Gene Tunney vs. Archie Moore both at their peaks?

PRIME VS PRIME, I give Gene a close UD

 

A. Charlies and tunney fight nothing alike(i think charles is better)

B. In case u missed the fight descriptions, the series of charles-moore could have easily ended up 2-1 in favor of moore! very close fights!



I defintley like archie in this one. he was the more polished and versatile boxer and he was smart enough to outmanuever tunney, and moore superior punching skills would allow him to open up on tunney on the inside. moore had a long 78" reach so tunney will have a difficult time controlling him on the outside. I feel tunney was too one dimensional and certainly didnt prove himself as much as moore.

moore showed he could outbox harold johnson who IMO is as good if not better a boxer than gene tunney. tunney and johnson are pretty similiar, both classical boxers.

moore by unanimous decision

 

Good post!

 

I think this would be harder for Tunney than it was for Charles. This is because there is a possibilty it become a jabbing match, and it would be hard to outjab Moore, who was so crafty. But I think Tunney would beat him. Tunney is one of the best LHWs ever. People think he was just a great mover because of the Dempsey fights, but he used those tactics against Dempsey because they were right for that fight. Tunney could fight and had power. This would be a really good and close fight, but I think Tunney would win it.

Also I always come back to the fact that Moore lost a lot, and in his prime, which too many people argue his prime was at different times. Still, he was one of the best in the division's history, but Tunney was better, their styles could make a classic though, it could be a bit like Wright-Hopkins (plenty of ring generalship, tactics, and fighting), but with much more explosive power involved.

 

i think archie moore was better than tunney. as far as resumes go, moore proved himself and stuck his neck out their far more than tunney did

 

Both resumes are great at 175 pounds , both of these fought in golden eras for that division. Tunney beat Tommy Loughran and dropped him. He beat Harry Greb , who was really good at 175 (but better at middleweight) and one of the best of all. But Moore lost much more times than Tunney.

 

moore lost more times than tunney because not only did he fight better fighters near their peaks than tunney did, he also fought alot more for alot more years than tunney did! moore also fought much much bigger fighters than himself, while tunney in 95% of his fights outweighed his opponent! tunney also retired at 31 years old......moore didnt retire till 46 years old!

 

Archie Moore's losses did not only come when he was aging. He lost plenty before his title reign. Moore lost to people smaller than him aswell as the bigger ones, Charley Burley was great, but he was a blown up welter. Gene Tunney's era was golden at 175 pounds, and he was the best of the bunch. Look up his record and how many quality light-heavies were around. It is hard to say whoch fighter fought in a better era. It was most probably Moore, but this is not by a lot. Gene Tunney's record is impeccable . He beat Harry Greb.

 

And he beat Tommy Loughran and Georges Carpentier, 2 of the best light-heavies ever. I'm not saying Moore's level of comp is worse than Tunney's. I just didn't think it was right how Tunney's resume was dissd.

Still , I think Tunney did better against his than what Moore did. Moore was beaten by so many of his opponents, I know he fought a lot, but he was one of the best Light-heavies ever, and should not have lost that many. Shorty Hogue and Teddy Yarosz beat him, good fighters, but Tunney surely would have beat them. And so many fighters that shouldnt have beat Moore did beat him, these losses occurred in Moore's 20's. Tunney was great, his level of opposition and how good he fared against them should not be overlooked so easily.

 

Thanks for the insight by the way, healthy debate is good

 

I never said once who fought the better fighters. It just wasnt good the way Tunney's resume was written off.
If you look up Archies record you will be amazed by the amount of losses by average fighters. Tunney's era at that weight was almost as good as Moore's. But he did better against them. Both fought cracking fighters, both fought some of the greatest fighters of all-time. Tunney beat more of them.