Tunney vs Marciano

& how did this amateurish pseudo-champion change the sport? Do tell.

 

Couldn’t disagree more with you, in fact a lot of those attributes fit Marciano more than they do Tunney. Gene was a wonderful defensive boxer with beautiful footwork. He measures distance beautifully and is always alert with his head movement, openings for counters, and immediately goes right back to position. He doesn’t cross his feet nor is he just there to be hit. At his best, you’d be hard pressed to find a better technician than Gene. He takes a steaming dump on Matthews and LaStarza, as do Sharkey, Loughran and Schmeling who largely also predate fight films being mainstream. Schmeling only really began utilizing it after his prime.

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

Good for his time mate. Not now or the 50s. This is supposed to be a highlife video and he consistently crosses his feet. Not trying to be disrespectful but the sport advanced a lot. Similar to MMA in the 90s to twenty years later. Tunney had fast feet and was strong and good stamina. For his time he had good balance and form. Compare how he looks to someone who’s not even well thought of Lastarza

This content is protected

 

Why are we nitpicking minor parts of footage when the full fight is there for us to see, and Tunney does not consistently cross his feet at all? It’s just not an accurate nor even remotely fair assessment of his skills. I couldn’t care less what Reznick’s random compilation of footage and his own interpretation of it as highlights since I’ve seen four Tunney fights and understand his style more than a few baseless clips that “demonstrate” it. Reznick’s highlight reel is not evidence of anything. Most of the time he’s “crossing his feet” in the highlight reel is when he was hurt by Dempsey and on the run for his own survival not with any intentions on actually exchanging.

Compare Tunney in the Gibbons fight to any LaStarza footage, they are a different class of fighter. If we want to talk about crossing feet, then maybe Marciano can be used as an example since he did it plenty for a 50s fighter among many other fundamental mistakes.

 

Sorry if Tunney keeps his hands down while punching he’s getting killed. He doesn’t have the mechanics that later get developed. Once again decent jab for the time and fast feet. He changed the game. But he looks horrible in film.

This content is protected

He looks like he’s fighting a mannequin

 

Boxing evolved…from Tunney…to Marciano. Wow.

 

I’m sorry dude, you’re a good and well meaning poster but I just think you couldn’t be more wrong in your assessments here. His hands being down don’t impact his defense which is excellent and many great technicians do the exact same thing, his timing, accuracy, shot selection and punching mechanics are simply excellent and stand the test of time far, far better than Marciano does. The 20s, overall, were a vastly superior era to the 50s in pretty much every way imo.

If you can’t see Tunney’s genius in that fight, it seems like we’ll just have to agree to disagree because this convo won’t go anywhere on either side.

 

I’ll never get the ‘20s were primitive but the 50s were still great’ argument. Tunney, Loughran, Gibbons, Leonard, Wolgast, Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate, Sharkey, Schmeling and all the other 20s greats who’s skill is clearly seen on film are bums but Marciano in spite of all of his flaws still thrives in latter eras? There’s just too much film out there for me to consider this a viable take nowadays

 

I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong) it could b more to do w the gloves. They had better control of the thumb and they were smaller so they would more use them to grapple then defend their faces. All I’m saying is that’s not gonna work in the later era. Even if they did keep the same gloves he still punches w his chin exposed. I think Tunney was is one of the most accomplished fighters all time but I must admit I don’t like pre 30s fighters generally against later eras for the reason it was such a different sport.

 

I never said they were bums. I said they were fine for their time. Don’t put words in my mouth. I compared it to mma in the 90s which is a fine comparison. Because it advanced incredibly in ten to twenty years there too, I also explained the reasons. Sport became more popular so more people fighting , gloves changed, film to analyze. Yes the 50s guys like Charles, Moore, Harold Johnson, Patterson, Etc were far more advanced than Tunney. I have zero problem stating this.

 

Saying someone looks horrible on film is basically calling them as a bum when compared to modern fighters, that’s the comparison I was clearly making. Would you say that you didn’t refer to Tunney and his contemporaries as amateurish?

Also feel like the 90s MMA comparison would apply to boxing in the 1700s than it would in the 1920s. I don’t find it a good comparison, you cited the 30s as the turning point when the finest technicians of the 30s largely competed in the 20s. Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate, Loughran, Sharkey, Schmeling, Wolgast. Not having film to analyze didn’t stop them from being boxing geniuses, and the film of them proves it. Louis was modelled by Blackburn to be like Gans and was believed to be a technically inferior version of Gans by Blackburn himself. I just don’t see the evidence that proves your points here, and that’s putting Tunney aside.

 

Fair enough. Was a bit to harsh

 

Tunney always fought with a low guard ,nobody ever killed him. Specifically which mechanics does he lack that 50's fighters employed?
Do you for example ,think Mathews & Lastarza were superior technical boxers to Tunney?

 

From what I've watched of each fighter, I see the pace, workrate and power of Marciano getting the job done, Tunney doesn't seem to present anything that Rocky isn't proven against. for what my money's worth, Jersey Joe Walcott on his best night was a much more skilled operator than Tunney.

 

Must explain why he lost 1 out of 3 times he stepped in the ring.