BoxRec

Would have been nice.

pundit wrote:Would have been nice.

Yes it would have been. But I think Tunney would have been a little too quick for Herr Max. Tunney UD15

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:Would have been nice.

Yes it would have been. But I think Tunney would have been a little too quick for Herr Max. Tunney UD15

This is also my take.

1930? schmeling 15 clear unanimous


prime for prime? either way

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1930? schmeling 15 clear unanimous


prime for prime? either way

Why shoud Tunney in 1930 not have been in his prime?

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1930? schmeling 15 clear unanimous


prime for prime? either way

Why shoud Tunney in 1930 not have been in his prime?

Tunney would not have fought for a year and a half and was already 31 with 88 fights under his belt when he retired, so I think it is a fair bet to say he'd be past his best.

evndrbsn wrote:

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1930? schmeling 15 clear unanimous


prime for prime? either way

Why shoud Tunney in 1930 not have been in his prime?

Tunney would not have fought for a year and a half and was already 31 with 88 fights under his belt when he retired, so I think it is a fair bet to say he'd be past his best.

Well, I assume of course that Tunney would have kept himself busy and in shape.

There are many fighters who are in their primes in the early 30s. Tunney showed no sign of deteriorating in 1928, so it's not clear to me why he necessarily would have deteriorated until 1930.

pundit wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

pundit wrote: Why shoud Tunney in 1930 not have been in his prime?

Tunney would not have fought for a year and a half and was already 31 with 88 fights under his belt when he retired, so I think it is a fair bet to say he'd be past his best.

Well, I assume of course that Tunney would have kept himself busy and in shape.

There are many fighters who are in their primes in the early 30s. Tunney showed no sign of deteriorating in 1928, so it's not clear to me why he necessarily would have deteriorated until 1930.

There weren't a lot of fighters that were in their primes in their 30's back then. While it is not uncommon to see fighters in their primes in their early 30s now, the big 3-0 was usually a death sentence before the last 15 or so years. That isn't to say fighters didn't keep going on well into their 30's, just that they declined much by the time they got to the milestone.

evndrbsn wrote:

pundit wrote:

evndrbsn wrote: Tunney would not have fought for a year and a half and was already 31 with 88 fights under his belt when he retired, so I think it is a fair bet to say he'd be past his best.

Well, I assume of course that Tunney would have kept himself busy and in shape.

There are many fighters who are in their primes in the early 30s. Tunney showed no sign of deteriorating in 1928, so it's not clear to me why he necessarily would have deteriorated until 1930.

There weren't a lot of fighters that were in their primes in their 30's back then. While it is not uncommon to see fighters in their primes in their early 30s now, the big 3-0 was usually a death sentence before the last 15 or so years. That isn't to say fighters didn't keep going on well into their 30's, just that they declined much by the time they got to the milestone.

Is this so? Bob Fitzsimmons won the heavyweight title when he was 34, Corbett almost gained it back when he was 33. Jack Johnson was 32 when he beat up Jim Jeffries. Sam Langford is said to have peaked 1912-16, when he was 29-33. Harry Wills was at his best when he was around 30.

Later there were guys like Walcott, Liston, Moore, who had their best wins in the late 30s.

Sure, Jack Dempsey peaked early and was sharply on the decline by the age of 30, but I doubt he lends himself for a general rule.

. Sam Langford is said to have peaked 1912-16, when he was 29-33.

ahhhh actually sam langford is said to have peaked 1909-1913. ask any major historian. Boxing historian and boxrec poster "ksmith" an expert on black fighters of that time acknowledges this.


- langford was never the same when he returned from australia in late 1913. he came fat and out of shape.

pundit wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

pundit wrote: Well, I assume of course that Tunney would have kept himself busy and in shape.

There are many fighters who are in their primes in the early 30s. Tunney showed no sign of deteriorating in 1928, so it's not clear to me why he necessarily would have deteriorated until 1930.

There weren't a lot of fighters that were in their primes in their 30's back then. While it is not uncommon to see fighters in their primes in their early 30s now, the big 3-0 was usually a death sentence before the last 15 or so years. That isn't to say fighters didn't keep going on well into their 30's, just that they declined much by the time they got to the milestone.

Is this so? Bob Fitzsimmons won the heavyweight title when he was 34, Corbett almost gained it back when he was 33. Jack Johnson was 32 when he beat up Jim Jeffries. Sam Langford is said to have peaked 1912-16, when he was 29-33. Harry Wills was at his best when he was around 30.

Later there were guys like Walcott, Liston, Moore, who had their best wins in the late 30s.

Sure, Jack Dempsey peaked early and was sharply on the decline by the age of 30, but I doubt he lends himself for a general rule.

Yes, this is so. Bob Fitz was considered to be ancient when he won the title. This is pretty much a scientific fact. People as a whole declined in health faster than they do now because they did not have advances in medical technology and nutrition that we do. It will probably be the same story with us in 100 years.

You are speaking about exceptions to the rule in Walcott, Liston, and Moore. Dempsey fizzled out right when he should have, at about 31.

Later there were guys like Walcott, Liston, Moore, who had their best wins in the late 30s.

walcott and moore yes, liston no .


listons best wins were ages 27-31 years old 1958-62

pundit wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:Would have been nice.

Yes it would have been. But I think Tunney would have been a little too quick for Herr Max. Tunney UD15

This is also my take.

Mine too. Tunney wins. Possible TKO for Tunney.

Schmeling wins by K.o. 10th Rd.

Tunney wins a rather easy decision...maybe even a late stoppage!

evndrbsn wrote:Yes, this is so. Bob Fitz was considered to be ancient when he won the title. This is pretty much a scientific fact. People as a whole declined in health faster than they do now because they did not have advances in medical technology and nutrition that we do. It will probably be the same story with us in 100 years.

There is also less new talent entering the sport now to push aging fighters out of the rankings,