You see, this is your problem. You want him elevated to top 10 status when by your own words "there was no better level of heavyweight competition to fight" and penalize fighters who actually fought and beat BETTER competition and defined their careers at heavyweight. Makes no sense.
The knowledgable member "UnForgiven" posted this earlier in the topic but you chose to ignore it, so maybe you could address it now.... "Gene Tunney beat Dempsey twice, beat Greb twice (at least, I think), and seems to have been willing but passed up by Harry Wills. He did better against Gibbons than Greb or Dempsey did, and for whatever reason Wills didn't face Gibbons either. Tunney was the most dominant fighter over the agreed relevant heavyweights for a good 4 or 5 year period. But somehow this gets reduced to "thin resume" and "weak heavyweight legacy" in the opinions of many people."....?
I didn't chose to ignore it, it wasn't addressed to me you dope. And the person it was addressed to answered it the same way I would have. I see no reason to repeat whats already been answered. atsch
you started the thread.. so you would answer it with "Well he just didn't beat that many HW's. and you call that an answer.. IMO Unforgiven has said it all in this thread with that one post which you the thread starter cannot address yet you have rubbished all links from Historians and trashed everyones opinion but cannot address that one post which is typical of you. so here it is again with me addressing it to you. "Gene Tunney beat Dempsey twice, beat Greb twice (at least, I think), and seems to have been willing but passed up by Harry Wills. He did better against Gibbons than Greb or Dempsey did, and for whatever reason Wills didn't face Gibbons either. Tunney was the most dominant fighter over the agreed relevant heavyweights for a good 4 or 5 year period. But somehow this gets reduced to "thin resume" and "weak heavyweight legacy" in the opinions of many people."....?
man, i didn't think this would go 10 pages. quick look shows some interesting discussions but in the end I cannot think of a solid argument for top 10. there are 10 better (at least), they've been listed and his resume requires a great deal of "interpretation" to be considered anything more than mediocre. p4p all time great, at heavyweight though he simply did not do enough.
