Tunney & The Absence Of Black Fighters On His Resume.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Dumb and Dumber. Nat has to approve his work sorta like U minder keep U in BarneyBigBoys…

I only heard that Fleischer made one change to Rickard's rankings.

In 1924 Rickard had placed Wills over Dempsey and Sid Terris over Benny Leonard because both Dempsey and Leonard had been inactive.

Fleischer didn't like that logic and changed the formatting from the top ten to a champion and then the top ten.

Other than that challenge I believe, (but who knows,) Fleischer respected Rickard's choices.

I do stand on the argument that in the 1920s Fleischer needed Rickard's prestige, as Ring Magazine was slowly building its reputation.

It did not over night become what it would be.

[Ivich]

How does this look for both Dempsey and Tunney not fighting black fighters? When every white fighter from Corbett to Willard did. Does that lower their greatness? To me it does.

Corbett fought one and never defended against one.

Willard fought one, to gain the title and immediately announced he would not fight another

[Ivich]

I am saying Tunney was the best man fighting above 174 pounds from 1923-1928. Not Dempsey or Wills.

I would pick Tunney to beat Wills.



Give me Wills top 5 wins, with the ages and condition of his opponents. This could get interesting.

I have seen Wills on film and he disapoints.

You have seen an old,past his prime Wills .

[Dr. Z]

You have seen an old,past his prime Wills .

I have seen Wills vs Fripo and Madden when he was 35 and active and he was not very good.

I offer you the same.

Give me Wills top 5 wins, with the ages and condition of his opponents. This could get interesting. Did Wills beat anyone decent under 32 years of age? Well ???? His resume is full of older shop worn men, while he was in his prime.

Tunney's top 5 wins are better.

Meanwhile some of Wills looses, DQ' s, NC's, and draws are of the stinky variety.

[Ivich]

I have seen Wills vs Fripo and Madden when he was 35 and active and he was not very good.

I offer you the same.

Give me Wills top 5 wins, with the ages and condition of his opponents. This could get interesting. Did Wills beat anyone decent under 32 years of age? Well ???? His resume is full of older shop worn men, while he was in his prime.

Tunney's top 5 wins are better.

Meanwhile some of Wills looses, DQ' s, NC's, and draws are of the stinky variety.

Wills was 2 years older than his stated age Klompton researched it and proved it. He was 37 .

ps FRIPO? How many times over the years have you spelt his name wrong?
I don't have time this morning to prove you wrong yet again I'm going to a funeral,if I have time,tonight or tomorrow .before I fly out on my holiday I will do so.
Try to stay on message!
NB The subject is Wills was past prime, not a comparison of his wins vis a vis Tunney but still Wills has the better record.

[QueensburyRules]

I only heard that Fleischer made one change to Rickard's rankings.

In 1924 Rickard had placed Wills over Dempsey and Sid Terris over Benny Leonard because both Dempsey and Leonard had been inactive.

Fleischer didn't like that logic and changed the formatting from the top ten to a champion and then the top ten.

Other than that challenge I believe, (but who knows,) Fleischer respected Rickard's choices.

I do stand on the argument that in the 1920s Fleischer needed Rickard's prestige, as Ring Magazine was slowly building its reputation.

It did not over night become what it would be.

- - Rickard not dumbo like U. He ran every thing through Nat and viceversa as any well run venture needs. Rickard was part of the Marketing package by Ring and Ring gave him the additional gravitas he needed as a promoter trying to make fights.

[Ivich]

- - Rickard not dumbo like U. He ran every thing through Nat and viceversa as any well run venture needs. Rickard was part of the Marketing package by Ring and Ring gave him the additional gravitas he needed as a promoter trying to make fights.

Total rubbish!
By the time Fleischer started the RIng [1922,] Rickard was acknowledged as the number 1 promoter in the world and he had been since 1910 when he won the purse bid to promote FOTC Johnson v Jeffries,having already promoted Gans v Nelson in1906.

Rickard promoted Dempsey v Willard in1919 and gained control of MSG in1920 he was" Mr Boxing."

Following this up with Dempsey v Brennan in 1920

Then with FOTC 2 Dempsey v Carpentier in1921,and Dempsey v Firpo in1923.

Plus he promoted lots of the lower weights Rickard needed no confirmation of his status from a young relatively unknown journalist.

Rickard was aided and abetted financially by Mike Jacobs in return for Jacobs getting rows of prime seats to scalp at prohibitive prices.You don't know what you are talking about!

[Marchegiano]

I only heard that Fleischer made one change to Rickard's rankings.

In 1924 Rickard had placed Wills over Dempsey and Sid Terris over Benny Leonard because both Dempsey and Leonard had been inactive.

Fleischer didn't like that logic and changed the formatting from the top ten to a champion and then the top ten.

Other than that challenge I believe, (but who knows,) Fleischer respected Rickard's choices.

I do stand on the argument that in the 1920s Fleischer needed Rickard's money, as Ring Magazine was slowly building its reputation.

It did not over night become what it would be.

Fixed

[Ivich]

Wills was 2 years older than his stated age Klompton researched it and proved it. He was 37 .

ps FRIPO? How many times over the years have you spelt his name wrong?
I don't have time this morning to prove you wrong yet again I'm going to a funeral,if I have time,tonight or tomorrow .before I fly out on my holiday I will do so.
Try to stay on message!
NB The subject is Wills was past prime, not a comparison of his wins vis a vis Tunney but still Wills has the better record.

Okay
Wills Wins.Under 32
Fred Fulton 29
Kid Norfolk28
Bartley Madden31
J L Johnson 22
J L Johnson 25
Homer Smith 28
Battling Jim Johnson27
Battling Jim Johnson29
Sam Langford 28
Sam Langford 30
Sam Langford 30
Sam Langford 30
Jeff Clark 29
Weinert 28
Floyd Johnson 25
Sam McVey31

Tunney's Wins Under 32
Weinert 26
Weinert 27
Spalla 30
Madden 24
Dempsey
Heeney
GAME SET & MATCH!

[Anthony342]

Nice to see Ring's BS actually held to some level of account.

Y'all hanging Nat for being a liar and con-artist too or y'all still pretending he did something of value when he stole other people's research and mixed it with his own made-up bull**** we now know is not true?

I mean, okay, selling ranks to promoters, cool, nice spin there Pep. Now let me see you spin the fact that this man's historic credentials, which Ring relied heavily on, are stolen writings and what it isn't stolen has been proven untrue.


Nat's no authority on boxing. It's crazy to me that y'all are able to tell yourself, okay, he made up and stole his history and made a career out of that, but, def was using Tex for acclaim doe


Pep you dumb as **** bro.

So if Nat isn't whose like "the guy" when it comes to boxing history? Anyone at Ring or someone else? Because I would like to read what information they have and learn more about the sport, like I have read here.