Page 3 of 3
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 09:36
by Panzerfaust
They have yet to explain their stance though... my guess is they snuck inn here from current scene
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 09:43
by Goodnight, Irene
skelp wrote:At time of posting, there are 5 - "No", and 3 "Undecided". Giving 27% voters who share my doubts. I thank you.
I can't resist. You're an idiot.
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 09:51
by SaadOffTheDeck
skelp wrote:At time of posting, there are 5 - "No", and 3 "Undecided". Giving 27% voters who share my doubts. I thank you.
I'm sure the undecided were just 3 voters honest enough to admit that they don't know who Tunney is. The other four are just insane.
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 09:53
by Goodnight, Irene
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:skelp wrote:At time of posting, there are 5 - "No", and 3 "Undecided". Giving 27% voters who share my doubts. I thank you.
I'm sure the undecided were just 3 voters honest enough to admit that they don't know who Tunney is. The other four are just insane.
...& completely anonymous. Imagine that. At least they had the good sense to express their nonsense sitting in the back of the class, cap slung low, as opposed to their buddy here, who is only too happy to parade his ignorance.
A debate on Gene Tunney's greatness?
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 10:03
by Panzerfaust
In Atlantic City where Dempsey was training for his first Tunney fight in 1926, Jack Dempsey offered Greb a thousand dollars a day to put him in condition for the bout. Greb, who had retired from the ring two months before, turned it down. "I would feel like a burglar takin' Jack's money," he said. "Nobody can get him in good enough condition to whip Gene."
------taken from "Give Him To The Angels
Greb had sparred the 1922 Jack Dempsey, I guess thats the basis he used to make the comparison
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 13:00
by Chuck1052
Besides facing the likes of Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jeff Smith or Georges Carpentier, Gene Tunney fought some other capable fighters such as Johnny Risko, Martin Burke, Chuck Wiggins, Jimmy Delaney, Bartley Madden and Charley Weinert. While having far fewer bouts than many of his contemporaries, Tunney had a full career as a professional boxer, piling up a terrific record while facing quite a few capable fighters. To say that Tunney wasn't a great fighter is pure ignorance.
- Chuck Johnston
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 30 Apr 2010, 20:10
by m1kee50
YES 72% [ 23 ]
NO 19% [ 6 ]
UNDECIDED 9% [ 3 ]
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 30 Apr 2010, 20:16
by Goodnight, Irene
MatthewS wrote:YES 72% [ 23 ]
NO 19% [ 6 ]
UNDECIDED 9% [ 3 ]
...& we have an
Are There Any Retards Of BoxRec? thread
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 01 May 2010, 07:45
by skelp
Light Heavy ain't Heavy.
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 01 May 2010, 08:28
by Panzerfaust
Tunney held the linear hwt title for just about as long as Tyson did, with the same amount of defences. Do you count Tyson as a atg HWT champ Skelp?
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 01 May 2010, 10:28
by Ambling Alp
Chuck1052 wrote:Besides facing the likes of Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jeff Smith or Georges Carpentier, Gene Tunney fought some other capable fighters such as Johnny Risko, Martin Burke, Chuck Wiggins, Jimmy Delaney, Bartley Madden and Charley Weinert. While having far fewer bouts than many of his contemporaries, Tunney had a full career as a professional boxer, piling up a terrific record while facing quite a few capable fighters. To say that Tunney wasn't a great fighter is pure ignorance.
- Chuck Johnston
Well said.
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 02 May 2010, 21:22
by Chuck1052
Gene Tunney didn't become the world heavyweight champion until he was twenty-nine years old while Mike Tyson became one when he was in his early twenties. One should also consider the fact that Tunney had been a professional boxer over a span of about ten years before becoming a world heavyweight champ while Tyson had been a pro for only a short time before becoming one. Moreover, Tunney won every one of his world title bouts while Tyson didn't.
- Chuck Johnston
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 02 May 2010, 21:43
by Grimm
I see I voted before I read the whole thing.
I wouldn't say he was really a great heavyweight.
One of the greatest lightheavyweights of all time though.
I would rank him at heavyweight the same way I do Michael Spinks.
Re: Tunney: A Great?
Posted: 04 May 2010, 14:59
by Bricks
skelp wrote:I don't believe Gene Tunney should be regarded as a great in the history of the Heavyweight Championship, or a Hall of Famer for that matter.
Let's analyse the evidence which suggests this:
He beat Dempsey who was inactive for 3 Years prior to the first bout, simply because he had been doing everything other than boxing. Even then, he struggled to win on points.
He lost the second meeting, as he was on the deck for more than 10 seconds, "The Long Count" because of Dempsey's failure to acknowledge the "new" ruling on going to a neutral corner.
He fought a bum in Heaney with 8 losses on his record before retiring.
Anyone else share this opinion.
You can only judge a man by the time he fought in, and most informed observers would agree Tunney was a revoloutionary figure both in terms of his approach to the game and also the scientific way he fought.
He was also as tough as they come a very very impressive individual if you study his history.