Why is Tunney a great heavyweight?

[Marchegiano]

The rules of historiography argue one should never evaluate a man's successes/failures or morality (I.e. his greatness) outside the context of his time, to do so is pretentious.

What is Lineal?

[cfang]

Tunney and dempsey were exceptional boxers in their time. No doubt about that. Tunneys heavy resume is limited for sure but he did only lose one fight, to most likely the greatest boxer ever. Though he was a size larger.

Dempsey is hard to rate. Reason being, he didnt fight any of the top black boxers of his era and his title reign is v poor. Mostly lt heavys and guys hed betean already. Dempsey may well have rolled over wills and some of the other guys easy but we will never know. Just compare jacks fights frim 19 to 26 against wills's amd i think its fairly clear. Wills had 38 wins, a couple of draws and a dq loss. Dempsey had 5 fights against firpo and 4 small heavys and struggled in 3 of them.

[Willie Pep 229]

What is Lineal?

Not sure where your question is going . . .

Lineal champions are a denoted succession based on the results of prize fights; there is no evaluation in recognizing them, nor does it suggest that we should compare them against one another as a measure of greatness.

Really not sure what you are asking.

[HOUDINI563]

Problem is it was not Dempseys fault in any way that the fight with Wills did not come off. Those that controlled boxing and probably many who controlled the country did not want a mixed race bout in the heavyweight division. The bout was just not going to happen. Most felt that Dempsey would destroy Wills.

Dempseys title reign has to be considered vs those that came before him. Most once winning the championship took the title on the road...exhibitions, theatre, vaudeville etc. Dempsey did the same plus the new media of the day silent film. Fighting Carpentier was no miss step. Carp was internationally famous, light heavyweight champion of the world and heavyweight champion of Europe. His credentials were better than Mike Spinks some 60 plus years later who challenged Holmes with zero heavyweight credentials.

Also Johnson claim that he threw his bout with Willard has been shot down for 70 years. Willard was fit enough to fight the world that day in Havana and was also a huge right hand puncher. He simply outlasted Johnson and landed a legit KO blow once Jack was completely spent. Nothing more nothing less. Again all well understood history for at least 70 years.

[JAB5239]

Let's look at this another way. Rocky Henderson is considered the greatest base stealer and lead off hitter in baseball history. He did it time and again proving his worth against everybody. Phelps in swimming, Bolt in sprinting, Jordon in Basketball, Gretzky, Ali and many others in their respective sports. They all continually proved themselves time and again. All had great taken as did Tunney, but they kept proving it to earn their places at the pinnacle of their sports. Tunney beating Dempsey twice is a very good accomplishment. But Jack had three fights in 5 years. After Dempsey he has the Heeney defense. And that's it. If these other greats had stopped, would they still be considered where they are today like Tunney is? I personally don't think so.

[HOUDINI563]

He also was the only fighter to stop Gibbons. Tunney asked for a fight with Wills the winner to face Dempsey in 1926. Wills declined the offer.

The bottom line for me is when you watch Tunney you see greatness as a fighter. He proved himself as a great fighter in lower weights and then bulked up to heavyweight and proved himself again by becoming champion and defeating several legit challengers. You can’t discount Tunneys attributes...superbly trained, perfect technical boxer, his taking that Dempsey hook in round 7 and getting up to win proved his will to win and toughness. Greatest pure boxer ever to hold the heavyweight championship and he checks the boxes for AT greatness. For all this he deserves to be top ten. I can’t think of a fighter who he would not give hell to.

[billeau2]

Proven is a strong term, but I didn't say he ducked anyone. I said he knew damn well he was fighting no hopers and over hyping the mission while knowing better fair was left to obscurity. I want X because I want to prove I am the best is not a phrase uttered by Jack.

Also, does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the fact that before him it'd become a bit of a tradition to fight the Colored champions prior to being champion. Dempsey made no attempt. Dempsey worked a comparatively weak path to the title then stayed on said weak path while holding the title.

You're telling me no Godfrey, Gains, Langford, or Tate fights could have been made at any point in Jack's career? Oh but Wills was not interested in a championship match with champion Dempsey and that totally absolves Jack from ducking black fighters does it? I don't think it does.


The other point, the 'great minds of the sport' I'll be honest with you. I've never found a book that was written in a dated period that isn't really ****ty. Nat Fleischer kicks us off with a mix of plagiarism and made up bull****. Funny because I didn't realize it was made up bull**** until Kevin Smith totally destroyed Nat in his caramel colored kings series. He did it nicely, but how nice can you say it's made up bull**** and plagiarism while proving the falsehoods and original works?

Also, I don't feel like you said anything to actually contradict the notion I put forward. Dempsey was idolized in writing by those who laid money down to make Dempsey an icon seems like a tainted source for a point of view.




Finally, if you want to see unfair representation of history you will surely buy a boxing book. Nothing but glorifications while minimizing or omitting the **** end of their days, and, of course there must always be a poetic end.

None of it's true though. Look into the primaries, Figg's crook and little else. Boxing starts like a WWE bull**** show and stays in the **** pretty much one way or another until Louis.

Champion's Prerogative, Lineal....****ing lineal period. NOTHING but the misrepresentation of historical titles by AUTHORS who claim to know best. Did Sullivan ever call himself Lineal? Where there even ranks? Oh but Wlad beat his number 2 so he's the lineal champion just sullivan was huh? Made up bull**** to make boxing history seem to have a glory it doesn't.

So yeah.....pretentious, sure, I don't give a **** what the opinions are of the men who write lies and make money off their well written lies. I've done too much independent research to give a ****. The IBRO asks me for favors and research....I know them well and I do not believe their grand dads were more fair. In fact, I know they weren't. The vast majority of what's left to do is covering boxers who were not covered by the great towering names of boxing history and in that endeavour every one of us has found lies and proof the author knew they were lying.

Well...Those men you describe M? They are of different opinions. there are some who have in fact come at Jack. Clompton who posts here on occasion is a big one in that regard... Jack becomes either a fraud, or to some, the greatest heavyweight there was... And obviously what we have here is such a polarization that we are in absurdville.

I am going to defend Jack on a few accounts. He wrote one of the best books in boxing, about punching. It showed he knew his craft from a technical perspective. It could even be said that Jack was the one who birthed what later became the flawless Joe Louis...created by Blackburn. Jack learned the art of the punch in a manner that was different. His use of angles in tight, his ability to force his will, and the way he located the process in the punch itself, really created a new way of fighting. Whoops should qualify this... Louis was his own creation... Just meant the process of changing the game.

Many guys in the gym, some of whom were alive to see the last days of Johnson all the way up to Tyson thought Jack was the best. fighting men's opinions IMO should carry weight. Also I made this point before: Seldom did even the great champions in the heavyweight division, fight the most steller competition. Men on average were middle weights, and it is in those divisions that we generally see great battles fought amongst equally skilled greats. This also holds true for light weights.

Dempsey is typical of many great fighters...Most! in that he did not have that magical defining foe like Ali did. Liston is another example... fought many good fighters, not so many great champions aside from Ali.

I do think the general level of competition back then was tougher... You had very few fighters who did not have some skills and toughness.

With that said this issue of Dempsey will continue to be polarized IMO. Hey its the same with Marciano right? Many trainers and even some historians swear that Marciano was unbeatable. Many others thought him not worthy of ATG status. More recently Larry Holmes, who was not thought of much became a much stronger fighter according to revisionists. Again...Look at the competition Holmes fought...same problem, different fighter. Another example? jack Johnson... and on it goes.

My own opinion is that all of us should at least once in a while consider the grey area... Mere mortals that even the best fighting men were... there is probably truth to the effect that many fighters were quite human, quite beatable, and at the same time, very talented.

I think it is beneath you to have such a polarized opinion about Dempsey...but alas that is just my own opinion. lol.

[Willie Pep 229]

He also was the only fighter to stop Gibbons. Tunney asked for a fight with Wills the winner to face Dempsey in 1926. Wills declined the offer.

The bottom line for me is when you watch Tunney you see greatness as a fighter. He proved himself as a great fighter in lower weights and then bulked up to heavyweight and proved himself again by becoming champion and defeating several legit challengers. You can’t discount Tunneys attributes...superbly trained, perfect technical boxer, his taking that Dempsey hook in round 7 and getting up to win proved his will to win and toughness. Greatest pure boxer ever to hold the heavyweight championship and he checks the boxes for AT greatness. For all this he deserves to be top ten. I can’t think of a fighter who he would not give hell to.

What always impressed me about Tunney was his ring IQ, e.g. his only KD was at the hands of Dempsey in the 'long count.' -- so many other fighters, before the 'mandatory eight-count,' use to jump off the canvas before they were ready and would then get jumped themselves, e.g Carnera v Baer.

But without any previous experience on the canvas Tunney, who took three hard punches, cleared his head, kept his cool and picked up the count, and gained every extra second he could.

I wonder, can a fighter be trained 'how to get up off the canvas' or is it something the fighter has to bring to the game himself?

[billeau2]

March.....you have no idea what you are talking about. Most everything you wrote is historically incorrect.

First the idea that Dempsey purposefully ducked Wills has been disproven for nearly 100 years. Wills years later openly stated that Dempsey had nothing to do with the fight not occurring. He himself layed no blame upon Dempsey.

Secondly the greatest minds in the sport at that time stated Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight they ever saw. This includes Ray Arcel who watched Dempsey train and fight from ringside including his poor performance vs John Lester Johnson in NY in 1916. Most reports say that Dempsey did not look great in this his NY debut. Arcel stated that in this bout “Dempsey did not look that hot”.

Sam Langford to this day considered a top 5 pfp fighter all time stated the following: “Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen”

Jack Sharkey former heavyweight champion stated the following regarding Dempsey.

“I never thought anyone could hit that hard. Dempsey would come at you in a little ball and when he hit you on the shoulder he broke your shoulder. When he hit you to the body it felt as if his fist came out your back. When he hit you on the hip he dislocated your hip.”

I could go on regarding Tunney but the film is very clear regarding his boxing abilities. Even Ali was impressed by his clever boxing some 50 years later.

Tunney is beyond reproach. I personally feel he approached the level of a Ray Robinson in his technical ability and his lack of any weakness. I don't agree with the revisionists who suddenly want Dempsey to be from an all time great to bottom barrel...But I can at least understand why some points are a matter of contention.

[louis54]

Houdini knows his stuff.....when i see tunney i see greatness