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

You think Tunney would beat Charles and Walcott?

 

I think Walcott, Charles beat tunney. but tunney beats langford, on film langford was too stationary for gene, and tunney was at his best against short fighters.

 

Neither Sharkey nor Godfrey were Hall of Famers when Tunney was Champ.You didnt mentionthe fact that Sharkey could only draw with heeney who Tunney beat like a drum brefore stopping him.,nor the fact that Risko beat Sharkey,even if Godfrey was handcuffed against Risko,he wasnt against |Gains and Gains said he felt in control all the way before Godfrey fouled out,actually on paper Risko is the more deserving of a title shot ,and Tunney would have eaten him up.

 

SuzieQ just does not like Tunney. A middleweight Ko'd Charles and heavyweight journeyman beat Walcott. Yet Tunney with only one official ring loss to a hall of fame fighter at light heavyweight who won due chiefly based on a clash of heads, he is not as good? If Tunney got Ko'd by Marciano I betcha ya dollars to donuts SuzieQ would rat him higher.

Tunney was an excellent fighter. He had the skills and speed that Walcott and Charles had, except he was far more durable, and fought much smarter. If you watch his films, Tunney stamina, body punching, footwork, and timing were top notch.

I think Tunney should rate as a top 17-20 heavyweight, and an all time top 20-p4p fighter

 

it bugs me to the hilt because he didnt do jack **** but beat a by all accounts inactive ageing heavyweight champion .. hardly liston beating patterson

 

O so now I dont like Gene Tunney because I picked ATGs like charles and walcott over him? that makes alot of sense! atsch


I picked charles over him because I regard ezzard as # 1 lightheavyweight of all time, i dont think any lightheavyweight beats ezzard.

I think floyd beats gene too....pattersons leaping left hook will catch low handed gene trying to lean back

I picked Walcott over him because walcott was stronger, harder puncher, better jab, better boxer, and slicker fighter.


I did say gene would beat sam langford, a great fighter, and i do think he would. I also think gene has a good shot vs archie moore

 

yes that he had to hit low then sucker punch .. he was getting swamped

 

GREB was an awsome boxer so fast it would make todays fighters heads spin and if it were allowed would probloby wipe out half of todays heavys---believe it or not.Do some research on him im serious for a little guy he was awsome.As for tunney in the exception of sharkey tunney had no equal at that time since dempsey got civilized and he had no love for the sport, he had enough money,if he had wanted to continue he might have had a good amount of title defences

 

DEMPSEY was out pointed but still would have ko,d sharkey -sharkey was tiring do to jacks bodypunchin and even a past prime dempsey could sense this and make anyone have to be told what happend when they wokeup

 

Its a funny carreer, Gene Tunneys.

His legacy has definitely suffered because of Mike Spinks' loss to an atg heavyweight in Tyson. The reality is that when he retired, he retired as arguably the greatest light heavy ever (even to this day). It is clear that he had speed that was better than most atg heavys, and he had an ability to find a way to win. While it is true that he had only a small number of fights at heavy, and his chin and heart was not proved at that weight (although the shot Dempsey fights do suggest otherwise), there is one thing to consider. If his ranking is devalued because of what a light heavyweight did, is it not more appropriate to consider what another smaller (although bigger than Tunney) fighter did in their career. That fighter i am thinking about retired after a few Title defences, after winning the title and dominating (in his own way) twice, a smilarly old All time great champion. He fought the exact same style of fight as Tunney, but he did not have a huge punch for a heavyweight. When he retired, his skills made many think he was a great but he had a massive question mark over his chin and heart. Most people thought that someof the earlier champions like Louis, Dempsey, Marciano etc would KO him. Unlike tunney, this guy had been dropped a bit by lesser punchers. Anyway this fighter when he retired had the same question marks as Tunney. The fighter i talk about is of course Muhammed Ali, who later made a comeback and proved his chin and heart to be arguably the best ever.

Since there is no evidence to show Tunneys chin and heart is anything but as good as Alis (he has never been stopped), is it not fair to increase Tunneys legacy because of Ali's second career, just as much as it is to decrease it because of Spinks? The reality is that Tunney (like most ATGs) if you really look at it, is largely unproven. But, given what he has shown on film, if you accept that his chin and heart are great at a heavyweight level (and the Dempsey fight really did prove this), and you accept that his power is at least as damaging (on a heavyweight level) as that of an Ali, or Patterson, or even Chris Byrd which i think his heavyweight fights more than support, then he is capable of a very high ranking as an all time great.