Sort Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and Michael Spinks at heavyweight

Ezz
Archie
Mike
Gene

 

This.

 

Charles
Spinks
Moore
Tunney

Gene could very well be the best H2H fighter of his weight against heavyweights. However, he’s too unproven to actually make this statement.

 

Based on fights contested at above 180lbs (i.e. excluding slightly over the weight contests between LHWs):

1. Charles
Record = 52-20
Title record = 9-4
Length of reign = 2-years
Best wins = JJW (2-2), past prime Joe Louis, Jimmy Bivins x 3, Joey Maxim x 5, Rex Layne (2-1), Elmer Ray (1-1), Bob Satterfield, Joe Baski, Gus Lesvenich, Cesar Brion
Prime loses = 4 - Elmer Ray SD avenged (1-1), JJW both aged 30 (2-2) & Rex Layne aged 31 avenged (2-1)
Other = His 52-20 record is misleading due to a terrible win-loss record post the age of 30, he was 26-1 at the weight, with the only loss an SD to Elmer Ray which he avenged

2. Tunney
Record = 18-0
Title record = 3-0
Length of reign = 2-years
Best wins = Past prime Jack Dempsey x 2, Harry Greb (a natural MW/LHW, but a HW contender nonetheless), Tommy Gibbons, Charley Reinert x 2 & Johnny Risko
Prime loses = 0

3. Moore
Record = 75-4-3
Title record = 0-2
Best wins = Nino Valdes x 2, Jimmy Bivins (4-1), Clarence Henry & Howard King (4-0-1)
Prime losses = 1 - Jimmy Bivins (contested at HW, but Moore was only 168.5lbs, avenged x 4)
Notes = Was 42-1-1 before loss to Marciano aged 41, 52-2-1 before loss to Patterson aged 42 & 68-3-2 before loss to Rinaldi aged 46

4. Spinks
Record = 5-1
Title record = 4-1
Length of reign = 3-years
Best wins = Past prime Larry Holmes x 2 & past prime Gerry Cooney
Prime losses = 1 - Mike Tyson

It's subjective & depends on your criteria, of course, but if depth of wins in fights contested at HW is a key consideration, I can't see Spinks as anything other than 4th of these.

Of the other 3, Charles clearly has the highest quality win resume for me, whilst I suspect Tunney contested more fights at HW/over 180lbs than most people realise. He has nothing like the number of fights at HW that Archie Moore did, but Tunney did so much better against the best opposition, champions and contenders he faced, than Moore against those he faced.

By my criteria, it's a pretty clear 1, 2, 3 & 4.

 

I agree!

 

Tunney
Charles
Moore
Spinks

 

1. Charles
2. Spinks
3. Tunney
4. Moore
Archie Moore was never a HW champion, so he has to go fourth (but I understand the nostalgics).

If there was no "hole in the rules" (The Long Count); the order would be:
1. Charles
2. Tunney
3. Spinks
4. Moore

 

Charles
Tunney
Spinks
Moore

 

Charles
Spinks
Tunney
Moore

I'm really not seeing an argument for Tunney being above Spinks. Dempsey was gone by the point he got in the ring with Tunney, and they weren't even fifteen rounders. Holmes on the other hand had years around world level left in him, and I'd argue the Long Count was every bit as controversial as the decision in the rematch. Not to mention, Cooney would probably beat every single heavyweight Tunney fought bar Dempsey.

 

Gets my vote.....

 

In fights contested above 180lbs (i.e. HW, allowing a few lbs for slightly over the weight contests between LHWs) Tunney was 18-0 and Spinks was 5-1.

Tunney dominated a 31 and 32-year old Dempsey, generally being considered to win around 18 of the 20 rounds.

Spinks beat a 35 and 36-year old, though admittedly more active, Holmes, in close fights, with most people scoring the rematch to Holmes.

Tyson blasted Spinks out in a round, Tunney never lost a fight at HW. Admittedly Tunney never faced a fighter like the Tyson that Spinks faced, but the nature of that loss damages Michael's standing at HW (though not in a p4p career perspective, imo).

Tunney beat 5 fighters ranked by Ring Magazine at HW - Dempsey, Gibbons, Risko, Weinhert and Heeney, and 6th who would have been (based on his record on fights contested at HW) if he wasn't ranked at MW, in Greb (full disclosure, Tunney fought Weinert in 1922 and I can't find Ring rankings until 1924, when Weinert has ranked at #3, so I'm assuming he would have been ranked in 1922).

Spinks beat 1 fighter ranked by Ring magazine at HW - Holmes.

Spinks is an ATG LHW and p4p, but Tunney is clearly ahead at HW, if fights contested at HW/above 180lbs and what they achieved in their own era, is your criteria.

 

None of this answers the crux of the problem, though.

What Tunney had at HW, is little more than two wins over Dempsey. A half dozen middleweights and the odd fringe contender doesn't add much to him. Both have a small handful of defences and a controversial rematch against the man they won the title against. Thing is, Tunney's man was worse, and I'd argue almost being knocked out is worse than being on the right side of a close decision. Tunney had the fortune to not be finishing his career when Joe Louis was up and coming.

We can go by what they did in their own eras, sure, but I see it as simple fact that Spinks has two wine which absolutely eclipse Tunney's. Ten or so wins over guys like Buddy McHale, Italian Jack Herman and Dan O'Dowd doesn't really do anything for me. Same goes for wins over Steffen Tangstad. They just don't even need to be mentioned. Guys fought more often in the 20s than the 80s.

 

Charles
Spinks
Moore
Tunney

I have Spinks way higher than most but I value 35 year old Holmes a lot more than most.

 

Laughably disingenuous argument.

First, placing the heavyweight divide at 180 is either intellectually dishonest or, uh, proof of the arguer being "simple". Pretty much every opponent Spinks fought at lightheavy was over 180 at fight time. But let's play this game and look at who exactly Gene beat in this regard:

Johnny Risko (192) 19-7
Bartley Madden (189) 36-24-7
Italain Jack Herman (188) 7-11
Tommy Gibbons (179) Final bout of a 104 fight career
Erminio Spalla (191) Yes, THAT Erminio Spalla
Martin Burke (182) 33-17
Harry Foley (189) 47-11-17
Charley Weinert (184) 57-12-8
Jack Clifford (182) 2-20-1
Jack Burke (184) 5-2-1

You gonna pick anyone of those heroes to beat Larry Holmes, Gerry Cooney, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Dwight Qawi or Marvin Johnson? Cuz I ain't.