BoxRec

Another hard-hitting light-heavyweight of the 1920s
was Paul Berlenbach, who had an impressive
k.o. percentage for the time.

- Chuck Johnston

Alp

That's a fine post on Tunney. He is criminally overlooked and it's good that you've put his career into context. Tunney would have been a hard fight for anyone. I think on a head to head basis he causes problems for all the greats. His star has faded in recent years but he was alwasy considered to be a top 10 HW without any arguments.

As for Mike Spinks... He's one of my favourite figthers but his success at HW was based on his opponents. Mike's reach, jab and right hand made him formidable at LH but he lost these advantages when he moved up. Holmes couldn't KO him because his refelxes had gone. He had him in trouble but couldn't quite get to him. Other than that Mike beat an old slow ex Euro champ and an old slow Cooney. I think prime Cooney would have KO'd Spinks. Mike was a great fighter, one of the best, but he wasn't a great HW.

Ambling Alp wrote: Then Tunney is criticized in for not fighting Harry Wills, 1923 or 1924 was supposed to have been ideal. Well Tunney was still a lightheavy then, fighting mostly lightheavyweights.

As for Charles beating tunney's competiton at heavweight, well, I doubt he would go undefeated against it. Charles also had his ups and downs at heavyweight. Tunney wouldn't lose to Johnson, Vlades, and Layne. Charles is a great heavyweight, but Tunney was a little bit better.

I find it rather insulting to Tunney that he is accused of ducking people. When he was lightheavyweight he beat many top fighters in that class, and then beat top heavyweights when he moved up to that class.

Tunney never would have fought Harry Willis nor would he have ever fought any black fighter, so he definitely ducked fighters. Whether that was because he was afraid he would lose to that particular fighter or simply because he was a racist piece of garbage, I'll leave for everyone else to decide.

All three of those losses of Charles' that you mentioned were controversial, except perhaps for the Valdes fight (I can't remember). Even if it wasn't, he was past his best when he lost to Valdes along with Johnson and Layne. Tunney never fought when he was past his best at heavyweight, so we never will know what would have happened for sure. The best bet is that someone catches up to a declining Tunney and either beats him badly or puts enough punches together to force a stoppage.

Prime Charles beats all of Tunney's competition, with only Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey being possible losses. On the flip side, Tunney loses to Marciano, Walcott, and possibly a creaky Joe Louis. If a creaky Dempsey could KO Tunney, a craftier Brown Bomber could possibly land the shot to put Tunney out.

charles was totally robbed vs harold johnson and rex layne. watch the fight.

On the flip side, Tunney loses to Marciano, Walcott, and possibly a creaky Joe Louis. If a creaky Dempsey could KO Tunney, a craftier Brown Bomber could possibly land the shot to put Tunney out.

agreed


a peak 175lbcharles would never lose to a 162lb fighter, harry greb or not.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:charles was totally robbed vs harold johnson and rex layne. watch the fight.

On the flip side, Tunney loses to Marciano, Walcott, and possibly a creaky Joe Louis. If a creaky Dempsey could KO Tunney, a craftier Brown Bomber could possibly land the shot to put Tunney out.

agreed


a peak 175lbcharles would never lose to a 162lb fighter, harry greb or not.

I agree he doesn't lose to Greb either from what I've read, but its difficult to really say since I never saw him fight. But it just seems Greb did not have enough of a punch to deter Charles. I don't think his volume punch style would get to Charles, who would pick him apart from the outside.

By today's standards, Gene Tunney's autobiography,
A MAN MUST FIGHT, is somewhat racist on the
subject of Harry Wills. As I recall, Tunney said that
Wills was "cakewalking" in the hall during a meeting of
the New York State Athletic Commission. Tunney
also wrote about someone saying he "put the sacks
on the spade" in regards to ignoring Wills' challenge
to fight for the World Heavyweight Title held by
Jack Dempsey.

Tunney wrote that he was willing to fight Harry Wills,
but the latter turned down the potentially lucrative
title elimination bout and fought Jack Sharkey instead
for a purse of only $25,000. Sharkey won the said bout
on a foul.

It should be noted that Gene's son, John Tunney,
said that he grew up in a family in which his parents
advocated equal rights for all U.S. citizens, notably
black people. Moreover, John went on to become a
liberal Democrat and was a U.S. Congressman
before becoming a U.S. Senator.

While reading old newspapers on microfilm, I was
struck by how different it was in the U.S. during
the first few decades of the Twentieth Century
in comparison to the present period. Heck!
I have seen tremendous changes in the U.S.
over the last forty years!

- Chuck Johnston

evndrbsn wrote:Marciano, Walcott, and possibly a creaky Joe Louis. If a creaky Dempsey could KO Tunney, a craftier Brown Bomber could possibly land the shot to put Tunney out.

Not sure... Charles got himself in good shape but was still not peak and gave prime Rock a hell of a fight. I'd say it's a 50-50 bout. Louis would start as favourite but Tunney could do a Billy Conn and then some.

Ezzard wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:Marciano, Walcott, and possibly a creaky Joe Louis. If a creaky Dempsey could KO Tunney, a craftier Brown Bomber could possibly land the shot to put Tunney out.

Not sure... Charles got himself in good shape but was still not peak and gave prime Rock a hell of a fight. I'd say it's a 50-50 bout. Louis would start as favourite but Tunney could do a Billy Conn and then some.

louis would knockout tunney. louis was very dehydrated and weight drained in the conn bout, and conn was better than tunney IMO.

As for Tommy Gibbons looking awful against Tunney, I doubt BB is saying that he has their 1925 fight on tape in it's entirty in great condition. And of course has several Gibbons previous fights in their entirity in great condition. I want to mention that this is the same Gibbons who just 2 years earlier went the 15 round distance against a prime Dempsey and was very competitive. Between his fights with Dempsey and Tunney, Gibbons didn't lose in 11 fights and won 10 by KO.

gibbons looked awful. he was horribly slow and his reflexes looked shot. if thats a prime gibbons in there, then he is vastly overated. gibbons was a better fighter 2 years earlier when he fought dempsey. but he still was not at his peak when he fought dempsey.


yea he went 11-0 against sub par competition. a shot kid norfolk does not count.

There is no way that was a close fight.

well most will disagree with you schmeling baer was even after 9 rounds
and schmeling woulda won the rematch

Sharky's loss to Carnera was too "sketchy"? It was yet another case of Sharkey losing a big fight.

he probably took a dive

For example, BB himself rated Duran as an alltime great welterweight, and Duran only had 10 fights at that weight.

he beat the 2nd greatest welterweight of all time in his prime. he also beat a very good carlos palomino top 30 welter of all time.

in comparison, tunney beat a farrr past his prime jack dempsey

As far as Risko being only 22 when they fought and was too green. Well it's true that Risko was amonth shy of 23. So I guerss we won't Schmeling's win over Louis because has just turned 22.

fighters prime differently. louis had demolished baer before fighting schmeling. who did risko beat before fighting tunney?

most will agree risko was a much better fighter in late 20s-early 30s

Schmeling had the gameplan to beat the 22 year old Louis but there is no way that Tunney did? Tunney was one of the smartest fighters ever. He would be able to beat Louis at that stage of Louis career.

no way, the game plan was schmelings right hand, and tunneys right hnd was not as hard or as accurate or well timed as schmelings. schmeling was a harder hitter and greater puncher than gene tunney at heavyweight.


joe louis would make tunney pay for his hands by his waist

Then Tunney is criticized in for not fighting Harry Wills, 1923 or 1924 was supposed to have been ideal. Well Tunney was still a lightheavy then, fighting mostly lightheavyweights.

tunney wanted no part of wills or godfrey in 1925-28

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:Marciano, Walcott, and possibly a creaky Joe Louis. If a creaky Dempsey could KO Tunney, a craftier Brown Bomber could possibly land the shot to put Tunney out.

Not sure... Charles got himself in good shape but was still not peak and gave prime Rock a hell of a fight. I'd say it's a 50-50 bout. Louis would start as favourite but Tunney could do a Billy Conn and then some.

louis would knockout tunney. louis was very dehydrated and weight drained in the conn bout, and conn was better than tunney IMO.

I'm talking about the Louis that fought Marciano in '51.

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ezzard wrote: Not sure... Charles got himself in good shape but was still not peak and gave prime Rock a hell of a fight. I'd say it's a 50-50 bout. Louis would start as favourite but Tunney could do a Billy Conn and then some.

louis would knockout tunney. louis was very dehydrated and weight drained in the conn bout, and conn was better than tunney IMO.

I'm talking about the Louis that fought Marciano in '51.

I don't really think you can use dehydration as an excuse for a HW.

yes u can. havnt u heard about it ezzard?


louis heard conn was coming in under 175lb so he decided a couple days before the fight he was going to come in under 200lb so the press wouldnt say "louis tried to take advantage of conn." so louis completley drained himself out, and he felt like absolute shit the day of the fight. u ever been dehydrated of weight drained? i have been a lot because of wrestling and its the worst feeling ever, makes u want to cry. im suprised in joe louis condition he did so well.




* tunney would not knockout louis of 51. ezzard charles couldnt even floor louis, i doubtr tunney will. louis of 51 was bigger, had more ring smarts and knew how to survive. even marciano had trouble stopping joe. no way tunney stops joe.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yes u can. havnt u heard about it ezzard?


louis heard conn was coming in under 175lb so he decided a couple days before the fight he was going to come in under 200lb so the press wouldnt say "louis tried to take advantage of conn." so louis completley drained himself out, and he felt like absolute shit the day of the fight. u ever been dehydrated of weight drained? i have been a lot because of wrestling and its the worst feeling ever, makes u want to cry. im suprised in joe louis condition he did so well.




* tunney would not knockout louis of 51. ezzard charles couldnt even floor louis, i doubtr tunney will. louis of 51 was bigger, had more ring smarts and knew how to survive. even marciano had trouble stopping joe. no way tunney stops joe.

Damnit, Brock! Read my post again! I was saying that if a creaky Jack Dempsey could seriously hurt and drop Tunney, a craftier (yet still creaky) Joe Louis of 1951 could probably land the KO punch against Tunney.

Meaning that I feel a post-prime Louis would knock out Tunney, not the other way around.

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yes u can. havnt u heard about it ezzard?


louis heard conn was coming in under 175lb so he decided a couple days before the fight he was going to come in under 200lb so the press wouldnt say "louis tried to take advantage of conn." so louis completley drained himself out, and he felt like absolute shit the day of the fight. u ever been dehydrated of weight drained? i have been a lot because of wrestling and its the worst feeling ever, makes u want to cry. im suprised in joe louis condition he did so well.




* tunney would not knockout louis of 51. ezzard charles couldnt even floor louis, i doubtr tunney will. louis of 51 was bigger, had more ring smarts and knew how to survive. even marciano had trouble stopping joe. no way tunney stops joe.

Damnit, Brock! Read my post again! I was saying that if a creaky Jack Dempsey could seriously hurt and drop Tunney, a craftier (yet still creaky) Joe Louis of 1951 could probably land the KO punch against Tunney.

Meaning that I feel a post-prime Louis would knock out Tunney, not the other way around.

damiit my fault! :x


interesting opinion there i cant say i disagree with it. though i think tunney outpoints that version of joe, but louis will always be dangerous no matter what version.

just watched louis vs charles the other day, damm did u see charles face after the fight? it was badly swollen mainly from joes jab. of course, louis took far worse a beating.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yes u can. havnt u heard about it ezzard?


louis heard conn was coming in under 175lb so he decided a couple days before the fight he was going to come in under 200lb so the press wouldnt say "louis tried to take advantage of conn." so louis completley drained himself out, and he felt like absolute shit the day of the fight. u ever been dehydrated of weight drained? i have been a lot because of wrestling and its the worst feeling ever, makes u want to cry. im suprised in joe louis condition he did so well.




* tunney would not knockout louis of 51. ezzard charles couldnt even floor louis, i doubtr tunney will. louis of 51 was bigger, had more ring smarts and knew how to survive. even marciano had trouble stopping joe. no way tunney stops joe.

Damnit, Brock! Read my post again! I was saying that if a creaky Jack Dempsey could seriously hurt and drop Tunney, a craftier (yet still creaky) Joe Louis of 1951 could probably land the KO punch against Tunney.

Meaning that I feel a post-prime Louis would knock out Tunney, not the other way around.

damiit my fault! :x


interesting opinion there i cant say i disagree with it. though i think tunney outpoints that version of joe, but louis will always be dangerous no matter what version.

just watched louis vs charles the other day, damm did u see charles face after the fight? it was badly swollen mainly from joes jab. of course, louis took far worse a beating.

Charles looked like he'd been beaten with a hammer after the Louis fight. I think that mainly showed the difference in power in addition to the difference in weight. Joe had a lot of weight on him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

As for Tommy Gibbons looking awful against Tunney, I doubt BB is saying that he has their 1925 fight on tape in it's entirty in great condition. And of course has several Gibbons previous fights in their entirity in great condition. I want to mention that this is the same Gibbons who just 2 years earlier went the 15 round distance against a prime Dempsey and was very competitive. Between his fights with Dempsey and Tunney, Gibbons didn't lose in 11 fights and won 10 by KO.

gibbons looked awful. he was horribly slow and his reflexes looked shot. if thats a prime gibbons in there, then he is vastly overated. gibbons was a better fighter 2 years earlier when he fought dempsey. but he still was not at his peak when he fought dempsey.


yea he went 11-0 against sub par competition. a shot kid norfolk does not count.

There is no way that was a close fight.

well most will disagree with you schmeling baer was even after 9 rounds
and schmeling woulda won the rematch

Sharky's loss to Carnera was too "sketchy"? It was yet another case of Sharkey losing a big fight.

he probably took a dive

For example, BB himself rated Duran as an alltime great welterweight, and Duran only had 10 fights at that weight.

he beat the 2nd greatest welterweight of all time in his prime. he also beat a very good carlos palomino top 30 welter of all time.

in comparison, tunney beat a farrr past his prime jack dempsey

As far as Risko being only 22 when they fought and was too green. Well it's true that Risko was amonth shy of 23. So I guerss we won't Schmeling's win over Louis because has just turned 22.

fighters prime differently. louis had demolished baer before fighting schmeling. who did risko beat before fighting tunney?

most will agree risko was a much better fighter in late 20s-early 30s

Schmeling had the gameplan to beat the 22 year old Louis but there is no way that Tunney did? Tunney was one of the smartest fighters ever. He would be able to beat Louis at that stage of Louis career.

no way, the game plan was schmelings right hand, and tunneys right hnd was not as hard or as accurate or well timed as schmelings. schmeling was a harder hitter and greater puncher than gene tunney at heavyweight.


joe louis would make tunney pay for his hands by his waist

Then Tunney is criticized in for not fighting Harry Wills, 1923 or 1924 was supposed to have been ideal. Well Tunney was still a lightheavy then, fighting mostly lightheavyweights.

tunney wanted no part of wills or godfrey in 1925-28

First of all, I will ask again, have you actually seen the entire Gibbon-Tunney fight on film, and was the quality very good. Tunney completely dominated Gibbons becasue Tunney was that good.

As far as Gibbon being past his prime two years earlier against Dempsey, that is simply incorrect. He gave Dempsey a very tough fight.

Most people will diagree with me about Schmeling-Baer? I have never heard of anyone besides you saying that the fight was close. Everything I have have ever read says that Baer was winning easily.
As mentioned before, in Schmeling's own autobiography, he admits it himself.

As far as sharkey "probably taking a dive against Carnera", umm no. He was knocked out. Call it a lucky punch if you want. But the fact remains that Sharkey lost yet another big fight.

Sharkey and Schmeling simply weren't as good as Tunney.

As far Risko being 22, I was just responding to you implying that someone that was 22 had to be green.

As for Duran and having only 10 fights as a welter, once again I was just responding to your comments that Tunney hadn't fought enough at heavyweight. (He had atleast 14 fights against heavyweights).

No way that Tunney could have beaten Louis the night Louis lost to Schmeling? Becasue Schmeling had the game plan, a right hand?
Not exactly that complicated of a game plan.
Tunney's right hand wasn't as accurrate or well time as Schmeling's? There is no basis for this. Tunney was considered by those who saw him as an extremely accurrate puncher. Tunney could also do other things against Louis that Schmeling couldn't. His speed would cause Louis a lot of problems.
Schmeling fought a good fight against Louis, but there are other fighters who could have beaten him that night, Tunney included.

Tunney wanted no part of Wills or Godfrey from 1925-1928?
Again, a totally baseless claim. Neither were the best contenders during this time.
Wills was 36-39 years old during this period, and clearly declining. He was beaten badly by Sharkey and Uzcudun during this time.

Godfrey lost to Sharkey and Risko during this time.

Tunney beat Risko and Gibbons in 1925, Dempsey in 1926, Dempsey again in 1927,(he had agreed to fight the winner of Dempsey-Sharkey) and Heeney in 1928. Tunney was beating good fighters.

Again there wasn't a clearcut # 1 contender during Tunney's time as champion. Heeney had a draw with Sharkey, and beat Risko, so he was a deserving of a title shot as anyone.

You can make all the lame excuses that you to defend your guys (didn't bring their "A" game, took a dive, had a couple of bad years, dehydrated, etc.) but in the end most of them they are that,just excuses. With Tunney, you don't have to constantly make excuses like Schmeling and Sharkey even more so. Tunney's record speaks for itself. He was clearly the best heavyweight in the world at the time.

It is my understanding that Tunney was suppose to
fight Young Stribling for a $50,000. purse, but the
scheduled bout was cancelled. This was before
Tunney won the World Heavyweight Title.

By the way, Tunney didn't want to fight Jack
Dempsey in New Jersey when Dempsey still
was the World Heavyweight Champion. At
the time, New Jersey had "no-decision" bouts,
which meant that Tunney had to knock out
Dempsey to win the title if the bout went
the distance in the said state. Could you
imagine the controversy if Tunney won
a newspaper decision by a lopsided margin
under such circumstances?

- Chuck Johnston

As far as sharkey "probably taking a dive against Carnera", umm no. He was knocked out. Call it a lucky punch if you want. But the fact remains that Sharkey lost yet another big fight.

thats ur opinion. IMO sharkey took a dive




- i said tunney wanted no part of godfrey from 1925-28

however tunney wanted no part of wills 23-25 while wills was still a force to be reckon with especially in 1923-24.


george godfrey was a powerful big skilled men, a guy who tunney never fought before and it could cause a lot of problems for gene. however due to tunneys speed, i dont think godfrey matches up as well against a mover like tunney

Schmeling had the gameplan to beat the 22 year old Louis but there is no way that Tunney did? Tunney was one of the smartest fighters ever. He would be able to beat Louis at that stage of Louis career.

no way, the game plan was schmelings right hand, and tunneys right hnd was not as hard or as accurate or well timed as schmelings. schmeling was a harder hitter and greater puncher than gene tunney at heavyweight.


joe louis would make tunney pay for his hands by his waist

Then Tunney is criticized in for not fighting Harry Wills, 1923 or 1924 was supposed to have been ideal. Well Tunney was still a lightheavy then, fighting mostly lightheavyweights.

tunney wanted no part of wills or godfrey in 1925-28[/quote]


First of all, I will ask again, have you actually seen the entire Gibbon-Tunney fight on film, and was the quality very good. Tunney completely dominated Gibbons becasue Tunney was that good.

As far as Gibbon being past his prime two years earlier against Dempsey, that is simply incorrect. He gave Dempsey a very tough fight.

Most people will diagree with me about Schmeling-Baer? I have never heard of anyone besides you saying that the fight was close. Everything I have have ever read says that Baer was winning easily.
As mentioned before, in Schmeling's own autobiography, he admits it himself.

As far as sharkey "probably taking a dive against Carnera", umm no. He was knocked out. Call it a lucky punch if you want. But the fact remains that Sharkey lost yet another big fight.

Sharkey and Schmeling simply weren't as good as Tunney.

As far Risko being 22, I was just responding to you implying that someone that was 22 had to be green.

As for Duran and having only 10 fights as a welter, once again I was just responding to your comments that Tunney hadn't fought enough at heavyweight. (He had atleast 14 fights against heavyweights).

No way that Tunney could have beaten Louis the night Louis lost to Schmeling? Becasue Schmeling had the game plan, a right hand?
Not exactly that complicated of a game plan.
Tunney's right hand wasn't as accurrate or well time as Schmeling's? There is no basis for this. Tunney was considered by those who saw him as an extremely accurrate puncher. Tunney could also do other things against Louis that Schmeling couldn't. His speed would cause Louis a lot of problems.
Schmeling fought a good fight against Louis, but there are other fighters who could have beaten him that night, Tunney included.

Tunney wanted no part of Wills or Godfrey from 1925-1928?
Again, a totally baseless claim. Neither were the best contenders during this time.
Wills was 36-39 years old during this period, and clearly declining. He was beaten badly by Sharkey and Uzcudun during this time.

Godfrey lost to Sharkey and Risko during this time.

Tunney beat Risko and Gibbons in 1925, Dempsey in 1926, Dempsey again in 1927,(he had agreed to fight the winner of Dempsey-Sharkey) and Heeney in 1928. Tunney was beating good fighters.

Again there wasn't a clearcut # 1 contender during Tunney's time as champion. Heeney had a draw with Sharkey, and beat Risko, so he was a deserving of a title shot as anyone.

You can make all the lame excuses that you to defend your guys (didn't bring their "A" game, took a dive, had a couple of bad years, dehydrated, etc.) but in the end most of them they are that,just excuses. With Tunney, you don't have to constantly make excuses like Schmeling and Sharkey even more so. Tunney's record speaks for itself. He was clearly the best heavyweight in the world at the time.[/quote]


No, Tunney completely dominated Gibbons because Tommy was past his best. That is why he retired afterward. If you don't know that then you don't know much about Tommy Gibbons.

Sharkey more than likely took a dive vs. Carnera. Primo was managed by murderous gangster Owney Madden and when "Owney the Killer" said to take a dive, it was best to listen. In addition, most boxing experts at the time were suspicious of the outcome. One stated that it was the first time he had ever seen someone fall forward rather than backwards when hit by an uppercut.

if u think tommy was at/near his prime when he fought tunney, then i agree with nero you dont know much about tommy. its like saying louis was in his prime vs marciano.

Let us also not forget two important facts:

1. Sharkey easily beat Primo Carnera in their first fight, thus casting even more doubt on his dismal performance in the second.

2. Just about all of Primo's big bouts were fixed. He was a mob-controlled fighter. That's not opinion, that's public record.

Nero3000 wrote:Let us also not forget two important facts:

1. Sharkey easily beat Primo Carnera in their first fight, thus casting even more doubt on his dismal performance in the second.

2. Just about all of Primo's big bouts were fixed. He was a mob-controlled fighter. That's not opinion, that's public record.

Actually, Sharkey wasn't performing dismally against Carnera until he was knocked out. Most people thought he was winning. Obviously If he was throwing the fight he wouldn't have been trying to win. Just because Carnera lost the first time and won the second time doesn't mean the 2nd fight was fixed. There are countless examples of the loser in the first fight winning the rematch.

Not sure I understand your earlier comment about the guy saying that it was the first time that he saw someone fall forward instead of backward after being hit by an uppercut? It's not strange at all for this happen.

Not that many of Carnera's fights were fixed actually. first of all, he lost some fights. He also won some by decison. there is no way that his 15 round decison victories over Uzcudun and Loughran for example were fixed.
I'm not saying that Carnera was an alltime great or better than Sharkey or anything like that. I'm saying that this is another case of Sharkey losing a big fight, something that Tunney seldom did.

tunney just never fought enough big fights at heavyweight besides a badly faded dempsey who put tunney down for 14 seconds.

How many times do we have to go over this?
Tunney beat, Weinert twice, who beat Sharkey twice.
Tunney beat Risko, who beat Sharkey.
Tunney beat Dempsey twice, who beat Sharkey.
Tunney beat Heeney badly, who had a draw with Sharkey.

Also beat Gibbons, Spalla, and Madden.

Go ahead, start with the lame exuses. Too green, didn't bring his A game, bad hands,the other guy cheated, had a couple of bad years, dehydrated etc. Do you have some new ones?

tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight






* tunney beat a green risko who didnt peak until the late 20s-early 30s


*sharkey got screwed vs dempsey, he showed he was better than the 1927 dempsey. did i mention tunney was down for 14 seconds vs dempsey?


* weinhert beat a 8-3 and 10-4 sharkey, weak arguement alp. sharkey was very green