Tunney v Frazier

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BlackCloud, Aug 26, 2016.

  1. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Addict Full Member

    Oct 4, 2016
    A Gene Tunney fight with Joe Frazier would more closely resemble Joe's fight with Bob Foster, not Muhammed Ali.
    George Crowcroft and BlackCloud like this.
  2. Ra's Al-Ghul

    Ra's Al-Ghul The one and only! Full Member

    Oct 17, 2014
    I maintained that Tunney was more skillful and was in all boxing technics better, not physical. Frazier had just more power and arguable a higher output, but that it, anything else in boxing abilities are superior by "The Marine", as he had even the superior chin, stamina and movement.

    I just tired to show you, that you can find anyone if you fish for some partiulcar attributes, like journeyman. I also just wanted to make the point more clear, as some here exaggerated Frazier and didn't give Tunney chances. So my statement was just a reply to these overestimating Frazier comments.

    Nobody will serious question that Tunny was pound for pound better, if who has a bit of knowledge. So at Heayvweight were narrowly all his significant achievements, therefore I don't see a problem of rating him there higher than Frazier, or even than Holyfield, Liston, Lewis and Dempsey himself, based on record and success.
    Greb was clearly over the limit of Middleweight and demanded as next challenger for Dempsey, but Tunney was just a little bit over the Light-Heavyweight limit. I don't think he would have been that hopeless vs. Foreman, as he can avoid most of whos punches and let him hit a lot of air when he moves around, maybe he could tire him up. But he won't get bumrushed in 2 rounds.

    And no he was not fighting at 175, he was about 183cm...
  3. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    Dec 16, 2012
    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.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020 at 3:38 PM
  4. Ra's Al-Ghul

    Ra's Al-Ghul The one and only! Full Member

    Oct 17, 2014
    Did you not read my clerification that I just made the statement he was better in anything to balance the Frazier favouring comments which were far more extreme than my own?:dunno

    The core of the truth of it is Tunney was overall the better boxer, which is the point, without going to any little details. Timo Hoffmann has also a better chin than Joe Frazier, but wasn't the better boxer, so what...

    Gene Tunney was more versatile and had a bigger repertoire (arsenal) of techniques/ punches than Frazier. He could box different styles and counterbox, so he was more well-rounded than the one-dimensional Frazier who could only move forward even against Foreman, what was by whos much bigger physique a bad idea. Tunney would have used the ring and didn't run into the punches, as it seems "Smoking Joe" stopped every hit with his head to broke him the fists. He had a lot more ring intelligence and boxed clever, with feints, in opposite to the limited Frazier.

    I just pointed Tunney was taller than 175, as he was at least 183.:deal:

    I think the height of Greb was also likely about 170 and not 165. But it doesn't matter, as he was regarded as proper challenger for Dempsey (maybe his best).
  5. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    Dec 16, 2012
    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.