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

[Marchegiano]

I could have also saved myself that last response and simply mention that Tunney Gibbons was in June 1925, but in April 1926 Rickard had somehow found himself back in Dempsey's affairs and was openly saying to the media that Dempsey would fight either Wills or Tunney, and he wasn't sure which but he was still deciding the matter, and he was sure to include that "Dempsey believes Wills would be easier." Which tells me that Dempsey didn't think Wills would be easier. lol.

good to see you around again

[travestyny]

good to see you around again

You as well, good sir!

[JAB5239]

Wills also said he was willing to fight Tunney after this date. The point is, it's not true that Wills turned down an opportunity to fight Tunney. He was willing to fight him, as you can see right there.

Doesn't really matter as Tunney was using Wills to leverage the Dempsey fight. He never had any intention of fighting him.

[Willie Pep 229]

That is not the offer I was talking about for Wills. Team Wills let Tunney offer alone at a later date.

I wouldn't believe that news article.

1. It is Billy Gibson susposedly speaking. If he didn't say it the newspaper is lying. If he did say it, Billy is lying. It's Billy Gibson!

2. Seattle Star was a leftist newspaper supporting labor and minority rights.

3. Tunney took the Gibbons fight indoors, so why would Billy Gibson say such a thing?

4. Wills's guy, Paddy Mullins was as good as any other manager, which means he was a good liar.

Looks like the typical promotional dribble prize fight history always has to wade through.

P.S. I am NOT saying Tunney-Gibson weren't avoiding Wills, maybe they were. I am saying that the article is a useless source so don't beieve it at face value. It's Billy Gibson! A great liar, one of the best. LOL

[travestyny]

I wouldn't believe that news article.

1. It is Billy Gibson susposedly speaking. If he didn't say it the newspaper is lying. If he did say it, Billy is lying. It's Billy Gibson!

2. Seattle Star was a leftist newspaper supporting labor and minority rights.

3. Tunney took the Gibbons fight indoors, so why would Billy Gibson say such a thing?

4. Wills's guy, Paddy Mullins was as good as any other manager, which means he was a good liar.

Looks like the typical promotional dribble prize fight history always has to wade through.

Dude, the bottom line is what you said made no sense when Rickard was on record saying the fight would go to Wills or Tunney well after the Tunney Gibbons fight. Just admit you are wrong. Your emotions always cloud your judgement, and you'll be saying the same thing you were already proven wrong about 3 months from now.

1. It is the promoter speaking publicly saying that's what they learned from Gibson. But sure, it's possible that everyone involved is lying.

2. I'm not sure where you got "Seattle Star was for minority rights." Worker's rights, yes. You should look up their treatment of Japanese Americans.

3. The fight was for Wills and Tunney to fight OUTDOORS. Gibson either wanted to avoid the fight altogether or he thought that a fight of Wills/Tunney's magnitude deserved a different venue.

4. The article doesn't mention anything at all about Paddy Mullins.

[travestyny]

Tunney got the Dempsey fight because he stopped Gibbons, just as Rickard promised the winner would.

Nope. Certainly doesn't look like there was a promise or Dempsey would have originally been signed to fight Tunney instead of to an open contract that was expressly for WILLS OR TUNNEY.

Terms of the agreement said the opponent is to be named at least 2 months prior to the bout.

Can't find exactly where this particular clipping comes from but it also appears the same in the Kennebec Journal, April 1926.



That last quotation is clearly Rickard preparing everyone for the incoming duck.

[billeau2]

I will pardon your rant, but direct mine at you, since it matters not that Hemingway offends anyone. Hemingway got the pardon from Time, as in my signature, sir..

Those kindergarten sentences were a unique stylistic shift. Even Camus followed Hemingway into these waters in his novel The Stranger. If The Old Man And The Sea is not one of the finest novellas ever written, I will do this, that and the other. It was a time of experimentation. Faulkner went quite the opposite direction with daringly long sentences.

Hemingway is not my favorite, either. I found Steinbeck, who was less experimental than the other two, more enjoyable than either, which is no claim that he was better. But......read my signature. Kipling's views were a whole lot worse, as were Pound's and others'. But their personal opinions matter squat now. They are a mere sidebar, a footnote, important to history and morbid curiosity, but not literature. Not necessarily great men, they all wrote great literature.

My full signature would read.....

Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honors at their feet.

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

* * * * *

It appears you do not pardon Hemingway's peccadilloes? But I may doubt you can consider him with a clean eye. Maybe you can agree that Time will pardon him for a larger reason overshadowing his machismo.

There are exceptions, however, to Auden..... Mein Kamph is disgustingly immortal for very different reasons than writing well.

No offense intended, good sir, but I do sometimes feel the need to defend literature separately from its creators, since only one matters to Time. Sorry if I have overreacted or gone off course, I just do not want anyone to get their first taste of Hemingway from you, but from Hemingway himself.

P.S. Hemingway served in WW1 as an ambulance driver and was seriously wounded by shrapnel.

I just have an opinion... I would not say that my opinion discounts any achievements and greatness per Hemmingway, or any one else. A lot of people found papa the very definition of the proper male archetype... God Bless them, I did not. My own feeling has always been that people that have to prove themselves, through acts of dominance over other creatures, are insecure on some level. I favor the Japanese Bushi approach: Yes he may have fought may men, but when it came to challenging himself he went deep into the forest and fought against the ravages of nature, a truly superior entity, hoping for the appearance of a Tengu, or a way to make it back in one piece after being subject to chronic deprivations. Just my feelings....

[billeau2]

You as well, good sir!

Hey T! Nice to see you here again!!!

[travestyny]

Hey T! Nice to see you here again!!!

It's always a pleasure, Bill. Good to see you are still active!

[Anomalocaris]

Wills was a ****ing monster.

It is such a shame he hardly gets mentioned in ATG heavy discussions.