Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gene Tunney: Would his style be effective in any era?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • QueensburyRules
    replied
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
    Catcher in the Rye, though later, written by Salinger is really about the same sort of thing... it really hammers the point home IMO.
    - -Oh, my, U now ensconced wif Salinger, Ginsberg, and Kerouac!

    Elephants & Tigers & Lions & Bears in The Greatest Show on Earth Off Grid of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
    Jack London died at age 40 from Uremic poisoning aggravated by a shot of morphine. London had progressive kidney disease.

    An interesting point is that London’s wife Charmain London died in 1955 and her diaries revealed that she had an affair with Harry Houdini. This was a shocking discovery as Houdini was always considered extremely loyal to his wife Bess.
    Well Martin Edan was semi autobiographical so I guess London divulged from his experiences concerning his own final end.

    Leave a comment:


  • HOUDINI563
    replied
    Jack London died at age 40 from Uremic poisoning aggravated by a shot of morphine. London had progressive kidney disease.

    An interesting point is that London’s wife Charmain London died in 1955 and her diaries revealed that she had an affair with Harry Houdini. This was a shocking discovery as Houdini was always considered extremely loyal to his wife Bess.
    billeau2 billeau2 likes this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mooshashi
    replied
    Originally posted by The Old LefHook View Post

    By no proof you mean that is what you would prefer to believe. Fart in your own face much?
    Eat glass. By no proof I mean no film of any Greb fight. In case you didn't know.

    Leave a comment:


  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post

    I wonder about Tunney's 'racism' - here's a weird theory for you . . . (mine)

    Tunney wanted bad to be more than a pug, and more than a tough Irish kid in a tough Greenwich Village, so he educated himself, in the end he even 'married up' ! He wanted to be a gentleman in the worst way. In a sense he kind of got there, 'in the worst way.'

    So here's the theory . . don't look at his childhood or his neighborhood (inherent) but instead look at the 'educated' opinion of his day: eugenics and all the race theory that went along.

    He loved for people to know he was well read and had opinions to share, he thought highly of himself.

    It is not a reach to think he would have bought in to all the intellectual racism of the day.

    He succeeded in becoming an elitist but he also educated himself into a racist. LOL

    P.S. The Irish thing probably counts too.
    Yes... It was a popular sentiment at the time. You had the Great Gatsby of course, but around the same time a book was written by Jack London, most people feel it was semi autobiographical in Nature... "Martin Eden." It describes very much this desire to use all things to try to improve one's station in life. Like Tunney, who was alas... a pug; London was, at the end of the day, an intelligent Strevedore. And this great tension developed with both men, knowing that despite education and eventual means, Nobody in the Gatsby Class would ever truly accept them as anything more than exotics... Alienated from all classes, London eventually committed suicide and Tunney apparently drunk himself into oblivion.

    I believe that the pathetic and petty nature of America in the 20's with its parvenues and old money, eventually led to the Melting Pot that to this day is probably the true ingenius product that defines America even more than the constitution. Instead of sctratching and clawing with the ***s, the Blacks, the Irish, the Italians (and to quote Archer Bunker "the regular Americans")... to be accepted by a decedent Bourgasei, people embraced being an American. Class consciousness went the way of the Horse and Buggy... At least to the regular folks... There will always be a power elite unfortunately.

    Catcher in the Rye, though later, written by Salinger is really about the same sort of thing... it really hammers the point home IMO.
    Willie Pep 229 Willie Pep 229 likes this.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Old LefHook
    replied
    Originally posted by Mooshashi View Post

    We can't prove it, but I'm very sure he ran from Greb when he was getting battered in their first couple fights. And in the controversial 1924 bout. He never fought a big, tough HW. He never fought anyone over 195 pounds. He'd be able to pick up a LHW trinket but modern too tier CW and HW would beat him.
    By no proof you mean that is what you would prefer to believe. Fart in your own face much?

    Leave a comment:


  • QueensburyRules
    replied
    Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
    If there is no proof why mention it?

    Tunney checked all the boxes. They don’t come greater.

    He beat Dempsey convincingly twice. The second bout was a few months after Dempsey koed the no 1 prime contender Jack Sharkey with a single punch. If you watch their first bout early on it looks as if Dempsey would overwhelm him but Tunney regrouped and then dominated. Second fight Dempsey was in supreme condition and landed a viscous 5 punch combination that would have stopped an Elephant but Tunney arose, kept his cool, and went on to gain a resounding victory.

    Size, in the heavyweight division, is way overrated. It’s in vogue today which is unfortunate as we have so many big fighters who can’t fight a lick. Tunney would put most of these unskilled but big fighters to shame. The beauty of boxing are the skills, style, watching toughness and will to win in action. Enjoying a bout because heavyweights are BIG is amateur level crap. Does not impress or interest me one iota.
    - -Only film I seen was very poor quality and imcomplete.

    Jack accepted the loss and long count, so no need to go on about what you've never seen.

    Leave a comment:


  • HOUDINI563
    replied
    If there is no proof why mention it?

    Tunney checked all the boxes. They don’t come greater.

    He beat Dempsey convincingly twice. The second bout was a few months after Dempsey koed the no 1 prime contender Jack Sharkey with a single punch. If you watch their first bout early on it looks as if Dempsey would overwhelm him but Tunney regrouped and then dominated. Second fight Dempsey was in supreme condition and landed a viscous 5 punch combination that would have stopped an Elephant but Tunney arose, kept his cool, and went on to gain a resounding victory.

    Size, in the heavyweight division, is way overrated. It’s in vogue today which is unfortunate as we have so many big fighters who can’t fight a lick. Tunney would put most of these unskilled but big fighters to shame. The beauty of boxing are the skills, style, watching toughness and will to win in action. Enjoying a bout because heavyweights are BIG is amateur level crap. Does not impress or interest me one iota.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mooshashi
    replied
    Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
    Tunney did not run from Dempsey aside from fight 2 seventh round. Instead he cleverly boxed.

    As a heavyweight Tunney was a trained down to very low body fat 190 pounds. I would not sell him short vs any past or current heavyweight champion.
    We can't prove it, but I'm very sure he ran from Greb when he was getting battered in their first couple fights. And in the controversial 1924 bout. He never fought a big, tough HW. He never fought anyone over 195 pounds. He'd be able to pick up a LHW trinket but modern too tier CW and HW would beat him.

    Leave a comment:


  • HOUDINI563
    replied
    Tunney did not run from Dempsey aside from fight 2 seventh round. Instead he cleverly boxed.

    As a heavyweight Tunney was a trained down to very low body fat 190 pounds. I would not sell him short vs any past or current heavyweight champion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X
TOP