BoxRec

Gene Tunney, great as he was, could have been greater. When I look at the record, and then I look at the 175-pound field at the time he could have easily been the champion at any time from 1922 onwards. He could have beaten Carpentier, Siki, McTigue, Berlenbach, etc. and then have beaten Gibbons & Dempsey.

I mean can anyone really argue against Tunney not beating any of the title holders at 175?

I'm not sure I could think of anyone off-hand whom I would be convinced would beat Tunney at 175, he's certainly a live matchup for any fighters to have competed at the weight IMO

Tunney was truly remarkable. The best skillset of boxing in those times. I'd pick him against anyone before Joe Louis without much of doubt.

DrDuke wrote: ↑25 Sep 2018, 10:26 Tunney was truly remarkable. The best skillset of boxing in those times. I'd pick him against anyone before Joe Louis without much of doubt.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑24 Sep 2018, 02:47 Gene Tunney, great as he was, could have been greater. When I look at the record, and then I look at the 175-pound field at the time he could have easily been the champion at any time from 1922 onwards. He could have beaten Carpentier, Siki, McTigue, Berlenbach, etc. and then have beaten Gibbons & Dempsey.

I mean can anyone really argue against Tunney not beating any of the title holders at 175?

I don't believe it is a slam-dunk that Tunney beats Dempsey in 1923.

I think he would be more well known if he had contined to fight at least up to the age of 35 years before retiring.
which would have been up to May 1932. He would have bridged a gap in the HW lineage by doing that
and maybe had made it more steam-lined and less confusing with all the HW champions of the early 1930's
like Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera .
( why did he retire so early on anyway ?)

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑24 Sep 2018, 02:47 Gene Tunney, great as he was, could have been greater. When I look at the record, and then I look at the 175-pound field at the time he could have easily been the champion at any time from 1922 onwards. He could have beaten Carpentier, Siki, McTigue, Berlenbach, etc. and then have beaten Gibbons & Dempsey.

I mean can anyone really argue against Tunney not beating any of the title holders at 175?

I'm pretty sure he did beat Georges Carpentier.( in July 1924)

Im saying IF Tunney fought Carpentier in '22 he'd of won the title, and he'd of beaten Siki, McTigue & Berlenbach. Can anyone really argue that he wouldn't have?

Out of all the old fights ive watched since the early 1900s up until around about the 50s, Tunney's the most advanced boxer ive watched along with Robinson, I watch a lot of old fights and truth be told I'm not always a fan but Tunney had a really tidy style, fought at a style beyond his time and was easy on the eye, the schooling over Dempsey in the 1st fight is a joy to watch

which fighters did Gene Tunney admire and maybe try to emulate in his boxing career ?

Just wanted to address some previous comments:

Corbett was someone that he idolized., which should not be a surprise. He actually sparred with him when Corbett was long retired.

I agree that Tunney would have beaten the light heavyweight champion during his era if he had the chance. He was a pro for 11 years before he got a title shot.

I think he along with Charles, Moore, Foster, and Spinks were the best light heavyweights ever. If you count Langford he would belong as well.

He is underrated as a heavyweight nowadays. He probably deserves to be in the top 15 all time. Prime for prime, I think he would have beaten almost any heavyweight up to Louis.
Would not have favored him over Johnson.
I would give him a slight edge against Jeffries.
Langford would have been a tough fight.
Hard to say if he could have beaten Dempsey before 1923. Dempsey was a lot faster than; might have been a great fight.

As for why Tunney didn't keep fighting longer, if you have to go back to the heavyweight scene at the time. Schmeling and Carnera were not contenders yet when he retired.. Sharkey had some recent setbacks. There really weren't any viable contenders. He had already made a ton of $ in last three fights and had little to gain by fighting more.

well it would have been nice if he had contiued be the HW right up to 1930 anyway.
Jimmy Slattery and "Slapsie" Maxie Rosenbloom or even James J. Braddock challenging him for the title would be interesting.
or just after fighting Dempsey if he would have given Harry Wills a shot at the title
(if Wills wouldn't have priced himself out of it like he did earlier with a possible Tunney match).

Gene Tunney had a certain "Zen" quality about him I think.
( and a early "Flow-Energy type of fighting style)

I can't picture Tunney fighting on until 1930. He'd of been a pro for 15 years had he done so & of been 33 years old. He began boxing as an amateur in 1912 (age 15) so altogether 18 years boxing had he stuck around until 1930.

Retrospectively we look back at him fondly, but Tunney was nowhere near as popular as Dempsey. This was mainly due to his personality, he was more likely to discuss Shakespeare with reporters than the sport of boxing. The fact he hobknobbed with people like George Bernard Shaw, etc instead of other sportsmen made him "boring" to the public.

It was the same problem Tiger Flowers had. The Georgia Deacon was great, but he was more likely to be quoting the Bible than to be the subject of controversy and scandal. So when he was robbed against Mickey Walker few people complained because "The Toy Bulldog" epitomized The Roaring Twenties.

The fact that Tunney made nearly $1,000,000 fighting Dempsey in the rematch, only to make $550,000 against Heeney demonstrates that the public wasn't really sold on Tunney & that the field was obviously weak without The Manassa Mauler. Part of that was because of the famous "long count" controversy where alot of people thought Dempsey was robbed of victory.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Sep 2018, 22:17 I can't picture Tunney fighting on until 1930. He'd of been a pro for 15 years had he done so & of been 33 years old. He began boxing as an amateur in 1912 (age 15) so altogether 18 years boxing had he stuck around until 1930.

Retrospectively we look back at him fondly, but Tunney was nowhere near as popular as Dempsey. This was mainly due to his personality, he was more likely to discuss Shakespeare with reporters than the sport of boxing. The fact he hobknobbed with people like George Bernard Shaw, etc instead of other sportsmen made him "boring" to the public.

It was the same problem Tiger Flowers had. The Georgia Deacon was great, but he was more likely to be quoting the Bible than to be the subject of controversy and scandal. So when he was robbed against Mickey Walker few people complained because "The Toy Bulldog" epitomized The Roaring Twenties.

The fact that Tunney made nearly $1,000,000 fighting Dempsey in the rematch, only to make $550,000 against Heeney demonstrates that the public wasn't really sold on Tunney & that the field was obviously weak without The Manassa Mauler. Part of that was because of the famous "long count" controversy where alot of people thought Dempsey was robbed of victory.

RE: The Long Count -- Like Greb (who after six fights announced he couldn't beat Tunney and wouldn't fight him again) in '27 Dempsey believed that he could not beat Tunney and refused Rickard's offer for a third fight. Imagine, after the 'long count' the gate for a third match, it would have been staggering.


I repeat myself: IMO the '23 Dempsey would have taken Tunney, even the 1926 Tunney.

That is one ob boxing's great "what ifs".
Dempsey from about 1918-1923 was a much different fighter than the guy who fought Tunney. Maybe Tunney would have beaten that version, maybe not.

If you're going to post a Tunney video.

Is it a bit hard to gauge Tunney as a heavyweight? As a Lt heavy he was the best of his era but at heavy...he beat Dempsey twice and Tom heeney and that's it! I guess his whole rep at heavy depends on how much you rate the version of Dempsey he beat.

cfang wrote: ↑29 Sep 2018, 05:41 Is it a bit hard to gauge Tunney as a heavyweight? As a Lt heavy he was the best of his era but at heavy...he beat Dempsey twice and Tom heeney and that's it! I guess his whole rep at heavy depends on how much you rate the version of Dempsey he beat.

Ironically, he won World championship at HW, but not at LHW. And he also won Tommy Gibbons in a fight, that should be considered as a HW bout.

Ah yes true but just about..Tunney was 181 and Gibbons 179 I think.

He also beat Johnny Risko. If you look through his record, you will see several other heavyweights that he beat.

Can anyone shed light on why both the Tunney vs Dempsey fights were only ten rounders?

Ettt9350 wrote: ↑30 Sep 2018, 19:40 Can anyone shed light on why both the Tunney vs Dempsey fights were only ten rounders?

Not really but . . .

this much I know: By his own admission, Dempsey in '26, by the eighth round was hanging on and trying not to lose his title by KO; feeling better about himself leading into the '27 fight, Dempsey tried to get Tunney to sign on for 15 rounds, but now champion Tunney wouldn't bite. Tunney knew he would likely not KO Dempsey so why add on five more rounds of trying to keep Dempsey off him.

this much I suspect: By '26 there was so much clamor for Dempsey to fight again he was able to dictate his own terms almost across the board. Every fighter wants to fight as few rounds as possible, the number of rounds doesn't change your pay check when you're champion. The fans probably didn't care because people didn't actually expect a Dempsey fight to last that long anyway. Dempsey's run to the title and his defenses were much like Tyson' adventure; lots of violence and lots of early KOs. Everyone probably figured 10 rounds would be enough; Dempsey could have whatever he wanted in '26, so I suspect he is the one who decided on ten rounds.

Part of it is because boxing was undergoing alot of legislation, and boxing for a time was outlawed (or at least the rendering of decisions was) and Illinois was the only state allowing bouts to go to decisions--- but only ten rounders were allowed in the state.