I’m as big of a Tunney advocate as anyone else but his resume does look better WITHOUT context. Houck is a natural middleweight who was on his way out, Loughran hadn’t really physically matured into a light heavyweight yet, Levinsky and Carpentier were basically shot fighters. Greb, Dempsey and gibbons were past their peak but I don’t think they were washed up, Greb especially.
Bivol is way faster, more technical, better defense etc. Just a more refined more technical version of Tunney. Really don't see what Tunney does better or how he wins this.
Ya you can do that with almost any fighter ever .. to further add.. he beat 25-1 Jimmy Delaney who was an excellent fighter.. Chuck Wiggins.. who fought many of the HOF legends from that era multiple times Johnny Risko one of the best heavyweights not to win the title back then.. Tunney has an excellent resume. He lost just once. Going 1-1 with a 40 year old Artur Beterbiev doesn't convince me Bivol is superior to Tunney. & just in case any one pipes up with the old 'fighters having more losses back then' one.. let me remind u, they fought a lot more often back then.. underperformances were far more common.. there's hardly a fighter in history who hasn't underperformed or taken a few losses along the way when you're fighting a dozen+ times a year.