The Cincinnati Cobra (Charles) versus Gene Tunney who wins and why?

[billeau2]

I don't usually do threads like this but occasionally it comes up in the section where someone asks: "what fight would you give your left nut to see?" Or some other such less hyperbolic context... well you know, or perhaps one of little Alex's threads asking about the power dynamics of the pivot...

Then we have Lefty creating the style that trumps all styles...the black style!!!

So Ray wet my appetite when he, in typical Ray fashion, gave a class A summary of one of the best men to ply their trade in the light heavy division (among others). And to many of us Gene Tunney was also best at this weight, despite his success at heavyweight...The light heavies are quite the special division...Some really incredible fighters, guys who could go up and feast on guppies when the heavy weights got weak, but whom, were truly the best at light heavy...

Two of the best were Tunney and Charles. I doubt anyone would debate this frankly. Both guys were technically beyond superb. They fought in a different style, but both knew how to do everything in the ring and then some, so as they say on the iron chef:
Whos' cuisine reigns supreme!? Who wins and how? what happens?

[Joe Beamish]

I'll go with the guy who beat Archie Moore twice, over the guy who never faced a black fighter. Sorry to bring up race again (always comes up around here), but it matters here: Charles fought against much tougher competition.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Damn good fight. I feel Charles was a bit more versatile/adaptable. Tunney could keep up with a high pace(Greb) and could dish it out when he had to(Greb).

This isn't an easy fight for either, the guy who wins is winning by a round most likely. That being said I favor Tunney SLIGHTLY because he was just such a great boxer/ring technician. That would give Charles some problems. However I would like to hear other viewpoints on this.

[Ray Corso]

Two of the very best because their techniques translate to the current era in boxing. Most fans know Charles record, here's a few names prior to Marciano in 1955.
Ken Overlin (2)
Kid Tunero
Ted Yarosz
Charley Burley (2)
Jose Bassora
Joey Maxim (2)
Jimmy Bivens (3)
Lloyd Marshall (3)
Archie Moore (3)
Elmer Ray
Joe Walcott (3)
Gus Lesnovich
Joe Louis (2)
Rex Layne (3)
Bob Saterfield
Rocky Marciano (2)
He fought another twenty bouts as a heavy but he was beyond his best after 1954.

Gene Tunney fought some excellent competition also, not as many bouts but a few fighters not that well known who were quality opponents.
Leo Houck.(2)......a serious test who fought some of the best.
Battling Levinski
Harry Greb (4) (3-1)
Tommy Loughrain
Tommy Gibbons
Georges Carpentier
Jack Dempsey (2)

This is a tough fight to evaluate because they were capably of canceling each others strong points.
Ezzard moved more freely and had upper body and head movement when needed. I do think Gene had more power in his right hand and also feinted and countered very well.
Ezzard was more advanced in style and form compared to the "stiffer" looking stand up boxers simular to Tunney but Tunney only looked that way he was very advanced for his era as he showed against Dempsey.

Ezzard might stay clean and winn a close decs. or he might get reckless and decide to trade and get hurt by the more powerful puncher and Gene wins a tko/KO. I don't know but it can go either way.
It could look like Koval vs Ward with Koval being Gene and Ward being Ezzard. The main difference is the men from back then are more advanced than the current crop. Trust me, they are!

Ray

[billeau2]

Some great commentary. Yes, as hinted by some and stated by Ray...there is a cancelling out effect with these two...That is one point that makes the fight interesting. So for example, if we took the James Toney who beat Jirov and put him against Charles, it would be a matter of who would be the better technician (this is a gross simplification to make a point) and frankly? Charles imo would be too much for Toney. If we put Roy Jones against Tunney, it would be a matter of whether Jones speed could overcome Tunney's technical ability...Fairly straight forward comparison, regardless of the opinion one holds.

With Charles and Tunney we have two guys who make adjustments in the ring and to bring a variety of weapons depending on circumstances.

I will weigh in on this later, I need to cook breakfast for the family!

[billeau2]

Some great commentary. Yes, as hinted by some and stated by Ray...there is a cancelling out effect with these two...That is one point that makes the fight interesting. So for example, if we took the James Toney who beat Jirov and put him against Charles, it would be a matter of who would be the better technician (this is a gross simplification to make a point) and frankly? Charles imo would be too much for Toney. If we put Roy Jones against Tunney, it would be a matter of whether Jones speed could overcome Tunney's technical ability...Fairly straight forward comparison, regardless of the opinion one holds...Please excuse the gross oversimplification, I am doing this to make the point that when we look at a match up between Tunney and Charles it gets a lot more intriguing and complex.

With Charles and Tunney we have two guys who make adjustments in the ring and who bring a variety of weapons depending on circumstances. But I wanted to use Tunney specifically...I mean we could use the very technically proficient Michael Spinks against Charles... Why Tunney?

In my opinion as I have posted on occasion, Tunney was a man between the worlds... While Dempsey developed a theory and application we see today, ideas nurtured by such men as Jack BlackBurn (Louis' trainer) and thoroughly modern in its application...Tunney was mentored by men such as Corbet. A technical fighter, who fought the majority with gloves, but who was proficient in the old style of fighting based on fencing distances, smaller gloves and other differences.

This style looks silly to those unaware of what is happening: The punches often look windmill like, the distance is farther out to start with, the man fights off the back leg (not balanced) and because of the size of the gloves the lead was used...which can be thought of as an unpronated, piston like jab. Yet despite these differences when we see Tunney against Dempsey we see the technically accomplished movements of an expert in that form of fighting...

Charles is not committed in his attacks like Dempsey, or for that matter, Grebb... After all, Cobras stalk...then strike at unexpected moments. The spurts of activity may well occur in the grapple, Neither man goes down, and it would progress as a very technical fight the occasional counter landing. Neither man is weak from attrition in the later rounds... it probably winds up a draw!

Just as Charles was a smigeon more athletic, Tunney was a smigeon more technical....and while Charles was a little faster in the hands, Tunney had slightly faster feet. Hard to give any guy the advantage here.

[ShoulderRoll]

I think Charles was the more complicated fighter of the two, he set lots of little traps that you had to watch out for. Kind of like James Toney (who copied him) but more skilled and more athletic.

Whereas Tunney was a supreme outboxer heavily reliant on the 1-2. Not that he didn't have other punches or that he couldn't do some things on the inside, because he did and he could. Like most of his era he was well rounded because he had to be.

But in my opinion this boils down to whether Charles could get inside often enough and stay there...or would Tunney be able to circle him and stay outside for the majority of the fight?

Generally the outside fighter has the advantage in these type of matchups and if Gene could maintain his preferred distance against Dempsey then I think he could do it against anyone.

[Anthony342]

Good points. Your shirt pic still sucks though.

[ShoulderRoll]

Good points. Your shirt pic still sucks though.

Why do you say that?

[Anthony342]

Because MMA isn't easy lol. It's fine if you don't like it though.

You should try wearing that in an MMA gym and make a video of it haha.