Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? - Page 11

McGrain · 02-11-2013, 02:41 PM

I think that's a fine conclusion.

Surf-Bat · 02-12-2013, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

I think that's a fine conclusion.

As do I

ApatheticLeader · 02-12-2013, 02:40 AM

I have him somewhere around 20 -25.

Although having read only pages 1 and 10 of the thread, I should perhaps read the rest.

02-11-2013, 02:41 PM	#151
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,236 vCash: 1000	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? I think that's a fine conclusion.
Top

02-12-2013, 02:40 AM	#153
ApatheticLeader is bringing sexy back. East Side Guru Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: "Yo gangsta! Let's get ready to gang bang"! Posts: 7,579 vCash: 1011	Re: Shouldn't Gene Tunney be rated higher pound-for-pound? I have him somewhere around 20 -25. Although having read only pages 1 and 10 of the thread, I should perhaps read the rest.
Top