As a Heavyweight, Tunney shouldn't even be mentioned in a Top 10. As an overall fighter he was innovative, and looks good on film. I'd rank him more as a Light Heavyweight, Between #6-10 imo. Would he be able to beat top heavy's today? No. His technique and if he used his feet like against Dempsey, might carry him a few rounds, but he wouldn't be able to do much more than survive.
i agree with the post above. tunney looks great to me on film. a little overrated at heavy because of his short title reign and not crossing the color line.
Also he wasn't a heavyweight. He was a 175 pounds naturally bulked up to 185 or so and fought a washed up Dempsey. Gene Tunney could not keep a true big man off him. His best win besides Dempsey was over middleweight/super middleweight Harry Greb. Even ranking him high as a light heavyweight is insulting. How many top light heavyweights he fought? 1 if you include Greb. Tunney couldn't even beat a average skilled modern sized heavyweight. Sam Peter is average but do you think Tunney could keep him at bay? Not likely.
McGrain, do you know how to contact the moderators about this guy? I'm going to try but haven't before, its gone on too long.
I guess you have never boxed in real life. Well, just to let you know, weight isn't everything in fighting.
"How many top light heavyweights [had] he fought? 1 if you include Greb" I'm guessing that means you've never heard of former champions Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, and Georges Carpentier... Do you mean the same Samuel Peter who struggled twice to defeat James Toney?
Please explain how exactly boxing has progressed? Are people punching faster? are chins stronger now? In athletics people are running faster, jumping higher etc, how exactly do you measure 'progression' in boxing? A punch is a punch