Tunney v Charles

I know all of that, but how would it help him against Tunney?

 

I'm more concerned as to how Tunney could handle a guy over 190, especially one who was better than what Tunney faced in that weight range.

 

But Charles isn't 190+...

 

Loughran was a teenager and Tunney didn't clearly beat him. Levinsky was never "great" and was past his best. I don't see his scalp as even being equal to Maxim or Lesnevich. Gibbons was 34 and in his last fight. The smaller and older Greb fought Tunney on more or less equal terms. Dempsey had laid off three years before coming up empty in their first fight. Their second fight is clouded by the long count.

The other names like Weinert, a green Risko, Heeney, etc. are certainly not in depth and quality up to the men Charles defeated.

I think Tunney the best heavyweight of the 1920's, but I see him having a lot more trouble against post color line competition.

 

I didn't argue that Tunney has better resume than Charles, I argue that he never faced good boxers.

 

And the vast Majority at ringside had Greb winning or draw the second fight as well .. I actually see the Greb Tunney fights as a testament to how great Greb was and ... yes I'll say it ,, Tunney a little over ratted to me ..

 

I assume what you meant was that Tunney faced good boxers. Okay. He did, but so did Charles and Charles fought many more dangerous punchers. Tunney's big puncher opponents begins and ends with Dempsey, and possibly Carpentier.

I think the point floating around here is that Charles fighting much bigger men and bigger punchers might not be relevant in a matchup with a boxing stylist like Tunney. Fair enough. My take is Charles' own jab and combination punching will tip the balance in this one over the more limited Tunney.

 

Loughran was a quality operator at a young age though. He'd already beaten Mike MicTigue, and beat Harry Greb just over a year later.

 

He was when he fought Valdes, Marciano 2, Satterfield, Layne...

 

You've just named three losses and one of his worst performances. Charles has stated he hates fighting above LHW, because the extra weight made him sluggish. 190lbs was an awful weight for Charles. The lighter the better, hence why some of his most dominant fights at heavyweight were either against fellow light-heavyweights, or whilst he was fairly above the limit.

Tunney, conversely, was a massive LHW, with broud shoulders and a big frame. Iirc, I remember something about him liking not having to make weight. Furthermore, Tunney faced plenty of people Charles' size, and he was better geared to heavyweight.

 

I think dragging in someone like Valdes is of questionable relevance regarding Tunney. Here is a list of the heights and weights that I could find of Tunney's major heavyweight opponents:

Tom Heeney--5' 10"--203 lbs
Jack Dempsey--6' 1"--190 & 192
Johnny Risko--5' 11"--192
Erminio Spalla--6' 1"--191
Harry Foley--(?)--190
Bartley Madden--5' 11"--189
Charley Weinert--5' 11"--184

and here are some that Ezzard Charles defeated:

Joe Louis--6' 2"--218 lbs.
Elmer Ray--6' 2"--192
Joe Baksi--6' 1"--211
Johnny Hayes--6' 4"--214
Rex Layne--6' 1"--203
Cesar Brion--6' 3"--197
Bill Gillian--6' 2"--211
Coley Wallace--6' 2"--201
John Holman--6' 3"--202

and Charles lost his only fight to

Nino Valdes--6' 3"--210

So I can't see drawing pro-Tunney conclusions from any defeats Charles suffered against these type of opponents , as Tunney never fought such tall, rangy, and heavy men. The vast majority of Tunney's opponents were shorter than he was (and all of those on film except Dempsey who fought out of a crouch) with a far greater number middles and light-heavies.

 

People seem to be confused about my point. I didn't try to make a case for Tunney here, I just strongly disagree with the opinion that "Tunney didn't fight good boxers" presented by White Bomber. That's it, I'm well aware that Charles has much deeper resume and I'd pick him in this fight as well. It doesn't mean that Tunney didn't face good boxers, which was stated here not once.