According to boxrec.com he has now lost two times (previously he had only one listed loss to Harry Greb). It seems silly but that's how it is.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer

Tunney won the newspaper decision according to the New York Times. Loughran was knocked down in the 1st round by a right hand for a no-count. The Philadelphia Inquirer has Loughran winning which seems to supersede the New York Times.

What do you all think of this decision? Loughran was one of the biggest names on Tunney's resume, although the wins over Dempsey and Greb cemented his legacy.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lkgm5C7Xvfc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lkgm5C7Xvfc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fk3vZBMkypI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fk3vZBMkypI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
In my opinion Loughran is a very underrated boxer. The fight with Tunney would probably better be listed as a no-decision though.

[QUOTE=TheManchine;4113294]According to boxrec.com he has now lost two times (previously he had only one listed loss to Harry Greb). It seems silly but that's how it is.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer



What do you all think of this decision? Loughran was one of the biggest names on Tunney's resume, although the wins over Dempsey and Greb cemented his legacy.

I'll take exception to boxrec calling this a loss for Tunney for a few reasons. One, they are basing it on the credibility of the Philidelphia inquirer over the much more herelded New York times. Two, Loughran was a Philidelphia fighter, and three, the fight was in Philly. And four, it take boxrec more than 85 years to find this miniscule bit of evidence, but in that same time there has been no mention or controversy of this fight being a Tunney loss by any respected boxing historian I have read.

I haven't seen this fight, but will check it out when I have more time. If I think Tunney lost I will say so. But changing a mans record based on the information provided, 80 years after his last fight, is ridiculous.

I'll take exception to boxrec calling this a loss for Tunney for a few reasons. One, they are basing it on the credibility of the Philidelphia inquirer over the much more herelded New York times. Two, Loughran was a Philidelphia fighter, and three, the fight was in Philly. And four, it take boxrec more than 85 years to find this miniscule bit of evidence, but in that same time there has been no mention or controversy of this fight being a Tunney loss by any respected boxing historian I have read.

I haven't seen this fight, but will check it out when I have more time. If I think Tunney lost I will say so. But changing a mans record based on the information provided, 80 years after his last fight, is ridiculous.

I agree. It might turn out to be temporary, not sure.

This is why it's hard to have respect for people who get all of their knowledge from boxrec.com (I'm not saying people shouldn't use it), because the old records are mostly incomplete.

There's no film of the fight but I'm looking for the two newspapers that described this bout.

I did find out that while Loughran was stunned and knocked down early, he came back and fought hard for the rest of the contest.
Loughran was only at the beginning of his career at that point, the fact that he could make it close against Gene Tunney speaks of how great he was.

Loughran supposedly tried to get another fight against Tunney for the rest of his career.

I agree. It might turn out to be temporary, not sure.

This is why it's hard to have respect for people who get all of their knowledge from boxrec.com (I'm not saying people shouldn't use it), because the old records are mostly incomplete.

I find boxrec to be an invaluable tool which I use all the time. But it only scratches the surface. To get a grasp on any fighter you need to look past just the numbers and try to understand the era, enviorment and opponents opposition. This takes a loy more research than boxrec can provide.
There's no film of the fight but I'm looking for the two newspapers that described this bout.

I was going to ask you if you had ever seen this fight. I tried to youtube it, as I am sure you did, but do you know if their is film of this fight that even exists?

I did find out that while Loughran was stunned and knocked down early, he came back and fought hard for the rest of the contest.
Loughran was only at the beginning of his career at that point, the fact that he could make it close against Gene Tunney speaks of how great he was.

No doubt Loughran was great. He already had Geb, McTigue and Tunney (thank you boxrec) on his record by his 30th fight. 5 years after that he had fought a who's who of great fighters not only from that era, but all time.

Loughran supposedly tried to get another fight against Tunney for the rest of his career.

Can you point me in the direction where I can find some of this info? Thanks Manchine.

I find boxrec to be an invaluable tool which I use all the time. But it only scratches the surface. To get a grasp on any fighter you need to look past just the numbers and try to understand the era, enviorment and opponents opposition. This takes a loy more research than boxrec can provide.

I use boxrec all the time too, what I mean is when people like randy johnson, Flawless, BHopReign (not sure if you're familiar with any of them) post here about great fighters and 'break down' their records, calling all of their opponents bums because they have a few more losses in their record than modern fighters, not understanding anything about the era as you said.

I was going to ask you if you had ever seen this fight. I tried to youtube it, as I am sure you did, but do you know if their is film of this fight that even exists?

I doubt it, although I've been surprised before. I didn't know that there was film of Sam McVea, Battling Nelson and others before I saw it with my own eyes.

Can you point me in the direction where I can find some of this info? Thanks Manchine.

http://www.********boxing.com/news.php?p=17163&more=1
Here's an article about Tommy Loughran on ESB (concentrating mostly on his rivalry with Gene Tunney), if it helps.

I look for old articles from sites like NYtimes.com. I'm not paying for the full articles though... SportsIllustrated has free articles from to the 1950's and after.

Here's one:

Tommy Loughran, hailed as a possible opponent for Gene Tunney, will not be permitted to box here as a heavyweight unless he relinquishes his light-heavyweight championship crown.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F16FC3B58167A93C5A81788D85F4C 8285F9&scp=7&sq=gene%20tunney%20loughran&st=cse

I use boxrec all the time too, what I mean is when people like randy johnson, Flawless, BHopReign (not sure if you're familiar with any of them) post here about great fighters and 'break down' their records, calling all of their opponents bums because they have a few more losses in their record than modern fighters, not understanding anything about the era as you said.

I see it all the time from many posters. It use to bother me, now I just laugh at their ignorance.

I doubt it, although I've been surprised before. I didn't know that there was film of Sam McVea, Battling Nelson and others before I saw it with my own eyes.



http://www.********boxing.com/news.php?p=17163&more=1
Here's an article about Tommy Loughran on ESB (concentrating mostly on his rivalry with Gene Tunney), if it helps.

You the man! Thanks much.

I know that record keeping might not have been perfect back then, but surely there was basic agreement over the win/loss record the top fighter in the entire sport?

Boxrec does seem to be flawed in a couple of ways. For example they often put future fights in their schedule based upon rumours, as I remember them doing with DLH-Tito 2 not long ago.

Found some more information on this from the boxrec.com forums:

"Not many boxers could outbox Tunney at this stage of his career, but Loughran was one of them. Aware of that, Tunney tried hard to knock out Loughran, but never came close after the opening round, and the fight appeared to have been even by the end. While there could be no official decision, the majority of sportwriters at ringside - most of them from the Philadelphia-area newspapers - gave their verdicts to Loughran.

"'Tommy Outclasses Gene in Sensational Bout After Weathering a Storm in First Round,' read the somewhat misleading sub-headline in the following day's Philadelphia Inquirer. As it was, it went into the record books as a no decision fight. Tunney himself knew it had been close, but felt he had won the bout, as did virtually all of the New York sportswriters who were present." Tunney, p. 168 (italics added)

A report below from the Newcastle Times, Penn.
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 25.—Gene
Tunney, o£ New York, former llght-
heavyweight champion o£ America,
defeated Tommy Loughran of Philadelphia,
at the National League
baseball park here last night. TunnEy
weighed 173 pounds and Loughra,
was 10 pounds lighter.
Tunney landed a hard right on
Loughran's jaw in the first round
and Tommy went down for a count of
nine. Loughran came back gamely
and made a great battle, so much so
that some sport writers were inclined
to judge the match a draw.
Tunney was bleeding from the
mouth and nose much of the time.
Loughran took the offensive In the
last round, but Tunney's body blows
had him weak in the final minutes.

http://forum.boxrec.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=90055

Many seem to think that the Loughran-Tunney fight should be listed as a draw or a no contest.

Tunney's "loss" to Loughran has been changed into a no decision by boxrec.com.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer

Good. It should have been

BOXREC isn't a reliable source for fights -1940's........

I'm actually about to upload a Gene Tunney tribute video that I made recently.

I'm actually about to upload a Gene Tunney tribute video that I made recently.

Cool, are you part of that BoxingUnion channel on U Tube?

Cool, are you part of that BoxingUnion channel on U Tube?

Yes although I only upload the highlight videos that I've made on that channel.

Just had a look and it has it as a draw?

Also haven't that updated one of the Greb fights to a draw too?
Fair bit of thought that Greb should have nicked one of their other fights maybe the draw is a nod to that?

Just had a look and it has it as a draw?

Also haven't that updated one of the Greb fights to a draw too?
Fair bit of thought that Greb should have nicked one of their other fights maybe the draw is a nod to that?

Seems like the outcomes of certain old time fights change almost on a monthly basis at boxrec.com. This thread is from 2008 by the way, back when they changed a win over Loughran to a loss to Loughran for Tunney.

Seems like the outcomes of certain old time fights change almost on a monthly basis at boxrec.com. This thread is from 2008 by the way, back when they changed a win over Loughran to a loss to Loughran for Tunney.
Ah someone must have bumped it.
That draw for Tunney v Greb has changed recently though or is it my old eyes?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXRw0XfAsmM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXRw0XfAsmM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

According to boxrec.com he has now lost two times (previously he had only one listed loss to Harry Greb). It seems silly but that's how it is.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer



What do you all think of this decision? Loughran was one of the biggest names on Tunney's resume, although the wins over Dempsey and Greb cemented his legacy.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lkgm5C7Xvfc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lkgm5C7Xvfc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fk3vZBMkypI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fk3vZBMkypI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
In my opinion Loughran is a very underrated boxer. The fight with Tunney would probably better be listed as a no-decision though.

That is just absurd. There is nothing else to say but that. Why would they take the word of one newspaper over another when the one they are using is from that fighters hometown?

It has been a ND for eighty plus years, so why change it now? Is there some Philly guy now running boxrec? Give me a break! It was a ND at the time and everyone was happy with that. Who the hell are boxrec to change history so flippantly?

I'm actually about to upload a Gene Tunney tribute video that I made recently.

Hey mate, that was fantastic.

I think some of these guys that refuse to believe that any fighter from before the 1970's could beat some one today only needs to look at fighters like Tunney, Gans etc. They would rule whatever era they were in.

Although, in fact, I believe that a champion in era could be a champion in another era, though there are some exceptions, most of those being champions from very weak eras or half the champions today...literally.

As Ali was stating though, Tunney could have fought in any era the same way he fought then and he would give whoever hell. He was slick, good chin, fast, defensively great, had very good combinations.....everything a fighter could want and he was a big LHW. Not by today's standards, but he was a genuine LHW, not a little guy that just moved up to LHW. He could have been a Byrd-esque Hw today even.

I think one of the biggest problems facing a lot of people is that they can't look past the frame rate of old video. If you see some old videos in the frame rate they had back then, they look like monkeys bouncing about half the time, because large percentages of their full movement is cut out and so it makes them look jerky, uncoordinated and as if they have no technique.

However, when you see the great fighters in slow motion which means you can see much more of their movement as it would have looked like now, they look no different than anyone fighting today. They do have stylistic differences obviously, but these were also due to things that would not be hard to change from era to era. The very slick fighters of today hold their hands low just as they did back then for the same reasons too (which was to be able to confuse the opponent as to when you were going to throw a jab as you can flick it out much quicker from your hip and it's harder to tell when it's coming etc etc), though the right is held up more now.

Argh....ranting again. :lol1:

Great vid A. :fing02:

Hey mate, that was fantastic.

I think some of these guys that refuse to believe that any fighter from before the 1970's could beat some one today only needs to look at fighters like Tunney, Gans etc. They would rule whatever era they were in.

Although, in fact, I believe that a champion in era could be a champion in another era, though there are some exceptions, most of those being champions from very weak eras or half the champions today...literally.

As Ali was stating though, Tunney could have fought in any era the same way he fought then and he would give whoever hell. He was slick, good chin, fast, defensively great, had very good combinations.....everything a fighter could want and he was a big LHW. Not by today's standards, but he was a genuine LHW, not a little guy that just moved up to LHW. He could have been a Byrd-esque Hw today even.

I think one of the biggest problems facing a lot of people is that they can't look past the frame rate of old video. If you see some old videos in the frame rate they had back then, they look like monkeys bouncing about half the time, because large percentages of their full movement is cut out and so it makes them look jerky, uncoordinated and as if they have no technique.

However, when you see the great fighters in slow motion which means you can see much more of their movement as it would have looked like now, they look no different than anyone fighting today. They do have stylistic differences obviously, but these were also due to things that would not be hard to change from era to era. The very slick fighters of today hold their hands low just as they did back then for the same reasons too (which was to be able to confuse the opponent as to when you were going to throw a jab as you can flick it out much quicker from your hip and it's harder to tell when it's coming etc etc), though the right is held up more now.

Argh....ranting again. :lol1:

Great vid A. :fing02:

I agree that the speed and quality of the film makes a big difference. I adjusted a few recent fights to look like films from the early 1900's. Bernard Hopkins looked like a modern Jack Johnson with all the clinching he did against Calzaghe while Calzaghe just looked silly with his slapping punches. Mayweather didn't look too great keeping his hands at his waist and it was easy to miss whether a punch landed on him or not with his shoulder roll defense.