Printable View
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...szFGWXb3Ac8GXOQuote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Hahaha that's brilliant..Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseThat'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
And I bet the hired help would have said "yes BAWWWS" lol
i was going to make an intelligent observation on this thread until i realized how quickly it went from ignorance to stupidity.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYeah that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreNot sure about popularity on numbers :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerBoxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
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.
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.
@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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterYou 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYeah that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreNot sure about popularity on numbers :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerBoxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
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.
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.
@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.
Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey were not pub fighters.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYou 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!Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterYou 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYeah that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreNot sure about popularity on numbers :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerBoxing was massive in America then. It is massive everywhere now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
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.
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.
@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.
Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey were not pub fighters.
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 Mayweather Jnr argues with woman in London barbers who claims not to know who he is | Daily Mail Online
LOL That's actually pretty funny!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
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 ;)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
LOL Yeah, yeah, you think your funny...Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Hey, wasn't John L Sullivan the first to make a $Million?
Or was that the first sportsman to make $1Mil in total?
This could be considered a racist post Beanflicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I guess Babe Ruth sucked as well. He never faced a Black pitcher.
Observational facts are not racial they just are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill PaxtomThis could be considered a racist post Beanflicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I guess Babe Ruth sucked as well. He never faced a Black pitcher.
Some are crap too, did he fight any Mexicans?
How can anyone say that.
Gene Tunney was great.
Of course Gene Tunney was great, he was once HW champ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Paxtom
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.