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

I am going with...

1. Ezzard Charles.

2. Gene Tunney.
3. Michal Spinks.

4. Archie Moore.

It was a tough choice between Tunney and Spinks for me.

 

[QUOTE="Seamus, post: 22706832, member: 1377"
Tommy Gibbons (179) Final bout of a 104 fight career
[/QUOTE]
I never got the sentiment that Gibbons was washed, he seemed to be pretty formidable against (albeit subpar) Jack Bloomfield. I could get behind the idea that he was past his prime, but I don't think it's a meaningless win either

 

I never got the sentiment that Gibbons was washed, he seemed to be pretty formidable against (albeit subpar) Jack Bloomfield. I could get behind the idea that he was past his prime, but I don't think it's a meaningless win either[/QUOTE]

It was his final go in a 14 year, 106 fight career back in the day when dudes didn't take pristine care of their bodies. He was toast. He was also broke, so if he could milk a few more dollars out of his career he would have.

 

Tunney has 6 wins over top 10 HWs (not fringe contenders) all clear, Spinks 2, and only 1 according to the majority scorecards of observers.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but Tunney doesn't just rank higher at HW for me, he ranks a lot higher.

I've just checked McGrain's top 100 HWs, as I trust the depth of research and analysis he applies more than any other list maker I'm aware of. He has Tunney at #23 and Spinks at #76. I have Tunney at #19 and I suspect if applied the necessary time to research and analyse a top 100 list, that I'd have Spinks lower than Matt does.

 

What weight division to you consider fights contested in the 180lbs during the 1920's to have occurred at? At what weight division do you consider they contribute to that fighters resume?

What weight division do you consider Spinks LHW fights to have been contested at? At what division do they contribute to his resume?

Risko, Gibbons and (probably) Weinert were top 10 ranked HWs when Tunney fought them.

I completely disregard fantasy fight cross era contests when I rank fighters. Its not a H2H list, which I find particularly pointless across vastly different eras. Different times, different sports.

 

Excellent post. I have no argument with your conclusions but I don't remember Larry Holmes looking past his prime until Spinks licked him twice. Same with Dempsey. I suspect Tunney would've been difficult for him to beat two or three years earlier. Gene had the boxing skills and the style to beat the great Dempsey.

 

Thank you.

Yes, I suppose it's arguable as to whether the versions of Dempsey & Holmes that Tunney & Spinks fought were "past prime" or "past peak", depending on both your view of their condition at the time of those fights & your interpretations of those phrases.

Peak Dempsey vs Tunney, yeah that's an interesting fight, reasonable arguments can be made either way, imo.

Peak Holmes vs Spinks, I'd confidently favour Holmes, though I consider Spinks to be the greater fighter p4p, based on their entire respective careers at all weights.

 

Great post.

I would include Bob Baker as a great win for Archie. Also Alhandeo Lavrorante.

 

Two to a washed up Dempsey in ten rounders, one to a blown-up lightheavy Gibbons in his final fight of a long career... Are we trying to paint Heeney as something better than he was rather than seeing how week the post-Dempsey/pre-Louis era was?

Sorry, two 15 round victories over Holmes, a top 3 ATG heavy who would return later to challenge again for the title, trumps all that nonsense.

 

Tunney has more wins over fighters ranked in the top 10 at HW than Spinks has wins over HWs. He also never lost at HW, whereas Spinks was stopped in a single round.

I like Michael Spinks, he's an ATG LHW & an ATG p4p fighter.

Sensible arguments can be made for ranking him ahead of Tunney both based on their respective bodies of work at LHW and p4p based on their entire careers.

I'd have no problem with someone picking Spinks to beat Tunney in some kind of fantasy, time machine, fight. Fantasy H2H contests from fighters competing in eras so far apart are irrelevant to me.

Based solely on fights contested at HW, I just can't see any credible argument for Spinks even being ranked close to Tunney.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I'm yet to encounter someone who more thoroughly researches and analyses their unbiased lists than our own McGrain, who has Tunney #23 all time at HW & Spinks at #76. My own HW ATG list goes no lower than 25, but that kind of cavernous gap reflects their respective bodies of work in fights contested at HW, imo.

 

Thank you.

Yes, Bob Baker is a glaring omission from my list of Archie's best wins at HW, he certainly warrants inclusion.

 

Well done! 100% in agreement

 

So we are to enforce two standards here, one for each era, so that the terminology remains the same? I don't intellectually abide by that, any more than I can consider a guy who fought almost 70 fights and never faced a black fighter to be Champion of the World. Sure, in name he was. But again, bending reality to fit terminology.

Risko was basically a .500 fighter over his last ten bouts before Tunney beat him. Again, Gibbons was on his last legs. None of these individually, or combined, impress me as much as two victories over Holmes. I understand your argument, though.

 

I have completed top 20 all time lists in each of the original weight divisions.

As part of the research I completed to support my rankings, I assigned every fight each boxer had into one specific weight division. No one fight could contribute to a fighters resume at more than 1 weight.

The criteria I used to determine what weight division a fight was contested at = 1) The weight division named in a title fight; 2) The weight of the heavier fighter in non-title fights, allowing a few lbs over the title weight, e.g. I'd assign a fight between 2 x LHWs both weighing 176lbs to their LHW record.

I assure you that I applied this criteria, or "these standards", if you prefer, consistently across all eras.

Boxers who competed in the in-between divisions, e.g. CW, SMW, etc. lost out relative to their counterparts from earlier eras in the original 8 weight division rankings, but would obviously benefit over them in all time rankings for the in-between divisions.

Pre the CW era, any fight contested either for a HW title or above 180lbs contributes towards a fighters HW ranking, by my criteria.

I'm not saying the above is the definitive process to assess boxer's records in specific weight divisions, it made sense to me, but I'm open minded enough to listen to any alternate suggestions you have. Either way, I disagree that I set out to be disingenuous or that I'm simple, as you earlier claimed.

 

Sorry, was a bit salty yesterday. You are certainly not simple, nor do I think you are trying to pull one over to bolster older fighters. I respect your argument, though I do disagree. These are never perfect comparisons because the sport changes so much from decade to decade, in scale and scope, in rules and practice.

I look forward to reading more of your posts.