BoxRec

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.

I doubt if many will share your opinion.

You might want to research his career a little more.

When you can say you were once the world's number 1 Light Heavyweight and then the world's number 1 Heavyweight, that makes you an alltime great.

"struggled to win on points" in their first fight?

It seems like we've met the Sarah Palin of boxrec, you just made that up . . .Tunney won their first fight easily.

He also lost the rematch. Tunney took advantage of Dempsey's mistake and got the extra time, but he was NOT knocked out for 10 seconds.

Tunney also beat HOFers Greb, Gibbons, Levinsky, & Carpentier and other excellent fighters such as Weinert and Reinault. Plus two wins over Jack Dempsey.

He's an ATG by any rational person's definition.

dempseyfire wrote:"struggled to win on points" in their first fight?
he was NOT knocked out for 10 seconds.

Think about it. Dempsey inactive for 3 Years, Tunney should have stopped him.
I never said he was knocked out!
I said he was on the floor for more than ten seconds. With a name like "Dempseyfire" I thought you'd be with me on this one.

skelp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:"struggled to win on points" in their first fight?
he was NOT knocked out for 10 seconds.

Think about it. Dempsey inactive for 3 Years, Tunney should have stopped him.
I never said he was knocked out!
I said he was on the floor for more than ten seconds. With a name like "Dempseyfire" I thought you'd be with me on this one.

So basically shutting out a guy isn't impressive, a light heavyweight coming up with hand problems needs to stop him?

Any boxer with a brain would follow the ref's count and not the timekeeper. You said Tunney 'lost' the rematch b.c he was down for over 10 seconds . ..WRONG. THe ref has the count. Dempsey f'd up and Tunney used the extra time, simple as that.

EVen if Tunney had never fought Dempsey he'd still be an ATG. Your thesis is not backed by any logic. If you are a young guy who is starting to get into boxing history that's fine, no-one ever starts knowing everything, but if you post rather ignorant things like the initial post in this thread you will get torn to shreds here due to the lack of historical knowledge/facts backing your assertions up.

dempseyfire wrote: you will get torn to shreds

Opinions Differ.
No need to get personal.

Tunney was KO'd is as ridiculous an argument as Buster Douglas was KO'd by Tyson.

skelp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: you will get torn to shreds

Opinions Differ.
No need to get personal.

Yes, b/c I meant literally tearing you to shreds

Methaphors . . . . .metaphors.

Yes... (Easily)

OK I understand what Skelp is getting at,

Boxing's time line (as compared to the age of the universe) is simply to short of a sample thus far to be able to determine who the "greats" are. In another ten thousand years, perhaps there will be enough data to begin compiling a list.

Odds are none of the first couple of hundred years participants will make the final cut.

So skelp must be making the point that it's just "too early to tell".

right skelp?

I see him ranked too high on many Heavyweight lists for my taste. That is because of his short tenure ion the division, not because he didn't have the talent.

It's hard to imagine imagine an all time top 20 or 30 without Tunney in it. So I'd have to say Yes to the question at hand and I would vote him into the HOF twice.

BoxBuzz wrote:OK I understand what Skelp is getting at,

Boxing's time line (as compared to the age of the universe) is simply to short of a sample thus far to be able to determine who the "greats" are. In another ten thousand years, perhaps there will be enough data to begin compiling a list.

Odds are none of the first couple of hundred years participants will make the final cut.

So skelp must be making the point that it's just "too early to tell".

right skelp?

skelp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:"struggled to win on points" in their first fight?
he was NOT knocked out for 10 seconds.

Think about it. Dempsey inactive for 3 Years, Tunney should have stopped him.
I never said he was knocked out!
I said he was on the floor for more than ten seconds. With a name like "Dempseyfire" I thought you'd be with me on this one.

My dear friend (which, after our last meet, is my new euphamism for you) you will find no one of worth who wishes to be, "with you" on this one.

I look forward to Skelp's next thread..."Is The Sky Blue? I Vote No. Discuss."

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I look forward to Skelp's next thread..."Is The Sky Blue? I Vote No. Discuss."

Hmmm, I live in NE Ohio, so I might be with him on that one...

It's a more credible debate than this one, so why not?

The fact that there are three no's is disturbing. I would think that even those that are of the mindset that no older fighter could compete with modern fighters would still have the sense to recognize greatness in their own day.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The fact that there are three no's is disturbing. I would think that even those that are of the mindset that no older fighter could compete with modern fighters would still have the sense to recognize greatness in their own day.

It's actually a very common theme with polls on this particular site. Several votes which are completely indefensible, all with one thing in common --- almost everyone doing the far-flung voting is silent & anonymous.

Beat Jack Dempsey and Harry Greb. 'Nuff said.

How any one can question his status as an all time great is beyond me.

A great in the history of the Heavyweight Championship? No. Just a great fighter? Yes.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: I look forward to Skelp's next thread..."Is The Sky Blue? I Vote No. Discuss."

Pathetic. Why you can't seperate your emotions from such discussions just shows how purile you are. Your occupation as a Bouncer tells me everything about you from an intelligence point of view.

You never knew Edison was a bouncer?

Seriously, it's ok to have a bit of fun with some hypotheticals. You are sort of stabbing at prevailing opinion, and that's at the very least going to get some gut reactions. Mine for example. But it's ok we've had folks here stake their credibility that Ali was a rank amateur who had the greatest streak of luck in history. Maybe with Tunney it simply a case of lightening striking twice.

BoxBuzz wrote:Maybe with Tunney it simply a case of lightening striking twice.

Twice? For someone to not consider Tunney great they would have to say that lightning struck about 15-20 times.

ATG?
YES!!!!!!
Without a phucking doubt!!!!