Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
    The way I see it they drew first blood. And it's not just the fandom that have been douches towards boxing, it's also their broadcasters and president too.

    But it's fine. In the end I don't think we need or even want their respect anyway. Boxing will continue to chug along in some form or another regardless, like it has for hundreds of years.
    its hard to say who started the smack talk. If you look at the demographic for MMA its schizophrenic. By contrast I can show you a whole specific latin demographic that has been with boxing and will be with boxing in any latin area. When you cross ethnic lines you get working class, middle class individuals who like the sport. Its pretty cut and dry in boxing.

    In MMA meanwhile in the old days you had martial artists. We were considered violent felons because of how the fights looked... a lot of blood, though superficial injuries lol. Then MMA got a whole infusion of guys with bellies wearing tap out shirts... But meanwhile a whole new type of individual started training in, and enjoying the sport. These new types love the sport, only like the aspects of the arts that apply to the game, and tend to think wrestling and boxing are the most important arts that apply. This has changed from when Jiu Jitsu and kick boxing were the root arts mentioned most frequently.

    When you train guys in MMA you see the difference. The guys with the 3 teeth send their kids to train, and the more cerebral types want more information that is useful.

    I think Dana White, Joe Rogan and the gang do a decent job with the art frankly. Rogan is very well spoken and I like White. I don't think MMA competes with boxing viewer wise...actually both sports benefit from the cross viewing it creates. Talent wise? thats another story. Its kind of strange... Where we are now is this idea that the grappling can be learned by training to nullify a few techniques and understand the guard and mount, because one sets up ground game from these positions, meanwhile MMA is telling people to learn as much as they can about boxing.

    It used to be the opposite. people were fascinated by the grappling and it was thought to be infinitely complex! At the end of the day it just depends on how talented the fighters are...ground and pound only goes so far.

    MMA is not easy. The training is difficult and takes a lot of wind. The stand up is not as bad as boxers think...it functions a certain way because of what someone closing distance on a puncher can potentially do to the individual and because of the size of the gloves. Its just a slightly different application of punching technique.

    Oh and I wanted to make the point about talent: MMA and boxing do compete from the same talent pool of fighters who are looking for a career. So this is where the rivalry starts. Modern fighters are just not as well versed because they all start later... Its not so much about a guy learning to box at an early age, or do MMA at an early age. It looks that way because of the difference in hitting techniques. Jugs is right as rain about this: striking in MMA is a talent onto itself...has nothing to do with the potential to box well. Certainly one can take elements of boxing to apply to MMA, just as they can Thai Boxing, and even chain punching (Wing Chun etc), but its a different environment with little parity in actual application.
    Last edited by billeau2; 01-21-2017, 09:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      film on Tunney with Corbet

      This video clip is instrumental in understanding some of the concepts that Tunney still held to. I know Corbet looks "off" given the modern style of fighting. But there is great value to his methods...they allowed Tunney to be a success. Tunney also adapted methods that were perfected with fighters like Dempsey.

      One will notice that corbett operates from fencing distance. His distancing is very technical in that he sets his attack up from a distance out, even anticipating parries. His punch extension is quite good, though it looks strange (his uppercut and cross lol). But the old ways had some amazing technical strengths! Setting traps, parries, fighting off the back foot until attacking the person, one could also be very tricky and elusive with distancing when punching...Corbet makes it look like he is reaching when at the last second he slightly pronates and catches the chin on his cross and uppercut. Guys from this period like Corbet and Mace were amazing defensive fighters. JJ could parry all day and laugh at you...thats how much time he had to react to your punches lol.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMdot7QW9Mo

      Comment


      • #23
        i give charles a slight edge in this fight, tunney has the bigger power and better footwork, ezzard's flashy work on the inside will look better to the judges. i think charles has the edge in handspeed, and if we are talking the young charles here, fought a much more aggressive style almost similar to greb's. if charles can take tunney's shots, and force some quick exchanges inside a smaller ring he can grind out a 15 round decision

        Comment


        • #24
          Im with Iron Dan on this one. This would be a fight I would want to see if I could choose any, and trying to give either guy an advantage is impossible.

          I have been on a Tunney roll lately because he seemed to integrate both the old and modern boxing style so well. just an amazing fighter, like Charles he could fight up and down from heavyweight with no problem.

          Charles was more the quinnessential modern fighter. Very precise punching, great sense of angles and movement...no real weakness.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by phallus View Post
            i give charles a slight edge in this fight, tunney has the bigger power and better footwork, ezzard's flashy work on the inside will look better to the judges. i think charles has the edge in handspeed, and if we are talking the young charles here, fought a much more aggressive style almost similar to greb's. if charles can take tunney's shots, and force some quick exchanges inside a smaller ring he can grind out a 15 round decision
            I believe this about Ezz's earlier style too. Do you have a link to back up the belief? I can't find the one that made me feel that way in the first place. If Charles was the young tiger I think I saw in a short clip long ago, I would probably switch my vote.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by The Old LefHook View Post
              I believe this about Ezz's earlier style too. Do you have a link to back up the belief? I can't find the one that made me feel that way in the first place. If Charles was the young tiger I think I saw in a short clip long ago, I would probably switch my vote.
              i have an old boxing book which has a big section on ezzard Charles, including eyewitness descriptions of his fights at 175 when he fought like a buzzsaw. one of the old timers in the book said the young Charles was very aggressive and a devastating finisher once he smelled blood, it's not real tangible proof but I believe the old man and based on this I think the younger aggressive charles is the man to beat tunney. the book was written in the mid 80's but most of it is about greb/walker and slightly later 1940's fighters. I bought the book at value village for $4.99 because of all the black and white photos of the old time fighters, and it was worth every penny

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by phallus View Post
                i have an old boxing book which has a big section on ezzard Charles, including eyewitness descriptions of his fights at 175 when he fought like a buzzsaw. one of the old timers in the book said the young Charles was very aggressive and a devastating finisher once he smelled blood, it's not real tangible proof but I believe the old man and based on this I think the younger aggressive charles is the man to beat tunney. the book was written in the mid 80's but most of it is about greb/walker and slightly later 1940's fighters. I bought the book at value village for $4.99 because of all the black and white photos of the old time fighters, and it was worth every penny
                Let me get this straight... your discussing Charles based on a purchase at Value Village!!? Truly a man after my own heart. Thats a great find. I love thrift stores. I have found all kinds of great stuff, even some great books but never found a nice boxing book like that. Valus Village has some great stores also. man they closed down this great one that was in the middle of these projects...best vv ever!

                Comment

                Working...
                X
                TOP