Is Gene Tunney underrated on P4P and LHW lists?

Yes, he tends to be under-rated. He provides an excellent resume along with filmed proof of his abilities. Seriously, he is the most proficient and talented fighter filmed from his era... and it isn't even close.

 

I think Tunney rates among the top 5 all time LHWs, alongside Charles, Moore, Spinks, and Langford, and I think he has a genuine claim to the #1 spot (personally, I have him rated #2 behind Charles).

 

I've had him as far my top 20 on P4P lists, currently he's in the 20's. I don't think he's underrated. He missed on fighting a lot of legitimate contenders who were black. This means something. I don't think he's as proficient or proven as Moore or Charles, in comparison.

 

Conversely, those black fighters missed meeting him and proving they were better. They do not get a victory by default. By the way, which of these was greater than Greb or Loughran?

I rate him number 1 all-time LHW with Charles a very close 2nd.

 

Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey, Benny Leonard, Tommy Loughran? Perhaps you should re-think your statement.

 

Except Tunney didn't beat Loughran. He only drew with the 19 year old Teenager, and never gave him a rematch in return. Was Tunney better than Loughran? We don't know, Loughran certainly proved himself vs a much tougher crop of light-heavyweights. Gene never fought black fighters, he hardly took on any 175lb punchers, and most of his best names were well past there primes(gibbons, Carpentier)....The greb victories were very nice, but then you look at the fact greb spotted Gene at least 10-15lb and still managed 2 victories over him. I would have liked to seen Gene stick around and fight hall of fame heavyweights George Godfrey and Jack Sharkey.

There is no possible way you could rank Gene over a fighter like Ezzard Charles. Charles resume at 175lb blows gene's away. Can you imagine if Charles drew the color line and refused to fight Archie Moore? That's essentially what Gene did.


I moved Gene up in my lists recently, i took a 2nd look on film and liked what I saw. He is now my # 6 all time light-heavyweight. I don't think he is in the class of a Ezzard Charles though. Not in terms of a resume.

 

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Sam Langford
4. Michael Spinks
5. Bob Foster

This content is protected

7. Billy Conn
8. Harold Johnson
9. Harry Greb
10. John Henry Lewis

HM: Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Bivins

 

What is Langford's light heavyweight resume like?

I am happy to be proven wrong, but it seems to me that he did his best work at Heavyweight, and he does not really have many decent wins as a light heavyweight. It is sort of just assumed that because he was originally a lightweight and he became succesful at heavyweight that he must have been a great Light heavy. I think if you are writing him in there, you are pretty much discarding legacy (at the weight) in favour of head to head abilities or potential. Of course, maybe i have misread his weights for fights (as i havent double checked before posting).

 

Re-thought and re-stated. He looks amazing on film. Sharkey was hit or miss, Dempsey looked befuddled against mediocre competition (except for the one magical 4th of July... ohh, bestlll my beating heart). Leonard was an amazing fighter and is the closest you claim here. Loughran was good but missing pieces and not nearly the complete fighter that a prime Tunney was.

 

I actually agree with Suzie's take on Loughran. I find him the more pleasing fighter to the eye on film, though I'm sure I'm in the minority there. One of the best I've seen from the transitional era.

 

Compared to who? Ezzard Charles? Floyd Patterson? Archie Moore? Jersey Joe Walcott? Max Schmeling? Harold Johnson? I don't think he looks better than any of these men. Gene would have fought better had he learned to carry a higher gaurd. It's what damm near cost him a knockout loss against Dempsey. Had he fought with his hands high as he got corned into the ropes, the left hook would have never landed. I know Gene came from the St Paul school of fighting(which I respect as they helped transition from bareknuckle styles) but I personally think the style became a bit outdated in later eras which is why you never see fighters in future eras carry there hands by their waists(with Ali being the one freak exception and even he would high his gaurd when his opponent got in close). But look at most of the great technicians in the 40s-50s-60s-70s Most carried a high gaurd or at least one hand high to protect the cheek.

 

Foster at #5??? You've got to be joking Q

 

What I like about Tunney is he didn't lose and he was a very tactical thinker, he also won the HW championship off an ATG.

 

I never said greater, and wouldn't. Of course, I don't rate any of these other blacks at LHW than I do Tunney. But it hurts him, and probably more so than the blacks (I would think if a man could make it happened it would be the white man back then. These fighters were never not keen on taking these types of fights). I think Charles was not only a better fighter on film, but on a P4P list more accomplished. As a LHW I think you could argue for Tunney being higher, though.