If you want to put Gene Tunney on your shoulders and call him tall then that's fine but while you aggrandize Gene Tunney's ability you severely undermine the great fighters that I've listed as favorites over him, most of which I believe would stop him. And while we're at it: Micheal Spinks would be a toss with Gene Tunney, as would Chris Byrd. Tubbs would be a live underdog and give Gene a very good scrap. Brewster is neither skilled nor athletic. Rahman was always an ordinary fighter. McCall is below average. Douglas has the tools but is very inconsistent mentally and physically. Sanders simply doesn't have it. And as for Jack Dempsey; I think he's a great fighter, I just don't overrate him and if you see my rankings I rate him pretty fairly.
Tunney was an excellent fighter, I don't think you will find many that will argue that. But as usual you're ignoring who he ACTUALLY fought at heavyweight. You can take Levinski and Loughran right off your list because those were light heavyweight fights. Delaney had never beaten a top heavyweight, so how much is that worth? That leaves you with Greb, GFibbons, Dempsey and Heeney, unless you want to discuss his other heavyweight comp. As I stated to another poster, thats a total of 5 fights against top rated heavyweight competition. Whats your opinion about that?
Im talking about fighters who were ranked in comparision (because of the lack of a ranking systen back then) to the fighters Tunney fought at heavyweight. With all due respect to you, would you rate the rest of Gene's comp at heavyweight, besides who I've already named, top heavyweights? Some can't even be called good heavyweights. His resume is just way to thin to be in the top 10 in my opinion.
I also think Tunney could have had plenty of defenses had he chose not to retire, but he did. My point with Liston is that he beat a better overall class of fighters at heavyweight than Tunney did, and he did it by leaving no stone unturned. Was his era the stringest? No. But I would say it was stronger than when Tunney was coming up.
So when did tunney do well against 6'5 plus, athletic, power punchers with good technical skill and good speed for such large men?
your right they fought nothing like eachother, Holmes was vastly over rated and lost to every elite fighter he ever fought. Holmes had limited stamina, was awkward when trying to fight on his toes, had a mediocre right hand and terrible balance.. Tunney would work out Holmes with ease and in a H2H match beat him by a landslide over 15rds. proberbly flooring Holmes a couple of times en route.
So the fact tunney has never fought guys with that size or power, never taken a punch from a guy like that makes you think its an easy win for tunney.
Yeah, the Chagaev who fought Ruiz and Valuev would give Tunney a tough time. I still would pick the fighting marine though.
You seemed to have missed this post and I would really like to hear your opinion so I'll reprint it for you. "Tunney was an excellent fighter, I don't think you will find many that will argue that. But as usual you're ignoring who he ACTUALLY fought at heavyweight. You can take Levinski and Loughran right off your list because those were light heavyweight fights. Delaney had never beaten a top heavyweight, so how much is that worth? That leaves you with Greb, Gibbons, Dempsey and Heeney, unless you want to discuss his other heavyweight comp. As I stated to another poster, thats a total of 5 fights against top rated heavyweight competition. Whats your opinion about that?"