How you mean deserves more fans looool Walker is more overrated here than Steele is, just by fewer people.
Walker is an atg who fought like, everyone in the most famous era of boxing Walker was a Middleweight champ for 3 years and didn't face Yarosz in the 30s Ergo one is forgotten
OK, but first, you did what soooo many do: when called politely on being wrong about some things, avoided it & moved on to other matters. Again better for credibility & more fair is to acknowledge things like saying Tunney is better than Frazier in all aspects is completely incorrect & betrays bias. Now about your new arguments... I do not think any of those 3 had a better or even as good of a left hook than Frazier, who if you consider frequency, accuracy & repeatability is superior. Sure some threw it even harder. Nobody else could land it so often & effectively, even when you knew it was coming. However even if you were right, that does nothing to support any argument for Tunney. Tunney did nothing better than ALL HWs ever-does not mean that is an argument against his greatness. Tunney did not face opposition as good as either Ali or Foreman. Greb *maybe* in a p4p sense, but at a 5' 8" MW that is all. Dempsey said his legs were gone, & clearly had also lost accuracy. Ali past his best was still superb through Manilla. Foreman was a Monster who had a stylistic advantage. For Tunney to approximate that quality of victory, he would have needed to beat a Prime, ATG swarmer like Frazier. Which few think he could do. Start a thread on the opposition of Tunney at HW vs. Frazier. Opinion will be nearly unanimous about Frazier's being somewhat better. Slicker & moved better as a boxer type, absolutely. Smarter, maybe, but if you have great success as a swarmer or slugger & stick to that strategy that shows no deficit of intelligence-even if you style does not require as much adjustment. Better ring general, no. Frazier was terrific at cutting off the ring, the job of a swarmer. Both were great at this skill. You could argue that Tunney was better P4P! I like him a lot, so tough & a superb record. But he was fighting at max 175 (no day before weigh ins) against similar sized men. His record at HW is just limited.
A Gene Tunney fight with Joe Frazier would more closely resemble Joe's fight with Bob Foster, not Muhammed Ali.
Your language is an issue sometimes, but I have no good second language, & know what you mean. But even making the claim just on skills your conclusion that Tunney is better in everything is extremely implausible. You sensibly did not claim that Gene had anywhere near the left hook as Frazier did. Saying a couple HWs might have had better ones both is irrelevant to the question-& again in speed of delivery, accuracy & frequency he could apply & reload it, Frazier is still likely da....Best. Also I doubt you would even claim that Tunney was a better (or as good) an infighter as Frazier. He was a jab & move counterpuncher. Those are two major skills Frazier was better at. He also did not "arguably" a higher output. Check any of their filmed fights & compare the punches thrown &/or landed. Or just take the best rounds for each. Even while throwing harder & many more power punches, Frazier was superior there. You know that Frazier & Ali set the *record* of most HW punches landed in Manilla right? Despite having no round 15. Frazier was older than Tunney was in any of his fights by then. Count the blows he landed per round & you will see Frazier had a higher workrate. Although the older film makes fighters look even faster than they were. And his style-with constant bobbing & weaving-demanded more energy. Which might make anyone suspect that Tunney had better endurance. But what makes you think that? I will consider any argument, but show me where Tunney had similar output-even against smaller fighters-& then he tired less than Frazier. Chin? Maybe Tunney's was better. Frazier was down more. But then again he got hit more per fight, & fought bigger, harder hitters-Tunney mostly fought as a LHW. Their chin's were likely about equal. Movement? I give you that. But for his style Frazier was hard to beat. I cannot tell what you are saying regarding the pound for pound argument, your English is too garbled. Other than you say Tunney is better in that respect-& I can agree with that. But it is no blow out. However this does *not* apply to Tunney p4p in his very few fights as a HW. He averaged what a bit over 190 then-which is more than a "little bit" over the LHW limit-so was less than 15 lbs. under prime Frazier, who was way better as a HW. Tunney was not as good as the other's you mentioned P4P-since they were WAY better than him-as a HW. Tunney would be highly unlikely to be competitive against prime Foreman. He might get destroyed in 2 rounds. If not, Foreman was great at cutting off the ring, even Ali gave up trying to evade him. I do not know what you mean he was not fighting at 175-he did for thevast majority of his fights in same day weigh ins. He was 182-183 cm assuming no rounding up-so what? Greb was no more than 165, he could easily have made 160 if he had to. In fact most all MWs come in at over 165 for years given same day weigh ins.
I read everything your write with care. But it is hard to understand what you are saying because the language often is ambiguous or does not make sense. Now it seems you were & are saying you wrote the comment about Tunney being better in everything insincerely-because someone did the same about Frazier. I saw yours first, but either way, you should not say something you believe false...To "balance" views you think too extreme. if you do this, nobody can seem "far more extreme" than you. Both sides seem blinded by bias when this is done. You are correct that Tunney was more versatile. An he was the better boxer, as in he was a classic boxer type. Not necessarily more effective-although he very arguable was P4P against the competition so much earlier in the century. Calling Frazier limited is technically true. But also misleading, since he was highly skilled at what he did. Some critiques of him are unfair or exaggerated. For example, he was no one armed fighter. He could not have been so high volume if, unlike say Cooney, h id not often use hs right hand, & not just to set up the left hook. Also even Ali talked about how hard it was to land square on him-he was a come forward fighter, willing to eat shots to land his own, but like Marciano he could be evasive & a small difficult target many times. You are in error about the 175 vs. 183 question. We did not disagree there...I *said* Tunney was 182/183-in centimeters-height. But Tunney was likely exactly or at most 183 cm. I was referring to pounds when I said he was 175 for the vast majority of his career-of course he did not have a growth spurt in his late 20's! Similarly, I was clearly speaking about weight when I said Greb fought at 165. I even compared him to modern boxers who weigh somewhat more in the ring due to day before weigh ins. Yes, Greb if Greb's height was accurate-& I have no reason to doubt it-he was no less than 172 CMs. My points here were however great guys were, they would have a massive disadvantage...Against skilled modern HWs. Even Greb said that Tunney had "outgrown him". If memory serves Tunney was 187.5 lbs. for that fight. Edit: Edie Futch after Manilla said that Ali got too big for Frazier. Of course in both cases the unspoken thought was when combined with being elite fighters. They could smoke almost everyone else, whatever size. Ali was 227 for their third match. Similarly, Tunney as a HW weighed around what modern day LHWs weigh in the ring. Can you imagine how likely they would be to beat prime Frazier, let alone a more massive HW? Tunney was amazing, it is just very unlikely he could be great as a HW today when that small.
I appreciate your replies & how exacting you are in expressing your views. Some of it is very discerning. However, I gotta ask you to proofread what you write with care. Some of what you say I, & I think most anyone else, needs to guess at-& sometimes we cannot make a good guess. It is much harder when it is not your first language, but you cannot see how some of what is above is confusing or indecipherable-please write in your native tongue & use a free Internet translation service. It will make a huge difference. I think that both you & others were unbalanced in favoring either fighter so heavily when deconstructing skills. When you say someone is better at everything or most all, without any qualifications, you are taking an extreme position. Now I agree that just adding up skills does not measure with precision how good anyone is. Because what they are very good or badATt may be either so important, or they are so good or bad-& the manner their skills work together may have a whole is greater than the sum of the parts effect... That they are, say, better than one would expect. You can likely identify what made Frazier better than Brewster. Now I think Marciano just had slightly more stamina than Marciano-they were both in great shape, but Frazier's style incolved much more movement via bobbing & weaving. Still he rarely tired-& Rocky rarely had to go the distance. Likewise, Rocky fought very few punchers-& none on the level of a Foreman. Likely not even a Bonavena. So we do not know the limits of his chin. What you wrote indicated you thought I meant height. I do not understand what you were annoyed by. I cannot tell what weight you are talking about. I did not say he usually weighed a certain exact number. If you mean he came in over 175 in most of his LHW fights, OK. But it is basic that he was a LHW champion, fought overwhelmingly in this division, & won the title twice. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org[/url]. /wiki/Gene_Tunney[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Tunney[/url] I do not see who is exaggerating the weight difference between him & Frazier-when Tunney was later in his career it was less trhan 15 pounds. But he was bigger than Tunney in a basic way-weight & lean muscle mass. Because of this lower body-& 60% of a man's mass is below the waist. More skillful? As a boxer type yes. Which again does not mean more effective, certainly not at HW. But at LHW, you have a very good case.
No man much of what you wrote could not be understood, & needs to be guessed at. Ask around if you doubt me. I can give you representative samples to send people. You can easily write in your native language & use one of many often free translator services. You pointed to a single error where my meaning was clear-Marciano had (a little bit more) stamina than Frazier. I accidentally repeated Marciano. This is nothing like the continually jumbled language you use-where again, meaning often cannot be discerned. Do not feel bad about it, just try to take care so much of what you write is not wasted. IF you insist you do not want to look up words like "discerned"-which is normal & casual language to me-I will accommodate just you & write more simply. Although you will then not learn some meanings. One thing that has nothing to do with language is your cynical, distrustful streak. I had no reason to doubt your good intentions-& you have zero rational cause to doubt mine. It is unfortunate & without any reason that you believe I *try* to make anything too complex. OR that I "intentionally" do not understand. You are essentially calling me a liar here. Instead of realizing so many do not engage you-because they simply have much trouble or cannot understand you. Now, I did say the weight difference between Frazier & Tunney was not so different-but you seem to have missed that I said this was later in his career, mainly when he fought as a HW. Anyway I was not trying to either avoid agreeing with you or the opposite-just stating the facts. Something like who has a better defense is very open to debate. You are*right* about most of what you say Marciano did better. Although you do not realize that Frazier's bob & weave style was generally pretty effective too. And he had much more upper body movement than Rocky-this is why his style was more tiring. Right he rarely weighed precisely 175, OK. But unless you show me it was a significant difference-this happened only towards the end of say his series with Greb, who said he "outgrew" him-then that is just a big difference from over 200 lbs. But Tunney was *superb* overall. He just did not do much at HW, or fight any modern sized HWs. I completely disagree with you about Brewster & Frazier being closed in quality than Tunney & Frazier. I appreciate that you have a bold opinion, but if you start a thread about it, few if anyone, even if many voted, would agree. And many would find Frazier *better* than Tunney. Which he was, as a real HW. At their respective actual weights, this is admittedly quite debatable. You have a GOOD POINT about the American LHW title vs. for the world. Feel free to tell me if you think any LHWs were better than Tunney when he was LHW champion over here.
1) Some may understand your meaning, but others do not or undoubtedly do not try because it is too difficult. You also will never know how much those who respond to you comprehend-many do not address every point, & you cannot know when it is because they cannot comprehend some parts. 2) Can you not tell from how unusually detailed I am in replying to every point-in other's posts too-that I am not reading quickly? You also imply I am "ungenerous": no reason to even suspect that-your text often has parts that are not knowable. That assumption about me is another example of what I just wrote that you cannot dispute... 3) "One thing that has nothing to do with language is your cynical, distrustful streak. I had no reason to doubt your good intentions-& you have zero rational cause to doubt mine. It is unfortunate & without any reason that you believe I *try* to make anything too complex. OR that I "intentionally" do not understand. You are essentially calling me a liar here. Instead of realizing so many do not engage you-because they simply have much trouble or cannot understand you". 4) You showed one example of me using the same fighter's name, when it was clear who I was comparing Marciano to. Then shifted to me using words you consider unusual. One, that is not an error. Two, I can show you many places online & in life where folks use the same or similar vocabulary. While it is less common, who cares, individuality & complexity should be appreciated. But I already told you I would be happy to keep it simpler for you. 5) It is obvious that any errors I make tend to be typos or trivial, not obscuring my meaning. Your resistance to admitting how very hard it is to comprehend much of what you write...Seems a matter of Ego. So feel free to drop it, like you should the irrational assumptions about my good intentions, reading with care, not trying to understand, making things complicated to make things hard for others...Those are Trumpian levels of baseless critiques. 6) I agree completely about several things: you can debate whose upper body movement was more effective. Frazier did move much more, & yes, sometimes it was less efficient energetically than possible-but he did have endurance to burn. Also Marciano did make it difficult to get hit clean-although he said about the Louis jab "I just had to take them". So that can get overstated. 7) When Louis was way past his prime, bringing me to the next point. Power is usually the last thing to go. But it was *gone* with Louis. Look it up, Rocky said they told him that he had lost something off of his right hand, but "I did not expect it to be nothing". Since Louis relied so much on speed, not heavy hands, he still was world class, but his power was gone. He was no KOing people like/at the rate he had before. Walcott was a good puncher, but show me *anywhere* where he was regarded as the best. Or is any list of tope 20 all time... IF you find the latter, it brings me to my next point: he & Moore hit pretty hard, but for HWs? They were not top of the line in terms of what I am takling about: sluggers. They were great boxer types, & Moore set a record for KOs in part due to fighting so much & forever... But Moore while a great puncher in terms off effectiveness, he was not a slugger. He was very clever, accurate, great combinations... But nobody in the know felt he hit as HARD pound for pound, as say Satterfield or Curtis Shepherd. In absolute terms HWs of recent times & that era Baer & Galento hit a lot harder. Again I talked about the curse of swarmers, top sluggers. 8) Frazier recovered well enough to never be KOed except by Foreman. AND knocked down many times he got up ready to fight every time. Marciano likely had a slightly better chin than Frazier. But we will never know, because he never fought anyone who could hit that hard. Rex Layne & a really skinny barely 20 Carmine Vingo were sluggers, but not even in the class of Bonavena. 9) Frazier's style was not known as a peek a boo. It weas bob & weave. 10) Of course he had "modern" opponents-the weight &/or muscle of guys like Bonavena or Mathis-let alone Foreman. 11) His style worked against everyone but Foreman since he won & usually by KO! Cummings was an exception, but he fought him when much older than Rocky fought. 12) I did not say that Brewster & Frazier were not similar in some important aspects. I was debating the quality difference between people you alleged. 13) Something popular does not make it true. It is just that most who are experts agree with me also. You *should* care what the many very knowledgeable folks here believe. 14) You restated a premise without evidence-that Tunney was better. I still do not know if you understand that I keep saying you can make a good case for Tunney: if you consider how good they are pound for pound. Top 20 all time? It is hard to be that good when comparing all divisions, but it is possible... 15) Many, most folks would argue with you that a dude should only be ranked where he had his most defining fights. You can rank him at both; but since even if he was (usually not much) over the LHW limit for many fights... He did most of his work there. And do you realize that when he was, he weighed less than LHWs have for decades now because of day before weigh ins? Tunney at his heaviest, not much over 190, only weighed nearly what LHWs have for so long. I like Tunney very much for his fighting ability, scientific approach, success, integrity & toughness. Yet you seem to have a less balanced view due to your fandom... 16) It would be rare *not* to rank Tunney at LHW. Whether you do so at HW also or not. Since that is how he most campaigned. 17) Also like other early ATGs (Dempsey, Marciano, arguably Louis...) that fought exculsively at HW, many realize that it is most fair to rank them against those of similar in-ring size. Unless you hazzard a guess as to how well they would have gained weight & put on muscle... As they WERE, some only in the 180's, it is not reasonable to expect them to beat other ATGs who are much larger or essentially SHW. If it were, we could find guys today who even at that size-without gaining muscle & proving that it could help them... Could dominate at the size of TODAYS LHW best. Nah, they always had to get larger & even so might lose... And take the very best in a lower division, even Holyfield as a CW at 190... Without gaining mass (& PEDs) he would not have been an ATG at HW.
Dude, you write things that are very difficult or impossible to understand. If after reading carefully it looks like you are saying something other than what you meant to, there are only good intentions. Many will not even try. Sometimes it seems that it may be lack of effort or editing not a language problem. For example you meant should let you decide "you yourself", not "myself" above. Any review of your text before you sent it should have caught that mistake. But at least in a case like that it is easy to tell what you meant to say. I have no problem with what you said about Germans (my Dad was born in Leipzig, lost his parents in the Holocaust as a small boy after he was sent away). But the irony is you interpret my intentions as the opposite of generous-the opposite of the available evidence. For example, I never said you said that I was a liar. Please go back up & RE-READ what I wrote. It is obvious to all I was describing how your assumptions about my bad intentions-even after I said otherwise-in several matters means if you deny what I tell you-things like that I am *not* trying to make things more complex but being myself, that I am *not* "trying not to understand", etc...If true, your repeated denial-if at all true-would falsely make my polite comments otherwise lies. That is what I meant by a cynical, distrustful streak. Now on to the actual boxing comments. There is really zero doubt that the power of Joe Louis had "all but evaporated" by the time he fought Joe Louis. In the final 10 fights of his career he had only 2 fights that were a KO or TKO! Even those against relatively mediocre opposition. This is COMPLETELY different from the rest of his career. Because of racism-maybe sometimes to give fans their money's worth also-he would sometimes wait "carry" a white fighter for a while before knocking them out. But almost all of his victories before then were by KO! You can easily Google this & discover this, again Marciano was told he ha lost some of his right hand power, but was surprised that as he said it was "nothing". "that's what it was-nothing". Also, Louis had relatively slow FEET. Everyone agrees that he had extremely fast hands & combinations. Before those final fights... Then you seem to start talking about MARCIANO next-not technical fighting Valdez etc... Those comments are crrect about him. But *any* review of you text before you sent it likely woul have allowed you to correct the mistake that it actually wrongly seems to say these things about Louis. About your point regarding weight-those guys weighed the same or less than Tunney. Except Sullivan, who you can easily see weighed a little more than Tunney Tunney when Tunney was at his biggest-& much more other times. But no, not nearly everyone rates those ancient fighters at HW! Many rate them in a pound for pound sense, others say boxing has evolved too far... Also many rate them in terms of accomplishment at what was officially a HW then-that is, relative to their peers + for what they accomplished historically. But most do not rate them at HW as among or near the ATGs-at least at HW-in terms of how they would so if reincarnated, as is, in a hea to head sense. Louis had little power when Rocky fought him, this is beyond dispute. Now Walcott DID. But while an excellent puncher, nobody at the time or today said he had TOP POWER. Forget about comparing his to a Foreman...He did not hit as hard shot for shot as guys who would be at MOST a LHW today, Satterfield or Shepherd. And he dropped Marciano. Here is an example of you being completely irrational & unfair.... You say that anyone who disagrees with you about Marciano is a "fanboy" & "dishonest". Dude, very few people if *anyone* will agree with you that Marciano had a top 5 ATG chin! Start a poll & see: people who give you names like Chuvalo, McCall, Tua, Cobb, Mercer...Sometimes even Ali or old Foreman-but rarely if ever Marciano! Yet based upon your extremely cynical, distrustful world view... You believe that almost every human being is a "fanboy" + "dishonest"? smh. So again-you would believe that nearly everyone here then is DISHONEST?!? Can you finally see how statements like this betray not only extreme bias... But extreme deeply irrational distrust about even the honesty of nearly everyone? That is called INTOLERANCE. Oh you are WRONG about how old Marciano & Frazier were at the end of their careers. It is very easy to Google: it was not what you claimed, "maybe 2 or 3 years". Marciano had just turned 32 the same month as his last fight (against Moore). Frazier fought Jumbo Cummings barely over a month before his 38th birthday. So their age difference was literally less than 2 months short of 6 years. It would be decent & increase your credibility here if, when you discover that you are indisputably factually incorrect-as all SEE: That instead of ignoring it, you graciously admit your error.
Skipping through all the nonsense on this page, what’s the dealio with this Walker/Steele thread? I got the Steele train rolling on here to an extent way back when. There was a following, but no real movement. The poster MyDeuxSense (still the most knowledgeable I’ve ever come across in regards to the boxing world below Heavyweight in the 30’s) set me straight on that one pretty quickly.
