BoxRec

Posted: **17 Jul 2006, 11:08**

I'd rank Tunney easily in my top 25 fighters of all time, but I can think of another heavyweight who continues to slip even further in the public's estimation. If you were a serious fight fan in the late 80's, I'm sure you can remember quite a few people saying that Mike Tyson would have destroyed any heavyweight in history. But today, just look at this forum, and look at the names of fighters being tossed around who posters not only think would beat Tyson, but even KO him early.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 04:37**

Decagon wrote:Yeah. Back in the 1980s, we hadn't seen Mike Tyson get dominated and knocked out by a journeyman, and twice struggle with an asthmatic nobody.

Yep...

We were waiting to see Tyson respond in a give and take fight. We saw the skills; we wanted to see the mental stregth to back it up, the real test of greatness.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 14:17**

Brockton, you get one key thing very wrong here. I'm not defending Tunney for drawing the color line. This was wrong no matter who drew it - Tunney or Dempsey or Jack Johnson.

What I am claiming though is that Tuney's drawing of the color line did not make the boxing world miss out on truly important fights. Godfrey is at best borderline - in 1928 - and even this is quite some stretch, as Godfrey was not widely regarded as the most deserving contender.

As for 1925, your point is utterly unconvincing. I try it once more calmly. I cannot see a soingle legit reason for Tunney to fight Godfrey in 1925. You ask Tunney to behave like a champ when he didn't have a title. Tunney and Godfrey were heavyweight contenders and tried to get a shot at Dempsey. Tunney was by far the more prominent one. Hence, fighting Godfrey would not at all have promoted Tunney's chanches at all.

If you really want to blame someone for not fightig "ranked contender" Godfrey in 1925 you end up - again - with Jack Dempsey (but then, Godfrey simply hadn't done enough to earn a shot in 1925).

Jack Dempsey's avoidance of Harry Wills during his entire title reign, in contrast, beraved the boxing world of THE heavyweight fight of the early 1920s.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 15:19**

george godfrey was just as good as harry wills

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 15:19**

tunney avoided godfrey far more than dempsey avoided wills.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 15:25**

Jack Johnson was the ALL TIME CHAMPION AVOIDER

with his avoidance of SAM LANGFORD.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 15:36**

Langford weighed 156 pounds the first (AND ONLY) time they fought.

Jack Johnson disgraced himself by avoiding Sam Langford during the time he held the title.

His is a tainted championship and legacy because of that.

.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 15:52**

I ALREADY mentioned that Langford weighed 156 pounds when Johnson fought him.

Once Langford was a full grown heavyweight and the best fighter alive,

Johnson wouldn't DARE get in the ring with him.

The story of Jack Johnson as heavyweight champion is the story of

Johnson embarassing himself by hiding from Sam Langford.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 16:05**

Decagon wrote:Again, how is that any worse than Tunney not fighting Godfrey, etc... ?

It's worse because it's far more significant. Most people have Langford in their top 20 all-time, many in their top 10, and yet he never got a shot at the title. Johnson-Langford in, say, 1912 would have been an absolute cracker, and it was clearly THE figfht to be made at the time.

In my view this is indeed the most significant heavyweight matchup that the world missed out on. Dempsey-Wills is a close second. Third is perhaps Corbett-Jackson (refight for the title).

Tunney-Godfrey or even Lewis-Bowe pale in comparison (most rank Lewis higher than Bowe anyway). In fact, Tunney-Godfrey doesn't belong into this category, as Godfrey's was far from being the undisputed #1 challenger when Tunney was champ.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 16:10**

pundit wrote:
Decagon wrote:Again, how is that any worse than Tunney not fighting Godfrey, etc... ?
It's worse because it's far more significant. Most people have Langford in their top 20 all-time, many in their top 10, and yet he never got a shot at the title. Johnson-Langford in, say, 1912 would have been an absolute cracker, and it was clearly THE figfht to be made at the time.

In my view this is indeed the most significant heavyweight matchup that the world missed out on. Dempsey-Wills is a close second. Third is perhaps Corbett-Jackson (refight for the title).

Tunney-Godfrey or even Lewis-Bowe pale in comparison (most rank Lewis higher than Bowe anyway). In fact, Tunney-Godfrey doesn't belong into this category, as Godfrey's was far from being the undisputed #1 challenger when Tunney was champ.

once again, george godfrey was just as good as harry wills. harry wills in fact avoided fighting george godfrey. the black press even critisized wills for avoiding godfrey.

godfrey is a top 30 heavyweight of all time, tunney refused to fight him. this is a bad mark on tunneys heavyweight legacy

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 16:14**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote:
Decagon wrote:Again, how is that any worse than Tunney not fighting Godfrey, etc... ?
It's worse because it's far more significant. Most people have Langford in their top 20 all-time, many in their top 10, and yet he never got a shot at the title. Johnson-Langford in, say, 1912 would have been an absolute cracker, and it was clearly THE figfht to be made at the time.

In my view this is indeed the most significant heavyweight matchup that the world missed out on. Dempsey-Wills is a close second. Third is perhaps Corbett-Jackson (refight for the title).

Tunney-Godfrey or even Lewis-Bowe pale in comparison (most rank Lewis higher than Bowe anyway). In fact, Tunney-Godfrey doesn't belong into this category, as Godfrey's was far from being the undisputed #1 challenger when Tunney was champ.

once again, george godfrey was just as good as harry wills. harry wills in fact avoided fighting george godfrey. the black press even critisized wills for avoiding godfrey.

godfrey is a top 30 heavyweight of all time, tunney refused to fight him. this is a bad mark on tunneys heavyweight legacy

Again, there was no obvious reason to prefer Godfrey over Sharkey, Risko, Uzcudun or Heeney in 1928. If there is any "mark", it's so small you have to look for it with the magnifying glass.

Unless you plan on talking Tunney down with the silliest of arguments, of course.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 16:25**

Decagon wrote:
pundit wrote:Again, there was no obvious reason to prefer Godfrey over Sharkey, Risko, Uzcudun or Heeney in 1928. If there is any "mark", it's so small you have to look for it with the magnifying glass.
Then why did every single publication do so? Sharkey over Godfrey I'd take, but Risko, Uzcudun or Heeney?

I guess I should take this as an indication that I must be right - if Decagon makes a claim with passion, basically always the opposite is true.

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 16:26**

Decagon wrote:
pundit wrote:Again, there was no obvious reason to prefer Godfrey over Sharkey, Risko, Uzcudun or Heeney in 1928. If there is any "mark", it's so small you have to look for it with the magnifying glass.
Then why did every single publication do so? Sharkey over Godfrey I'd take, but Risko, Uzcudun or Heeney? You're on crack.

Decagon,

What is it with these juvenile "You're on crack" remarks?

Posted: **18 Jul 2006, 16:34**

Btw, I dislike the lack of respect for Johnny Risko that evaporates from some of the posts here. For many years, the "Cleveland rubber man" was considered a top haevyweight challenger. He was in fact twice on course for a shot at the title, only to be stopped by legends Gene Tunney and Max Schmeling in eliminator fights. In 1927/28 he beat the top challengers Paolino Uzcudun, George Godfrey, Phil Scott and Jack Sharkey in close succession, with his only significant loss in this period to Tom Heeney (who got the shot at Tunney in the end). In the early 1930s - one of the greatest peirods in heavyweight boxing - he was still good enough to beat the likes of Max Baer, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker, King Levinsky, and Paolino Uzcudun (again).

In a nutshell: Risko was a classy heavyweight.

Posted: **19 Jul 2006, 11:04**

Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard,
You're it does seem that Tunney isn't rated quite as high as used to be.
I have a couple of theories;

1. In the last 20 years more footage of fighters from the 1940's 1950's and to a lesser extent from the 1930's is more available. There are companies that sell tapes of fights from these era's as well as people can watch old fights and see guys like Walcott, Charles,Patterson, Liston (all of whom used to almost always be rated lower than Tunney) or watch them on ESPN Classic. It's natural for people to rate highly those fighters that they have seen.
Unfortunately footage from Tunney's fights and fighters before him remain rare.

2. In the last 20 years Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis, and Bowe came along. Many people drop Tunney as many as 4 spots because of these guys; therefore dropping him outside the top 10.

Thanks, Alp.

I think these are good points that you raise. I can't rate Bowe over him but Tunney's lack of fights at the weight does hinder him.

Posted: **19 Jul 2006, 11:06**

Decagon wrote:There's also been a trend of ranking fighters based more on their accomplishments, rather than their style, speed, power, et. al. Tunney was fuckaslick, but his accomplishments leave quite a bit to be desired. Also, magazines like Ring make their money making their readers happy. Tunney had a lot of fans, and after they all finally croaked, people didn't have to worry about Tunney fans being miffed at him not being ranked in the top 10.

And then, there's the color line...

You're right about magazines and journalists...

...and your personal brand of cynicism is always welcome.

Posted: **19 Jul 2006, 11:09**

Okay, so to Brock-o, Irish and all the other not-so-keen-on-Gene posters...

Why was Tunney rated so highly 20 years ago?

Posted: **19 Jul 2006, 13:46**

pundit,

im only the one here actually giving solid evidence with newspaper reports and giving historians quote on the matter.

thats all ur doing is saying those articles are "bullshit".

once again, u havnt presented any evidence. ur simply a boxrec hunter.

saying heeny, uzcuden, risko deserved a shot over godfrey? thats laughable

godfrey might have knocked out tunney if he was allowed to try his best

Posted: **19 Jul 2006, 21:46**

Let me repat what I think kis the main point here: GEne Tunney read books and could speak in full sentences.

Many think this is inadequate for a boxer. Hence he doesn't get the recognition he deserves as one of the greatest heavyweights and of the top 2 or 3 light-heavyweights of all time.

Posted: **19 Jul 2006, 21:52**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit,

im only the one here actually giving solid evidence with newspaper reports and giving historians quote on the matter.

You've brought forward evidence for nothing. You said Tunney didn't wanna fight Godfrey in 1925 - so what, he didn't have to. He wasn't the champ. That was Dempsey at the time.

And the 1928 fight we've conjugated through forwards and backwards, not only me but also Ambling Alp, for example. You just seem totally inaccessible to the simple fact that there were several good challengers in 1928 and no obvious one, and that Tunney's pick was perfectly decent.

Your turn this here into a crybaby event. Come up with a discernible argument or shut up.

P

Posted: **20 Jul 2006, 13:12**

Decagon wrote:
pundit wrote:Let me repat what I think kis the main point here: GEne Tunney read books and could speak in full sentences.

Many think this is inadequate for a boxer. Hence he doesn't get the recognition he deserves as one of the greatest heavyweights and of the top 2 or 3 light-heavyweights of all time.
That's silly. In light heavyweight bouts, Tunney went 2-2 with Harry Greb (or worse). How can he be in the top 2 or 3 at 175 if he didn't even establish himself as the #1 light heavyweight of his era?

Do your homeowrk first before you scribble nonsense. Check the records (it's 2:1, or 3:2 if you count newspaper decisions) , and check also what Greb said about Tunney after their last fight (that next time Tuney would surely KO him).

There is no doubt that Tunney whatsoever established his supremacy over Harry Greb. The middleweight Greb (who for me is one of the top 5 pfp fighters of all time) could beat all the other great l-h weights of his time, but not Tunney.

Posted: **20 Jul 2006, 15:24**

decagon is right. tunney at 175lb is only 2-2 vs harry greb

Posted: **20 Jul 2006, 15:34**

Decagon wrote:You do your fucking homework. Their fifth bout was at heavyweight, not light heavyweight. That leaves their series at 2-2 at light heavyweight. Further, many dispute the decision Tunney got in their second encounter based on the referee overpenalizing Greb. It could be argued that Greb was 2-1-1 or even 3-1 in light heavyweight encounters with Tunney.

Not sure why you are so hostile here, because their last fight could have been considered a LH fight. Haven’t you ever heard of an “over the weight limit” fight? A pretty common concept that’s been around as long as weight classes, and examples can be seen on many of the ESPN fight cards. Maybe you remember some fights that are announced as MW, but one or both of the fighters are over the MW limit.

Posted: **20 Jul 2006, 19:18**

Decagon wrote:You do your fucking homework. Their fifth bout was at heavyweight, not light heavyweight. [/b

So what.

Posted: **20 Jul 2006, 21:19**

Decagon wrote:You owe me an apology for calling my post "nonsense," given that you were the one in the wrong.