Why is Tunney a great heavyweight?

[billeau2]

- -IBRO rates them ahead of Rocky and always has.

yeah... Makes sense. new experts!

[louis54]

Tunney was one of the greatest technicians ever....absolutely one of the best heavyweights ever !!!

[HOUDINI563]

Among all heavyweight champions Tunney was among the best conditioned and the best technical boxer.

[louis54]

Yes he was

[QueensburyRules]

Among all heavyweight champions Tunney was among the best conditioned and the best technical boxer.

- -And water wet, sky blue, and who knew?

[Marchegiano]

It's all well and good to say things like Dempsey was faster or Tunney was a technician but those are nothing but handed down opinions from a 100 years ago. Neither actually did all that much in the division, and, both are really what defines a hypejob.

Weak resume being promoted as if it's something special in a weak era being promoted as if it isn't. Rather than seeing the million dollar gate as a sign of clear, overt, historical, hype, we point out things like the Hall of Fame still kisses their asses....yes, I bet they do....And all the people who were alive to pay for that million dollar gate still had fond memories of the glory days and wrote about them years and decades later huh? Hmmm, the **** else would you expect them to say? When grandpa was young he bought a ticket to the biggest sporting event in the world and remembers it like it was the pinnacle of boxing huh? Well no ****.


Sometimes revision is needed. Dempsey and Tunney are not even real champions, Tunney did next to nothing at HW. Dempsey took his title off a guy who to this day is suspected of having won his own in a fix then proceeded to fight the world's who's-who of never did anything at HW themselves contender types like Firpo, Carpentier, ****ing Miske.


If ANYONE anywhere near the present fought a guy like ****ing Miske they'd ridiculed more than Fury was for Schwarz for sure.

Dropped his title to a LHW who himself defended it once against another sad as **** Miske level nothing in Heeney.

They're sad ass champions actually and there's only so long the glorification of the past can hold on. The reason they're not even real champion is because of the colorline. Everyone knows if Dempsey fought the Colored champions of his day his resume wouldn't need to feature piss-poor acts like Jimmy ****ing Darcy.

So what you have is a pair of champions with resumes filled with losers, upside down records and all, who didn't last long, won their titles off suspect champions in the first place, and refused a good portion of the talented fighters of their day.


Yeah, I am a revisionist. It's time for you old men to sit the **** down. Dempsey's a champion from an era when boxing was just tuning up and outside of his massive hype I don't see any reason at all why he should get such high praise over a guy like Louis.

To drive that nail farther. Burns, Hart, and Jeffries at least fought the great colored champions or their day before becoming the HW king and drawing the colorline. Dempsey didn't. He just fought a **** show until he got KO'd by Flynn, then he worked the fans by fighting the best whites while knowing they're **** and using black men as sparring partners to ensure he had complete knowledge of the talent difference between ****ing Miske and Wills or Godfrey.


Louis fought everyone. Yes he fought the **** shows, he also fought the best white HWs and best black HWs and reigned over boxing totally for the first time in gloved boxing history. Dempsey does not deserve Louis's respect.

[HOUDINI563]

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.

[Willie Pep 229]

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.

[HOUDINI563]

True. It’s imperative that those who try to discuss the history fully understand the history. Most all revisionists do not. Instead they pick and choose snippets and then look at them through recent history.

[Marchegiano]

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.

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.