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

Maybe you can say that Tunney didn't have an appetite for that fight and you may very well be correct, but considering Tunney & Sharkey actually had a deal to fight each other in early 1926 in New York (Feb 15th), and considering William Muldoon's threatening stance against Tunney once Gene reneged on that deal, which included Muldoon threatening to take Tunney's licence away if he didn't fight Sharkey, it might be a stretch to say "there was absolutely no appetite for Tunney-Sharkey".

Considering the most powerful ruling body in the sport at the time wanted/demanded it, and judging by the bit of ridicule Tunney got from the press for backing out of the fight, there was certainly an appetite there for a Tunney/Sharkey fight. Sharkey himself was also quick to remind Tunney of him backing out of the fight, and was especially so in hopes of getting a title shot at Tunney after both won their big fights later in the year (Tunney/Dempsey, Sharkey/Wills), and one such & small example;

"Sharkey On Tunney's Trail To Fulfill Former Contract

New York, Oct 13 - Joseph Paul Cukoschay, the young Lithuanian prize fighter who exposed the fraud that Harry Wills had maintained for years, will now set about making himself objectionable to Gene Tunney, reminding Mr. Tunney of a date that Tunney failed to fulfill one night last winter and twitting Tunney about his own bashfulness when invited to fight Wills." - Westbrook Pegler, Washington Post, Oct 14th, 1926

 

You have a point to an extent, ie if Tunney was unbeaten and beat every out there, you couldnt hold his comp against him too much. But Tunney didn't seem too keen to take on the big HWs. Tunneys HW resume is very weak, and he seemed to run into retirement a tad too fast, which is reminicent of Roy Jones running back to 175 after beating Ruiz.

His LHW work also has names missing and he stepped up late in his career. He also lost to SMW Greb (arguably twice), do we see Calazage beating Bowe?

Tunneys sole claim to HW fame is outhustling an old rusty Dempsey. Its just insufficient

 

1. Prime Holyfield is far far better than a Dempsey who hadn't fought for 3 whole years Holyfield would batter this Dempsey worse than he did to a nearer prime Tyson

You call Holyfield a cruserweight, but he was bigger than Dempsey and Tunney :?

Holyfield fought 5 Linear champs 7 linear champs and beat 6 of them and drew with 1.

2. Ali was a level above Dempsey by some degree. He was also much nearer to his prime when Norton beat him. Many think Norton should have got the third fight. Some think he should have got all 3.

Ali would go on to beat Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle.....

3. Firstly Louis is superior to Dempsey. Actually Charles was at least as dominant against Louis as Tunney was against Dempsey, more so in that he didnt get put down and it was WIDE. Charles fought the best from 160-HW, Tunney did not. Ofcourse Tunney could be KO'd, Greb was close to doing so

4. Wills lost TWICE to Langford and BEAT HIM 17 times, saying he lost when Langford got old is bull**** because he beat near prime version in 1914. You could equally say Tunney only beat Greb once he got old. Wills actually fought near everyone at the weight

5. Laughable, Shmelling disected and destroyed Louis in their first fight it wasn't remotely close after the eary going. The rematch he was blasted out but Tunney would have been blasted by Louis too and he would never have beaten Louis in the first place.

Schmelling also has excellent wins over Sharkey, Stribbling and Uzcudun.

 

Wow Sam intersting stuff. thanx

 

that is where we will always disagree

 

It is because on an instinctual level he knows damn well that Tunney and Dempsey would be at a big disadvantage against the bigger boys, but when the black and white boys are on the subject, size doens't matter, the great Willard was destroyed, etc.