gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jul 2006, 17:39

is there any explanation for this. i really dont think its possible. everything tunney accomplished at heavyweight, marciano accomplished that plus alot more.

is it possible to rank gene tunney higher than rocky marciano on an all time heavyweight list?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 31 Jul 2006, 18:16

The Marciano hysteria continues to run amuck within our group. Just as the mighty Univac could not grasp that mysterious and boggling "0" our great minds have also been equally befuddled by the magnitude regarding the imposition of a "0".

Marciano....overly defined by what he did not do.....Lose.

He only had 49 fights and certainly we can make the case that he did not fight in the toughest of time periods making his opposition less than stellar. He was nervous about fighting Patterson.....(although was keen enough to smell number 50 in Ingemar.) Was teetering on the edge with Charles and Walcott, decked by Moore and of course some will speak of other questionable moments. And yet he always found a way. And for some, that spirit would drive him to a winning outcome in every theoretical one can imagine. Whether it be Ali, Louis, Liston, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney,Tyson, Lewis Holmes or the other big "0" Valuev.

I think he is probably top 10ish

I also think the power of "nothing" is mighty, and perhaps beyond description.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 10 Aug 2006, 13:17

Personally, I rate Gene Tunney highly...

There aint many boxers with his skill and for this, he is indeniably a top 25 boxer.

(There will be arguements to put him in the top 10, top 15, top 20)

HOWEVER

He is a top 25 boxer or better and I'm sure that no-one will argue with that.

But, (again in my opinion) Marciano has a claim to be "The Greatest of All-Time"...And I think he actually is.

SO,

I wouldn't put Tunney above Marciano, (and incidentally they fought in my remake of Murray Worener's HW tournament and Marciano won)...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Aug 2006, 13:24

Tunney was the better boxer at any weight.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Aug 2006, 13:27

Crease wrote: But, (again in my opinion) Marciano has a claim to be "The Greatest of All-Time"...And I think he actually is.

Marciano has no claim whatsoever, and most certainly he isn't.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Aug 2006, 13:32

pundit u realize almost everyone rates marciano in the top 10 except you. u ever perhaps wonder to think u underate him?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Aug 2006, 13:44

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit u realize almost everyone rates marciano in the top 10 except you. u ever perhaps wonder to think u underate him?

This here was about rating Marciano as #1 though.

It seems you take no offense with this.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Aug 2006, 14:32

Gene Tunney marked his career out at LHW, making him one of the top men at that weight ever. As a HW he did little to impress me. He faced a few contenders and then beat Dempsey who hadn't fought in 3 years, and then took a rematch with the aging Dempsey, almost losing i.e "the long count" only to win a 10 round decision again over Dempsey. Then he ducked George Godfrey to take on Willie Meehan---not to say Meehan was not worthy, but Godfrey deserved it far more than Meehan.

Tunney was an excellent boxer, I don't doubt that and won't knock his ability, but as a HW he didn't at all surprise me, thrill me, let alone impress me. Marciano on the other hand beat the best of his era, retired undefeated, and what more can you really ask for?

Styles make fights, and if an old Dempsey could drop a prime Tunney, a prime Marciano sooner or later would keep Tunney down, that's just my opinion.

As far as saying Marciano is #1, in my heart I believe he is, but we must go by who did more with their eras and with the title, and Joe Louis did the most, so I rank Joe Louis #1 based on the fact he did more, though in my opinion his opponents weren't overally great by and large. I personally rank Marciano and Ali tied together at #2 or #3.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Aug 2006, 14:32

Gene Tunney marked his career out at LHW, making him one of the top men at that weight ever. As a HW he did little to impress me. He faced a few contenders and then beat Dempsey who hadn't fought in 3 years, and then took a rematch with the aging Dempsey, almost losing i.e "the long count" only to win a 10 round decision again over Dempsey. Then he ducked George Godfrey to take on Willie Meehan---not to say Meehan was not worthy, but Godfrey deserved it far more than Meehan.

Tunney was an excellent boxer, I don't doubt that and won't knock his ability, but as a HW he didn't at all surprise me, thrill me, let alone impress me. Marciano on the other hand beat the best of his era, retired undefeated, and what more can you really ask for?

Styles make fights, and if an old Dempsey could drop a prime Tunney, a prime Marciano sooner or later would keep Tunney down, that's just my opinion.

As far as saying Marciano is #1, in my heart I believe he is, but we must go by who did more with their eras and with the title, and Joe Louis did the most, so I rank Joe Louis #1 based on the fact he did more, though in my opinion his opponents weren't overally great by and large. I personally rank Marciano and Ali tied together at #2 or #3.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Aug 2006, 14:51

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit u realize almost everyone rates marciano in the top 10 except you. u ever perhaps wonder to think u underate him?
This here was about rating Marciano as #1 though.

It seems you take no offense with this.

well IMO thats ridiculous but wut can i do. thats the first time i seen any knowledgable fans rate marciano # 1.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Aug 2006, 17:12

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit u realize almost everyone rates marciano in the top 10 except you. u ever perhaps wonder to think u underate him?
This here was about rating Marciano as #1 though.

It seems you take no offense with this.

well IMO thats ridiculous but wut can i do. thats the first time i seen any knowledgable fans rate marciano # 1.

IRM agress with Crease, if I am not mistaken.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Aug 2006, 17:15

I rank Marciano top 6 all time and Tunney just outside the top 10, but Tunney would have been a VERY tough fight for the Rock. Tunney was very quick and slick with a solid chin. It shouldn't be a stretch for anyone to envision Marciano losing to a prime HW Tunney, although I think Rock wins probably 3 out of 5.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Aug 2006, 17:20

The Great John L wrote:I rank Marciano top 6 all time and Tunney just outside the top 10, but Tunney would have been a VERY tough fight for the Rock. Tunney was very quick and slick with a solid chin. It shouldn't be a stretch for anyone to envision Marciano losing to a prime HW Tunney, although I think Rock wins probably 3 out of 5.

im not talking about head to head. im talking about ACCOMPLISHMENTS at heavyweight.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Aug 2006, 17:25

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
The Great John L wrote:I rank Marciano top 6 all time and Tunney just outside the top 10, but Tunney would have been a VERY tough fight for the Rock. Tunney was very quick and slick with a solid chin. It shouldn't be a stretch for anyone to envision Marciano losing to a prime HW Tunney, although I think Rock wins probably 3 out of 5.

im not talking about head to head. im talking about ACCOMPLISHMENTS at heavyweight.

You question was if it is it possible to rank Tunney higher than Marciano. Of course it is. I wouldn't say that Tunney's accomplishments at HW were as good as Marcianos, but someone else might say that two wins over Dempsey are better than everything that Rocky accomplished and you can't really prove that incorrect.

Just keep telling yourself that when it comes to the ATG HWs, there's Ali, Louis and then there's everybody else. You'll sleep better at night.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Aug 2006, 17:38

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Gene Tunney marked his career out at LHW, making him one of the top men at that weight ever. As a HW he did little to impress me. He faced a few contenders and then beat Dempsey who hadn't fought in 3 years, and then took a rematch with the aging Dempsey, almost losing i.e "the long count" only to win a 10 round decision again over Dempsey. Then he ducked George Godfrey to take on Willie Meehan---not to say Meehan was not worthy, but Godfrey deserved it far more than Meehan.

He took on Tom Heeney, not Willy Meehan. Meehan was a Dempsey-opponent ten years earlier (one of these 5'9 heayweights Dempsey loved to beat up).

"Ducking Godfrey" - the only person I know who would claim this is Brockton, and then he refers to some diffuse articles from 1925 (rather than 1928) that have nothing to do with ducking.

Heeney was a perfectly legitimate contender in 1928, as you will see from Heeney's record prior to the title fight. The one contender who was possibly be considered more deserving at the time was Jack Sharkey (not Godfrey); but Sharkey lost it a bit temporarily after losing to Dempsey.

And anyway, is "impressive at L-H and unimpressive at H" (I disagree, btw, Risko Gibbons Dempsey Dempsey Heeney is impressive) not a rather artifical distinction? If Tunney was fanatstic at L-H, why would he suddenly be unimpressive at H? Because he carried 10 pounds more? Frankly, Tunney L-H record affects my H ranking - as does Charles' L-H record, for example.

Marciano on the other hand beat the best of his era, retired undefeated, and what more can you really ask for?

Not much, but there are doubts about the strenght of Maricano's era, and his reign was rather short.

Styles make fights, and if an old Dempsey could drop a prime Tunney, a prime Marciano sooner or later would keep Tunney down, that's just my opinion.

Leaving aside that Dempsey did not keep Tunney down, let's reverse this: if an old Walcott could outbox Marciano for 13 rounds, then surely Tunney could do so for 15. If a way-past-his-prime Charles fought with Marciano on even terms for 15 rounds, then it should be fairly easy for Tunney to outpoint Marciano decisively. If the slick LaStarza could pose Marciano all sorts of problems, the super-slick Tunney should pose him unsolvable problems.

As far as saying Marciano is #1, in my heart I believe he is, but we must go by who did more with their eras and with the title, and Joe Louis did the most, so I rank Joe Louis #1 based on the fact he did more, though in my opinion his opponents weren't overally great by and large. I personally rank Marciano and Ali tied together at #2 or #3.

So Marciano "did as much" as Ali? Come on. Marciano held the title for three years; Ali was champ for 10 or 11 years if you add it all up. Marciano's best opponent was probably Walcott; Ali's was one of Frazier, Liston, Foreman -- all top 10 all-time heavyweights.

With Marciano at #3 I could grudgingly live, in the sense that one can at least bring forward comprehensible reasons for such a ranking - although it would certainly not be mine.

But ahead of or at an even level with Ali or Louis? I don't think so.

Cheers,
P

Irishlad69 · Post by **Irishlad69** » 13 Aug 2006, 16:45

Tunney grew into a well muscled heavyweight, and a physically bigger all-round fighter than marciano. In such a fantasy matchup, and on a level playing field (tunney having the benefit of training and nutrition that rocky enjoyed in more technically enlightened times), tunney would be a size bigger again. Gene was a natural trainer - as was rocky - and given his vastly superior skills, i see tunney tearing up the slower man with his unnerring jab and backing it up with sharp combos.
Tunney by UD. There is a reason why most historians rank him and dempsey above marciano.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Aug 2006, 17:03

marciano beat far better competition at heavyweight than tunney.

marcianos reign at heavyweight was short? marciano reigned for over 4 years and beat the best competition out there. tunney reigned shorter and did not beat the best competition out there.

If a way-past-his-prime Charles fought with Marciano on even terms for 15 rounds, then it should be fairly easy for Tunney to outpoint Marciano decisively. If the slick LaStarza could pose Marciano all sorts of problems, the super-slick Tunney should pose him unsolvable problems

charles wasnt way past his prime. ill take the june 1954 charles to fight on even terms with gene tunney.

charles did not fight on even terms with marciano. marciano won a CLEAR unanimos but close decision. charles won only 5 or 6 out of the 15 rounds. THATS NOT EVEN TERMS.

lastarza didn give marcian fits. marciano dominated roland lastarza knocking him out in 11. lastarzas had broken blood vessels in his arms. look wut happened when he tried to stay away from rocky? this fight shows u wut marciano can do to a fast moving defensive classical boxer. marciano dominated him in the rematch. lastarza did outbox marciano early but alot of that was due to rocky being very rusty.

ur logic is way off. if 160lb harry greb could swarm tunney and beat the shit out of him.......then wut would 185lb rocky marciano do to him?

u see i can turn it around too!

And anyway, is "impressive at L-H and unimpressive at H" (I disagree, btw, Risko Gibbons Dempsey Dempsey Heeney is impressive) not a rather artifical distinction? If Tunney was fanatstic at L-H, why would he suddenly be unimpressive at H? Because he carried 10 pounds more? Frankly, Tunney L-H record affects my H ranking - as does Charles' L-H record, for example.

gibbons was far past his prime

risko was very green when he fought tunney

dempsey was far past his prime

heeney was no world beater

i find it funny how u critisize marciano for fighting "past there prime" men yet u dont imply the same logic with tunney

Heeney was a perfectly legitimate contender in 1928, as you will see from Heeney's record prior to the title fight. The one contender who was possibly be considered more deserving at the time was Jack Sharkey (not Godfrey); but Sharkey lost it a bit temporarily after losing to Dempsey.

actually the public and press considered godfrey the much more dangerous challenger than tom heeney. so did the tunney camp.
godfrey would have killed heeney without the cuffs.

marciano accomplished far more at heavyweight than tunney. there is no reason to rate tunney above marciano.

in terms of head to head? marciano wears down tunney and stops him late. tunney gives rocky a lot of problems with his speed and boxing skills but the brocktonblockbusters stength and accumalitive punching effects take its toll on tunney and breaks him down for a late stoppage.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Aug 2006, 17:12

people are veering off topic. this topic was made in terms of ACCOMPLISHMENTS, not head to head. marciano accomplished alot more and proved himself a lot more at heavyweight than tunney.

if were talking about head to head?

ill take the rocky marciano of the archie moore fight to wear down and stop tunney. marcianos defense, accumalitive punching, balance was really on in the moore fight. i think this version of marciano stylistically matches up best vs tunney. tunney wont be able to handle that marcianos strength, pressure, accumaltive power punching.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Aug 2006, 17:16

had tunney defended his title succesfully againt george godfrey, larry gains, jack sharkey, max schmeling then he could be rated over marciano. but he didnt.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Aug 2006, 20:56

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:had tunney defended his title succesfully againt george godfrey, larry gains, jack sharkey, max schmeling then he could be rated over marciano. but he didnt.

So basically you rate Tunney lowly because he retired at his peak.

Irishlad69 · Post by **Irishlad69** » 14 Aug 2006, 06:26

Rocky did make six defences of the title, but nearly killed himself doing it against few washed up lightheavies. The fifties was a notably weak period in heavyweight history, and marciano padded out his record in beating mainly tomato-cans. The reason some rate him ahead of tunney and dempsey is the ugly color bar factor, but when viewed objectively, that is a poor argument. As for tunney beating the likes of sharkey and schmeling?...Tom heeney emerged top in an elimination tournament prior to his shot at tunney, and drew with the troubled sharkey. Gene's total mastery of heeney dispels any myth that he would have had any trouble with his main contemporaries.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 18 Aug 2006, 10:05

Let me make a reply so some of "Irishlad 69" statements...

"Rocky did make six defences of the title, but nearly killed himself doing it against few washed up lightheavies"...

I assure you, JJ Walcott and Ezzard Charles were on their form when they encountered Marciano. Marciano KO'd them both!

"The fifties was a notably weak period in heavyweight history, and marciano padded out his record in beating mainly tomato-cans"...

The 50s had some VERY STRONG boxers. For instance, (with the exception of Marciano), Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, JJ Walcott, Roland Lastarza, Harold Johnson, Archie Moore (who fought on at the top level for another 10 years)
+ a wee bit later...Cleveland Williams, Floyd Patterson and Sonny Liston!!!

So how exaclty was the 50s a "weak" decade??? + Marciano didn't pad out his record, (very much like today's heavyweights) he fought all the best contenders as he battled for his title shot, eg. Rex Layne, Lee Savold, Freddie Beshore and "Kid" Matthews...

The reason some rate him ahead of tunney and dempsey is the ugly color bar factor"....

I rate Marciano above Tunney...Simply because Marciano would KO him.

Where's the evidence for this??? Just read below...

Rocky KO'd a skilled boxing artist (very much in the same pedigree of Gene Tunney) when he defeated Jersey Joe Walcott...

Rocky proved his could catch and master a flight-footed (+ explosive) Light-Heavyweight when he defeated Archie Moore...

Tunney did defeat a Jack Dempsey (a fighter in the same pedigree as Marciano) twice...BUT in his 2nd attempt he was floored for 10 seconds and by rights, should've lost the match...

PLUS, while Dempsey could brawl for 10 rounds (which he did consistently) Marciano on the other hand, could brawl for 15 rounds...

SO, all-in-all. I'd fancy Rocky Marciano over Gene Tunney any-day.......

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Aug 2006, 10:14

Crease wrote:Rocky KO'd a skilled boxing artist (very much in the same pedigree of Gene Tunney) when he defeated Jersey Joe Walcott...

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 18 Aug 2006, 10:15

Why have "I not got a clue" Pundit?

Is it because that I don't agree with you?

Oh that's right... Your the only guy in the world who doesn't rate Marciano as a top 10 heavyweight, thus underrating him...

Don't you understand that no-body agrees with you... and that no-body goes as far as you trying to undermine Marciano...

gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight?

gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight?

Re: gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight?

Tunney.

Brockton.