-
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!
-
Can a circle jerk work with only two morons participating? Or are you guys just gonna share the toast when you're done?
-
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.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
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.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...szFGWXb3Ac8GXO
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
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.
Hahaha that's brilliant..
And I bet the hired help would have said "yes BAWWWS" lol
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
i was going to make an intelligent observation on this thread until i realized how quickly it went from ignorance to stupidity.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
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.
You are a muppet, with technological advances of course it is bigger now because of the world wide audiences. At that time these fighters were household names, people can not name the top ranked US fighter let alone the current champion in the heavyweight division.
Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey were not pub fighters.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
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.
You are a muppet, with technological advances of course it is bigger now because of the world wide audiences. At that time these fighters were household names, people can not name the top ranked US fighter let alone the current champion in the heavyweight division.
Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey were not pub fighters.
You want to know why Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney were known names and current top US boxers less so? Because Dempsey and Tunney were the CHAMPS! And they were heralded as testaments to nationalist pride!
Today, Jennings, Arreola, PErez, Thompson and Wilder, they are second fiddle to European boxers like Klitschko, Pulev and Povetkin. It should come as NO SURPRISE.
The moment let's say, Deontay Wilder beats STIVERNE (if possible), let alone Wladimir, the media in the US will be lit up with his picture all over the news and EVERYBODY who doesn't even follow boxing will learn very quickly who the new champ is, trust me!
And if a US boxer ever beats WK or otherwise becomes a unified champ, boxing will undergo a stark "revitalisation" like never before.
Everybody knows who Floyd Mayweather is don't they? That's because he is the champ!
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
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.
You are a muppet, with technological advances of course it is bigger now because of the world wide audiences. At that time these fighters were household names, people can not name the top ranked US fighter let alone the current champion in the heavyweight division.
Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey were not pub fighters.
You want to know why Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney were known names and current top US boxers less so? Because Dempsey and Tunney were the CHAMPS! And they were heralded as testaments to nationalist pride!
Today, Jennings, Arreola, PErez, Thompson and Wilder, they are second fiddle to European boxers like Klitschko, Pulev and Povetkin. It should come as NO SURPRISE.
The moment let's say, Deontay Wilder beats STIVERNE (if possible), let alone Wladimir, the media in the US will be lit up with his picture all over the news and EVERYBODY who doesn't even follow boxing will learn very quickly who the new champ is, trust me!
And if a US boxer ever beats WK or otherwise becomes a unified champ, boxing will undergo a stark "revitalisation" like never before.
Everybody knows who Floyd Mayweather is don't they? That's because he is the champ!
Floyd is famous because he was on strictly come dancing - nothing else.
Floyd Mayweather Jnr argues with woman in London barbers who claims not to know who he is | Daily Mail Online
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
LOL That's actually pretty funny!!
I don't know if you remember but I in fact cannot stand Floyd Mayweather. For me he is the most hated boxer of all time and for what I call great reasons.
He encapsulated everything for me what is wrong with boxing today, not Wladimir or the HW's.
Perhaps he was not a good choice because he is so unloved by nearly all, but whether for good reasons or bad, everyone knows him (and not just for that LOL).
Let's say he is "INFAMOUS".
Anyway Tunney was a great boxer and a great for the sport too (duh). I just don't think he edges a toplist considering the discussed points. There is nothing special you can point to and say he achieved like say, Jack Johnson, that puts him above atleast 10 other guys even in the most subjective measure of greatness. My opinion though.
As for his competitiveness vs more modern HW's, CW's or even LHW's... I'll spare you further thoughts on that matter. As your little mate Rocco pointed out, you've heard that before ;)
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Regarding the article:
Haha, that was funny.
Mike Tyson is beyond doubt the most renowned boxer of all time across any nation, any era, any division, I hope we can agree on that point.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Thank you for acknowledging that Gene Tunney was a pioneer of his time. He received first million dollar cheque, retired champion and was a skilled boxer.
He was extremely good looking and had a chiseled body too just the way you like it.
http://famousdude.com/images/gene-tunney-07.jpg
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Thank you for acknowledging that Gene Tunney was a pioneer of his time. He received first million dollar cheque, retired champion and was a skilled boxer.
He was extremely good looking and had a chiseled body too just the way you like it.
http://famousdude.com/images/gene-tunney-07.jpg
He also married an heiress, and his son was a US Senator from california.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Thank you for acknowledging that Gene Tunney was a pioneer of his time. He received first million dollar cheque, retired champion and was a skilled boxer.
He was extremely good looking and had a chiseled body too just the way you like it.
http://famousdude.com/images/gene-tunney-07.jpg
LOL Yeah, yeah, you think your funny...
Hey, wasn't John L Sullivan the first to make a $Million?
Or was that the first sportsman to make $1Mil in total?
-
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.
This could be considered a racist post Beanflicker.
I guess Babe Ruth sucked as well. He never faced a Black pitcher.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Paxtom
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.
This could be considered a racist post Beanflicker.
I guess Babe Ruth sucked as well. He never faced a Black pitcher.
Observational facts are not racial they just are.
Some are crap too, did he fight any Mexicans?
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
How can anyone say that.
Gene Tunney was great.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Paxtom
How can anyone say that.
Gene Tunney was great.
Of course Gene Tunney was great, he was once HW champ.
But it's also clear that Tunney ducked the blacks purely because of the colour of their skin (and obviously because he and the general American public at the time could never accept it if a black should BEAT him and become HW champ!)
That's why I would exclude him from top 10 over other champs that faced ALL comers!
Even my nemesis Muhammad Ali did much more for boxing and fought against whoever was relevant in the day.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Thank you for acknowledging that Gene Tunney was a pioneer of his time. He received first million dollar cheque, retired champion and was a skilled boxer.
He was extremely good looking and had a chiseled body too just the way you like it.
http://famousdude.com/images/gene-tunney-07.jpg
LOL Yeah, yeah, you think your funny...
Hey, wasn't John L Sullivan the first to make a $Million?
Or was that the first sportsman to make $1Mil in total?
Sullivan earned a million wow. Did not know that in all seriousness. Gene got the cheque in the Dempsey fight I think.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Thank you for acknowledging that Gene Tunney was a pioneer of his time. He received first million dollar cheque, retired champion and was a skilled boxer.
He was extremely good looking and had a chiseled body too just the way you like it.
http://famousdude.com/images/gene-tunney-07.jpg
LOL Yeah, yeah, you think your funny...
Hey, wasn't John L Sullivan the first to make a $Million?
Or was that the first sportsman to make $1Mil in total?
Sullivan earned a million wow. Did not know that in all seriousness. Gene got the cheque in the Dempsey fight I think.
Yeah he did, I suspect Sullivan was the first person to earn a million dollars from his whole career though. That would have been a fortune in the late 1800's!
Gene earned a $Million for one fight vs Dempsey!!!
I wonder what that would be adjusted for inflation. Approximately 90 years. Unreal!
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
But didn't Tunney beat all the white guys who beat the black guys makes it a wash sort of for him. I think it is bullshit they didnt fight blacks but hey that was the times dude. I mean Willard beat great black champ and Look what Dempsey did him fucking killing. As for today they would get fucking killed Walds jab could tear Tunney and Dempsey faces off i mean they might die. Saying that i think with how far ahead Tunney was if he had all the shit they have today and the Training he could be great Lhw.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
In 1900 the average industry wage was $439 per year.
Average house $5000.
So one million was a shit load.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
A million was crazy cash back then you could probably spit in the president's face and get away with it with that kind of dough.
But with all that money to be made, it's just a shame punks like Tunney never gave black fighters a chance to earn a decent living.
In the end he probably made the right choice though, because if him and Dempsey had regularly fought the black fighters of the time, I doubt we'd be talking about them.
Stanley Ketchel fought black fighters, so did Greb, Pep, Lamotta, Marciano, ect. So no, I don't take guys like Tunney or Jack Dempsey seriously.
On this forum I see guys like "Oh if only we had Dempsey or Tunney here today, they'd clean up the HW division." Bull shit. Never mind Wlad, do you think those guys would be up for fighting a 6'8'' black guy with a 100% KO ratio? Or a 6'3'', 240lb black guy like Stiverne?
If you could go back in a time machine and bring prime Dempsey and Tunney to the present, they'd be terrified to get in the ring, and that's a fact. Neither of them would break the top 10.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
why does this thread have to even mention black or white? We're just talking about Tunney.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
why does this thread have to even mention black or white? We're just talking about Tunney.
Because blacks tend to rule the sport and if you ain't fighting black fighters, you're missing out on a ton of great competition.
If Tommy Morrisson didn't have to fight black fighters he would have retired undefeated except for the AIDs.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
why does this thread have to even mention black or white? We're just talking about Tunney.
Because blacks tend to rule the sport and if you ain't fighting black fighters, you're missing out on a ton of great competition.
If Tommy Morrisson didn't have to fight black fighters he would have retired undefeated except for the AIDs.
Yes that Aids will get you. ;D
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
A million was crazy cash back then you could probably spit in the president's face and get away with it with that kind of dough.
But with all that money to be made, it's just a shame punks like Tunney never gave black fighters a chance to earn a decent living.
In the end he probably made the right choice though, because if him and Dempsey had regularly fought the black fighters of the time, I doubt we'd be talking about them.
Stanley Ketchel fought black fighters, so did Greb, Pep, Lamotta, Marciano, ect. So no, I don't take guys like Tunney or Jack Dempsey seriously.
On this forum I see guys like "Oh if only we had Dempsey or Tunney here today, they'd clean up the HW division." Bull shit. Never mind Wlad, do you think those guys would be up for fighting a 6'8'' black guy with a 100% KO ratio? Or a 6'3'', 240lb black guy like Stiverne?
If you could go back in a time machine and bring prime Dempsey and Tunney to the present, they'd be terrified to get in the ring, and that's a fact. Neither of them would break the top 10.
LOL "Punks like Tunney", I like your style.
Yes everybody intuitively knows that Stiv and Wilder would knock any of those guys out with the first connected, off centre jab LOL.
I don't think Tunney or Dempsey could really have made an impact on the light HW division today, they don't have all around skills.
I think Kovalev would have knocked them out and the Andre Ward of a few years back clowned them.
-
Re: Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
why does this thread have to even mention black or white? We're just talking about Tunney.
Because ducking black fighters is one of the hallmark attributes of Tunney's (and Dempsey's) career.
Everybody knows that in early times, racist motives were involved in keeping black boxers out of the HW championship.
Therefore it's very relevant when considering how great Tunney and Dempsey were to consider the impact of their decisions to duck them. Beanflicker gets it!
