Gene Tunney: Is he a top 10 ATG heavyweight?

no, and he's outside a top 20 all time. great champion and great skills, but a thin resume to include inside a top 20 let alone 10

 

Yep.
It seems odd to me that Tunney beats Greb etc. and it all gets dismissed as no feat worthy or even relevant of a heavyweight ATG, but then Dempsey gets a ton of flak for NOT fighting and beating Greb, who is proclaimed the solid number 2 contender (behind Wills) ........ Greb's light-heavy win over Gibbons is given better treatment than Tunney's wins over Greb or Gibbons ..... Sharkey's win over Harry Wills is dismissed as almost meaningless or ignored altogether, even though Wills' number 1 contender status up to then haunts Dempsey to the end of his reign and to this day .....

To borrow a theory inspired by Pachilles ... Perhaps because Sharkey and Tunney fought for, and won, the heavyweight title at some point make them less "cool" than Wills and Greb to today's "hipsters" !
Perhaps because Dempsey gave a shot to one, and beat the other to earn a shot, makes them less "cool" too, a little too "mainstream".

 

You mean both fights were fought under the limits ?
Or that both fighters - Greb and Tunney ? - were under ?
If you mean the latter, then the same is true of Greb-Gibbons.

Also, it's the Greb who weighed 165 who is a HW contender, and he never weighed more than 175, therefore isn't the weight or the man who beats him irrelevant ?

I understand this point. It's a valid criticism.

Good.
But should not only count as credentials for fighting Jack then, but should endure as legacy enhancing credits for his ATG HW ranking, surely.
Because if fighting and beating Greb would have enhanced Dempsey's legacy (while Dempsey was HW champ of the world), then Tunney should be due that same credit Dempsey failed to acquire !

 

It´s not my picks. I just gave points in each categorie, the list compiled itself afterwards

You think Tunney kinda invented the jab? :huh

 

Well, it's not important because you've kind of answered it already.

For example, if Tunney is 181 and beats Greb, or if Tunney is 174 and beats Greb ....... shouldn't both fight wins be treated more or less tha same ?
Because Greb is always under the light-heavy limit and always still a heavyweight contender.
I think you've sort of answered this positively in other comments anyway. :good

Yeah, that's why I think Tunney is getting underrated. :good
His achievements get overlooked.

Either that, OR .... people are just so intent on finding a load of stuff to hammer Dempsey with, - "he didn't do this", "he didn't do that" - that they completely miss that Tunney did that and is given little credit for it.

 

Well, I can see both sides of that. A top three rating is "overrating" under certain criteria.

As long as people are consistent in their beliefs, and can articulate them, it's all good.

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.

 

My gut is that Tunney sneaks into the top-10 heavyweights; but I don't think he makes it on body of work. Though Tunney beat a diminished Dempsey, I am impressed that he was able to dictate to Jack far better than was Sharkey.

 

Not a chance is he a Top 10 HW ATG.

Tunney's HW accomplishments:

Beat over-the-hill Dempsey twice, with one fight being very controversial.


He beat two title defences of the HW crown, one very controversial (against an old former champ) and the other against a nobody.


Yeah, real great HW resume.

:-(