Page 2 of 2
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 03:47
by orbtastic
Wasn’t the distance dictated by state law at the time? I don’t know if the location was specifically chosen to make that enforceable or not but it was definitely down to state law(s).
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 04:24
by HomicideHenry
orbtastic wrote: ↑01 Oct 2018, 03:47
Wasn’t the distance dictated by state law at the time? I don’t know if the location was specifically chosen to make that enforceable or not but it was definitely down to state law(s).
Yes.
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 09:46
by cfang
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Sep 2018, 15:41
He also beat Johnny Risko. If you look through his record, you will see several other heavyweights that he beat.
Ah yes true risko was a heavy. Is tunneys record at heavy any better than that of Michael spinks? A Lt heavy who won the title and defended it on points from a fading great champion. Cooney is probably a better win than heeney? Tunney one of the greatest boxers ever but how great a heavy I'm not sure. Hard to rate him imo.
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 11:21
by APerno
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 14:45
by HomicideHenry
You can't just base Tunney's greatness as a Heavyweight based on his bouts with Heavyweights. He defeated a good number of middles & light heavies who defeated heavies (ie, Tommy Loughran) so that has to be accounted for.
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 15:55
by Ambling Alp II
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑30 Sep 2018, 20:15
Part of it is because boxing was undergoing alot of legislation, and boxing for a time was outlawed (or at least the rendering of decisions was) and Illinois was the only state allowing bouts to go to decisions--- but only ten rounders were allowed in the state.
There were several states that had bout that went to decisions in 1926 and 1927.
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 15:59
by Ambling Alp II
cfang wrote: ↑01 Oct 2018, 09:46
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Sep 2018, 15:41
He also beat Johnny Risko. If you look through his record, you will see several other heavyweights that he beat.
Ah yes true risko was a heavy. Is tunneys record at heavy any better than that of Michael spinks? A Lt heavy who won the title and defended it on points from a fading great champion. Cooney is probably a better win than heeney? Tunney one of the greatest boxers ever but how great a heavy I'm not sure. Hard to rate him imo.
I would rate Cooney as a better heavyweight than Heeney. However at the time Tunney fought Heeney, Heeney was coming off several good performances in a row. His career pretty much collapsed after losing to Tunney.
Tunney also beat Ermino Spalla and Charley Weinert, who were well known heavyweights of the time. As homicidehenry alluded to, Tunney also beat light heavyweights who had success against heavyweights; such Carpentier and Gibbons.
Tunney also beat other heavyweights who were pretty much stiffs or inexperienced.
Re: Just How Good Was Tunney
Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 19:25
by Ettt9350
APerno wrote: ↑30 Sep 2018, 20:00
Ettt9350 wrote: ↑30 Sep 2018, 19:40
Can anyone shed light on why both the Tunney vs Dempsey fights were only ten rounders?
Not really but . . .
this much I know: By his own admission, Dempsey in '26, by the eighth round was hanging on and trying not to lose his title by KO; feeling better about himself leading into the '27 fight, Dempsey tried to get Tunney to sign on for 15 rounds, but now champion Tunney wouldn't bite. Tunney knew he would likely not KO Dempsey so why add on five more rounds of trying to keep Dempsey off him.
this much I suspect: By '26 there was so much clamor for Dempsey to fight again he was able to dictate his own terms almost across the board. Every fighter wants to fight as few rounds as possible, the number of rounds doesn't change your pay check when you're champion. The fans probably didn't care because people didn't actually expect a Dempsey fight to last that long anyway. Dempsey's run to the title and his defenses were much like Tyson' adventure; lots of violence and lots of early KOs. Everyone probably figured 10 rounds would be enough; Dempsey could have whatever he wanted in '26, so I suspect he is the one who decided on ten rounds.
Interesting, I think the ten rounds favoured Tunney more than Dempsey, hence why Dempsey was angling to change the second bout to fifteen rounds. I guess Tunney thought why box an extra five rounds when I don't have to.
