What if Gene Tunnney was un-defeated in 60+ fights?

[Marchegiano]

Yes there is ,but if you want to include service bouts for which Tunney was UNPAID you can add a few more.Plus in his 1 st pro year1915 he had fights with

Rowe
Jaffe
Leahy

Yeah man, Z kinda headed you off with a very similar point and all around I feel silly for bringing it up. It's not that big of a deal, but, I will say if he was called John L then you guys reach for any scrap you can to add to his record. You guys being rhetorical, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant fans and record keepers.

[Dr Z]

Yeah man, Z kinda headed you off with a very similar point and all around I feel silly for bringing it up. It's not that big of a deal, but, I will say if he was called John L then you guys reach for any scrap you can to add to his record. You guys being rhetorical, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant fans and record keepers.

The known records are the known records. They have no agenda.

John L was a brawler type with no defese, no jab, beat litimed quality opponets, and such. He is also a legend.

[Marchegiano]

The known records are the known records. They have no agenda.

John L was a brawler type with no defese, no jab, beat litimed quality opponets, and such. He is also a legend.

Yes, they do.


For all the admiration the IRBO writers get here it's pretty amazing seeing how rarely you guys must be interacting with them. I've done you before if you buy their books there is a good chance you are reading my research. I promise the email chains look very similar to posts on a forum. They are human, they have agendas, the man claiming objectivity is probably the least objective **** you know and knowingly wrote propaganda.


There is a reason you pay for their work and don't pay for mine. A one word reason. Agenda.


I know you guys believe the old bull about they're just fans just like you. They do it for the love of the sport. Let me know next time your momma charges the low low price of 5.99 for her insight. Love? Nah, clearly not. And this sir, is the one and only reason I am not a member and you are not quoting my books. I rejected them and their circlejerk.


That said, the poorly defined divisions and professionalism was a damn fair point. John L. is not at all handled like that. Hell, Boxrec notes some of the fights they count were held under LPRR while still counting for his QB record. You're telling me they handled them the same even though John don't even need the ****ing rules meanwhile Gene needs to argue over where who was weighted, is being paid is still pro, and if his sources have corroboration. No, they're not the same and Yes it is because the historians who handled them had different ... ... agendas

[Dr Z]

Yes, they do.


For all the admiration the IRBO writers get here it's pretty amazing seeing how rarely you guys must be interacting with them. I've done you before if you buy their books there is a good chance you are reading my research. I promise the email chains look very similar to posts on a forum. They are human, they have agendas, the man claiming objectivity is probably the least objective **** you know and knowingly wrote propaganda.


There is a reason you pay for their work and don't pay for mine. A one word reason. Agenda.


I know you guys believe the old bull about they're just fans just like you. They do it for the love of the sport. Let me know next time your momma charges the low low price of 5.99 for her insight. Love? Nah, clearly not. And this sir, is the one and only reason I am not a member and you are not quoting my books. I rejected them and their circlejerk.


That said, the poorly defined divisions and professionalism was a damn fair point. John L. is not at all handled like that. Hell, Boxrec notes some of the fights they count were held under LPRR while still counting for his QB record. You're telling me they handled them the same even though John don't even need the ****ing rules meanwhile Gene needs to argue over where who was weighted, is being paid is still pro, and if his sources have corroboration. No, they're not the same and Yes it is because the historians who handled them had different ... ... agendas

Sullivan did not face or beat anyone with good. At least no one good above 170lbs.



His best three golved me men faced? IMO they were:



Corbett and he won Jim won oh 20 or 21 rounds before knocking the 32 year old Sullivan out.




Cardiff lasted the distance and according to a primary at the fight report should have declared the winner vs. a prime 28 year old Sullivan!

Attendance: 10, 000 (Minneapolis Journal 1-19-1887) According to the St Paul Daily Globe, Cardiff did most of the fighting and should have received the decision.

Burke. He was small 5'6 1/2 inches tall and really just a middleweight. Yet he lasted the distance.


These are Sullivan's best three gloved opponents and really should be one win and two losses here.

- Dr Z


PS: I pay for their work? Um, that would be no.

[Willow The Wisp]

The International Boxing Research Organization (IBRO) is a 501 (C) (7) non-profit organized in May, 1982 for the express purpose of establishing an accurate history of boxing; compiling complete and accurate boxing records; facilitating the dissemination of boxing research information and cooperating in safeguarding the individual research efforts of its members by application of the rules of scholarly research.

[Bronson66]

Do you know how to use WIKI? LOL. Maybe I'll show you if you can wipe that smirk off your face.





He has over 84 recorded fights! And officaly lost just one, I say to dirty tactcs vs. another all time great.


No charge amigo.

Edited

[Willow The Wisp]

19th century author John Boyle O'Reilly, who wrote about the subtleties of Sullivan's style, would call you on that accretion that Sullivan was just a brawler. Lots of tough guys in Sullivan's time; but only one Sullivan; called "the most famous man on earth" in his time. Difficult to explain this if John L. Had no special abilities. Indeed; impossible.

[Dr Z]

We are talking about PROFESSIONAL BOUTS not Army Service Bouts.

I do not have time for you. I leave it up to you to determine in your mind which were amater fights as which we not. Wikipedia is superior to Box rec IMO as it is researched by many historians and records many fights not on Box REC.


I keep telling you to keep your came hand high. Here me out:



The UK has indeed been grappling with issues related to **** gangs, specifically those targeting vulnerable groups including young women and the elderly.

Political and Public Pressure: There has been significant pressure from various quarters, including political figures like and , for a into the **** gangs scandal. This involves organized groups primarily of , but there's an acknowledgment that such crimes cross ethnic boundaries. The demand for inquiry stems from historical cases in towns like , , and where thousands of children were sexually exploited over decades with little initial action from authorities due to fears of or .

Elderly abuse is one of my concerns! Don't be a victim.

Be safe!

[Marchegiano]

Sullivan did not face or beat anyone with good. At least no one good above 170lbs.



His best three golved me men faced? IMO they were:



Corbett and he won Jim won oh 20 or 21 rounds before knocking the 32 year old Sullivan out.




Cardiff lasted the distance and according to a primary at the fight report should have declared the winner vs. a prime 28 year old Sullivan!







Burke. He was small 5'6 1/2 inches tall and really just a middleweight. Yet he lasted the distance.


These are Sullivan's best three gloved opponents and really should be one win and two losses here.

- Dr Z


PS: I pay for their work? Um, that would be no.

Fair ****ing play sir!

[Bronson66]

the international boxing research organization (ibro) is a 501 (c) (7) non-profit organized in may, 1982 for the express purpose of establishing an accurate history of boxing; compiling complete and accurate boxing records; facilitating the dissemination of boxing research information and cooperating in safeguarding the individual research efforts of its members by application of the rules of scholarly research.

edited