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

[ChrisPontius]

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 ******ts 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?

[Maxmomer]

He and Greb went 3-1-1, actually, though he wasn't officially a LHW in the last one. He beat Charlie Weinert at 176 pounds, he also beat Jack Renault, though I don't know what he weight was there. Leo Houck is a decent win as well.

[ChrisPontius]

He and Greb went 3-1-1, actually, though he wasn't officially a LHW in the last one.

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

[Maxmomer]

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

Ah, you're right about the Renault fight. Would you credit his win against Weinert, though? He was a pound over the limit in their first fight.

[ChrisPontius]

Ah, you're right about the Renault fight. Would you credit his win against Weinert, though? He was a pound over the limit in their first fight.

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.

[janitor]

His claim to light heavyweight greatness rests primarily on his series with Greb (whatever you think that is worth).

While Greb may have been a natural middleweight he was one of the greates light heavyweights of all time and the best lightheavyweight of that era outside of Tunney himself.

Lightheavyweight is Grebs best division because that is where he acomplished the most. In all he beat seven lineal champions at that weight. While Tunneys lightheavyweight resume dosnt compare to that of Charles or Moore Grebs arguably does.

[Maxmomer]

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.

Weinert was only a light heavyweight when he was young, so if we're only counting Tunney's wins against other LHW's this one doesn't stack up. It was a good win over a very good heavyweight of the era when Tunney was practically a light-heavy (but not quite) and was giving up 8 pounds. Tunney's record is thin at light-heavyweight and heavyweight. All together, though, his record is excellent. I think people rate him highly more based on how good he looks on film than on how many people he beat.

[ChrisPontius]

I think people rate him highly more based on how good he looks on film than on how many people he beat.

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.

[McGrain]

I think you make valid points, Chris.

I'd say Tunney's rating is about three things.

1 - He tangled with a lot of very good LHW's and was beaten only once.

2 - Like Max says, he looks shit hot on film.

3 - He beat Dempsey at HW. Right or wrong, it's a factor.

[janitor]

It all comes down to Greb.

Greb beat the followin fighters at light heavyweight for starters:

Gene Tunney

Tommy Gibbons

Billy Miske

Tommy Loughran

Maxie Rosenbloom

Jack Dillon

Battling Levinski

Mike McTigure

Jimmy Slaterey

Now if you think that Tunney is 5-1 against Greb which I dont then that is a prety rock solid claim for a top light heavyweight ranking.

[ChrisPontius]

It all comes down to Greb.

Greb beat the followin fighters at light heavyweight for starters:

Gene Tunney

Tommy Gibbons

Billy Miske

Tommy Loughran

Maxie Rosenbloom

Jack Dillon

Battling Levinski

Mike McTigure

Jimmy Slaterey

Now if you think that Tunney is 5-1 against Greb which I dont then that is a prety rock solid claim for a top light heavyweight ranking.

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.

[McGrain]

But Schmeling looks nothing like as good as Tunney on film.

Additionally, Frazier wiggles into my top 5 at HW because he beat a near-peak Ali. There's something similair here.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3478344]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.


No but if Schmeling had got the better of a series with Louis he might get a high ranking.

Tunney is probably 2-1 with 2 miscelaneous against Greb.

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

The importance of that depends on the number of talented black fighters around at the time.

He never fought a mexican either.

[GPater11093]

im pretty sure tunny would have never fought an aboriginee or a japenese fighter and wtf does race matter, theres only one race the human race

it dosent eliminate 50% of oppoents as janitor said it depends how much are around championship level

at flyweigth today if you dont fight a black man dosent mean you eliminate 50% of the opposition you only eliminate a small proportion

[ChrisPontius]

No but if Schmeling had got the better of a series with Louis he might get a high ranking.

Tunney is probably 2-1 with 2 miscelaneous against Greb.



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.



The importance of that depends on the number of talented black fighters around at the time.

He never fought a mexican either.

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.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3478520]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.


I can see your point but I must play devils advocate:

Tunney was the only fighter on the list of lhw Greb's(the Ezzard Charles of his era) victims I posted that ever mastered him.

Therfore Tunney beats the toughest lhw division in history by an economical route.

He then steps up to heavyweight and beats the alegedly invincible Jack Dempsey (who acording to you is about to score his career defining win against Jack Sharkey (albeit by cheating)).

Yeah, but Mexican (light)heavyweights are as rare as Mexican's without a moustache.

There were also divisions where there honestly wernt that many top end black fighters.

It was unusual but it took place.


There were guys like Wills, Godrey, Norfolk and others. And they were fierce competitors.


They were the fly in the ointment.

[radianttwilight]

There's something wrong with automatically placing Tunney above all the non-Greb LHWs just because he beat Greb, who did beat him.

Boxing is not transitive.

[mcvey]

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.
Loughran never fought a black man either ,so I guess he is shit too.

[Maxmomer]

I agree with Janitor that it's important not to underestimate his wins over Greb. And also take into account he dominant he was over excellent opposition when he was in his prime. He dominated Greb in their last fight, Dempsey, Carpentier and was the only man to stop Gibbons. Tunney wasn't actually prime at LHW, he was at his best at the very end of his career. All things considered I think he's earned a very high P4P rating.

[ChrisPontius]

Loughran never fought a black man either ,so I guess he is shit too.

Well i never said he was shit, frustrated man.

[janitor]

Well i never said he was shit, frustrated man.

The point is that Loughran wold have fought a bear if you put gloves on it and he still ended up never fighting a black oponent.

This should tell you something about the composition of the light heavyweight division at the time. Here are the light heavyweight rankings for 1924.



1924
Gene Tunney ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Young Stribling ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Kid Norfolk ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mike McTigue ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
Ad Stone ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jeff Smith ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Paul Berlenbach ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tony (Young) Marullo ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy Loughran ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Delaney ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
It seems that the only black fighter who was a big player in the division at the time was Kid Norfolk. To be fair the rankings dont tell the whole story. Tiger Flowers like Harry Greb was also campaigning at light heavyweight at the time.

[mcvey]

Well i never said he was shit, frustrated man.
I'm not frustrated CP,I have a a partner and she looks after me very well,and ,if she didnt ,it would be back to Thailand for me!

[Maxmomer]

I'm not frustrated CP,I have a a partner and she looks after me very well,and ,if she didnt ,it would be back to Thailand for me!

What?

[SuzieQ49]

But Schmeling looks nothing like as good as Tunney on film.

Sorry to bump this old post, but I strongly disagree with this comment. I thought Schmeling was alot more relaxed and smooth of a boxer in his prime(not talking about 1936 but the early 30s schmeling who looked like jack dempsey on film). While Tunney sometimes appeared slighty herky jerky when attacking on front foot. both fighters extremley intelligent, Schmeling was very controlled, smooth, and calculated. Though Tunney was faster a foot, I thought schmeling in his prime had alot better rythm and unpredictability in his footwork, he slipped in and out of range very maticulously. I think there jabs are even stevens, the schmeling in his prime shot his jab out there like a dart, he didnt paw with it like the older version who used a paw to set up his fight. I also thought schmeling possessed something tunney didnt have, a good boxing stance. Tunney kept his gaurd low and chin out, while schmeling kept his chin tucked close to his body and his right hand high with a lean back style. Also, Schmeling head movement was better than tunneys, Watch film of max in 1929-30 he looks like dempsey in there the way he slips and rolls punches. I do think tunney was better with feints, the way tunney would feint a jab to the body then do a double jab to the head was like a piece of art. When we talk about punching ability, its not even close. Schmelings right hand is by far the best punch out of the two, schmeling is the better combination puncher, accuracy of both is about even as tunney was very pinpoint, but i think schmeling is the more decieving and tricky puncher of the two. To me both impressive on film and a fight between the two would have been a split decision either way


Schmeling knocked out world class fighters Young Stribling, Mickey Walker, Johnny Risko, and Joe Louis who were all damm near impossible to stop.

[Maxmomer]

Schmeling knocked out world class fighters Young Stribling, Mickey Walker, Johnny Risko, and Joe Louis who were all damm near impossible to stop.

And Steve Hamas. To give Tunney credit as a puncher, though, he stopped Tommy Gibbons and Bartley Madden who went 15 rounds with Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills respectively. But Schmeling was definitely the better puncher of the two. I think he was also a better finisher, Tunney didn't have the same kind of killer instinct, though they were both methodical punchers who put a lot of damage on opponents over the course of many rounds, Schmeling was quicker to act when he had a fighter hurt. He's easily one of the top 190-ish pound punchers of all time, right below guys like like Dempsey and Marciano.

[mcvey]

Sorry to bump this old post, but I strongly disagree with this comment. I thought Schmeling was alot more relaxed and smooth of a boxer in his prime(not talking about 1936 but the early 30s schmeling who looked like jack dempsey on film). While Tunney sometimes appeared slighty herky jerky when attacking on front foot. both fighters extremley intelligent, Schmeling was very controlled, smooth, and calculated. Though Tunney was faster a foot, I thought schmeling in his prime had alot better rythm and unpredictability in his footwork, he slipped in and out of range very maticulously. I think there jabs are even stevens, the schmeling in his prime shot his jab out there like a dart, he didnt paw with it like the older version who used a paw to set up his fight. I also thought schmeling possessed something tunney didnt have, a good boxing stance. Tunney kept his gaurd low and chin out, while schmeling kept his chin tucked close to his body and his right hand high with a lean back style. Also, Schmeling head movement was better than tunneys, Watch film of max in 1929-30 he looks like dempsey in there the way he slips and rolls punches. I do think tunney was better with feints, the way tunney would feint a jab to the body then do a double jab to the head was like a piece of art. When we talk about punching ability, its not even close. Schmelings right hand is by far the best punch out of the two, schmeling is the better combination puncher, accuracy of both is about even as tunney was very pinpoint, but i think schmeling is the more decieving and tricky puncher of the two. To me both impressive on film and a fight between the two would have been a split decision either way


Schmeling knocked out world class fighters Young Stribling, Mickey Walker, Johnny Risko, and Joe Louis who were all damm near impossible to stop.

Suzie you allways comment on Tunney's low guard, well it worked for him,no one stopped him and check out Charley Burley's low hands.

[mcvey]

[quote]


I can see your point but I must play devils advocate:

Tunney was the only fighter on the list of lhw Greb's(the Ezzard Charles of his era) victims I posted that ever mastered him.

Therfore Tunney beats the toughest lhw division in history by an economical route.

He then steps up to heavyweight and beats the alegedly invincible Jack Dempsey (who acording to you is about to score his career defining win against Jack Sharkey (albeit by cheating)).



There were also divisions where there honestly wernt that many top end black fighters.

It was unusual but it took place.



They were the fly in the ointment.

Tommy Gibbons gave Greb a good hiding in 1920 ,but I dont know what the weights were.

[SuzieQ49]

Charley Burley didnt stand straight up with his chin out. Charley kept his right hand high by his cheek protecting his chin alll while leaning back and keeping his chin tucked. I think there is a difference. Also, I dont think as highly of burley as some others here do. Many here overrate him.

Suzie you allways comment on Tunney's low guard, well it worked for him

Your right it did, Tunney was a great fighter. I dont think he was as battle tested though as say an ezzard charles, sam langford or else we would have seen flaws in his style. A 20 year old tommy loughran certainly found flaws in tunneys style, gene never fought him again.

[SuzieQ49]

Tommy Gibbons gave Greb a good hiding in 1920 ,but I dont know what the weights were.

Yes. Although Greb gave Gibbons equally as bad hidings in 1922 and 1923

[mcvey]

Charley Burley didnt stand straight up with his chin out. Charley kept his right hand high by his cheek protecting his chin alll while leaning back and keeping his chin tucked. I think there is a difference. Also, I dont think as highly of burley as some others here do. Many here overrate him.



Your right it did, Tunney was a great fighter. I dont think he was as battle tested though as say an ezzard charles, sam langford or else we would have seen flaws in his style. A 20 year old tommy loughran certainly found flaws in tunneys style, gene never fought him again.

Loughran was only 20 ,but he had had 33 fights and had beaten two middleweight Champs ,Downey ,and Mctigue,and been in there with Greb ,he was hardly a novice ,and Tunney likewise ,was still to mature into the heavyweight he would become.Loughran is one of the alltime great boxers arguably a better boxer than anyone Charles beat.
I think having 5 fights with Greb ,and, being confined to bed for a week after the first one ,means that you are pretty battle tested .

[SuzieQ49]

I think having 5 fights with Greb ,and, being confined to bed for a week after the first one ,means that you are pretty battle tested .

He never rematched loughran, never fought sharkey, godfrey, schmeling, wills, norfolk, younger gibbons. Retired in 1929 with all 3 top rated contenders Hall of Fame heavyweights in there prime. Tunney never took on one black fighter, and never took on a heavyweight above 202lb. I hate to be critical, but this is alot of holes in a great one's resume. You think Ezzard Charles or Sam Langford never took on a black fighter?


Loughran was only 20

Exactley, he was just a teenager developing...and many still believe loughran won the fight.

but he had had 33 fights and had beaten two middleweight Champs ,Downey ,and Mctigue,

Yes he was a good young prospect, but had not reached his peak yet. not at 20.

Loughran is one of the alltime great boxers arguably a better boxer than anyone Charles beat.

Well, I think its foolish to make an arguement Loughran was better than Archie Moore. Remember, in essence Loughran was a one armed fighter. Archie Moore is on another level. Also, I do strongly feel Harold Johnson's style on film is alot more developed than loughrans..I think johnson would have won a clear cut decision over loughran. Loughrans best weapon left jab, was nowhere near as good as johnsons jab. Im being realistic, boxing developed alot more technique wise by the 1950s than in the 1920s.

I think having 5 fights with Greb


Yes impressive, but Greb was outweighed by 12lb, and still took 2 defeats. This is one prime great fighter Tunney fought, but once again Greb was much smaller.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

I think Tunney's resume at p4p or lightheavy is quite strong.

He defeated arguably the best middleweight of his time (Greb), the best lightheavy (Gibbons) and the best heavy (Dempsey). How many fighters can claim to have done that. The only ones I can think of are Fitz (Dempsey, Corbett, Gardner) and Charles (Burley, Moore, Louis, Walcott). Nor were any of these men clearly washed up. Greb was still good enough to beat Loughran and Walker. Gibbons was coming off a win over Norfolk. Dempsey still had enough left to ko Sharkey. Even at the end of the century, I am certain Dempsey and Greb make most top ten lists at their weights, and even Gibbons still makes the top twenty at lightheavy. Moreover, I think it fair to say that Tunney gave all three of these men the worst defeats of their careers, certainly after they became top fighters.
And besides these three and the aging champs, Carpentier and Levinsky, there were a decent amount of wins over contenders--Weinert, Risko, Spalla, and Heeney at heavy. Fay Kaiser, Marty Burke, and Jimmy Delaney at the lighter weights.
He was generally seen as getting the best of Leo Houck and Jeff Smith in newspaper decisions, and got at least a wash with Loughran.

Certainly a much better resume than Bob Foster's and at least as good as that of Michael Spinks.

I think Tunney's resume is more than substantial enough to get him into the top five at lightheavy.

[mcvey]

He never rematched loughran, never fought sharkey, godfrey, schmeling, wills, norfolk, younger gibbons. Retired in 1929 with all 3 top rated contenders Hall of Fame heavyweights in there prime. Tunney never took on one black fighter, and never took on a heavyweight above 202lb. I hate to be critical, but this is alot of holes in a great one's resume. You think Ezzard Charles or Sam Langford never took on a black fighter?




Exactley, he was just a teenager developing...and many still believe loughran won the fight.



Yes he was a good young prospect, but had not reached his peak yet. not at 20.



Well, I think its foolish to make an arguement Loughran was better than Archie Moore. Remember, in essence Loughran was a one armed fighter. Archie Moore is on another level. Also, I do strongly feel Harold Johnson's style on film is alot more developed than loughrans..I think johnson would have won a clear cut decision over loughran. Loughrans best weapon left jab, was nowhere near as good as johnsons jab. Im being realistic, boxing developed alot more technique wise by the 1950s than in the 1920s.




Yes impressive, but Greb was outweighed by 12lb, and still took 2 defeats. This is one prime great fighter Tunney fought, but once again Greb was much smaller.

I dont think Moore was as good a pure boxer as Loughran.
I dont think Johnson's jab was as good as Loughran's.
The best jabber Johnson ever fought beat him Pastrano, and he was NOT in Loughran's class.
One of Greb's defeats to Tunney saw Gene with only 3 1/2lbs advantage,another a draw was 9lbs.
I dont accept that boxing in the 50's had advanced in technique from the 20's.KId Chocolate,Sammy Mandell,Benny Leonard,Fidel Labarba,Jack Delaney,are some that attest to this.
Loughran beat 3 men who held the heavyweight title,4 men who held the LH title,5 men who held the middle crown,add contenders like
Hamas
Uzcudun
Schaaf
Griffiths
Risko
Smith,
There are very few resumes better.

[My2Sense]

He defeated arguably the best middleweight of his time (Greb), the best lightheavy (Gibbons) and the best heavy (Dempsey). How many fighters can claim to have done that.

Not only were they the best of their time, they are generally considered among the best of all time at their respective weights.

That says it all for me right there.

[SuzieQ49]

He defeated arguably the best middleweight of his time (Greb), the best lightheavy (Gibbons) and the best heavy (Dempsey). How many fighters can claim to have done that.

Greb, yes impressive win. However Tunney did not weigh in at 160lb, he outweighed greb by at least 12-15lb each time

Gibbons was 35 and already had his foot in the door of retirement home. Not that impressive of a win. Especially when you consider Tunney admitted avoiding Gibbons when Gibbons was younger.



Dempsey of 26-27 was far past his prime coming off 3 year ring rust of booze, parties, and whores. When you also take into account the controversial win where tunney was knocked out for 14 seconds, it bring things back down to earth.




How many All time Great fighters never faced a black fighter? that takes away like 50% of your competition. Tunney also never faced a genuine heavyweight over 202lb, and his management avoided throwing him in vs punchers.....at both light-H and heavyweight.

[My2Sense]

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.

I don't think that's accurate saying Gibbons was "washed up" just because it happened to be his last fight. He was the #2 ranking heavyweight in the world (second only to Harry Wills) at the time Tunney beat him, and had been rated there for about 2 straight years. Also, he was coming off a string of impressive wins, including a stoppage of Kid Norfolk and a lopsided whupping of Carpentier, and he hadn't been beaten or even struggled since his loss to Dempsey two years earlier. He was a very respected fighter at both LHW and HW right up until Tunney's shocking KO win.

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.

A natural middleweight perhaps, but he was renown as a great LHW well before he decided to drop down and go after the middleweight title. Tunney was not even expected to win one fight against him, let alone a whole series.

I can easily see him being rated in the all time top 10 at the weight, and have seen him in other people's lists as well.


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

He retired.

[My2Sense]

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

50% of what opposition exactly?

How many black fighters were rated in The Ring's top 10, either at LHW or HW, between 1924 and Tunney's retirement in mid 1928?

In the span of six years, Tunney fought:
1. The most highly regarded LHW, five times.
2. The #2 rated HW.
3. The heavyweight champion.
4. The ex-champion, now top contender.
5. The leading challenger.

Along the way, he did pursue a fight with Harry Wills, the #1 contender at HW, but was turned down. That eliminated one of only two black HWs that were contenders at the time. The other had been rated well below Gibbons and Wills - and Tunney went on to fight the reigning champion not long after that anyway.

What fighters who happened to be black would you say deserved a fight with Tunney in place of the guys above?

[SuzieQ49]

He was the #2 ranking heavyweight in the world (second only to Harry Wills) at the time Tunney beat him, and had been rated there for about 2 straight years

I question how he got that ranking. Here are the # 3- #10 rated heavyweights by ring magazine during that year

Charley Weinert
Quintin Romero Rojas
Jack Renault
Luis Angel Firpo
George Godfrey
Jim Maloney
Erminio Spalla


Gibbons did not record one win over those following men.


Also, he was coming off a string of impressive wins

Not at Heavyweight. He did not beat one top 10 rated heavyweight contender in 1924 or 1923

including a stoppage of Kid Norfolk and a lopsided whupping of Carpentier

Kid Norfolk was blind. Norfolk was so washed up he shouldnt have even been granted a boxing liscense. Its doubtful whether or not Gibbons could beat a prime norfolk.

Carpentier was not only considerable over the hill, but he was a supermiddleweight. This win has little to do with Gibbons effect on the heavyweight picture.

[SuzieQ49]

In the span of six years, Tunney fought:
1. The most highly regarded LHW, five times.
2. The #2 rated HW.
3. The heavyweight champion.
4. The ex-champion, now top contender.
5. The leading challenger.

Tom Heeney was not the leading challenger. Jack Sharkey was always rated over tom heeney in ring magazine ratings. check for yourself. not to mention the much better fighter. Heeney looks like a joke on film.

[mcvey]

Greb, yes impressive win. However Tunney did not weigh in at 160lb, he outweighed greb by at least 12-15lb each time

Gibbons was 35 and already had his foot in the door of retirement home. Not that impressive of a win. Especially when you consider Tunney admitted avoiding Gibbons when Gibbons was younger.



Dempsey of 26-27 was far past his prime coming off 3 year ring rust of booze, parties, and whores. When you also take into account the controversial win where tunney was knocked out for 14 seconds, it bring things back down to earth.



How many All time Great fighters never faced a black fighter? that takes away like 50% of your competition. Tunney also never faced a genuine heavyweight over 202lb, and his management avoided throwing him in vs punchers.....at both light-H and heavyweight.

You exaggerate the weight disparity between Tunney and Greb ,in one of Tunney's wins ,he was only 3 1/2 lbs the heavier man.