Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Manassa · 02-04-2013, 03:46 PM

What are peoples' thoughts on this?

His record is impeccable. He has the following Hall of Famers on his record:

Jack Dempsey x2
Harry Greb x2
Georges Carpentier
Tommy Gibbons
Battling Levinsky
Jeff Smith
Leo Houck x2

Now we know any fighter's can be picked apart (Dempsey was past it! Greb was smaller! Etc...) but Tunney seems to have shown astonishing consistency and beat some of his best opponents with ease.

I've thought of around a #22 placing alongside Packey McFarland (who I previously rated in the top fifteen but I think that was too much).

lufcrazy · 02-04-2013, 03:48 PM

Smith in the hof?

Manassa · 02-04-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Smith in the hof?

Yes.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

McGrain · 02-04-2013, 03:52 PM

I have him top 20 style. What are you thinking?

Manassa · 02-04-2013, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

I have him top 20 style. What are you thinking?

Well, this:

1. Greb
2. Armstrong
3. Robinson
4. B. Leonard
5. Langford
6. Charles
7. Moore (YES, piss off)
8. Willie Pep
9. Roberto Duran
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

And then, in no order:

Ross
Canzoneri
Ali
Louis
McFarland
Tunney
Gans
Walker
Dixon/McLarnin
R. Leonard (possibly)

McGrain · 02-04-2013, 04:12 PM

Ali
Louis
Ross
Gans
Canzoneri
McFarland
Walker
McLarnin
Leonard
Tunney
Dixon

For me, but it's very close across a lot of these two/three fighter pockets. I could see him above Leanord and McLarnin but not Walker, personally.

McGrain · 02-04-2013, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manassa

(YES, piss off)

McGrain · 02-04-2013, 04:14 PM

I don't mind Moore that high, but I just can't see Fitz that low.

orriray59 · 02-04-2013, 04:15 PM

He beat the greatest boxer to ever live (in my opinion, of course) multiple times. That's enough.

Manassa · 02-04-2013, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

Ali
Louis
Ross
Gans
Canzoneri
McFarland
Walker
McLarnin
Leonard
Tunney
Dixon

For me, but it's very close across a lot of these two/three fighter pockets. I could see him above Leanord and McLarnin but not Walker, personally.

You do realise that, if you couldn't think of any more names to add, we may have a solid top twenty one

McGrain · 02-04-2013, 04:22 PM

I have nobody to add. Some prick will be along though.

turbotime · 02-04-2013, 04:23 PM

Top 30 sure-fire (at least he should be)

Manassa · 02-04-2013, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

I have nobody to add. Some prick will be along though.

Okay how about this. After those the bracket includes Whitaker, Holyfield, Arguello, Hearns, Spinks, Saddler, Chavez, Williams, Ortiz, Gavilan, Napoles, T. Gibbons... Fuck it, it's running away with me already, stick to twenty one for now.

McGrain · 02-04-2013, 04:26 PM

To soft for me after 20 (and as an aside i'd tend to have Whitaker above Dixon but if Whitaker was 22 I would be OK with that) to really care.

orriray59 · 02-04-2013, 04:30 PM

Yeah, it gets difficult to put together a comprehensive list after you've finished with the big boys. Requires a long time researching it.

02-04-2013, 03:46 PM	#1
Manassa - East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ESB since '05 Posts: 9,775 vCash: 75	Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? What are peoples' thoughts on this? His record is impeccable. He has the following Hall of Famers on his record: Jack Dempsey x2 Harry Greb x2 Georges Carpentier Tommy Gibbons Battling Levinsky Jeff Smith Leo Houck x2 Now we know any fighter's can be picked apart (Dempsey was past it! Greb was smaller! Etc...) but Tunney seems to have shown astonishing consistency and beat some of his best opponents with ease. I've thought of around a #22 placing alongside Packey McFarland (who I previously rated in the top fifteen but I think that was too much).
Top

02-04-2013, 03:52 PM	#4
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,246 vCash: 1000	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? I have him top 20 style. What are you thinking?
Top

02-04-2013, 04:12 PM	#6
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,246 vCash: 1000	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? Ali Louis Ross Gans Canzoneri McFarland Walker McLarnin Leonard Tunney Dixon For me, but it's very close across a lot of these two/three fighter pockets. I could see him above Leanord and McLarnin but not Walker, personally.
Top

02-04-2013, 04:14 PM	#8
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,246 vCash: 1000	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? I don't mind Moore that high, but I just can't see Fitz that low.
Top

02-04-2013, 04:15 PM	#9
orriray59 weird East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: The Green Isle Posts: 13,223 vCash: 82	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? He beat the greatest boxer to ever live (in my opinion, of course) multiple times. That's enough.
Top

02-04-2013, 03:48 PM	#2
lufcrazy requiescat in pace East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, Up North Posts: 22,708 vCash: 330	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? Smith in the hof?
Top

02-04-2013, 04:22 PM	#11
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,246 vCash: 1000	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? I have nobody to add. Some prick will be along though.
Top

02-04-2013, 04:23 PM	#12
turbotime Future Hall Of Famer East Side VIP Join Date: May 2012 Location: LA/Canada Posts: 18,662 vCash: 816	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? Top 30 sure-fire (at least he should be)
Top

02-04-2013, 04:26 PM	#14
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,246 vCash: 1000	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? To soft for me after 20 (and as an aside i'd tend to have Whitaker above Dixon but if Whitaker was 22 I would be OK with that) to really care.
Top

02-04-2013, 04:30 PM	#15
orriray59 weird East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: The Green Isle Posts: 13,223 vCash: 82	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? Yeah, it gets difficult to put together a comprehensive list after you've finished with the big boys. Requires a long time researching it.
Top