Gene Tunney - The mysterious disregard in P4P lists..

Strange one this....Not only did he beat a Top 5 Heavyweight of alltime coming up from lightheavy twice....Finish with a 65-1-1 record....Beat respected contenders like Gibbons and former 175 great Carpentier..Retire as undefeated for years..

But arguably his greatest accolade was a 3-1-1 record of arguably the greatest Middle of alltime Harry Greb..

No one got the better of him..One loss was avenged thrice...

Yet in P4p lists he is never near the top 10..

American lightheavy champ in 23...Which is as good as the real thing and undisputed Heavy if he wanted for years..

Does anyone give Schmelling or Sharkey a prayer ??..

Think I will start a Gene Tunney appreciation Society...Because his status in P4P land is an insult.

Gene Tunney's lack of recognition always niggles with me, too. I can't really put forward any idea why it is that he is somewhat forgotten,either. Way back when, the public had latterly gotten behind Dempsey in a big way and he suffered from being in his shadow. The same was said about Larry Holmes and Ali.

In my opinion there wasn't a myth built up about him because he wasn't easy to understand and thus wasn't particularly marketable. He was actually similar to Jack  Johnson in one regard- he didn't think that he had to act like a boxer outside of the ring; when he was actually a deep thinker and had other pursuits that people just couldn't square with the heavy champ of the world.And as we saw with Lennox Lewis, having an "uncharismatic" personally can impact the critic's judgement rather heavily (at the time).

I'm not sure I would put him in the top ten, but I think he DOES have a great shout at it, would put him somewhere just either side of the number ten myself.
I think he's a hard match-up for any heavyweight and I wonder ho low he would of done against Jeffries -their styles would have made for a bit of a chess match, I reckon

Great article, Truss, but is Tunney all that underrated or disregarded? I seem to remember him making lots of top tens and fifteens on here back in the day when that kind of stuff was regularly debated. I guess you must be talking about elsewhere, in which case I'm a little out of touch with which historical fighters are in vogue right now!

No doubt he was undersold in the decades immediately after his career, and for a long time he did struggle to get his due. Jack Cavanaugh's biography of him gives some decent insight into this, suggesting that rather than heaping praise on Tunney, a lot of contemporaries instead used Gene's win over him to negatively re-assess Dempsey instead. The story wasn't Tunney showing his greatness, it was Dempsey being exposed as being not as great as many thought. Dempsey was obviously seen as a phenomenon at that point, and the controversial knockdown aside Tunney made him look pretty pedestrian in both fights.

I also wonder if him never holding the Light-Heavyweight title costs him. He's forever connected to the legend of Dempsey and didn't face anyone at 175 with anywhere near the enduring appeal that Dempsey has - a lot of historians of the sport almost seem to forget he has a great record at Light-Heavy before he'd even moved up to Heavyweight. In fairness, Tunney himself said that in the long-term, the Heavyweight crown was always his dream and he had Dempsey in his sights for many years before they eventually clashed, but I get the impression that some historians and fans basically view Tunney as primarily a Heavyweight - and granted, if you do that, he's not of the elite bracket.

If there is a slight knock on Tunney at 175, it's that the big names he beat tended to be just a pinch past their absolute best by the time he faced them, with the timing being more favourable to Gene than them, or that he had a weight advantage over them (in the case of Greb), but even allowing for that I'd have him inside my top give Light-Heavyweights ever.

Superfly knew more about Tunney than any other poster I can recall on any boxing board, so hopefully this one will tempt him into a visit. I'm sure he'll be able to add some good stuff.

For me, Tunney wouldn't quite crack my top ten but I could see him anywhere from let's say #12 to #25. I know that seems like a huge variance, but it's the age-old problem: there are about fifty names who arguably deserve a top twenty-five spot or who you could make a realistic argument for. It's been a long time since I've given it a proper go, but Tunney basically always made my top fifteen back in the day, and I suspect he still would now.

Tunney has been a favourite of mine for a number of years.   A top 5 light heavyweight and although his place amongst the heavies is harder to gauge due to the lack of fights, it's not unreasonable to suggest that he was the best heavyweight between peak Dempsey and Louis.  He was certainly the best fighter that Dempsey faced and had they ever fought, would have been in the argument for the best fighter that Louis ever faced.  

I think the issue with Tunney is that he has always been underappreciated and that has somehow filtered down into modern pound for pound lists.  His style wasn't particularly crowd pleasing for the average boxing crowds of the time and there were question marks over his masculinity when compared against the big hitting aggressive fighters like Dempsey.  The existence of that perception of Tunney is shown by a couple of quotes from men he fought:

Jack Dempsey - "I don't care what they say about him, he is certainly a man in the ring"

Harry Greb - "I know that he is not a natural fighter and does not look like a fighter.  But at the same time nobody beats him much.  He is one of those fellows who will not be beaten."

Had he been born even a short while later and not been directly compared against a fighter like Dempsey, there's every chance that he would have been more favourably looked upon at the time and that would have filtered down over the years and he'd now be more favourably placed.

There's also the issue of what looked like a premature retirement.  A motivated Tunney controls that heavyweight division for as long as he wants, at least until Louis comes along and that additional longevity would have counted for a lot.  If he'd have done that , he's potentially a top 10 all-time heavyweight which put together with his light-heavy record would make a very high p4p placing difficult to argue with.

Double post

Lovely stuff. Can I ask, what would be your Tunney dream match-ups?

Not much to add to what's been said already but echo Super's sentiment that his retirement was more than a tad premature. If you chuck in Schmeling, Sharkey, Delaney or a fully fledged victory over a 'prime' Tommy Loughran or even Maxie Rosenbloom you're talking about someone almost guaranteed of an overall top ten placing. The reality is he'd have won all of the fights based on his Dempsey performance but it's a should have and that doesn't mean a lot in reality. The fights were there for him.

Fantasy match up i'd have to go with Ezzard Charles, one of those where weight could play a big part. If it's at Light Heavyweight i'd back the speed and punch variety of Charles to win the day but at Heavyweight i'd probably favour Tunney who looked more comfortable with the added weight and hadn't lost a step.

Charles is a good match-up and Soul's assessment seems about right - Charles the favourite at light heavy and Tunney the more natural and comfortable heavy.  

I think a fight with Joe Louis is the fight I'd have wanted to see most - particularly as they didn't miss each other by too many years and their respective styles match up well.  

Louis would start as favourite, but given his struggles against a naturally smaller and more mobile 'boxer' like Billy Conn, it's not difficult to imagine him struggling against Tunney who was a clear upgrade on Conn - he hit harder than Conn and was a good deal smarter than him.  Saying that, Louis was an upgrade on anyone else that Tunney fought at the weight (with Dempsey definitely being past his best and not able to replicate the speed of his earlier years which had been so important to his success) and I think Louis eventually gets to him with that stalking style of his and ability to cut off the ring.  Tunney was tough though, he took a horrible beating off Greb in their first fight and kept going to the end and long count or no long count, he kept his head after being caught hard by Dempsey, so wouldn't be all that easy to stop him.  

Budd Schulberg picked Tunney to beat Louis, but that's probably more than a little influenced by his close friendship with Tunney.

Great replies....Think Tunney has Holmes syndrome to a certain extent...Following a great that has been alluded to....Perhaps also Greb is more of a purist treasure than a widely known name... Chris...I can't remember the 606 lists but I don't see him in many 10s on others..

As for dream matchups...love to put Tunney in with all of them from 195 pound Corbett to Patterson who wasn't  that big.

Got my 25 quid PPV money ready .

Tunney had the skill of Billy Conn but would Louis boil down to 200 ?...For a threat like Tunney . Conn wasn't given a prayer.

..Either way its 60/40 Louis.....

My dream fight would be Johnson v Tunney...Probably be the only one there mind but what an exhibition of pure boxing..

I'll upset Super and say Johnson nicks it over 25 in the Noon day Sun...

Thanks for the replies..Enjoyed reading them.

A long long time ago we all did our top 15's and Tunney placed at 11 once they were collated together which seems about fair to me. That same list did however have Whitaker at 17 which now seems far too low. In the divisional rankings Tunney placed third at 175lbs and 14 at Heavyweight

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7= Jofre
7= Fitzsimmons
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Tunney
12. R. Leonard
13. Pep
14. Gans
15. Ross
16. Moore
17. Whitaker
18. Wilde
19= Louis
19= Saddler
21. Walker
22. Monzon
23. Hagler
24= Chavez
24= Hearns
24= R. Lopez
24= Hopkins
24= Gavilan

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Great replies....Think Tunney has Holmes syndrome to a certain extent...Following a great that has been alluded to....Perhaps also Greb is more of a purist treasure than a widely known name... Chris...I can't remember the 606 lists but I don't see him in many 10s on others..

As for dream matchups...love to put Tunney in with all of them from 195 pound Corbett to Patterson who wasn't  that big.

Got my 25 quid PPV money ready .

Tunney had the skill of Billy Conn but would Louis boil down to 200 ?...For a threat like Tunney . Conn wasn't given a prayer.

..Either way its 60/40 Louis.....

My dream fight would be Johnson v Tunney...Probably be the only one there mind but what an exhibition of pure boxing..

I'll upset Super and say Johnson nicks it over 25 in the Noon day Sun...

Thanks for the replies..Enjoyed reading them.

I wouldn't argue with that if they're fighting under Johnson's conditions - Johnson maybe even finishes it earlier. Tunney's advantages of speed and mobility would be negated by the conditions and the length of the fight. Harder to imagine Johnson fighting Tunney under the conditions of Tunney's time even though there weren't too many years between them. Dempsey and then Tunney himself really pioneered (at heavy anyway) a move away from the style of Johnson's era.

Soul Requiem wrote:

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7= Jofre
7= Fitzsimmons
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Tunney
12. R. Leonard
13. Pep
14. Gans
15. Ross
16. Moore
17. Whitaker
18. Wilde
19= Louis
19= Saddler
21. Walker
22. Monzon
23. Hagler
24= Chavez
24= Hearns
24= R. Lopez
24= Hopkins
24= Gavilan

Arguello must feel hard done to...wouldn't have Lopez higher than him...Obviously Manny and May should be above Hearns..as much as I like him....Chavez is an interesting one not sure if he belongs on that list or not...Taylor and Whittaker were robbed.but that is nitpicking . 130 and 135 he was untouchable...Apart from Laporte who pushed him at 130

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Great replies....Think Tunney has Holmes syndrome to a certain extent...Following a great that has been alluded to....Perhaps also Greb is more of a purist treasure than a widely known name... Chris...I can't remember the 606 lists but I don't see him in many 10s on others..

As for dream matchups...love to put Tunney in with all of them from 195 pound Corbett to Patterson who wasn't  that big.

Got my 25 quid PPV money ready .

Tunney had the skill of Billy Conn but would Louis boil down to 200 ?...For a threat like Tunney . Conn wasn't given a prayer.

..Either way its 60/40 Louis.....

My dream fight would be Johnson v Tunney...Probably be the only one there mind but what an exhibition of pure boxing..

I'll upset Super and say Johnson nicks it over 25 in the Noon day Sun...

Thanks for the replies..Enjoyed reading them.

I wouldn't argue with that if they're fighting under Johnson's conditions - Johnson maybe even finishes it earlier.  Tunney's advantages of speed and mobility would be negated by the conditions and the length of the fight.  Harder to imagine Johnson fighting Tunney under the conditions of Tunney's time even though there weren't too many years between them.  Dempsey and then Tunney himself really pioneered (at heavy anyway) a move away from the style of Johnson's era.  

Underestimating your Man....Tunney and Jack were both 6ftish and there was only 7 or so pounds in difference in weight when they won the title..

Johnson was a little like Wlad (smarter version) in the way he liked to come forward and maul ..Tunney enjoyed ring a ring a Rosie so he could probably draw him in..

Why I had Johnson nicking it ..Close to pickem for me...Tunney was quicker than anyone Jack faced...

Soul Requiem wrote:A long long time ago we all did our top 15's and Tunney placed at 11 once they were collated together which seems about fair to me. That same list did however have Whitaker at 17 which now seems far too low. In the divisional rankings Tunney placed third at 175lbs and 14 at Heavyweight

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7= Jofre
7= Fitzsimmons
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Tunney
12. R. Leonard
13. Pep
14. Gans
15. Ross
16. Moore
17. Whitaker
18. Wilde
19= Louis
19= Saddler
21. Walker
22. Monzon
23. Hagler
24= Chavez
24= Hearns
24= R. Lopez
24= Hopkins
24= Gavilan

Always interesting to look back on these, I'm guessing this must have been a good decade or so back?

Agree with Truss that Lopez making a top 25 (well, a top 28 if you want to be clever about it) probably flatters him a bit. I recall a time when he was very popular on here (largely thanks to Tino's trumpeting of him, which he did brilliantly in fairness!) and I probably rated him a bit higher back in 2011 or so than I do now. Excellent fighter but I have my reservations about his overall level of opposition in comparison to the guys he's alongside in that list, and his puzzling reluctance / inability to move up to 108 only after a lot of the better quality fighters who were there in the nineties had left the division.

Jofre, Gans and Wilde maybe a shade too high, for me. Possibly Ali as well, but that's very marginal. The likes of Arguello, Spinks, Jones, Mayweather and Pacquiao all conspicuous by their absence, albeit in the latter three cases we might have agreed not to rank active fighters at the time.

But again I should say, back in 2011 or so I may well have held the opposite view on these matters. As well as the guys I've mentioned above, none of McGovern, Ryan, Canzoneri, Basilio, Napoles, Sanchez, Nelson or Holyfield etc. made our top 25 either, but while I'd consider some of them quite leftfield choices, I think you could (and some guys do) make a reasonable argument for any of them to be included depending on what you value most and what 'pound for pound' means to you.

The list above has Tunney bang on in my opinion, as I did think he belonged  exactly there.
There have been some persuasive arguments for Duran here over recent years, however I can’t accept he has a better skill set than Ray Leonard although  record wise he probably has the edge.
The list included Hopkins who of course was still active, so that can’t be why he is there and Jones isn’t. That’s a big mistake in my view, but I guess the format of the list is going to disappoint fans in this way.

[/q]
Budd Schulberg picked Tunney to beat Louis, but that's probably more than a little influenced by his close friendship with Tunney.
[/q]
Do you know Budd Schulberg’s philosophy?Do it to them before they do it to you.

Good point re: Hopkins, Derek. I guess the consensus on here at the time must have been that, though he was still active, he was unlikely to do anything else to either enhance or harm his legacy either way, whereas Floyd and Manny were still writing their stories and had a bigger window for enhancement or damage. It must be that, as Hopkins being above either of them (even in 2011) seems odd to say the least.

Have to admit, around that time I probably was at least amenable to the idea of Hopkins belonging above Jones, if not in favour of it. Safe to say it didn't take me too long to snap out if that, though! Hopkins obviously one of the greats, but clearly trailing Roy in my opinion. We're all a little susceptible to losing sight of the bigger picture now and then, I guess, and assessing Jones' greatness at a time when his shell was getting smacked around by the likes of Danny Green and Denis Lebedev was bound to unfairly impact him, even if only a little.

That list was based on the top 15 of 18 different posters, those at the bottom were picked once at 15.

88Chris05 wrote:Good point re: Hopkins, Derek. I guess the consensus on here at the time must have been that, though he was still active, he was unlikely to do anything else to either enhance or harm his legacy either way, whereas Floyd and Manny were still writing their stories and had a bigger window for enhancement or damage. It must be that, as Hopkins being above either of them (even in 2011) seems odd to say the least.

Have to admit, around that time I probably was at least amenable to the idea of Hopkins belonging above Jones, if not in favour of it. Safe to say it didn't take me too long to snap out if that, though! Hopkins obviously one of the greats, but clearly trailing Roy in my opinion. We're all a little susceptible to losing sight of the bigger picture now and then, I guess, and assessing Jones' greatness at a time when his shell was getting smacked around by the likes of Danny Green and Denis Lebedev was bound to unfairly impact him, even if only a little.

I think the last point is correct and there was a lot of negativity about Jones Jnr around that time, particularly from posters like Coxy who used to make ridiculous claims that Jones Jnr would lose to people that Coxy had only read about on Boxrec.

The problem was that a lot of people on here were heavily influenced by great posters like Windy, the captain and jeff as to the greatness of certain historical fighters without necessarily having the knowledge of those fighters that those posters carried and also without the ability that Windy and the others had to place modern fighters in context and give them their proper dues.

I think Eder Jofre is a case in point and I'll hold my hands up and say that I almost certainly elevated him up my own rankings because of how well windy and the captain used to write about him. He went from someone who I'd typically have had around the 15-20 mark up into my top 10 when in reality his record probably doesn't merit such a high ranking. More recently, I've tended to place him in the lower part of my top 20 and people like Floyd (definitely) and Manny and Jones Jnr (likely) deserve to be ranked ahead of him.

superflyweight wrote:

I think the last point is correct and there was a lot of negativity about Jones Jnr around that time, particularly from posters like Coxy who used to make ridiculous claims that Jones Jnr would lose to people that Coxy had only read about on Boxrec.  

The problem was that a lot of people on here were heavily influenced by great posters like Windy, the captain and jeff as to the greatness of certain historical fighters without necessarily having the knowledge of those fighters that those posters carried and also without the ability that Windy and the others had to place modern fighters in context and give them their proper dues.  

I think Eder Jofre is a case in point and I'll hold my hands up and say that I almost certainly elevated him up my own rankings because of how well windy and the captain used to write about him.  He went from someone who I'd typically have had around the 15-20 mark up into my top 10 when in reality his record probably doesn't merit such a high ranking.  More recently, I've tended to place him in the lower part of my top 20 and people like Floyd (definitely) and Manny and Jones Jnr (likely) deserve to be ranked ahead of him.

The ridiculous claims always lead to equally ridiculous counter claims; Coxy knew very little in general.

That's a very good point about Jofre, his later career wins add to his legend but in reality Saldivar was finished, at the time I had him as high as 9. I'm not even sure i'd have him in the top twenty now; Arguello, Monzon and Chavez should be rated above him for the sheer breadth of their resumes. Eight title defences isn't anything to be sniffed at but doing that at Bantamweight just isn't the same as doing it in the higher weights.

There was another big one for me at the time, growing up you're always told of the great Rocky Marciano who would have beaten Muhammad Ali and you start believing it. I got into countless never-ending arguments about how good he was, ten years later and suddenly I can the truth (or what I believe to be the truth) behind his legend and I don't think it's all that pleasant.

Gene Tunney tend to be my cut off with things like this now, anything before that and i'm relying too much on the word of others; Greb being the one exception because that record speaks for itself.

I think it's healthy to revise opinions and ratings of certain fighters from time to time. I think if you take an interest in the history of the sport then you'll have biases towards eras, styles, weight classes etc. which change with the passing of time and are quite cyclical. At least that's the case for me. A 180 degree turnaround can easily become a 360 eventually as well. I probably rated Marciano higher than a lot of people on the old 606 about 15 years back. 10 years ago on here I rated him quite a bit lower than most on here. Now I'm back to probably having a kinder opinion of him than a lot of others would.

With Jofre it tended to be the way the Harada losses were glossed over more than anything which I found a little hard to take. No shame at all in losing to Harada (actually, while we're on the subject of great pound for pounders, I've long thought that Harada is criminally underrated and should be much higher up people's lists than he ofen is) but a narrative seemed to build up around Jofre that those defeats didn't really subtract from his standing because he was an old man himself and because the decisions were dodgy. Neither are really true.

Granted, 29 back then for a Bantam might not have been smack-bang prime, but Jofre was no old man and definitely didn't fight like one against Harada. And while I can see a case for Jofre nicking the first fight depending on what you like, he was clearly more seriously hurt around round four (from memory - don't take that as gospel) than Harada ever was during the fight, and it's perfectly reasonable to think that Harada might well have got that decision even if the fight had taken place outside of Japan. Harada won the second one a little more convincingly, so while it doesn't necessarily make him a better or greater fighter overall, he did get the better of Jofre over thirty rounds.

Again, no shame in losing two close and competitive fights to a genuine great in Harada, but Harada was the best Bantam he faced by some distance, so it's not something which can be written off as a fluke or inconsequential to his rating, for me. I don't think there are as many mitigating factors for those losses as some others do.

This was your list from back then Chris;

1a) Henry Armstrong
1b) Ray Robinson
3) Harry Greb
4) Ezzard Charles
5) Muhammad Ali
6) Sam Langford
7) Roberto Duran
8) Bob Fitzsimmons
9) Benny Leonard
10) Eder Jofre
11) Ray Leonard
12) Barney Ross
13) Gene Tunney
14) Pernell Whitaker
15) Carlos Monzon

Apart the aforementioned Jofre and the omission of the modern guys looks pretty decent, always good to see Monzon high up. I'd be discounting Langford and Fitzsimmons personally.

Cheers Soul, blast from the past!

As we've touched on already, I'd omit Jofre now. I think Ross might still make my top twenty or so if I gave it proper thought, but I was probably being a wee bit too kind for him with that #12 placing. Great fighter though, and still a big historical favourite of mine.

Not quite sure I'd have Monzon that high these days either, although it's hard to say who'd replace him. I've got Whitaker in there, and since his pomp I'd say the three guys who have legitimate top fifteen claims would be (predictably) Jones, Mayweather and Pacquiao. Probably couldn't have them all in, but wouldn't be able to leave them all out if I was having a go at it now, either.

As the years go by the less relevant pound for pound seems.

If you take Monzon, one of the very best title reigns across all divisions but only did it at one weight. You then take Pacquiao, no title reign of real significance but did it across so many weights. It's near on impossible to compare the two and not really that important when they never fought in the same division. Arguello or Mayweather, far easier to compare and brings into play a fantasy match up.

Sure no one will mind if you bump the thread..Soul.

Chris is old-time Heavy in that list.

I imagine he rates Manny and Mayweather higher than sweet pea now....

Yeah, still a bigger fan of Pea than I am of Floyd, Truss, but I have to concede that Mayweather did surpass him in my opinion.

I'm not one hundred percent sure either way about Pacquiao compared to Whitaker, hence posing the question on here a few weeks back. Obviously Pacquiao could be got at and troubled even during his peak years in a way that Whitaker generally wasn't, but I think there is a claim that Pacquiao's CV reads more impressively than Whitaker's, depending on what you like.

I think Whitaker, Jones, Mayweather and Pacquiao are the clear top four from the last 30-odd years, and I can see why anyone could come up with a different way of ordering them at any given time.

Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-corbett#181233

Derek Smalls wrote:Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-corbett#181233

I'm not even a particular fan of boxing (especially modern boxing, which is too much in the control of the promoters), but I always read these threads because there is so much knowledge on display and a good way of me learning more about boxing's history. To give you an idea of the type of fight I like, the best I can recall watching was Dennis Andries against Jeff Harding - just an absolute war, where you got the impressiont they'd both have been OK with a ring no bigger than a phone box.

Derek Smalls wrote:Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-corbett#181233

Sorry if that came across grumpier than I meant it to, it wasn't directed at anyone currently posting on here.

dummy_half wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-corbett#181233

I'm not even a particular fan of boxing (especially modern boxing, which is too much in the control of the promoters), but I always read these threads because there is so much knowledge on display and a good way of me learning more about boxing's history. To give you an idea of the type of fight I like, the best I can recall watching was Dennis Andries against Jeff Harding - just an absolute war, where you got the impressiont they'd both have been OK with a ring no bigger than a phone box.

We need to get the numbers on the board back up, dummy_half, so feel free to swing by a little more often in that case!

I love the Andries-Harding series, fantastic trilogy. Obviously not one for the absolute purists, but boxing is still a fight at the end of the day, and those were some ferocious ones.

I suggested a while back that Clinton Woods might have been the biggest overachiever the UK has produced in recent decades, but Andries has a fair claim as well.

I'd chuck Ricky Burns into the mix too Chris, didn't possess what you'd call natural talent but made the absolute most of the gifts he did have which were a world class chin and fitness. The fact he was a three weight world champion is a bit of a nonsense but he had a very fine career overall.

Derek Smalls wrote:Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-
corbett#181233

Corbett v Tunney....Get the time machine and here is my 26 pound ppv money..

See Windy was on that thread..Those were the 606 days..

I agree with him...Corbett was taller..Naturally heavier and probably had a bigger reach than Tunney...Good fight.

Corbett's  habit of jabbing and holding..punches in bunches coupled with decent Footwork and speed gave Fitz nightmares so I imagine Tunney would struggle with his physical superiority...

I'd pick Tunney because Corbett tired badly after drubbing Fitz early and I imagine it would be at noon in the Nevada heat.

But I wouldn't bet the house on Tunney...Corbett had a good whack and his fight with Jackson showed he had great heart..

Tunney ko 22...

dummy_half wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-corbett#181233

I'm not even a particular fan of boxing (especially modern boxing, which is too much in the control of the promoters), but I always read these threads because there is so much knowledge on display and a good way of me learning more about boxing's history. To give you an idea of the type of fight I like, the best I can recall watching was Dennis Andries against Jeff Harding - just an absolute war, where you got the impressiont they'd both have been OK with a ring no bigger than a phone box.

I think that Dennis Andries was discussed a little on here fairly recently. Funnily enough that’s my comfort blanket era also. One thing I hadn’t noticed til Chris pointed it out though, that he beats Fury’s infamous self uppercut in the stakes of most amusing punch ever thrown! Got to love Andries, he had such will to win.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:Crumbs, Superflyweight, spare a thought for us plebeians who have to catch a few crumbs of wisdom from others whilst we tread water!

Coincidentally, I saw a thread a good decade old which was about Tunney and it sure does have some good contributors.

https://www.606v2.com/t7077-gene-tunney-vs-james-j-
corbett#181233

Corbett v Tunney....Get the time machine and here is my 26 pound ppv money..

See Windy was on that thread..Those were the 606 days..

I agree with him...Corbett was taller..Naturally heavier and probably had a bigger reach than Tunney...Good fight.

Corbett's  habit of jabbing and holding..punches in bunches coupled with decent Footwork and speed gave Fitz nightmares so I imagine Tunney would struggle with his physical superiority...

I'd pick Tunney because Corbett tired badly after drubbing Fitz early and I imagine it would be at noon in the Nevada heat.

But I wouldn't bet the house on Tunney...Corbett had a good whack and his fight with Jackson showed he had great heart..

Tunney ko 22...

Wise opinions ,I think Tunney would use his feet to keep Corbett safely out of harms way.

Soul Requiem wrote:I'd chuck Ricky Burns into the mix too Chris, didn't possess what you'd call natural talent but made the absolute most of the gifts he did have which were a world class chin and fitness. The fact he was a three weight world champion is a bit of a nonsense but he had a very fine career overall.

Yeah Burns is a pretty good shout as well, Soul. I guess you need to be careful labelling anyone an overachiever, because it's not like Burns was ever some lumbering type with no degree of skill at all. But starting with Martinez he certainly had a 2-3 year run which surprised most people.

Also, while you could argue that Crawford wasn't at his best yet at 135, it's still to Burns' credit that he gave him a better argument than a few bigger names have since. He was well beaten, but certainly not embarrassed.