Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-04-2013, 03:46 PM   #1
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default 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).
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-04-2013, 03:48 PM   #2
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,743
vCash: 330
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Smith in the hof?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:51 PM   #3
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Smith in the hof?
Yes.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:52 PM   #4
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,208
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

I have him top 20 style. What are you thinking?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:06 PM   #5
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
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)
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:12 PM   #6
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,208
vCash: 1000
Default 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.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:13 PM   #7
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,208
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
(YES, piss off)
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:14 PM   #8
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,208
vCash: 1000
Default 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.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:20 PM   #9
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
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
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:22 PM   #10
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,208
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

I have nobody to add. Some prick will be along though.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:23 PM   #11
turbotime
Future Hall Of Famer
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LA/Canada
Posts: 18,342
vCash: 816
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Top 30 sure-fire (at least he should be)
turbotime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:25 PM   #12
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
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... **** it, it's running away with me already, stick to twenty one for now.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:26 PM   #13
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,208
vCash: 1000
Default 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.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:38 PM   #14
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,743
vCash: 330
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
Yes.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I always get him confused with Clarke
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 04:44 PM   #15
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I always get him confused with Clarke
Shit, me too.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013