Tunney's resume at LHW: does it validate such a high ranking?

I think his resume is a bit thin not just at heavyweight but at lightheavyweight as well, to be honest.

What he has is:

-Basically a draw against a somewhat green Loughran (who weighed 163lbs)
-Went 2-1-1 against Greb (a supermiddleweight as well)
-Decisively knocked out a washed up former champion in Carpentier
-Beat Levinsky over 12
-Knocked out Gibbons. Looks impressive since Dempsey failed to do this, but you must also realise that this was his [Gibbons'] last pro fight at age 35. This fight, by the way, was over the lightheavyweight limit.


Am i missing any significant fights? Because while it's certainly an excellent and impressive resume, i'm not sure if this warrents a place in the top5 among in my opinion more proven legends like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, Sam Langford, etc.


On paper it looks good perhaps, but if you realise that Gibbons was washed up and in his last pro fight, Loughran was green and not a win, and Carpentier was also far past his best. The Greb wins are great, although he lost at least one, and according to janitor might have lost the drawn one as well, which would make him even.... with a natural middleweight.

If anyone can show me the light, then i'd be grateful. I know that his style was very advanced for his time in that he actually knew how to control distance and work behind a jab, but the other great LHW's could do that as well, and unlike Tunney, they had to deal with opponents who knew how to do that as well.



By the way, does anyone know why Levinsky didn't fight for 4 years after the Tunney bout?

 

That's why i didn't include it. And if i remember correct, the Renault fight was a No Contest because neither man tried?

 

A good win, how big a player was Weinert in the light heavyweight division though? Again, it becomes scetchy if we only consider LHW fights, because Weinert hadn't fought there for more than six years when he fought Tunney.

 

This was my thought as well.

However, how much justification is there for this viewpoint? I think Mayweather looks fantastic on film as well, but that doesn't mean he rates as high as Duran or something. And while we're at it, Roy Jones could rank in the top5 as well for that same reason.

 

A great win, no doubt, but that is still only one fighter. I could list all the heavyweights that Joe Louis beat, but that doesn't mean Schmeling ranks in the top5 because he beat him.

Tunney never fought a black man either. So that's again eliminating 50% or so of the opposition.

 

Sure, but wouldn't you agree that beating a great fighter doesn't make one a great fighter?

Is Fullmer a great fighter because he got the best of Robinson in their series? You may say that the latter was smaller and aging, but so was good old 'Arry.

Yeah, but Mexican (light)heavyweights are as rare as Mexican's without a moustache. There were guys like Wills, Godrey, Norfolk and others. And they were fierce competitors.