greb is doing. And, of course, neither Tunney nor his manager would admit they had anything to do with that. And Tunney fought as rough as Greb in that bout, but received basically no reprimands from the referee.

 

Just felt it was important for Klompton to be mentioned by name.

And I am here to say you, Surf-Bat Cavanaugh, have always been meticulously careful in deflecting any possible personal credit. :good

I'll try one final time to express my feeling: no one is IGNORING anything.

The Klompton newspapers are wonderful. Just, considering the 90-year-old controversies involving this fight, I'm not ready to close the book on it and consider the Klompton newspapers the be-all, end-all. :good

 

Your good points are well taken.

And I could not agree more with the above!

Perhaps threads such as this should be "stickied", as they help dispel decades-old myths that do the sport no service. :good

 

And!! Unmentioned till now. Harry was the champion in a 15 round title fight and the tradition of boxing is the champion must be beaten decisively.

 

The current available evidence CLEARLY POINTS to Greb!

But that book is OPEN. :good

Possibly worthwhile questions:

Were these newspaper reporters all objective observers? Who were they exactly and what were their biases? Had a poll been taken of all those present, Tunney would probably win just on strength of numbers from the partisan crowd.

Hopefully, someday, Klompton, Surf-Bat, McGrain, or myself can unearth the film of Greb-Tunney II and THEN...the real debate could get started as to who won!!!

 

As do I :smoke