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

I argue that it's immaculate BECAUSE it was engineered so carefully. The same can't be said of most "engineered" resumes of the other ATGs. Five of the seven guys you pointed out were well past their best. Some even fighting above their best weight.

I'd rather Tunney fought Norfolk, a younger Gibbons, a series vs. Loughran, etc.

The reason you stated that you posted this thread was to hear people's thoughts on whether or not Tunney should be rated higher p4p. That's what we're doing

You have him rated above Joe Gans, which is completely unjustifiable. Tunney was nowhere near Gans in ANY dept, especially resume.

 

Tunney is probably in the top 30, for me.

He mastered Greb; and his skill-level at heavyweight is impressive. He looks like a great modern fighter, was one of the smartest tacticians I've ever seen, and he mastered Jack Dempsey.

 

Tunney's record bears close scrutiny. All that glitters is DEFINITELY not gold when it comes to him. Dempsey, Carpentier, Gibbons, Houck and Smith were all at the arse-end of their careers. They were DONE.

Gene had a 12 lb advantage, 5 inches in reach and almost 4 inches in height over the aged Jeff Smith, whose post-Tunney record was 6-6. Smith had been fighting for 14 years.

He fought a Houck who was between 15 and 20 pounds over his best weight (and 4 inches shorter than Tunney), had been fighting for 18 years and was pretty ringworn. He was known to have a stumpy reach, so heaven knows what Gene's advantage there was.

Carp had been fighting 16 years.

Gibbons had been fighting 14 years.

These guys were done.

Neither Smith nor Houck nor Carpentier nor Gibbons had a single significant win after fighting Tunney. That speaks volumes, no? And it's not because of Tunney. It's because they were done.

 

He never mastered Greb. He beat a half-blind, shopworn Greb in their last fight, yes. But all their other fights were life and death struggles, with Greb arguably having the better of them despite Tunney's advantage in size and youth.

 

Try me :smoke

 

Sure:

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

(almost all ready for the convalescent hospital)

Joe Gans- 145-10 with 100 knockouts. With newspaper decisions he is 159-12.

Battling Nelson
Joe Walcott (a draw most thought Gans won)
Young Griffo
Jimmy Britt x2
Jack Blackburn x2
Dave Holly x3
Frank Erne
Kid McPartland
George "Elbows" McFadden x4
Dal Hawkins
Rufe Turner x2
Sam Bolen
Bobby Dobbs x2
Kid Herman
Mike Twin Sullivan (a MIDDLEWEIGHT) x 2 by KO.
Jack Bennett (a welterweight contender) x2 by KO
Eddie Kennedy (a welterweight)
Spike Sullivan
Willie Fitzgerald (a welter)
Martin Flaherty
Wilmington Jack Daly x2

Nothing engineered about that. And I left out many top men that he beat. His resume is as deep as it is vast. He fought many tigers, some bigger, some smaller and faster, most in their absolute prime.

We can't say the same about Tunney.

 

Tunney bested Greb, not because Greb suddenly grew uselessly old, but because he adjusted successfully and that is my point about Gene: his tactics and skills were first-class, against the first-class competition of the day.

No all-time great has ever beaten only prime, all-time great competition. Even Robinson didn't, and he is consensus top 3-5. I'm arguing for Gene in the top 30.

"Engineering" was perhaps part of Gene's career, but, bottom line--like Sugar Ray Leonard--he beat all the men he had to beat, and--like Mike Tyson--he beat them by an extraordinary margin: Carpentier, Gibbons, Dempsey, they all seemed comprehensively inferior competitors when in the same ring with Gene.

By contrast, Evander Holyfield beat Foreman and Holmes, but left the impression that those guys could whip his butt had they been young. Save the Long Count, this is not Gene's case, and he still won practically 19 out of 20 rounds against the Mauler.

Where do you place Gene Tunney, pound for pound?

 

I can't rate Tunney above Tommy Loughran, Loughran has many losses but fought and beat many bigger men of class.

 

If that were the case he would have swept Greb for the rest of their series. The second fight was considered an outright robbery and their fight in Cleveland was a draw that most thought should have gone to Greb. Greb was arguably 3-2 vs. Tunney. If you read the firsthand accounts of the fights you'll see that what I'm saying is true.

Of course not, but SRR and most other ATGs did indeed beat the majority of their best comp when they (the comp) were in their primes. The same cannot be said of Tunney.

Top 30 is fine for Tunney. Not sure where I have him.

OK, but put him in there with prime versions of Dempsey or Gibbons and you would see VERY different fights. Could Tunney win? Possibly. Would they be by extraordinary margins or would these prime fighters seem comprehensively inferior? No way.

 

Totally agree.

 

atsch

 

By the time Tunney finally dominated Greb in a fight (their last, the ONLY one Gene truly dominated)) Greb was slipping, already a veteran of 271 bouts, all crammed into 12 years. A dizzying pace. Plus he was fighting blind in one eye and at an almost 14 lb weight disadvantage.