The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-12-10

tzzazzh4-a-1sA--4-J ing abilities of
Joe Williams one Joe Louis
Som of h e
better names did not agree that Joe
Louis was great fighter. 1t is with
these specific DIRECTORS that Mr.
Jersey Jones wishes to quarrel. The
gentleman, to use a catch word
writes:
1T is all a matter of opinion, as
the young man remarked when he
married one of the Siamese twins.
Reading your remarks 1 learn. that
Mr.. Will Gibson and Mr.. Benny
Leonard have few doubts concern
ing the exact status of Joe Louis
in an all-time lineup of heavy
weights, particularly when and
where James j. Tunney becomes in
Volved in the discussion.
Can't Hold 1t Against Him
Gibson and Leonard are quail
fed, competent and respected OBJ
servers of things fistic. But I am
not quite Fundamentally in agree
ment with their summary of Louis
as a possible foeman to Tunney. I
am willing to admit that Louis mas
not as yet been requested to stack
up against Grade A competition
But that can not be held against
him-can it?
1T SO happens there is no Grade
A competition for him to stack up
against. 1 could, if 1 were so mind
ed, recall to Messrs. Leonard and
Gibson that the best opponents
Tunney ever faced were Harry Greb,
Tommy Gibson and Jack Dempsey
And L could also point out that all
three of these gentlemen were old
timers, well past their peak.
Il do not attempt to belittle Tun-
ney's gifts as fighter. I believe I
knew him as we'll as anybody in the
business. Back in the old days
when 1 was a kid in Walter st.
Denis sport department in the late
lamented New York Globe I Gov
cred him when he was outfumbling
the Dan O'Dowds, the Paul Samp-
sons, the Leo Hucks and the Sergt.
Ray Smiths. If you were to ask
Tunney, l feel quite certain he
would admit that in those days we
were the only paper that knew he
existed. 1 doubt that even Gibson
ever heard of Tunney at that time
Tunney Not Natural Boxer
But time passed. And Gibson
became interested in Tunney, and
presently 1 became the fighters
press Representative. Having reached
this exalted position in literature,
and gone through it, J. feel that 1
am qualified to discuss him as a
fighter. With your permission /
will summarize him in this man.
y ner:
Il. He was not what the boys call
a natural fighter. He was manu-
featured. He did nothing in
stinctively. Every move was studied.
2. He was not what you would
call pleasing performer. There
was none of the Dempsey whoop-
,sde-do, rip-roaring spectacularity in
his modus operandi.
-. He was primarily a defensive
boxer and counter puncher. Forced
to take the lead himself, he was
clumsy and ungainly.
a. He had difficulty in adapting
himself to a diversity of styles. The
rushing, aggressive Dempsey style,
or the stand-up, straight orthodox
d Gibbons style gave him a chance to
show at his best. But any one with
a style that leaned to the unusual
generally annoyed him. Chuck
Virgins was an example. Also Paul
Sampson. And let's not overlook
Soldier Jones.
A Long Struggle
IS. Tunney was battling some five
or six years before OF Quinton l..
Public began to regard him as a
possible opponent of Dempsey-and
while OF Quinton l.. himself may
have begun to display some respect
for Tunney, there wasn't what you
would exactly call an overflow of
enthusiasm in that respect
IS. Now MesSrs, Gibson and Leon
civ w AlOb SCSIIl W WdIlJ W 10 dill
. the way out for Louis as a fighter
Their idea is that Tunney probably
could take him. That may be
right. Do you mind if l think they
may be wrong. After all. :. !
Let's size up this Louis.
Il. He is a natural instructive
fighter.
=. He is as expert on the defense
as on the offense-which means,
Mr.. Williams, he can hit you plenty
and it's awfully tough to hit him.
Two of EN- Gave Up
%. He can adapt himself to any
style. I won't bore you by listing
the many styles he has faced in
his short career.
a. In the seventeen months he
has been fighting as pro, only two
bouts have been anywhere near