How does it sit with you win people rate Tunney high at heavy???

The bottom line is that Tunney rates much higher head to head than he dose based on resume.

Dempsey might have been shot when Tunney beat him but he still had enough to take out a prime and focused Jack Sharkey. The version that was befudeling Schmeling untill he went low.

Tunney not only beat this version of Dempsey but dominated him.

 

Where does Spinks have losses that are equivalently to Tunney's loss (arguably 2) to Greb?

 

I agree, Tunney doesnt belong in top 20 heavyweights of all with his lack of resume at heavyweight. people forget when he held the heavyweight title, he chose his last title defense against a soft C level fighter instead of hall of famers jack sharkey and george godfrey, both in there prime.


h2h, he had skills great movement and fast straight punches, but his whole style was built on fighting on the outside against smaller men. which is why he never fought a 200lb + heavyweight. I think tunney would struggle with bigger men in other eras because of his lack of inside fighting, and low gaurd. I think Walcott, Charles, Patterson beat tunney, but tunney beats langford.

 

Tunney lost to greb twice.

 

I still cant get over the fact Tunney chose to fight fat C level heavyweight like tom heeney in his last title defense over two prime hall of famers jack sharkey and george godfrey. Please dont mention the elimination tournament because I have already pointed out in previous threads how corrupt it was, and biased against black fighters.

 

Well, from what i remember opinions are divided so i won't say "he definitely won two", but you could make a case for Greb winning two.

True, i just thought you painted a one-sided picture by asking who Spinks beat that was as good as Greb, without mentioning that they basically went 50-50. Also, Spinks' resume at LHW misses a Greb, but has more depth. Tunney has Gibbons and a green Loughran (which was a close contest) but not that much more from what i remember.

 

I agree with Chris here

 

Hindsight is a wonderfull think but Tunney did not know that Sharkey and Godfrey would go on to be hall of famers while Heeney would prove to be a blind alley.

He might have misguidedly believed that Heeney had as good a claim as anybody at the time. Some people criticised him at the time for not fighting Johny Risko, again without the benefit of hindsight but nobody on this board gets emotional about it.

 

At the time Tunney fought his last fight July 1928 .Sharkey had lost2 and drawn 1 in fights against heavyweights in his last three apppearances,He'd been kod by Dempsey a year before who Tunney shut out,been held to a draw by that "fat c level heavyweight" Tom Heeney [who Tunney subsequently shutout before stopping ]and beaten by Risko,his only win was a ko over LH Delaney.Godfrey had been beaten by Risko too a month before Tunney beat Heeney ,and in his next fight , a month after the Tunney defence Godfrey fouled out to Gains in a fight he was losing.So neither fighter was that viable ,perhaps Tunney should have fought Risko? What chance would you have given him? I agree Sharkey would have been a dangerous opponent for Tunney ,but the fact is he eliminated himself.Godfreys results at that time [handcuffed?] didnt justify a title shot either,it was a while before he got another note- worthy win,Gorman was it?

 

Godfrey was rated # 2 by ring magazine, sharkey # 1 when tunney retired. both were prime hall of famers worthy of a title shot. I already posted numerous reports on the godfrey-risko bout, risko did not win that bout. Godfrey was ordered to carry risko the whole fight which he did, and godfrey still deserved the decision. Sharkey may have gotten knocked out very controversially by dempsey, but dempsey arguebably knocked out tunney too, and sharkey dominated dempsey just as much as tunney did.

 

I am pretty comfortable with Tunney in the top 20. Maybe, even in the top 15.