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

It is almost certain that at that point in his career, Spinks' knees had already "gone", and that he was no longer prime.
I'm commenting on that and only that (Spinx's knees), no other factors.

 

You were salty because you got skunked on your fishing trip.

 

After driving 4 hours to get here, yes, that leaves me a bit salty.

 

I'm assuming the six are Dempsey twice, Gibbons, Risko, Heeney and Weinert?

To me, there's very little there. Risko was the Derek Chisora of his era; Gibbons was a middleweight at the end of his career, Weinert may have been top ten at the time (which if he was, it's an outrage, he'd lost 3 in a row to start the year off and had no good wins outside of MAYBE Willie Meehan, and beating an old Levinsky). Heeney was alright I guess, but really? Heeney? He lost to everyone decent he fought except Risko, and as I said, Risko was essentially the Derek Chisora of his era. His best result is a draw with Jack Sharkey, which puts his resume on about the same level as Bud Gorman.

I feel comfortable assessing Tunney's heavyweight resume outside of Dempsey as a couple of fringe contenders and a handful of middleweights.

Also, if Spinks is being docked a Holmes win because of the scorecards, why isn't Tunney being docked the Long Count? They were both the benefactor of incompetence; the only difference is Spinks vs Holmes II was incredibly close; whereas Tunney arguably got KTFOd. Not to mention, Tunney-Dempsey weren't even TWELVE rounders, let alone 15.

Spinks vs Tunney at heavyweight is essentially Holmes vs Dempsey, and I think it's pretty damn clear who was better in their respective fights.

I don't know about a top 100, but I do know I'd shoot myself in the foot before I put Gene Tunney in my top 20 at heavyweight. I really can't see that.

I've gotta give it to you, you make the argument well so I stand corrected about not hearing it, but I don't think we're gonna see eye to eye on this one, mate. For me, it's a question of Dempsey vs Holmes, and I know which of the two pairs of wins I find more impressive.

 

Thank you for putting into words what I haven't had the time, or maybe ability, to do.

I wouldn't put Tunney in a top 40 heavyweight ranking with all the historic mumbo jumbo included as a factor. Without, he'd be lucky to make my top 200.

 

Yes, it's those 6. 7 really as Greb, who is generally considered to be Dempsey's most avoided challenger, 2nd only to Wills, was amongst the top 10 boxers competing at HW, but was ranked in another division rather than at HW.

So, we can summarise our different views on who ranks higher at HW out of Tunney & Spinks, as falling into the following 2 x areas:

1) Wins over Dempsey & Holmes:

• Controversy - I have no desire to get into a debate about the Long Count. You've stated your view, mine is that I don't know if Tunney could have beaten the ref's count if Dempsey had immediately retreated to the neutral corner, iirc he later claimed he could have & as his legs were so strong when he got up, my guess is he could have, but I don't know for certain. When evaluating a fighters career for ranking purposes, I respect the official result, except in cases of clear robbery, and apply context. i.e. I consider Lewis vs Holyfield 1 as a win for Lewis. I see Spinks vs Holmes 2 as a win for Spinks, but in the context it was a close fight the majority scored to Holmes. Tunney vs Dempsey 2 was a wide decision win for Tunney, in a fight both were dropped, and both beat the ref's count, which was delayed in the case of Gene's KD, because Dempsey didn't retreat to the neutral corner as per the agreed rules.
• Competitiveness - Most consider that Tunney won 90% of the rounds vs Dempsey over their 2 fights. Most consider that Spinks won around 50% of the rounds over Holmes. That is a huge difference.
• Quality of opponent - Holmes is my #3 at HW all time, Dempsey #14, so clear edge to Spinks there. Balancing that is Dempsey was 31/32 & Holmes 35/36. Holmes won significant fights many years later, Dempsey didn't. Balancing that is, between the two Tunney fights, Dempsey KO'd the worlds best heavyweight, aside from Tunney & he, and a future champion. Had Holmes beaten a Pinklon Thomas or Tim Witherspoon in between his 2 defeats to Spinks, indicating he was still one of the best 2 HWs in the world, it would have helped your case, but he didn't.
• Summary - I don't think the impact these wins have on their respective rankings are wildly different. Tunney's wins over Dempsey speak slightly more for him imo, despite Holmes being clearly greater than Dempsey, because they were so dominant & because Dempsey's win over Sharkey demonstrated both contests were between the best 2 HWs in the world at that time, whereas I'm not totally sure how far Holmes had slipped relative to the best of the rest of the field. However, I think point 2 explains the biggest underlying reason for the difference in our views.

2) The rest of their HW careers, excluding the above:

• Record = Tunney 16-0; Spinks 3-1
• Against top 10 contenders = Tunney 4-0 (really 5-0 when considering Greb); Spinks 0-1. Yes Tunney didn't face a HW as formidable as Tyson, but he did beat multiple top 10 contenders, whereas what else do we have to go on with Spinks? He didn't beat any contenders aside from Holmes, none.
• Ranking criteria = Your argument is the contenders Tunney beat weren't very good so should be discounted entirely. If 4 or 5 wins against top 10 contenders, including a couple ranked at #3, are to be discounted entirely, then doesn't that limit ranking fighters purely based on the quality of their signature win(s), assuming they have one/some over ATGs/borderline ATGs? If so, you'd rank Buster Douglas very highly in your all time HW list.
• Origin of our differing views = What I suspect, though, is that you typically do factor in wins over, non-ATG, top 10 contenders from other eras when ranking fighters, but just don't rate the contenders of Tunney's day. If so, this is where we get to the essence of our differing views. I consider myself era evolution neutral when analysing fighter's careers for ranking purposes. That isn't to say I think all eras are equal, I don't, e.g. the 70's were a stronger HW era than the 50's relative to the evolution of HW boxing, but I eliminate the evolution of boxing from my ranking criteria. To explain what I mean by that, lets consider the Gibbons example you gave, where you referred to him as a MW. Whilst he was 179lbs vs Tunney, a thorough analysis of his career will reveal he ranks highest at LHW. That's irrelevant to his standing at HW, though, if your criteria is based on what they achieved in their own era, as mine is. Tunney, Greb, Loughran & Gibbons are all ATG LHWs, Greb an ATG MW, yet all 4 were amongst the top 3 HWs in the world at one point in the 20's or very early 30's. ATG LHWs were always going to be amongst the best HW contenders around that time. The size is irrelevant to their standing at HW in their own era, it's their record in fights contested at HW that is relevant, and their ranking at HW a reflection of that. If your criteria is based on fantasy, time machine, cross era H2H fights, then of course their size is relevant. The worlds best HWs in the 80's were typically bigger than they were in the 20's. The Gerry Cooney that Spinks beat may well have beaten the Tommy Gibbons that lost to Tunney (but then Tunney didn't have access to the sort of sports science Spinks did to bulk up when he moved to HW), but that just doesn't factor into my ranking criteria at all. I'm not claiming my way is right & yours is wrong, I'm just explaining why I suspect we have different views in this regard.

I agree we're unlikely to see eye to eye on this one mate, and that's fine, your original post stating you can't see an argument for ranking Tunney above Spinks at HW prompted me to explain mine to you, and I've enjoyed our exchange.

 

I would rank as follows:

1) Charles
2) Tunney
3) Moore
4) Spinks