Gene Tunney vs. Archie Moore both at their peaks?

Have you ever heard of Tiger Brown, Frankie Nelson, Sammy Jackson Kal Martin, I could go on if you like. I'm not disrespecting Moore , please do not get me wrong. I'm a fan. But this debate has progressed to a point where I must prove a point. Tunney I believe was greater than him, not by much though. They are both 2 of the greatest that ever lived. But I believe some people have overlooked Tunney's resume.

 

Lords of the ring - the greatest fighters since 1950. Moore's official record (all of it) is in it. I wouldn't just say this stuff. sorry Kal Martin never beat him , it was a guy called Billy Adams. Them losses were in the first two years of Moore's career. There's so many more , and I've looked these guys up. I don't want people to think I'm dissing Archie ,I would never even think about it. I was just backing Tunney up.

 

The only reason I brought it up is that the guy before said that Moore's losses came in the twilight of his career.
And I don't recall once giving any impression that I would dispute that. But you underestimate Gene Tunney is the only thing I'm getting at. Look up his record and then look up the guys he BEAT , not lost to. The guy fought in a golden era. Do you disput that. Because if you do , then that is madness.

21/02/1936 - lost to Courtland Sheppard
16/04/1936 lost to Frankie Nelson
04/05/1936 lost to Tiger Brown
1/09/1937- lost to Billy Adams

I'm not saying they diminish his legacy, and I haven't said that once. I'm just letting you know that I'm not making them up.

 

Can you please just answer my question then - do you dispute that Gene Tunney fought in a golden era of light-heavies and emerged as the best without actually winning that title (the same as Ezzard Charles did) ?

 

Battling Levinsky, TOMMY LOUGHRAN , HARRY GREB , Georges Carpentier , Tommy Gibbons , Jimmy Delaney. All top level fighters of that time , and 1 of them is an all-time great , 2 of them are 2 of the best that ever lived.