Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Tunney V Charles
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Classic Boxing
and the NEW
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.
JonnyBlaze
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..
STEVENSKI
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.
JonnyBlaze
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..
and the NEW
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.
JonnyBlaze
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..
and the NEW
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!







JonnyBlaze
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..
and the NEW
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.
JonnyBlaze
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..
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(and the NEW @ Mar 11 2009, 04:22 AM) [snapback]427600[/snapback]
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 rate Greb very highly indeed. I have read that out of their 6? fights it should have been at worst 4-2 to Tunney & some say 3-3 even.

That said it is not like losing to Greb is a blemish on your record anyway.


and the NEW
No, no doubt Stevenski, Greb was a very large middle himself.

Good to see some old-time knowledge is still on these boards.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Mar 11 2009, 01:53 AM) [snapback]427618[/snapback]
I rate Greb very highly indeed. I have read that out of their 6? fights it should have been at worst 4-2 to Tunney & some say 3-3 even.

That said it is not like losing to Greb is a blemish on your record anyway.

For sure..Actually,to have Greb as your only loss is taking nothing away from yourself..I think Greb did get robbed quite a few times..Greb was most definitely amazing..I was talking about how Archie had 220 fights,well Greb had about 300 with ONLY and I mean ONLY 19 losses..He may have fought the same guy quite a few times with multiple opponents but I really wish guys would do that today..If it's a good fight,definitely give the rematch,but it it's not you're atleast giving a guy a chance to redeem himself like Greb would let opponents attempt..I don't have numbers off the top of my head but I knew he fought multiple guys more than 5-6 times..
STEVENSKI
Greb is one of the absolute greats & his stamina was unbelievable especially for a guy who did not believe in training. That said why would you train when you fought at least once a week! I believe he averaged somewhere in the region of 100-200 punches per round.
BigG
I've never seen Greb fight...I've only read stories about his fights with Gene Tunney...
Fitz
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Mar 13 2009, 07:26 AM) [snapback]427784[/snapback]
I've never seen Greb fight...I've only read stories about his fights with Gene Tunney...


That's probably the case for everyone. He is great through word of mouth.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(Fitz @ Mar 12 2009, 09:20 PM) [snapback]427794[/snapback]
That's probably the case for everyone. He is great through word of mouth.


That is true but if the greats of the era & that was one of the most stacked era's in history says he is the greatest of them all why would they embellish that?
and the NEW
Yeh, there is training footage of Greb, and I believe his fight with Walker and one (or perhaps more) with Tunney were recorded, but unfortunately the film was destroyed.

Then again, the film back then of guys like Gans, Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson etc is very poor. I find it very hard (if not impossible) to relate them to the fighters of the 50s and onwards due the completely different film speed.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(and the NEW @ Mar 12 2009, 08:29 PM) [snapback]427853[/snapback]
Yeh, there is training footage of Greb, and I believe his fight with Walker and one (or perhaps more) with Tunney were recorded, but unfortunately the film was destroyed.

Then again, the film back then of guys like Gans, Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson etc is very poor. I find it very hard (if not impossible) to relate them to the fighters of the 50s and onwards due the completely different film speed.

I know what you're sayin but you really need to have a good eye when watching classic shit like Benny..I am assuming you do and the New since I can tell you love the classics just as much as I do..

I want to get some more classic boxing talk going on on fighthype..I'm gonna think of a real good match up and make a new topic..I wish more guys appreciated the classics.
BigG
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Mar 13 2009, 01:50 AM) [snapback]427869[/snapback]
I know what you're sayin but you really need to have a good eye when watching classic shit like Benny..I am assuming you do and the New since I can tell you love the classics just as much as I do..

I want to get some more classic boxing talk going on on fighthype..I'm gonna think of a real good match up and make a new topic..I wish more guys appreciated the classics.


One boxer I am reading up on is the story of Sam Langford....
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Mar 13 2009, 06:32 AM) [snapback]427929[/snapback]
One boxer I am reading up on is the story of Sam Langford....

Nice!!Let us know if ya read anything interesting..I do a lot of reading on boxers and it really helps increase knowledge that the regular and even hardcore fans might not know..
STEVENSKI
That is true I swear I have forgotten more than most know about the old schoolers.

As bad as Hawkins & co were (for those who remember) those cats knew their shit. They were also arrogant fuckstains who drove a lot of newer members away.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.