Tunney's resume at LHW: does it validate such a high ranking?

There's something wrong with automatically placing Tunney above all the non-Greb LHWs just because he beat Greb, who did beat him.

Boxing is not transitive.

 

Loughran never fought a black man either ,so I guess he is **** too.

 

I agree with Janitor that it's important not to underestimate his wins over Greb. And also take into account he dominant he was over excellent opposition when he was in his prime. He dominated Greb in their last fight, Dempsey, Carpentier and was the only man to stop Gibbons. Tunney wasn't actually prime at LHW, he was at his best at the very end of his career. All things considered I think he's earned a very high P4P rating.

 

The point is that Loughran wold have fought a bear if you put gloves on it and he still ended up never fighting a black oponent.

This should tell you something about the composition of the light heavyweight division at the time. Here are the light heavyweight rankings for 1924.



1924

1. Gene Tunney
2. Young Stribling
3. Kid Norfolk
4. Mike McTigue, Champion
5. Ad Stone
6. Jeff Smith
7. Paul Berlenbach
8. Tony (Young) Marullo
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Jimmy Delaney

It seems that the only black fighter who was a big player in the division at the time was Kid Norfolk. To be fair the rankings dont tell the whole story. Tiger Flowers like Harry Greb was also campaigning at light heavyweight at the time.

 

I'm not frustrated CP,I have a a partner and she looks after me very well,and ,if she didnt ,it would be back to Thailand for me!

 

What?

 

Sorry to bump this old post, but I strongly disagree with this comment. I thought Schmeling was alot more relaxed and smooth of a boxer in his prime(not talking about 1936 but the early 30s schmeling who looked like jack dempsey on film). While Tunney sometimes appeared slighty herky jerky when attacking on front foot. both fighters extremley intelligent, Schmeling was very controlled, smooth, and calculated. Though Tunney was faster a foot, I thought schmeling in his prime had alot better rythm and unpredictability in his footwork, he slipped in and out of range very maticulously. I think there jabs are even stevens, the schmeling in his prime shot his jab out there like a dart, he didnt paw with it like the older version who used a paw to set up his fight. I also thought schmeling possessed something tunney didnt have, a good boxing stance. Tunney kept his gaurd low and chin out, while schmeling kept his chin tucked close to his body and his right hand high with a lean back style. Also, Schmeling head movement was better than tunneys, Watch film of max in 1929-30 he looks like dempsey in there the way he slips and rolls punches. I do think tunney was better with feints, the way tunney would feint a jab to the body then do a double jab to the head was like a piece of art. When we talk about punching ability, its not even close. Schmelings right hand is by far the best punch out of the two, schmeling is the better combination puncher, accuracy of both is about even as tunney was very pinpoint, but i think schmeling is the more decieving and tricky puncher of the two. To me both impressive on film and a fight between the two would have been a split decision either way


Schmeling knocked out world class fighters Young Stribling, Mickey Walker, Johnny Risko, and Joe Louis who were all damm near impossible to stop.

 

And Steve Hamas. To give Tunney credit as a puncher, though, he stopped Tommy Gibbons and Bartley Madden who went 15 rounds with Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills respectively. But Schmeling was definitely the better puncher of the two. I think he was also a better finisher, Tunney didn't have the same kind of killer instinct, though they were both methodical punchers who put a lot of damage on opponents over the course of many rounds, Schmeling was quicker to act when he had a fighter hurt. He's easily one of the top 190-ish pound punchers of all time, right below guys like like Dempsey and Marciano.

 

Suzie you allways comment on Tunney's low guard, well it worked for him,no one stopped him and check out Charley Burley's low hands.

 

Charley Burley didnt stand straight up with his chin out. Charley kept his right hand high by his cheek protecting his chin alll while leaning back and keeping his chin tucked. I think there is a difference. Also, I dont think as highly of burley as some others here do. Many here overrate him.

Your right it did, Tunney was a great fighter. I dont think he was as battle tested though as say an ezzard charles, sam langford or else we would have seen flaws in his style. A 20 year old tommy loughran certainly found flaws in tunneys style, gene never fought him again.

 

Yes. Although Greb gave Gibbons equally as bad hidings in 1922 and 1923

 

Loughran was only 20 ,but he had had 33 fights and had beaten two middleweight Champs ,Downey ,and Mctigue,and been in there with Greb ,he was hardly a novice ,and Tunney likewise ,was still to mature into the heavyweight he would become.Loughran is one of the alltime great boxers arguably a better boxer than anyone Charles beat.
I think having 5 fights with Greb ,and, being confined to bed for a week after the first one ,means that you are pretty battle tested .