Gene Tunney - Should longevity be a factor in his case???

Tunney is not rated that highly at heavy.....Been thinking lately that Heavy history has been harsh to one of it's greats...Forgetting the Greb stuff at a lower weight...let's focus at heavy..........

Beat the great Dempsey twice...you could say that Dempsey was aging...or you could say Dempsey struggles with the style time after time....Certainly wouldn't rule out Tunney beating a more prime version....Two great wins...add gibbons to the equation and a defernce win over Heeney and you have a good journey that rates with other champions of his era.....and many since!!

Were Dempsey's title defences and wins any better than Tunney's two wins over Dempsey?????

Tunney is marked down for his longevity truth be told but do we really need to see him outbox Schmelling and Sharkey and the like to realise he reigns for 5 years or so if he wished too..

Should he be marked down for being smart and leaving healthy with everything in tact???

Or should he be where he is...

Out of all the heavy champs I find this guy hard to place....Probably belongs higher for me.....

He is also a guy I struggle with Truss, am a fan and think in talent he is right up there with the best of them but ultimately it doesn't change the fact that in terms of record at heavy he did desert the world title stage very quickly and in terms of top ten placing he is competing against guys who stuck around far far longer so it becomes extremely difficult to put him against guys who have far thicker ledgers, the other difficulty for Tunney is like Liston he did a lot of his best work pre world title but unlike Liston he did the bulk of his at light heavy so in terms of heavyweight ranking can't be boosted on the back of this.

Wins over even an inactive Dempsey speak well of his abilities and guarantee him a top 15 place for me but retiring so soon into his title reign make it nigh on impossible for me to put him higher than that, much as I would like to.

Wonderful fighter. Fast, skillful, hard as nails, superb strategist, cool under pressure and more besides.

Ultimately, though, has ' only ' the Dempsey wins at elite level in the heavyweight division. Therefore, while he is probably one of the five or six greatest fighters to have ever held the heavyweight title he isn't one of the ten best heavyweight fighters, in my opinion.

As a top win, Dempsey is one of the best. Gibbons was one of the best opponents Dempsey beat too. But I think to be higher you need to be seen as dominating a period of the division, which he didn't really do due to lack of longevity at the weight.

P4P he's probably underrated normally, but Heavyweight it's tough to say.

Good article Truss, and I suppose it depends very much on which you think is more important in deciding how great a fighter is / was; talent, or achievements. I think a claim can be made that Tunney was amongst the top three or four most talented Heavyweights of all time, but I firmly believe that achievements far outweight talent in terms of ranking a fighter, and as such I can't really place 'The Fighting Marine' any higher than something like thirteenth to fifteenth in the Heavyweight stakes.

As Sugar Boy rightly pointed out a while back, I think longevity takes on more importance when we look at Heavyweights, as the high majority of them didn't have / haven't had the luxury of being able to move through weight classes. While Tunney does deserve credit for those two scalps against Dempsey - and I agree that it's entirely possible that he'd have done the same a few years earlier - there's no denying that Dempsey was hardly in top, top condition for those bouts (you simply can't be after such a prolonged period of inactivity) and as such, I don't think either can be classed as one of the great Heavyweight wins. A win over Heeney doesn't really add much either way, and then he walked away in to retirement. Just doesn't have enough 'body' to his Heavyweight record to push for a place in my top ten, but that's just how I see it.

Mind you, there are plenty who'd disagree. Bert Sugar, for instance, has Tunney at number five in his all-time Heavyweight estimations.

I must say that I rate Tunney quite highly at heavyweight and he makes it into the lower reaches of my top ten.

Outside of the Dempsey wins we could probably add Gibbons, Heeney and Risko who were all top contenders of the day and just to flesh out his heavyweight record, if nothing else, we could include Bartley Madden and Ermino Spalla.

A big regret I have is that he never faced Yound Stribling at either Light heavy or heavy and it seems quite strange given that their careers were parallel for an etended time and that Young Stribling was such a popular figure and attraction. One has to ask that if he did stay around longer and perhaps add the likes of Stribling, Sharkey, Uzcuden and Schmelling to his record where would that place him? For me it would give him a claim to a top 5 spot without question as despite the fact none of these name individually would be considered legacy makers, I think Tunney rightly or wrongly suffers from the stigma of being a light heavyweight who only made the briefest forray into heavyweight and the perceived lack of time spent there has made people reluctant to really measure him in a true sense against other heavyweights. Even one or two more defences would eliminate this problem and I think he would viwed much higher where i suspect his talents belong.

But even as it stands I think Dempsey x 2, Gibbons, Heeney, Risko and possibly Madden and Spalla is still plenty of food for thought and I always afford Tunney a generous measure of the benefit of the doubt because quite simply his record at any weight demands it.

thanks for the replies and it's interesting isn't it...

How much would the likes of Schmelling and Sharkey really have made to his heavy legend!!!

Longevity for longevity sake really worth while????

Who knows..but he's a hard one to rank.

As scotty pointed out easier to place higher and rightly so in the p4p stakes.

I've noted as well that Tunney is a bit of an enigma with people's rankings lists. I imagine a fight with J.Jeffries would have been really something,I think of them as very evenly matched.

Interesting matchup when you think that Fitz should have won the return against Jeffries and blew it...Think Tunney had a greater skill threshold than Fitz...

Jeffries however was very strong...

Certainly in the 25 round era Jeffries takes him but maybe not over 15....

Never been a Tunney-Jeffries matchup on 606.....What a good fight.

I think Tunney would really bamboozled James J and while I dont see him stopping somone as drable as Jeffries I think he boxes him to a rather one sided decision. Jeffries has the power to make him a threat but aggainst someone as scientific as and meticulous in his boxing as Tunney I think he neutralises it behind good movement and clever counter attacking.

There is a huge difference between Dempseys condition in the Willard fight and the Tunney match ups.

In the Willard film Dempsey looks like the ultimate fighting machine. He doesn't have an ounce of fat and his muscles look like they are made of steel. He also has a hunger about him. Almost like a caged animal. He has a fierceness that only years of struggling can produce.

I wouldn't like to put money on Tunney beating the version of Dempsey Willard fought.

Good article Truss but I watched a documentry on Dempsey a while back and he was completley out of shape for the first Tunney fight. It almost got called off and only because the fight was a 10 rounder under Illinois rules did it go ahead. A prime Dempsey beats Tunney in my opinion

On the subject of Tunney though...is he maybe more underrated at Light-Heavy than Heavyweight? He achievements at Heavyweight are noted but I find Tunney often is down the list far too much on Light-Heavy rankings

You have to remember Willard was himself completely rusty for the fight with Demspey and in truth was never elite anyway. He was made to make Dempsey look awesome as a lumbering and imobile figure that had been out of the ring for years against an upcoming explosive and hungry fighter like Dempsey. Tunney would be a far different prospect.

Dempsey himself had little or no amateur experience as a fighter and consequently his learning curve and level of improvement with every fight as he gained more experience was large. The Dempsey that beat Gibbons and Firpo was probably a better version of him and I think Willard probably flattered him to a large extent.

Theres a fair argument to say Dempsey was no longer at hs asolute best by the Tunney fights but his knock out victory over Jack Sharkey in between puts it in perspective that he was still very much a top fighter and easily the best heavyweight in the world at the time alongside Tunney himself. Dont neccssarily agree that Dempsey was at all out of shape for any of the Tunney fights. He had trained hard for the bout and while a level of rustiness could be expected from the lay off he was certainly not in poor physical condition.

Girl50, are you ignoring me?How could you?

Look at the film. Huge difference in Dempsey's physique between the Willard and Tunney fight. No comparison whatsoever.

More fool Dempsey then hey!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:More fool Dempsey then hey!!

Money never sleeps pal

Im afraid I dont see where you are getting Dempsey was out of shape from. Ive watched the footage before and while the picture quality makes it difficult to see exactly what kind of condition he is in, he certainly does not appear out of shape. He was a mere 2/3 lbs heavier for the Tunney fight than he was for the Willard fight according to most sources which would not indicate a fighter thats out of condition. I woul have said Dempseys optimum fighting weight was around the 190 mark which was what he weighed in roughly for his fights with Tunney.

Have you seen the Wall street sequel.....Wall st was one of my favorite films and I wonder if it's any good..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Have you seen the Wall street sequel.....Wall st was one of my favorite films and I wonder if it's any good..

Went to watch it in the cinema. No where near as good as the first. Far too Hollywood for my liking. Doesnt quite capture the dog eat dog nature of the first one. Worth a watch though but not on a par with the first which is no shame as Wall Street (1987) is a classic and one of my favourite films of all time

Colonial Lion wrote:Im afraid I dont see where you are getting Dempsey was out of shape from. Ive watched the footage before and while the picture quality makes it difficult to see exactly what kind of condition he is in, he certainly does not appear out of shape. He was a mere 2/3 lbs heavier for the Tunney fight than he was for the Willard fight according to most sources which would not indicate a fighter thats out of condition. I woul have said Dempseys optimum fighting weight was around the 190 mark which was what he weighed in roughly for his fights with Tunney.

Im only going on what the documentary said. Dempsey had problems training. Being out of breath while running, sparring etc. He just didnt look the same fighter as the one that fought Willard, Carpentier for me. Just my opinion though

Think it should be noted though, Colonial, that Dempsey was actually being largely outboxed by Sharkey before taking advantage of a typical Sharkey lack of concentration. Fair enough he closed the show, but I'd say that the fight illustrated that the Dempsey of 1926 / 1927 simply wasn't the force he'd been in the early twenties.

Have you read Dempsey's autobiography, mate? I remember reading in it that Dempsey felt he was on the slide as early as the Carpentier fight in 1921. I don't necessarily buy in to this idea that Dempsey was soft and out of shape so to speak when he fought Tunney, but given his subsequent performances and his inactivity, I do feel he'd regressed a little as a fighter by then.

Theres a difference between being out of shape and not being at peak. Its natural that people look to Willard fight as probably the epitomy of what Dempsey was about but this was little more than the demolishon of a aged and rusted champion. Impressive though Dempsey was in the destruction, I dont believe this was his finest version and it was barely a year after he had struggled with the likes of Willie Meehan and Al Norton.

Most reports of the first Tunney fight I have read indicatd that Dempsey appeared rusty, slower and more ponderous than usual but not neccessarily out of shape or poorly conditioned. It would be normal that in the fight camp leading up it took longer than usual to get into shape after a long lay off but by the fight itself he seemed physically fine.

The Sharkey fight seems to be another of these "he was losing at the time fight" like Conn v Louis and as such seems not to count in some way but it had been a massive tussle with Dempsey still well in the fight against a Sharkey that was in terrific form having recorded wins over Wills, Godfrey and McTigue in the run up to the fight.

In 1919 Tunney had yet to really impact the game so the had Dempsey met him then obviously he would be considered a massive favourite but if you take both boxers at their respective peaks I dont neccessarily think Dempsey should be considered vastly superior and I think using Willard as the basis is rather a poor basis in comparison to the problems and style a peak Tunney offers.

There are clear comparisons to made between Tunney and the likes of Michael Spinks who, whilst campaigning at HW and having notable wins over excellent, if somewhat past-their-best fighters, will always be marked down at the weight due to the shortness of their stay.

Whether or not this is right, remains an interesting debating point, and certainly more welcome that the Louis-Conn drivel we had to endure.

By the way, "Wall Street 2" blows! Even Charlie Sheen's five second cameo does nothing to lift it from the doldrums...the again, sticking Shia Lebouf in it was always going to be a bad idea. May as well have McCauley Caulkin trying to convince us he's a Wall Street whizz-kid.

I'll frame your post....something boxing related doesn't come a long very often..

Jones jr's stay at super middle doesn't stop him being ranked near the top or at the top of the tree..

Not everything is so black and white...

Depends on the fighter..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll frame your post....something boxing related doesn't come a long very often..

Jones jr's stay at super middle doesn't stop him being ranked near the top or at the top of the tree..

Not everything is so black and white...

Depends on the fighter..OR PEOPLE'S INABILITY TO SEPARATE THE MAN FROM HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

Then again, could it be more to do with how poor the SM division has been, historically speaking but thank you for you comments irrespective of how tiresomely patronising they are

I'm a huge fan of Tunney and good to see some posters agreeing with me that he would be in and around the top 5 of the most talented fighters to fight at heavyweight. As big a fan as I am, I still can't find a reason to place him in the top 10 at the weight though. Always had him in and around the edges and in the same group of fighters containing Frazier, Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield fighting it out for 10th spot.

He just simply doesn't have enough fights at heavyweight to pip all of those fighters. Wins against Sharkey and Schmelling (he'd be an almost cert against both in my mind) would just about see him sit comfortably in the top 10 and if he had (as I believe he would have) dominated the division until Louis came along, I think he would have a ranking to reflect his talent.

I have him down as the 4th best light heavy (although would fancy him against anyone at that weight) and easily within the top 20 p4p fighters of all time.

Can heartily recommend Jack Kavanaugh's biography of Gene which I believe that jeff has also read/

Evening super......I agree longevity isn't everything and we can summise he beats both those guys..

Think he's lower than he should be.

Evening Truss - not been on here for a while but I see you're still ruffling a few feathers on various articles.

Me??? heaven forbid!

Tunney is one of my favourite fighters but is very much a pound for pound heavyweight, is more than capable of beating almost everyone at the weight but a pair of wins over Dempsey isn't quite enough for a lofty position.

Although we all seem in agreemnet that he would have beaten the likes of Schmeling, Sharkey the fact that he didn't does have to be considered, yes two great wins over Dempsey suggest he is underated, but without a longer reign it's hard to put them into context- imagine trying to rank Holyfield if his only heavyweight fights were the two wins over Tyson and a couple of easy defences against some second tier guys- you might have reason to believe that he would be able to beat the like of lewis, Bowe etc but as the actual fights showed it didn't allways turn out like that. So we may under rate tunneys talent, but his record puts him nearer 10th than 1st in the overall rankings

Depends how much you recognise longevity in ranking fighters....

You want a Calzaghe or a guy who beats the cream over a shorter period.

There has to be a degree of longevity, can't base things on just two fights.

Gibbons, Dempsey, Heeney are 4 fights...

longevity does hurt him but like I say why beat up Sharkey and Schmelling surely they can be taken as read.

Well part of the problem Tunney faced was that after Dempsey there wasnt a huge amount of options at heavyweight for him. Schmelling had not arrived on the scene and wouldnt until a couple of years after Tunney had retired. Sharkey had lost to Dempsey, Heeney and Risko at that stage all of whom Tunney had beaten himself so he was on a downward blip and not particulalry viable. You still had average heavies like Uzcuden out there but they werent rated particularly highly.

The real tests would probably have been trying to tempt up some of the light heavies like Stribling or Loughran who would have been worthy opponents for Tunney but once Dempsey had been toppled the division hadnt a huge amount to offer Tunney in the short term and certainly nothing like the challenge or scale that Dempsey could provide. Heeney and Risko were considered the two of the most credible challenges at heavyweight after Dempsey at that point and Tunney beat them both. In hindsight you could say he could have gone on as champion for another couple of years but t the time its easy to see why he felt there wasnt much left to do, especially after beating someone as iconic as Dempsey. Anything else was going to be very pale by comparison and he wasnt to know that the likes of Schmelling or Baer were some 2/3 years down the line.

Certainlty the inconsiderable weight difference between the fighters you mention Colonel would make the fights interesting....

Like I say it's how you value longevity....and whether its for longevity's sake..etc

Always thought guys like Pedroza were overrated.....

You can't take anything as a given especially a victory over Schmeling who beat Louis lest we forget, lower reaches of the top 15 is the best Tunney can hope for.

Schmelling was very limited Ghosty.....sure he caught Louis but the rematch was very emphatic...and the ordinary Sharkey handed him is butt twice if we are honest..

Tunney could handle Jack think it's a given he handles them.

But who knows maybe I'm wrong to hand him the victories.........

I wouldnt neccessarily take beating Schmelling as a given but the two were never really rivals or contempories so I think its unfair to consider that a fight that Tunney should have fought. Even had Tunney stuck around the chances are he would have been 35 or so by the time Schmelling had become a top contender.

Didn't retire long before Sharkey and Schmelling squared off...so I don't think it's a bad match up colonel..