Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
I don't rate any white guy who never fought a black fighter, ESPECIALLY at HW. So many times he gets put in people's top 10s. Yuck.
Lately I'm hearing about how great Gene was, how he was one of the most skilled HW's of all time. Rubbish. Someone told me he was more skilled than Wlad Klitschko. I posted a vid of Gene and asked anyone to tell me what he did better than Wlad and no one said a god damn thing.
He's best known for splitting a bunch of fights with Greb (who, btw, was a real man, and apparently had no problems fighting black fighters and bigger fighters), and beating Jack Dempsey twice. Jack Dempsey was washed up at the time, and was overrated anyway. He's another guy who ducked black fighters (he had a tough fight with John Lester Johnson and retired from fighting black fighters apparently).
I don't rate any white guy who refused to fight blacks, much less in the top 10.
Enough with Tunney! He wasn't that good.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
I don't rate any white guy who never fought a black fighter, ESPECIALLY at HW. So many times he gets put in people's top 10s. Yuck.
Lately I'm hearing about how great Gene was, how he was one of the most skilled HW's of all time. Rubbish. Someone told me he was more skilled than Wlad Klitschko. I posted a vid of Gene and asked anyone to tell me what he did better than Wlad and no one said a god damn thing.
He's best known for splitting a bunch of fights with Greb (who, btw, was a real man, and apparently had no problems fighting black fighters and bigger fighters), and beating Jack Dempsey twice. Jack Dempsey was washed up at the time, and was overrated anyway. He's another guy who ducked black fighters (he had a tough fight with John Lester Johnson and retired from fighting black fighters apparently).
I don't rate any white guy who refused to fight blacks, much less in the top 10.
Enough with Tunney! He wasn't that good.
I forget any previous history with you and unsure of your stance on "nostalgia" etc.
But on this topic you have nailed every point and I could not agree more.
For the era he had a great record. But "RESUME" wise (record-bums) he is not impressive enough to make the top 10 by achievement standards.
Some great boxers ducked all or most southpaws in their careers, that's 1 thing. Ducking all black fighters is preposterous!
There'll be some who claim "Oh, but that was the times then, it was normal to duck all black fighters", I say stiff shit! If you can't fight them, you can't beat them!
When your best win is a shot Jack Dempsey who ducked all blacks and all hard punchers, you have no
claim to a toplist.
And "Tunney more skilled than Klitshko" PLEASE! The most perfected technical boxer-puncher in history is less skilled than 100 year old boxer from the "drunken era"? GTFOOH!
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ruthless rocco
Can a circle jerk work with only two morons participating? Or are you guys just gonna share the toast when you're done?
:lickish:
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
It was not a drunken era. That was the golden age of boxing where the crowds and boxing matches were huge social events. Compared to now boxing was mainstream sport that was enormous and the boxers were super stars. As a result they were tough, skilled and top of their game. Those guys would have been sad at how boxing is now as a marginalised sport where even big athletic fighters do not know how to box properly.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Well of course Tunney isn't a "great heavyweight" he fought what 3-4 times at heavyweight? But he was a great fighter and there is no doubting that.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
It was not a drunken era. That was the golden age of boxing where the crowds and boxing matches were huge social events. Compared to now boxing was mainstream sport that was enormous and the boxers were super stars. As a result they were tough, skilled and top of their game. Those guys would have been sad at how boxing is now as a marginalised sport where even big athletic fighters do not know how to box properly.
- They were not HW boxers as we call them today
- Boxing was not an enormous and mainstream sport back then, it was an American backyard contest with very little world involvement. Today it is a globalised and professionalised sport in a world with more people with far higher participation.
- Bigger fighters are generally slower and taller ones generally have more challenging balance if that's what you mean. Do not get confused with that and not "possessing" the skills.
I can't think of any HW fight off hand I've seen lately which featured less skills than Tunney or Dempsey. Really I can't!
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Well of course Tunney isn't a "great heavyweight" he fought what 3-4 times at heavyweight? But he was a great fighter and there is no doubting that.
I don't doubt he was good at what he did, but what he did then is not how it's done now.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Well of course Tunney isn't a "great heavyweight" he fought what 3-4 times at heavyweight? But he was a great fighter and there is no doubting that.
I don't doubt he was good at what he did, but what he did then is not how it's done now.
Uhhh???? He won fights....lots of them.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
It was not a drunken era. That was the golden age of boxing where the crowds and boxing matches were huge social events. Compared to now boxing was mainstream sport that was enormous and the boxers were super stars. As a result they were tough, skilled and top of their game. Those guys would have been sad at how boxing is now as a marginalised sport where even big athletic fighters do not know how to box properly.
- They were not HW boxers as we call them today
- Boxing was not an enormous and mainstream sport back then, it was an American backyard contest with very little world involvement. Today it is a globalised and professionalised sport in a world with more people with far higher participation.
- Bigger fighters are generally slower and taller ones generally have more challenging balance if that's what you mean. Do not get confused with that and not "possessing" the skills.
I can't think of any HW fight off hand I've seen lately which featured less skills than Tunney or Dempsey. Really I can't!
Boxing was massive back then it was way bigger audiences. Know your history.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Boxing was massive back then it was way bigger audiences. Know your history.
Boxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.
I know Dempsey vs Tunney set a record 120,000.
I am not sure if say Klitschko has ever made higher than that, but the relevant factor is this.
Klitschko (for example, modern champ compared to ancient champ) fills stadiums to capacity. He could easily match the figures of attendance then by having more seats and adjusting the price.
Obviously your olden days attendance totally neglects pay per view and television.
When the announcer says "to the thousands in attendance and the MILLIONS watching around the world, what does that tell you?
ONLY local and somewhat more distant Americans MAINLY could watch those fights first hand. Today, I can watch the HW championship live stream from my living room!
You see where I'm coming from? 100 years ago you would not be talking to an Australian about it right now.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Boxing was massive back then it was way bigger audiences. Know your history.
Boxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.
I know Dempsey vs Tunney set a record 120,000.
I am not sure if say Klitschko has ever made higher than that, but the relevant factor is this.
Klitschko (for example, modern champ compared to ancient champ) fills stadiums to capacity. He could easily match the figures of attendance then by having more seats and adjusting the price.
Obviously your olden days attendance totally neglects pay per view and television.
When the announcer says "to the thousands in attendance and the MILLIONS watching around the world, what does that tell you?
ONLY local and somewhat more distant Americans MAINLY could watch those fights first hand. Today, I can watch the HW championship live stream from my living room!
You see where I'm coming from? 100 years ago you would not be talking to an Australian about it right now.
Not sure about popularity on numbers :-\
Theres more people in America and the world now than there was back then so the numbers dont really compute well.
Matching numbers up without taking into consideration the vast difference in percentages is pointless.
Same thing when people try to match up champions per head per capita in each country,it balances out the whole false assertion some have "that we are better than you (cause we have got more than you) thought process."
Its down to the size of the gene pool.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Boxing was massive back then it was way bigger audiences. Know your history.
Boxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.
I know Dempsey vs Tunney set a record 120,000.
I am not sure if say Klitschko has ever made higher than that, but the relevant factor is this.
Klitschko (for example, modern champ compared to ancient champ) fills stadiums to capacity. He could easily match the figures of attendance then by having more seats and adjusting the price.
Obviously your olden days attendance totally neglects pay per view and television.
When the announcer says "to the thousands in attendance and the MILLIONS watching around the world, what does that tell you?
ONLY local and somewhat more distant Americans MAINLY could watch those fights first hand. Today, I can watch the HW championship live stream from my living room!
You see where I'm coming from? 100 years ago you would not be talking to an Australian about it right now.
Not sure about popularity on numbers :-\
Theres more people in America and the world now than there was back then so the numbers dont really compute well.
Matching numbers up without taking into consideration the vast difference in percentages is pointless.
Same thing when people try to match up champions per head per capita in each country,it balances out the whole false assertion some have "that we are better than you (cause we have got more than you) thought process."
Its down to the size of the gene pool.
and who has been swimming and pissing in the gene pool
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Boxing was massive back then it was way bigger audiences. Know your history.
Boxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.
I know Dempsey vs Tunney set a record 120,000.
I am not sure if say Klitschko has ever made higher than that, but the relevant factor is this.
Klitschko (for example, modern champ compared to ancient champ) fills stadiums to capacity. He could easily match the figures of attendance then by having more seats and adjusting the price.
Obviously your olden days attendance totally neglects pay per view and television.
When the announcer says "to the thousands in attendance and the MILLIONS watching around the world, what does that tell you?
ONLY local and somewhat more distant Americans MAINLY could watch those fights first hand. Today, I can watch the HW championship live stream from my living room!
You see where I'm coming from? 100 years ago you would not be talking to an Australian about it right now.
Not sure about popularity on numbers :-\
Theres more people in America and the world now than there was back then so the numbers dont really compute well.
Matching numbers up without taking into consideration the vast difference in percentages is pointless.
Same thing when people try to match up champions per head per capita in each country,it balances out the whole false assertion some have "that we are better than you (cause we have got more than you) thought process."
Its down to the size of the gene pool.
Yeah that is true.
@Master may have a case for it being more popular in America, I don't know and don't have figures for that on hand to compare with populations in the US at the time, so I'll decline to comment.
Worldwide I'd confidently say it's a white wash with boxings popularity now. But that would come down more to media development anyway I guess.
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
I don't rate any white guy who never fought a black fighter, ESPECIALLY at HW. So many times he gets put in people's top 10s. Yuck.
Lately I'm hearing about how great Gene was, how he was one of the most skilled HW's of all time. Rubbish. Someone told me he was more skilled than Wlad Klitschko. I posted a vid of Gene and asked anyone to tell me what he did better than Wlad and no one said a god damn thing.
He's best known for splitting a bunch of fights with Greb (who, btw, was a real man, and apparently had no problems fighting black fighters and bigger fighters), and beating Jack Dempsey twice. Jack Dempsey was washed up at the time, and was overrated anyway. He's another guy who ducked black fighters (he had a tough fight with John Lester Johnson and retired from fighting black fighters apparently).
I don't rate any white guy who refused to fight blacks, much less in the top 10.
Enough with Tunney! He wasn't that good.
That's a complete distortion of the truth. Every time his trash wasn't thrown out in time or the watermelon would come up short, Tunney would beat the fuck out of the black help.
