Gene Tunney is not an all time great HW

[Andre]

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.

[Max Power]

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

[powerpuncher]

i was going to make an intelligent observation on this thread until i realized how quickly it went from ignorance to stupidity.

[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.

[Max Power]

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!

[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

[Max Power]

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

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

[Max Power]

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.

[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.

[greynotsoold]

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.

He also married an heiress, and his son was a US Senator from california.

[Max Power]

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.

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?

[Bill Paxtom]

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.

[Andre]

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?

[Bill Paxtom]

How can anyone say that.

Gene Tunney was great.

[Max Power]

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.