Have I been overrating Dempsey and Tunney ?

I dont produce serious lists, but if pushed I would generally claim that Dempsey belongs in the top 5 heavyweights of all-time.

I think Tunney was a better, more complete fighter at 185-192, than at 175. Reports suggest this is so, so I dont have any qualms about rating Tunney as a heavyweight. But is a top 15 rating too high for Tunney ? Does he belong below somewone like Max Baer, for example ?

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I dont produce serious lists, but if pushed I would generally claim that Dempsey belongs in the top 5 heavyweights of all-time.

I think Tunney was a better, more complete fighter at 185-192, than at 175. Reports suggest this is so, so I dont have any qualms about rating Tunney as a heavyweight. But is a top 15 rating too high for Tunney ? Does he belong below somewone like Max Baer, for example ?

Only losing once by a decision to another all time great in over 80 something fights is pretty impressive in my opinion. I don't know if I'd have him as a top 10 or 15 guy simply because his best wins were over a declining Dempsey, and I'm not sure how many other top rated heavyweights he beat, though I'm sure someone else will list them. Tunney had the blueprints of an all time great. He was nearly impossible to knock out, in fact he neve was Ko'd, and he had quickness and skills that weren't duplicated by very many fighters.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I dont produce serious lists, but if pushed I would generally claim that Dempsey belongs in the top 5 heavyweights of all-time.

I think Tunney was a better, more complete fighter at 185-192, than at 175. Reports suggest this is so, so I dont have any qualms about rating Tunney as a heavyweight. But is a top 15 rating too high for Tunney ? Does he belong below somewone like Max Baer, for example ?

No. Top 15 is not too high for Tunney. Most old time historians have Tunney rated better than Max Baer. The best thing about Tunney is we have some decent enough film to view him.

IMO, Tunney had the best overall combination boxing skills, defense, footwork, durability, and ring smarts of any heavyweight below 195 pounds.

Originally Posted by Mendoza

No. Top 15 is not too high for Tunney. Most old time historians have Tunney rated better than Max Baer. The best thing about Tunney is we have some decent enough film to view him.

IMO, Tunney had the best overall combination boxing skills, defense, footwork, durability, and ring smarts of any heavyweight below 195 pounds.

He is very impressive on film. I must agree. It was rare in those days for a heavyweight or even lightheavyweight to have the kind of footwork and ring generalship that Tunney had. He was definately ahead of his time.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Woddy

Only losing once by a decision to another all time great in over 80 something fights is pretty impressive in my opinion.

Yeah, but how impressive is it for a heavyweight to twice lose to a middleweight and only having two significant fights at heavyweight?

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Yeah, but how impressive is it for a heavyweight to twice lose to a middleweight and only having two significant fights at heavyweight?

Tunney lost only once officially, and it was to an all time great light heavyweight in Harry Greb. Tunney never lost at middleweight. Keep in mind Harry Greb as a light heavyweight beat many of the same guys Jack Dempsey did, and in truth sometimes had an easier time doing it.

Tunney at 190 pounds / 86 KG would not lose to Greb at any weight. In Greb's own words, the 6'1", 77" reached Tunney simply got too big for him.

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Yeah, but how impressive is it for a heavyweight to twice lose to a middleweight and only having two significant fights at heavyweight?

I still think he was a very good fighter with good credentials and looks good on film to.

[dmt]

Crhis, Tunney was a light-heavy when he lost to Greb who was a super-middle. When Tunney weighed over 185 lbs he easily whipped Greb, their last meeting

[radianttwilight]

There's definately an argument that Tunney is greater than Dempsey, in my opinion.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by dmt

Crhis, Tunney was a light-heavy when he lost to Greb who was a super-middle. When Tunney weighed over 185 lbs he easily whipped Greb, their last meeting

Yeah, but Greb was nearing the end of his career there.

Don't get me wrong, Tunney was a great fighter and a great lightheavyweight who was ahead of his time. I just don't think he's done enough to be mentioned as a great heavyweight.

[janitor]

I guess you have to ask this:

Who do you rate higher Gene Tunney or Jack Sharkey?

Jack Sharkey has so much depth to his resume that Tunneys would sink in it never to be seen again.

Conversley all the available evidece based on common oponents suggests that Tunney was far more efective head to head at his peak.

So who do you pick?

[mattdonnellon]

Originally Posted by janitor

I guess you have to ask this:

Who do you rate higher Gene Tunney or Jack Sharkey?

Jack Sharkey has so much depth to his resume that Tunneys would sink in it never to be seen again.

Conversley all the available evidece based on common oponents suggests that Tunney was far more efective head to head at his peak.

So who do you pick?

easy answer(for me) Tunney. Reason; consistancy, chin and cleverness.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Yeah, but Greb was nearing the end of his career there.

Don't get me wrong, Tunney was a great fighter and a great lightheavyweight who was ahead of his time. I just don't think he's done enough to be mentioned as a great heavyweight.

You make me think if Spinks retired after say the two Holmes wins and the Cooney fight he would have been very similar to Tunney in many ways at Heavyweight not withstanding the second Holmes rematch being tight to say the least .