View Full Version : Floyd Patterson vs. Gene Tunney


Dempsey 1919
10-30-2005, 11:44 PM
They both were master tacticians. Who would come out on top?

M26
11-01-2005, 02:30 PM
Both good fighters. Floyd Patterson was faster, but Gene Tunney was the better boxer, he could hit harder and his chin was better.

I see Patterson giving Tunney some difficulties because of his speed, but Tunney would come out on top I believe.

Gene Tunney by UD.

fistlegend
11-01-2005, 03:29 PM
not really a fan of both boxers but i think tunney's ring dominance would win him it

habZ
11-01-2005, 04:42 PM
patterson by ko 7

Dempsey 1919
11-02-2005, 06:37 PM
floyd patterson to me is the second fastest heavyweight in boxing history (under ali). he also could hit, watch patterson-johannson II and III and you'll see. he would be too much for tunney.

patterson by 6rd. ko.

Dempsey 1919
01-10-2006, 12:40 PM
maybe i should have put up a poll?

Dempsey1238
01-10-2006, 01:04 PM
To be clear on evey one, Patterson WAS not a ring tactician, He was a slugger, the guy like to brawl. He would not keep foes at bay, by back peddling, He was going up and down like a Jack Rabbit, trying to land that left of his.

He was a lesser version of Dempsey if one wills, and of couse Tyson would used that same style in the 1980's.

LondonRingRules
01-10-2006, 02:00 PM
Tunney thoroughly outboxed a fighter a grade above Patterson in Dempsey. Floyd on the other hand never beat a fighter as good as Tunney and moreover, he did poorly against a fighter with a similar style to Tunney, Ali.

Add in Floyds weaker chin, and Tunney pitches a shutout until the 8th when he dispatches Floyd for good.

Dempsey 1919
01-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Tunney thoroughly outboxed a fighter a grade above Patterson in Dempsey. Floyd on the other hand never beat a fighter as good as Tunney and moreover, he did poorly against a fighter with a similar style to Tunney, Ali.

Add in Floyds weaker chin, and Tunney pitches a shutout until the 8th when he dispatches Floyd for good.

yeah, in your dreams. patterson is way stronger than tunney, also IMO is faster, and is a boxer and a tactician, only he uses his power from time to time, but is an excellent boxer. tunney wouldn't be able to stand-up to patterson's punching power and would be disposed of in 6 or 7.

Dempsey1238
01-10-2006, 03:00 PM
YEAH right, Tunney was dropped only 1 time. Tunney also had the power to knock you out with both hands.

And unlike Ali, Tunney knew how to get out of the clichs. And Tunney was able to shut Dempsey out in the clichs(Both matchs)

In essase, like I said, Patterson style wise, was very close to Dempsey's style, bobing and weaving and trying to land that left hook of Patterson's, The thing is, Patterson is NOT Dempsey, and I feel Dempsey had faster hand speed than Patterson(Watch the Carptnera fight when he knocks him out in round 4, fast as light, You can almost NOT see the left hook that ended it)

I think Tunney would finger out how to beat Patterson like he did Dempsey, Keep Patterson back with the jab, and at bay, and pick and wear down Patterson until the later rounds.

I dont know were this Patterson is a MASTER boxer comes from, if you watch his fights with Moore, Ingo, Liston and others, the guy was a slugger. Maybe if Patterson back peddle instand of slugging it with Liston, Patterson may have made it to the 5th or so round??

Yogi
01-10-2006, 03:26 PM
Besides the first few rounds of his fight with Chuvalo, when he used his legs and boxed from the outside behind the jab, I don't believe I've ever seen Patterson rely on that style for any sustained periods in other fights. Like others have said, what I mostly saw from Patterson was a fighter who aggressively looked to work inside with his combos and mostly came in there behind his leaping left hook. Patterson was a skilled fighter, yes (though I can't see any handspeed difference between him & Tunney, and if it's even there it's just a VERY minor difference & basically irrelevant), but I'm yet another guy who's puzzled by this "master tactician" label put on him...I just don't see it when I watch him.

Once again it seems Butterfly's attempting to spin things as a way of making Ali look better.

Dempsey 1919
01-10-2006, 05:13 PM
Besides the first few rounds of his fight with Chuvalo, when he used his legs and boxed from the outside behind the jab, I don't believe I've ever seen Patterson rely on that style for any sustained periods in other fights. Like others have said, what I mostly saw from Patterson was a fighter who aggressively looked to work inside with his combos and mostly came in there behind his leaping left hook. Patterson was a skilled fighter, yes (though I can't see any handspeed difference between him & Tunney, and if it's even there it's just a VERY minor difference & basically irrelevant), but I'm yet another guy who's puzzled by this "master tactician" label put on him...I just don't see it when I watch him.

Once again it seems Butterfly's attempting to spin things as a way of making Ali look better.

wow, everyone jumps on me i see. when i compare ali's competition with other fighter's competition, i seldom use patterson, so i don't know where you're trying to go with this. again i'll say what i've said before. the films they used to film dempsey and tunney, and everyone else at that time were fast-paced, and everyone would look fast, even rocky marciano would look quick in those old films. so i wouldn't base what you see on those films to find out if dempsey and tunney is faster than patterson.

Yogi
01-10-2006, 06:03 PM
the films they used to film dempsey and tunney, and everyone else at that time were fast-paced, and everyone would look fast, even rocky marciano would look quick in those old films. so i wouldn't base what you see on those films to find out if dempsey and tunney is faster than patterson.

Oh, please! :rolleyes:

When you watch the first Tunney/Dempsey fight it's pretty obvious that the available footage is filmed at completely normal speed. If you can't judge the film speed by watching the fighters, the referee's speed at which he moves is generally a dead giveaway...And the referee for Tunney/Dempsey I is walking around & moving at the same speed as what you'd see a ref move from the last HBO or Showtime broadcast, which is quite obvious if you watch the fight.

Dempsey 1919
01-10-2006, 06:09 PM
Oh, please! :rolleyes:

When you watch the first Tunney/Dempsey fight it's pretty obvious that the available footage is filmed at completely normal speed. If you can't judge the film speed by watching the fighters, the referee's speed at which he moves is generally a dead giveaway...And the referee for Tunney/Dempsey I is walking around & moving at the same speed as what you'd see a ref move from the last HBO or Showtime broadcast, which is quite obvious if you watch the fight.

so you're gonna tell me that that is how they filmed all fights at that time?

Yogi
01-10-2006, 06:21 PM
so you're gonna tell me that that is how they filmed all fights at that time?

That question is irrelevant, because I'm talking about one fight in particular and to me, it's clear as ****ing day that the available footage of it is at a completely normal speed.

But to answer you question...From what I see from the old fights, it was in the 1920's when footage became "normal" & was somewhat consistent in capturing the action at a normal speed. You still see a few fight films that are sped up just a little bit (like the rematch), but the first Tunney/Dempsey WAS NOT one of them.

Yogi
01-10-2006, 06:35 PM
wow, everyone jumps on me i see.

Hey, if the shoe fits... :p

Dempsey1238
01-10-2006, 07:06 PM
Dempsey Willard is the right speed,
Dempsey had pretty good hand speed, on the level of Patterson if not more.

Dempsey Brennon is the right speed, again fast hand speed, but film is in poor viewing.

Dempsey Carp is the right speed, Dempsey did not respect Carp's power, so you dont see him bobing and weaving around as he often does. Dempsey had hand speed when he knocks out Carp.

Dempsey Gibbions again is the fight speed. Other fight that shows the foot and hand speed of Dempsey.

Dempsey Firpo is slow down. a bit. maybe at the begaining of the match, but it seems a bit slow.

Dempsey Tunney 1 is the right speed, NOW of couse this is a Dempsey that has not fought in 3 years and looks real slow.

Dempsey Sharkey is the right speed, Dempsey is a little faster compare to Tunney 1, but has not relly regain his old speed,

And Dempsey Tunney 2 is speed up a BIT of couse.

Skydog
01-10-2006, 07:30 PM
Butterfly,

You're the one who said that older fights make the people look slower when comparing Ali and Tyson. Now, all of a sudden, when you're not praising Ali, the films looked faster.

Skydog
01-10-2006, 07:56 PM
And here's my proof:

it took a prime holmes 11 rounds to stop ali, and ali had parkinson's disease, was like 40 years old, and he was on drugs. holmes is better than tyson. so tyson would stop a prime 25yr. ali in three, get out of here! ali is not terrel biggs you idiot! tyson is not as fast as ali, i've watched both of them fight. not only that, but the footage they used to film tyson is far superior to the footage used to film a prime ali, the tyson footage is like high-definition, and the ali footage is hisses and pops and also in black and white; fighters look faster and better in high-def than in b&w, and ali still looked somewhat faster IMO. ali would dance away at tyson's shots and hit him at will. i've seen countless fighters hit tyson who were way slower than ali, so forget about it. frazier barely beat ali when ali was slower and only fought less than 18 rounds in four years, and IMO frazier is better than tyson, not skill wise but had more heart and stamina and would beat tyson in the long run. so your explanation is mad retarded.

Yogi
01-10-2006, 08:53 PM
Dempsey Carp is the right speed, Dempsey did not respect Carp's power, so you dont see him bobing and weaving around as he often does. Dempsey had hand speed when he knocks out Carp.

Dempsey Gibbions again is the fight speed. Other fight that shows the foot and hand speed of Dempsey.

I'd have to watch it again to be sure, but didn't the opening footage of Dempsey/Carpentier start out sped up quite a bit?

That's what I'm remembering and I think it was only that way for the first few moments when the fight footage was captured by the side view (it was only about a single minute of action, if that)...But once the fight went to more of an overhead view, the fight was shown at proper speed and stayed that way throughout the rest of the fight.

And you're right in saying the Gibbons fight is a good showcase for Dempsey's handspeed and especially his footspeed...Loved the catlike & great quickness he showed when closing in on the elusive Gibbons!

Dempsey1238
01-10-2006, 09:10 PM
I have the theater version of the fight.

And the 4 rounds of that fight is 7 each or so mins long lol.


First they show the round from the over head veiw(Full round, with out bell ring)

Than they show the close up of the round(Yeah pretty fast, but they have the bell ring round end.)

So both views were done by differnt cameral men.

It was nice to see the fight from diffent points of view.

All 4 rounds are view this way.

Yogi
01-11-2006, 02:39 AM
I have the theater version of the fight.

And the 4 rounds of that fight is 7 each or so mins long lol.


First they show the round from the over head veiw(Full round, with out bell ring)

Than they show the close up of the round(Yeah pretty fast, but they have the bell ring round end.)

So both views were done by differnt cameral men.

It was nice to see the fight from diffent points of view.

All 4 rounds are view this way.

All I have is the ESPN version of the fight, which I believe has the first two rounds backwards, if I'm not mistaken (I "think" I've heard/read that before somewhere).

The footage starts out with the camera view from the audience, before switching to the tower view for most of the rest of the fight (with both close-ups and further away shots). It does switch to a different view from the audience before the end of the fight for a couple of minutes, although it's not the same one used in the opening moments, before going back to the tower/close-up view for the finish of it.

Dempsey 1919
01-11-2006, 09:40 AM
And here's my proof:

that doesn't mean i said they speed-up the films. i meant that high-def today just make fighters look better, cause you can see every little detail than if you watch fights in the 1960s.

Dempsey1238
01-11-2006, 12:01 PM
All I have is the ESPN version of the fight, which I believe has the first two rounds backwards, if I'm not mistaken (I "think" I've heard/read that before somewhere).

The footage starts out with the camera view from the audience, before switching to the tower view for most of the rest of the fight (with both close-ups and further away shots). It does switch to a different view from the audience before the end of the fight for a couple of minutes, although it's not the same one used in the opening moments, before going back to the tower/close-up view for the finish of it.

What Espn did was cut parts of both views and kinda of mix them as one. like I said, first they show the round from over view and than they show the close up view of the round. 3 of the 4 rounds as these type of thing expect rounf 4, which they just jump to close up view, and ended with the knock, and the crowd was cheering Dempsey when he wave to them lol.

Yeah Round 2 is round 1 on Espn, OTHHER mistake.

Carp landed a punch that stagger Dempsey in round 2, on ESPN, you can see him land that punch in there "First" round.

Than they have round 1 as there round 2. :D

Than they cut some of round 3 and 4 and mix and match here and there, and boom you have round 3.

Than the left overs of round 3 and 4 are round 4, plus knockout blow.

Dempsey 1919
03-04-2007, 12:51 AM
bump......

ceboxer15
03-04-2007, 08:33 PM
Both good fighters. Floyd Patterson was faster, but Gene Tunney was the better boxer, he could hit harder and his chin was better.

I see Patterson giving Tunney some difficulties because of his speed, but Tunney would come out on top I believe.

Gene Tunney by UD.

I agree. This would be a very technical match-up, I also see Tunney winning this one.