IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Tunney V Charles, Head to Head
and the NEW
post Mar 6 2009, 02:13 AM
Post #1


Super Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 3,046
Joined: 20-May 04
Member No.: 333



Here is one I have been thinking of, initial instinct goes with Charles as he was probably a better all-round fighter, but I thought Tunney was an absolute supurb boxer.

Any opinions?

I will have to think about this one some more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JonnyBlaze
post Mar 6 2009, 03:00 AM
Post #2


The Savage


Group: Members
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Chi-Town
Member No.: 6,227



QUOTE(and the NEW @ Mar 6 2009, 03:13 AM) [snapback]427207[/snapback]
Here is one I have been thinking of, initial instinct goes with Charles as he was probably a better all-round fighter, but I thought Tunney was an absolute supurb boxer.

Any opinions?

I will have to think about this one some more.

I really like this match up a lot..Good thinking on this one..I think I'm going to have to think about this one myself before saying anything more..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
STEVENSKI
post Mar 10 2009, 07:05 PM
Post #3


Chief Haterizer


Group: Team BU
Posts: 10,592
Joined: 30-May 04
From: Sydney
Member No.: 91



Wow. Good to see some people on here like the classics & are prepared to discuss it.

I like both guys in this & think in is a 50/50 proposition.

Charles was the better fighter & Tunney was a superb tactician with a scientific brain when it came to fighting. If pushed I would take Charles but it would be hard fought & possibly controversial.

Thank god we do not suffer the Mike Tyson vs the World debates anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JonnyBlaze
post Mar 10 2009, 07:58 PM
Post #4


The Savage


Group: Members
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Chi-Town
Member No.: 6,227



QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Mar 10 2009, 08:05 PM) [snapback]427569[/snapback]
Wow. Good to see some people on here like the classics & are prepared to discuss it.

I like both guys in this & think in is a 50/50 proposition.

Charles was the better fighter & Tunney was a superb tactician with a scientific brain when it came to fighting. If pushed I would take Charles but it would be hard fought & possibly controversial.

Thank god we do not suffer the Mike Tyson vs the World debates anymore.

This is such a good match up it really is hard for me to come to a decision..I think it would be a toss up fight..Ya all know I like to break down fights but this one is extremely hard to do..I still don't know who I'd favor..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
and the NEW
post Mar 10 2009, 08:56 PM
Post #5


Super Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 3,046
Joined: 20-May 04
Member No.: 333



Yeh, I've been viewing both their fights again, to try and break it down.

I agree with my original sentiments, that Charles it the more complete fighter (infact, I personally believe Charles is one of the most complete fighters in boxing history), but Tunney I feel was probably better from just in the pocket, so could have boxed his way a little better than Charles (though perhaps Loughran dismisses this assumption). I would not think eithers power would be enough to stop the other, but Charles power would definately be more telling.

I think this one would be close, but give me Charles based on superior infighting, as well as holding his own from the outside and getting the harder shots off. But Tunney puts up a true and honest effort against a legend such as Charles (who would be without doubt in my top 10 of all-time and perhaps even top 5 P4P).

Two great light-heavyweights here, two masters of the craft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JonnyBlaze
post Mar 10 2009, 11:12 PM
Post #6


The Savage


Group: Members
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Chi-Town
Member No.: 6,227



QUOTE(and the NEW @ Mar 10 2009, 09:56 PM) [snapback]427581[/snapback]
Yeh, I've been viewing both their fights again, to try and break it down.

I agree with my original sentiments, that Charles it the more complete fighter (infact, I personally believe Charles is one of the most complete fighters in boxing history), but Tunney I feel was probably better from just in the pocket, so could have boxed his way a little better than Charles (though perhaps Loughran dismisses this assumption). I would not think eithers power would be enough to stop the other, but Charles power would definately be more telling.

I think this one would be close, but give me Charles based on superior infighting, as well as holding his own from the outside and getting the harder shots off. But Tunney puts up a true and honest effort against a legend such as Charles (who would be without doubt in my top 10 of all-time and perhaps even top 5 P4P).

Two great light-heavyweights here, two masters of the craft.

See,I wasn't sure what weight class we were talking about them fighting at..Either way,it'd be great at light heavy or heavyweight..Ya can't forget that Tunney is also a legend of boxing..In 86 fights,he only had 1 loss..That is huge!!That one loss was to Greb..

I have been thinking of making a match up with Bob Foster and someone else at light heavy..Both these guys would make great fights with him there..A fight with Foster vs. Archie Moore would of been amazing..I would give it to Archie of course BUT it would be such a great match up because Archie IS the hardest hitter ever at 175 and Foster is definitely right behind him in 2-5 in my opinion..Just because Ezzard beat Archie,it doesn't make him the best guy ever at light heavy I think..I also wish Ezzard didnt stay in the ring as long as he did..He has 25 losses and atleast 80% of those were in his last 5 years fighting..I know it's debatable but I think Archie was the better guy at the end of the day even though he lost to Ezzard..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
and the NEW
post Mar 10 2009, 11:22 PM
Post #7


Super Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 3,046
Joined: 20-May 04
Member No.: 333



Yeh, sorry, meant to state this matchup would be at 175, both of their primes. Don't really have any interest in them at heavyweight.

I agree, Tunney is an all-time great, infact I would have him higher on a list than most who follow the old-timers. Think I read somewhere though, that many believed Greb to have done a lot better in the fights than he is generally given credit for on the official decisions, any of you guys heard that?

I personally believe Charles to be the best light-heavy in history, better than Moore. I would have LOVED to have seen his fights with Burley, Charles was only young, but apparently it was a pretty easy fight for him, which is a mean feat against Burley!







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JonnyBlaze
post Mar 10 2009, 11:44 PM
Post #8


The Savage


Group: Members
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Chi-Town
Member No.: 6,227



QUOTE(and the NEW @ Mar 11 2009, 12:22 AM) [snapback]427600[/snapback]
Yeh, sorry, meant to state this matchup would be at 175, both of their primes. Don't really have any interest in them at heavyweight.

I agree, Tunney is an all-time great, infact I would have him higher on a list than most who follow the old-timers. Think I read somewhere though, that many believed Greb to have done a lot better in the fights than he is generally given credit for on the official decisions, any of you guys heard that?

I personally believe Charles to be the best light-heavy in history, better than Moore. I would have LOVED to have seen his fights with Burley, Charles was only young, but apparently it was a pretty easy fight for him, which is a mean feat against Burley!

I'm not gonna even argue Charles being the best light heavy ever just because him and Archie are SO close for 1st in my opinion..Some think Archie,some think Charles..It all depends on who ya talk to really..Archie is one of my top 3 all time favorites so I got to go with him..I really think he is the best light heavy ever too..Ezzard had a really unique style like Archie did too which probably made betting people really wonder who to put their money on..Ezzard was always 5 years younger than Archie but age hadn't effected Archie as much as most fighters(especially after having 220 fights)..It was more of a style thing when these 2 fought more than anything if ya ask me..

I really wish there was more footage available for both these guys..There is more footage on Ezzard if ya ask me..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
and the NEW
post Mar 10 2009, 11:52 PM
Post #9


Super Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 3,046
Joined: 20-May 04
Member No.: 333



Yeh, I think it's fairly split on the Charles V Moore debate on who was the best. Very close.

I only have Charles ahead, because from viewing him, I give him an edge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JonnyBlaze
post Mar 11 2009, 12:04 AM
Post #10


The Savage


Group: Members
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Chi-Town
Member No.: 6,227



QUOTE(and the NEW @ Mar 11 2009, 12:52 AM) [snapback]427609[/snapback]
Yeh, I think it's fairly split on the Charles V Moore debate on who was the best. Very close.

I only have Charles ahead, because from viewing him, I give him an edge.

Yeah,Archie is VERY limited..All of Archie's fights you can watch are of him fighting way out of his prime..Don't ask me when his prime ended either!!hahaha..He was a freak and lasted long in the sport and came out of it in good health..Being able to come out with good health after 220 fights shows you very dramatically how good he really was to be able to do that..Willie Pep was the same way..I've done a lot of reading on the history of boxing..The Ageless Warrior,which is Archie's book is one of my favorites I've ever read along with Sugar Ray Robinson's book by Mike Fitzgerald..What we saw in the first or two rounds against Ali showed ya glimpses of what Archie was..He was slipping Ali's jab with ease at first..It's also amazing that he knocked down Marciano with one right hand..Archie and Ezzard are no doubt special guys so it's hard to say who was the better 175 lber..One thing we do agree on is that it is very close..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2014 - 04:44 AM