What makes Tunney "the very highest level" outside of the fact that Dempsey lost to him ? Why not Fulton ? If Tunney had been blasted out in 1 or 2 rounds no one would say that Dempsey was tested at the highest level. The same is true of Wills. If Dempsey had fought him and blasted him out in 1 round, that wouldn't be seen as tested at the highest level ... and then if Dempsey had gone on to lose to Tunney twice, you could still claim what you are claiming. To hammer home my point : Did Michael Spinks test Tyson at the very highest level, for example ? It's all after-the-fact reasoning.
My appraisal of him based upon his appearance on film, what i've learned about him, his record etc. My appraisal of him based upon his appearance on film, what i've learned about him, his record etc. Yes; Tunney proved his brilliance finally during his fights with Dempsey. Wills, of course, proved his brilliance by beating an ageing Langford (a smaller, brutal puncher with great ring craft, but let's not put that in the way of a very clear fantasy pick for Dempsey against him...) most especially but other fine contenders also. Nobody will ever know exactly what would have happened had x happened instead of y; but I personally suspect that what I know about Wills now would lead me to believe that he had been tested at the highest level in beating Wills. You are free to disagree, but I don't see how you really can? You can also suggest that had Dempsey smashed out Wills he wouldn't have been so fascinating to me, but I think my fascination with Langford and Jeanette would still probably have lead me to an in-depth interest in Wills and the same conclusion I have made. To hammer home my point: Frazier was blasted out extremely quickly by Foreman but previous performances mean i can still regard him at a test at the highest level for, say, Quarry. I am capable of making that distinction. No. But what point do you think this has hammered home? I've made deductions about Spinks based upon the tiny handful of fights he had at heavyweight and acted upon them. Could I be wrong? Sure. Could you? Sure. I mean I guess I could carry every argument to a conclusion and in cases where this answer is reasonable forgo posting, but it seems a little excessive? I'm reasonably schooled in before-the-fact reasoning too, and Wills was seen by many writers of the time as the highest possible form of test for Jack Dempsey. You've made the point before that newspaper writers can be wrong/corrupt/etc., and that's true.
Do you consider Tunney to have a better record at heavyweight than Fulton? Even with Dempsey it is a hard case to make, without it is pretty hopeless.
You cant have failed to notice that Firpo was pretty heavily hyped after he beat Willard. Lets say that Wills was ranked #1 before he lost and drew with Tate. His ranking would inevitably have slipped after that. If Firpos win over Willard was seen as being more impressive that Willss subsequent win over Norfolk, you might theoretically have got the following situation: Champion Jack Dempsey 1. Luis Firpo 2. Harry Wills 3. Tommy Gibbons etc.
I would go so far as to say over-hyped; it seems to me that there was a very impressive machine at work to bolster his standing. But we've been through that before, in detail, with supporting newspaper articles. Unless there's something new out there? Wills was almost totally unaffected in standing by the Tate disaster based upon the news reads that were available 3-4 yrs ago; at the very least i'd say what was available at that time showed that presuming slippage for Wills is not reasonable. This seems to have been because a) losses were more normal for contenders in this era and b) Wills was believed to be so far ahead of the chasing pack that he could afford disasters without his status slipping.
IMO, people on this forum put too value on a guys record of who he fought and his ranking and articles which may or may not be biased, or slanted to someone's agenda. When there is physical evidence such as some vid, and you read, he did this or that in the ring. I tend to read the fight reports, and see if there is a pattern. In the case of Harry Wills there are plenty of fight reports, so you can see what shots he throws, what he does offensively and defensively, and then you couple it with what you see via clips and see if what you read from the reports jives with what you see. Greb has a bigger claim to #1 then does Wills. Wills was a good and decent man, but as a fighter he left a lot to be desired. If you read the fight reports of Greb fighting, you will always see comments on his speed, his hitting from every angle, then you watch the vid on youtube, of Greb training, you see the same things, the way he threw his shots and the way he moved. What I have learned thanks to this forum, is that you cant rely solely on articles, cos they tend to be a writers opinion, his spin, and if they were paid off.
As I already made clear, Tunney's excellence at heavy was proven during the Dempsey fights - in the post you are quoting I make that specific claim. As to Fulton, i've bolstered him often on the forum and consider him underrated in a wider sense but in having beaten Greb and Dempsey - two of the four outstanding heavies of his era - and posting 0 losses, I see Tunney's standing at heavy as absolutely airtight in being above Fulton. That's coming from someone who ranks Tunney as low as I've ever seen (on a list I trust) and Fulton higher than on any list i've ever seen. So even in seeing less between them then any other person I know, I still can't see any reasonable way for arguing Fulton the more brilliant, more respected, better or more dangerous heavyweight than Tunney.
Well, many would claim that Tunney beat a shell of Dempsey due to Dempsey being 3 years out of the ring. Many do claim this. Fulton was a fairly well-regarded contender prior to being done in 1 round by Dempsey. I'd say as highly-regarded as Tunney was. With a good record. Well, Jess Willard beat Jack Johnson. That might still not put him at the level of Harry Wills, but it probably puts him at the level of Gene Tunney. I'm not going to argue that Frazier wasn't at the highest level. He has win over Muhammad Ali. What puts Gene Tunney at a higher level than Michael Spinks ? Michael Spinks was seen by many writers as the highest possible test for Mike Tyson. That's my point. I'm not suggesting Wills would have been KO'd in 1, or even that he would have lost to Dempsey. I don't know. My main query is why only Gene Tunney is regarded by yourself as a "very high level" opponent on Dempsey's record, when he faced others earlier in his career who were about as qualified, or as highly regarded, as Tunney was before Dempsey lost to him. A 3-year-inactive Dempsey at that. You've kind of answered that, and I know we all have to make judgment calls, but you were presenting 0-2 as a statistic or a fact, and I'm showing that it is just an opinion with a very shaky foundation. In my opinion.
I dont think it is fair to say that Wills standing was unaffected, there were certainly newspapers criticising him. Regardless of what people thought about him, I think that Ring Magazine would have had to reduce his ranking, in order to be consistent in their policy.
Their is a reason why the only white hwt champion to face a black contender for the title from Sullivan to 1937 occurred in Austrailia and the white hwt champion a Canadian. The entire deck was stacked against Wills or any other black getting a hwt title shot. It was not about Dempsey it was the times that few today can comprehend.
Fleischer who owned Ring at that time made it his top priority to push with his pen the idea of ending the color line in the hwt division. You need to keep this in mind when reading his articles or any ranking from him during this time period.
It's a reasonable claim. But what is the relevance for my postings? That how Tunney looked on film can be explained away by Dempsey's status? That's a reasonable position. It is not my position. My position is also reasonable. Tunney was much more highly regarded than Fulton ever was, as a fighter, after the Dempsey defeats. Probably it is possible to find two newspaper articles - one that is high on Fulton, one that is low on Tunney - that contradicts this, but in a general sense, i'm satisfied this statement is reasonable. Before? I won't argue the point but I suspect that Tunney was more highly regarded before, too. Willard was not a test as good as Tunney or Wills. I'm absolutely satisfied of that personally. I acknowledge the opposite could be true. I'm sure you'd acknowledge that my opinion is likely the more widely held. My opinion that Tunney is at a higher level than Spinks as a heavyweight in an era-on-era basis. Now you know i'm capable of dressing that up in the necessary garments, but i'm sick of it. Especially when it comes to heavyweights. If you think appraising Tunney as at an equal/higher level to Spinks as a heavyweight is unreasonable, say so; i'll accept it. But it is not my opinion. Having read Blood Season, the Tyson bio, been alive and interested at the time, that is not my perception. However, I didn't, and haven't, read all boxing articles and would love to read one that painted Spinks as being of the highest possible calibre of heavyweight opponent (era-on-era); it would surprise and delight me and I would love to read it. I think i've already explained it, but I am willing to do so again. However, this will be the last time I explain it; if you don't understand or are not satisfied by my explanation, please draw my attention to the specific details you are dis-satisfied by rather than just asking again because I won't answer I don't mean to be so *****ly but...just when i thought i was out, etc. You know what i mean. Tunney is, in my approximation, among the very best heavyweights his own era could have produced in terms of size and ability (era-on-era - Tunney wouldn't necessarily represent the highest possible test for Ali, not saying he wouldn't be, but is for Dempsey because of the when etc.). Tunney was better, based upon film, supported by record and reportage and some peer review, than anyone Dempsey ever fought. That is not to say he would beat everyone Dempsey ever fought. Styles, freaky best nights (thinking Sharkey) and size relative to those things plus physical ability all comes in to play. But i'm satisfied that Tunney was the best fighter that Dempsey fought. This is a matter of opinion - i'm not claiming some objective overview that makes me capable of knowing somethign like this. I do my best with what there is. Again, do you think that Tunney as the best fighter Dempsey met is an unreasonable opinion? Or do you think it is a reasonable opinion? I've been very clear from the get go that this was just my opinion. I guess the confusion could have come from the fact that prior to posting my opinions on these matters, i claimed as an absolute fact that Dempsey never beat a #1 contender (which, again, is a matter of opinion in fairness, so I probably shouldn't have done so - however, given some of the claims that have been made in this thread, I hardly think it makes headline news). However i feel i've been clear on that point. I'm making my own appraisals and sharing them. They may be on shakey ground but i'll trust my opinion on boxing as more fundamentally sound than some of the outrageous **** that has been written in this turdheap of a thread.
