BoxRec

Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,beat Dempsey twice,fought Harry Greb five times and lost only once...

Surely amongst the top five of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,beat Dempsey twice,fought Harry Greb five times and lost only once...

Surely amongst the top five of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

A few points. Gene Tunney took a terrible beating from Harry Greb in 1922 at MSG, which my dad saw ringside... Tunney outweighed Greb by 12 pounds. Their next four fights were even up and each was controversial...Greb was getting PAST his prime whilst Tunney was ascending in his career. But that being said I rate Tunney as #1 LH. He stopped Tommy Gibbons, and Georges Carpentier as a LH and soon morphed into a strong HW...He did everything that an Ali did without the gltz....

Re-examine Greb-Tunney 2 and 4 very closely and then tell me how many he won.

Fair comments but nobody stands up for Tunneys Record...I would still mention my point-who has a record to match at ANY weight ?

Greb still didnt stop him even when he got the decision.

He still beat Greb three times,Gibbons,Carpentier etc

In my humble Opinion Tunney doesnt seem to get the universal credit due to the fact that he beat Dempsey twice which fans dont want

Dempsey is seemingly the savage fighter who most fight fan prefers instead of a thinking boxer

Just my thoughts

Sign me up (though not to this idea hes top-3 all-time material), Ive been singing his praises for years.

My #1 all-time LHW.

klompton wrote:Re-examine Greb-Tunney 2 and 4 very closely and then tell me how many he won.

I would like to do this.

Can you loan me the tapes. Or at least put them up on youtube for me?

beaujack wrote:

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,beat Dempsey twice,fought Harry Greb five times and lost only once...

Surely amongst the top five of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

A few points. Gene Tunney took a terrible beating from Harry Greb in 1922 at MSG, which my dad saw ringside... Tunney outweighed Greb by 12 pounds. Their next four fights were even up and each was controversial...Greb was getting PAST his prime whilst Tunney was ascending in his career. But that being said I rate Tunney as #1 LH. He stopped Tommy Gibbons, and Georges Carpentier as a LH and soon morphed into a strong HW...He did everything that an Ali did without the gltz....

Beau,

I am very interested in where Fitzsimmons sits in your rating of light heavyweights.

Hey he beat Greb.

According to some at this site, that's how the top five are defined.

Beat Greb, and your ticket is stamped, just step to the front.

beaujack wrote:

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,beat Dempsey twice,fought Harry Greb five times and lost only once...

Surely amongst the top five of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

A few points. Gene Tunney took a terrible beating from Harry Greb in 1922 at MSG, which my dad saw ringside... Tunney outweighed Greb by 12 pounds. Their next four fights were even up and each was controversial...Greb was getting PAST his prime whilst Tunney was ascending in his career. But that being said I rate Tunney as #1 LH. He stopped Tommy Gibbons, and Georges Carpentier as a LH and soon morphed into a strong HW...He did everything that an Ali did without the gltz....

Not number five; he gave Greb a drubbing. No. 1 - all Greb; Nos. 2-4 all pretty close; No. 5 - all Tunney.

Well, for a better reason why Tunney isnt more greatly appreciated:

He never faced a black fighter and there were some pretty interesting matches that could have been made along those lines: Flowers, Norfolk, Anderson, Ethridge, Siki, Wills (and please, dont pull that "he tried to fight Wills crap")

For years he was very carefully matched.

His best wins come over faded fighters: Greb who was a MW, blind in one eye, and had the ringwear of 200+ fights and who Tunney still needed a four tries to beat convincingly and registered at least one fixed decision against, Levinsky who was completely through as a top fighter, Gibbons who was ancient and who Tunney admits he ducked for years, Carpentier who was way past his prime, and always overrated, Dempsey who hadnt fought in three years, etc. etc.

Because when its all said in done Tunney had backing him the most powerful New York manager, most of the New York commission members, and several of the most powerful politicians in the state AND at least one powerful racketeer all of which helped him move along into a lucrative and important matches that he would not have otherwise gotten based on some of the tedious performances and careful matchmaking he had benefitted from.


Now, all of this isnt to say Tunney is bad or overrated. In fact I think hes underrated and was probably just entering his prime when he retired. But the above are what hurt him in many peoples rankings.

raylawpc wrote:

beaujack wrote:

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,beat Dempsey twice,fought Harry Greb five times and lost only once...

Surely amongst the top five of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

A few points. Gene Tunney took a terrible beating from Harry Greb in 1922 at MSG, which my dad saw ringside... Tunney outweighed Greb by 12 pounds. Their next four fights were even up and each was controversial...Greb was getting PAST his prime whilst Tunney was ascending in his career. But that being said I rate Tunney as #1 LH. He stopped Tommy Gibbons, and Georges Carpentier as a LH and soon morphed into a strong HW...He did everything that an Ali did without the gltz....

Not number five; he gave Greb a drubbing. No. 1 - all Greb; Nos. 2-4 all pretty close; No. 5 - all Tunney.

Number two wasnt close at all, based on the majority of reports its pretty clear Greb was a clear winner in number 4 as well. Number three was close, in fact a number sources thought Greb was robbed in that one as well, although the majority had it for Tunney. Number five was definately the clear win for Tunney but reports about it being a bad drubbing are probably pretty exaggerated based on a wire report that went out. Most sources have it as a boring match with a lot of wrestling and clenching.

Boilermaker wrote:

beaujack wrote:

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,beat Dempsey twice,fought Harry Greb five times and lost only once...

Surely amongst the top five of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

A few points. Gene Tunney took a terrible beating from Harry Greb in 1922 at MSG, which my dad saw ringside... Tunney outweighed Greb by 12 pounds. Their next four fights were even up and each was controversial...Greb was getting PAST his prime whilst Tunney was ascending in his career. But that being said I rate Tunney as #1 LH. He stopped Tommy Gibbons, and Georges Carpentier as a LH and soon morphed into a strong HW...He did everything that an Ali did without the gltz....

Beau,

I am very interested in where Fitzsimmons sits in your rating of light heavyweights.

I don't know how to rate Bob Fitzsimmons AT ANY WEIGHT. For his weight Fitz was the most destuctive fighter in history...A big middleweight in a heavyweight's frame...As a LH he knocked cold
heavyweights as Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey, Dan Creedon, Gus Ruhlin, Jim Corbett etc. He did
things that a Bob Foster failed at, flattening the big boys...So to answer your question, I put Fitz in a special class....Never to be repeated....

klompton wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

beaujack wrote: A few points. Gene Tunney took a terrible beating from Harry Greb in 1922 at MSG, which my dad saw ringside... Tunney outweighed Greb by 12 pounds. Their next four fights were even up and each was controversial...Greb was getting PAST his prime whilst Tunney was ascending in his career. But that being said I rate Tunney as #1 LH. He stopped Tommy Gibbons, and Georges Carpentier as a LH and soon morphed into a strong HW...He did everything that an Ali did without the gltz....

Not number five; he gave Greb a drubbing. No. 1 - all Greb; Nos. 2-4 all pretty close; No. 5 - all Tunney.

Number two wasnt close at all, based on the majority of reports its pretty clear Greb was a clear winner in number 4 as well. Number three was close, in fact a number sources thought Greb was robbed in that one as well, although the majority had it for Tunney. Number five was definately the clear win for Tunney but reports about it being a bad drubbing are probably pretty exaggerated based on a wire report that went out. Most sources have it as a boring match with a lot of wrestling and clenching.

Here's the deal: We have NO film of these fights, and the middle three had different writers saying different things, as well as the judges voting for Tunney in fights two and three. I haven't read a single report giving Greb fight five, and, yes, the wire report - exaggerated or not - says Tunney won easily. So, I'm going to stick with my analysis that, based on the evidence, "No. 1 - all Greb; Nos. 2-4 all pretty close; No. 5 - all Tunney." However, thanks for your comments! I always enjoy reading your posts on Greb.

klompton wrote:Well, for a better reason why Tunney isnt more greatly appreciated:

He never faced a black fighter and there were some pretty interesting matches that could have been made along those lines: Flowers, Norfolk, Anderson, Ethridge, Siki, Wills (and please, dont pull that "he tried to fight Wills crap")

For years he was very carefully matched.

His best wins come over faded fighters: Greb who was a MW, blind in one eye, and had the ringwear of 200+ fights and who Tunney still needed a four tries to beat convincingly and registered at least one fixed decision against, Levinsky who was completely through as a top fighter, Gibbons who was ancient and who Tunney admits he ducked for years, Carpentier who was way past his prime, and always overrated, Dempsey who hadnt fought in three years, etc. etc.

Because when its all said in done Tunney had backing him the most powerful New York manager, most of the New York commission members, and several of the most powerful politicians in the state AND at least one powerful racketeer all of which helped him move along into a lucrative and important matches that he would not have otherwise gotten based on some of the tedious performances and careful matchmaking he had benefitted from.


Now, all of this isnt to say Tunney is bad or overrated. In fact I think hes underrated and was probably just entering his prime when he retired. But the above are what hurt him in many peoples rankings.

Tunney didnt fight blacks, which was common at the time, but for you to otherwise imply his CV lacks depth is either ignorant or asinine.

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Fair comments but nobody stands up for Tunneys Record...I would still mention my point-who has a record to match at ANY weight ?

Greb still didnt stop him even when he got the decision.

He still beat Greb three times,Gibbons,Carpentier etc

In my humble Opinion Tunney doesnt seem to get the universal credit due to the fact that he beat Dempsey twice which fans dont want

Dempsey is seemingly the savage fighter who most fight fan prefers instead of a thinking boxer

Just my thoughts

Give me the bring it to you types, everytime.

You can have the fancy dans.

That said, Mr. Tunney was great boxer and a fine man.

I'm just sad I couldn't watch him try his stuff on Joe Frazier.

Not a fair fight. Joe was a heavyweight. Tunney just a blown up LHW.

yancey wrote:

JAMIE COLLETT wrote:Fair comments but nobody stands up for Tunneys Record...I would still mention my point-who has a record to match at ANY weight ?

Greb still didnt stop him even when he got the decision.

He still beat Greb three times,Gibbons,Carpentier etc

In my humble Opinion Tunney doesnt seem to get the universal credit due to the fact that he beat Dempsey twice which fans dont want

Dempsey is seemingly the savage fighter who most fight fan prefers instead of a thinking boxer

Just my thoughts

Give me the bring it to you types, everytime.

You can have the fancy dans.

That said, Mr. Tunney was great boxer and a fine man.

I'm just sad I couldn't watch him try his stuff on Joe Frazier.

Its a bad style match-up for Tunney and I doubt he could win anything longer than a 10-rounder, but that would certainly be a competitive battle for some time before Frazier overwhelmed him.

My (comfortable) guess is Frazier either stops him between 12-15, or dominates the back-end of the bout for a 9-6 victory.

BoxBuzz wrote:Not a fair fight. Joe was a heavyweight. Tunney just a blown up LHW.

It is, "not a fair fight," in the sense that Frazier was a natural HW and Tunney was not...but it is pure buffoonery to label Tunney, "just a blown-up LHW."

Tunney would be a threat to most of the best HW's who ever drew breath. He would not be disgraced against Frazier, nor most others.

klompton wrote:Well, for a better reason why Tunney isnt more greatly appreciated:

He never faced a black fighter and there were some pretty interesting matches that could have been made along those lines: Flowers, Norfolk, Anderson, Ethridge, Siki, Wills (and please, dont pull that "he tried to fight Wills crap")

For years he was very carefully matched.

His best wins come over faded fighters: Greb who was a MW, blind in one eye, and had the ringwear of 200+ fights and who Tunney still needed a four tries to beat convincingly and registered at least one fixed decision against, Levinsky who was completely through as a top fighter, Gibbons who was ancient and who Tunney admits he ducked for years, Carpentier who was way past his prime, and always overrated, Dempsey who hadnt fought in three years, etc. etc.

Because when its all said in done Tunney had backing him the most powerful New York manager, most of the New York commission members, and several of the most powerful politicians in the state AND at least one powerful racketeer all of which helped him move along into a lucrative and important matches that he would not have otherwise gotten based on some of the tedious performances and careful matchmaking he had benefitted from.


Now, all of this isnt to say Tunney is bad or overrated. In fact I think hes underrated and was probably just entering his prime when he retired. But the above are what hurt him in many peoples rankings.

I learn something new everyday. If this info is correct makes me view Tunney in different light

klompton wrote:Well, for a better reason why Tunney isnt more greatly appreciated:

He never faced a black fighter and there were some pretty interesting matches that could have been made along those lines: Flowers, Norfolk, Anderson, Ethridge, Siki, Wills (and please, dont pull that "he tried to fight Wills crap")

For years he was very carefully matched.

His best wins come over faded fighters: Greb who was a MW, blind in one eye, and had the ringwear of 200+ fights and who Tunney still needed a four tries to beat convincingly and registered at least one fixed decision against, Levinsky who was completely through as a top fighter, Gibbons who was ancient and who Tunney admits he ducked for years, Carpentier who was way past his prime, and always overrated, Dempsey who hadnt fought in three years, etc. etc.

Because when its all said in done Tunney had backing him the most powerful New York manager, most of the New York commission members, and several of the most powerful politicians in the state AND at least one powerful racketeer all of which helped him move along into a lucrative and important matches that he would not have otherwise gotten based on some of the tedious performances and careful matchmaking he had benefitted from.


Now, all of this isnt to say Tunney is bad or overrated. In fact I think hes underrated and was probably just entering his prime when he retired. But the above are what hurt him in many peoples rankings.

Please provide newspaper articles in which anyone was clamoring for a Tunney match-up with Flowers, Norfolk, Ethridge, Anderson or Siki. And, yeah, Billy Gibson did pursue a bout with Wills . . .

scallum wrote:

klompton wrote:Well, for a better reason why Tunney isnt more greatly appreciated:

He never faced a black fighter and there were some pretty interesting matches that could have been made along those lines: Flowers, Norfolk, Anderson, Ethridge, Siki, Wills (and please, dont pull that "he tried to fight Wills crap")

For years he was very carefully matched.

His best wins come over faded fighters: Greb who was a MW, blind in one eye, and had the ringwear of 200+ fights and who Tunney still needed a four tries to beat convincingly and registered at least one fixed decision against, Levinsky who was completely through as a top fighter, Gibbons who was ancient and who Tunney admits he ducked for years, Carpentier who was way past his prime, and always overrated, Dempsey who hadnt fought in three years, etc. etc.

Because when its all said in done Tunney had backing him the most powerful New York manager, most of the New York commission members, and several of the most powerful politicians in the state AND at least one powerful racketeer all of which helped him move along into a lucrative and important matches that he would not have otherwise gotten based on some of the tedious performances and careful matchmaking he had benefitted from.


Now, all of this isnt to say Tunney is bad or overrated. In fact I think hes underrated and was probably just entering his prime when he retired. But the above are what hurt him in many peoples rankings.

I learn something new everyday. If this info is correct makes me view Tunney in different light

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Not a fair fight. Joe was a heavyweight. Tunney just a blown up LHW.

It is, "not a fair fight," in the sense that Frazier was a natural HW and Tunney was not...but it is pure buffoonery to label Tunney, "just a blown-up LHW."

Tunney would be a threat to most of the best HW's who ever drew breath. He would not be disgraced against Frazier, nor most others.

You know that, and I know that....but Yancey,...well..... he can be very difficult that fella. He's not always sensible like you and I.

raylawpc wrote:

klompton wrote:Well, for a better reason why Tunney isnt more greatly appreciated:

He never faced a black fighter and there were some pretty interesting matches that could have been made along those lines: Flowers, Norfolk, Anderson, Ethridge, Siki, Wills (and please, dont pull that "he tried to fight Wills crap")

For years he was very carefully matched.

His best wins come over faded fighters: Greb who was a MW, blind in one eye, and had the ringwear of 200+ fights and who Tunney still needed a four tries to beat convincingly and registered at least one fixed decision against, Levinsky who was completely through as a top fighter, Gibbons who was ancient and who Tunney admits he ducked for years, Carpentier who was way past his prime, and always overrated, Dempsey who hadnt fought in three years, etc. etc.

Because when its all said in done Tunney had backing him the most powerful New York manager, most of the New York commission members, and several of the most powerful politicians in the state AND at least one powerful racketeer all of which helped him move along into a lucrative and important matches that he would not have otherwise gotten based on some of the tedious performances and careful matchmaking he had benefitted from.


Now, all of this isnt to say Tunney is bad or overrated. In fact I think hes underrated and was probably just entering his prime when he retired. But the above are what hurt him in many peoples rankings.

Please provide newspaper articles in which anyone was clamoring for a Tunney match-up with Flowers, Norfolk, Ethridge, Anderson or Siki. And, yeah, Billy Gibson did pursue a bout with Wills . . .

Before I do that can you provide me with an article where ANYONE was CLAMORING for Tunney to fight anyone else? No. Tunney wasnt the type of guy people sat around and said: "Id like to see him fight x y and z". The fact is that Tunney was the most politically connected fighter, well, maybe ever and he was more than willing to use it to his advantage. Great fighters dont have difficult fights forced upon them, they go out and challenge themselves.

And yes Im saying when it gets down to it Tunney's resume is pretty weak compared with a lot of guys from his era. Hell its just about average compared to a lot of guys in his own division. Look at the biggest names on his resume: Greb (aging, ringworn, blind in one eye, natural MW), Loughran (19 years old, nuff said), Gibbons (aging, avoided him for years), Carpentier (aging and totally overrated, Gibbons dominated him immediately before Tunney did and gave him a bad beating as well, not really a stand out victory despite the hype), Levinsky (totally shot, had his career extended by the ND era, and Tunney still underperformed). Dempsey (coming off a three year layoff). Thats pretty much the gist of it. Also consider that when he got his shot at the so-called LHW championship of America (which didnt exist before he won it) he hadnt fought ANYONE of note, nobody. This is a guy whose been fighting for six and a half years in an era which was pretty hard not to bump into tough fighters. When he fought Dempsey he leap frogged over the guy that was universally considered Dempsey's number 1 challenger for SEVEN years and that was so wrong in fact that even his more liberal friends in state politics refused to back him or the fight and it had to be moved out of New York and over to Philly. Its things like this that cause people not to go ga ga over Tunney. But, like I said, I think he was a terrific fighter who didnt need all of the help he got (that doesnt change that he got it though, over a lot of guys who didnt get that kind of a boost) and whose best we may never have seen.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Not a fair fight. Joe was a heavyweight. Tunney just a blown up LHW.

It is, "not a fair fight," in the sense that Frazier was a natural HW and Tunney was not...but it is pure buffoonery to label Tunney, "just a blown-up LHW."

Tunney would be a threat to most of the best HW's who ever drew breath. He would not be disgraced against Frazier, nor most others.

You know that, and I know that....but Yancey,...well..... he can be very difficult that fella. He's not always sensible like you and I.

I'm crushed.

:(

Will I gain acceptance around here if I become an Ali jock-sniffer?

Did I just read that Tunney is being criticised for fighting Dempsey instead of Wills!?