how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
-
rightsideup
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 31 Aug 2012, 21:45
how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
he was 31 when he retired with the one beating from greb. If he continued who would have eventually beat him.
Re: how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
I’d guess eventually either Sharkey or Schmeling would get to him, maybe in a rematch after they lost the first fight.
What reasons did Tunney give for retiring? Any ideas?
What reasons did Tunney give for retiring? Any ideas?
Re: how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
Primo would have spelled his demise.
ok....not really.
ok....not really.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Re: how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
Tunney made a ton (pun intended) of money and didn't need boxing any more.
As mentioned, he wasn't old for a heavyweight and had not shown any signs of slwoing down. He still could have been on top for a few years. At the time of his retirement, he was certainly the best heavyweight in the world.
If he would have kept going after he was well past it, someone (probably Schmeling or Sharkey) would have eventually got him.
A side note-I think one thing that a lot of people don't realize is that Schmeling wasn't a contender when Tunney was active. After Tunney's last fight, Schemeling started to rack up victories and eventually got the shot against Sharkey. The title was actually vacant for almost two years.
As mentioned, he wasn't old for a heavyweight and had not shown any signs of slwoing down. He still could have been on top for a few years. At the time of his retirement, he was certainly the best heavyweight in the world.
If he would have kept going after he was well past it, someone (probably Schmeling or Sharkey) would have eventually got him.
A side note-I think one thing that a lot of people don't realize is that Schmeling wasn't a contender when Tunney was active. After Tunney's last fight, Schemeling started to rack up victories and eventually got the shot against Sharkey. The title was actually vacant for almost two years.
Re: how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
Sharkey had a good style with which to beat him but I think Tunney was a cut above AND Sharkey could turn up interested or not interested. Or maybe his inconsistency only crept in after he’d won and lost the title…
In the era pre-Liston, before the dimensions of Heavies seemed to make huge leap, Tunney was one of the greatest.
In the era pre-Liston, before the dimensions of Heavies seemed to make huge leap, Tunney was one of the greatest.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Re: how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
I don't think he was that conistent before he won the title either. He lost to Dempsey, had a draw with Heeney, and lost to Risko before he fought Schmeling. At his best, he wasn't that far behind Tunney. however, he often was not at his best.
It would be interesting to do a study of how big the heavyweights were pre-Liston to say the early 1960s to late 1970s (before the overweight/steroid era.)
It would be interesting to do a study of how big the heavyweights were pre-Liston to say the early 1960s to late 1970s (before the overweight/steroid era.)
Re: how much longer could have tunny held on to the title
I think Tunney could have been champion for several more years easily. He was looking better than ever when he retired.