Gene Tunney vs. Archie Moore both at their peaks?

[Fedor Em]

This would be an amazing fight. I really can't choose a favorite, but would give the slightest edge to Moore, he had the better defense but Tunney had the speed, great skills himself and power to get to the Mongoose. Tunney was probally a tad bit more durable too even though Arch was more cagey. Your thoughts?

[Bo Bo Olson]

Toss up, Tunney, Charles and Moore...Becasue Cahrles beat Moore three times...I think Tunney would have beaten my man moore...Charles and him would have been even better.

[mcvey]

This would be an amazing fight. I really can't choose a favorite, but would give the slightest edge to Moore, he had the better defense but Tunney had the speed, great skills himself and power to get to the Mongoose. Tunney was probally a tad bit more durable too even though Arch was more cagey. Your thoughts?
I like Tunney by dec,he is faster and more mobile,Moore would be pressing Tunney throwing out that short jab using the ring,and if Moore corners the Marine Tunney had a top chin,I pick Tunney to scrape by Charles ,so I must go with him to beat the Mongoose.

[Mendoza]

I think the fight to look at here is Charels vs Moore. CHalres was not as durable or as mobile as Tunney was, and he beat Moore 3-0 in the series.

I think Tunney would defeat Moore on points, but its far from an easy fight for Tunney.

[McGrain]

I think I'm going to pick Moore here as just beyond Tunney's masterful analysis. Moore's harder punching slows Tunney down to a crawl down the back straight and Archie takes the slenderest of decisions.

[Maxmomer]

Tunney.

[McGrain]

I think the fight to look at here is Charels vs Moore. CHalres was not as durable or as mobile as Tunney was, and he beat Moore 3-0 in the series.

Charles was a better puncher than Tunny though, wouldn't you agree?

[Holmes' Jab]

A toss up, this one: I'll go with Moore- by close fought decision.

[Joe E]

Tunney out boxes Moore and uses his Feet to good effect not to get cornered.Tunney by comfortable decision,but a tough fight for Gene.

[Nemesis]

Tunney is one of the most underrated fighters in history, who could fight on the front or back foot and would be far too versatile for Archie to outpoint and far too sturdy to be stopped. The man was only defeated once (Greb I, officially) and dropped once (the long count), I'd personally go with Tunney UD, and going away

[Minotauro]

I gonna go with Moore via decision.

[Longhhorn71]

Tunney is one of the most underrated fighters in history, who could fight on the front or back foot and would be far too versatile for Archie to outpoint and far too sturdy to be stopped. The man was only defeated once (Greb I, officially) and dropped once (the long count), I'd personally go with Tunney UD, and going away

A young Cassius Clay complimented Tunney some. Their boxing styles and pre-fight opponent analyses are similar.

[radianttwilight]

Tunney by UD, if we're talking heavyweight.

Any other weight is still Tunney by UD, I'm just not quite as sure.

IMO The Mongoose is a poor H2H choice against ATGs. He had impressive longevity, sure, and the KO record...but his record against ATGs leaves something to be desired, to say the least.

His resume is impressive but his primary attribute in most matchups would be his cageyness, and the "wily veteran" ploy can only get him so far.

Tunney wouldn't fall for it.

[red cobra]

This would be an amazing fight. I really can't choose a favorite, but would give the slightest edge to Moore, he had the better defense but Tunney had the speed, great skills himself and power to get to the Mongoose. Tunney was probally a tad bit more durable too even though Arch was more cagey. Your thoughts?
History and a close look at both men's records would suggest that Tunney actually had the better defense. How many times was Moore ko'd, and decked in his career? How many times was Tunney? If Tunney was capable of rising to the occasion of defeating the great Jack Dempsey, not once, but twice, I think he could have defeated Archie Moore as well. Archie was very cagey, but he wouldnt have been that effective against a highly orthodox, discipline classic boxer like Tunney, who continues to be the most persistanly underrated, overlooked great fighter of all time. Tunney would have won a decision over Archie, but there exists the possibility that he would have worn down, or maybe even ko'd the Mongoose with those hard, accurate right hands. One things for sure, Gene wouln't have deserted his game plan and wildly gone after Archie for a ko. He would have been very wary of Moore's old tricks, and like I said, would have remained disciplined and outboxed his man.

[apollack]

Wonderful matchup, but I give a slight edge to Gene by decision because of his amazing footwork and consistent quick punches, but Moore had some cagey (albeit flatfooted) defense himself, and much better punching power.

[Bummy Davis]

PRIME VS PRIME, I give Gene a close UD

[SuzieQ49]

A. Charlies and tunney fight nothing alike(i think charles is better)

B. In case u missed the fight descriptions, the series of charles-moore could have easily ended up 2-1 in favor of moore! very close fights!



I defintley like archie in this one. he was the more polished and versatile boxer and he was smart enough to outmanuever tunney, and moore superior punching skills would allow him to open up on tunney on the inside. moore had a long 78" reach so tunney will have a difficult time controlling him on the outside. I feel tunney was too one dimensional and certainly didnt prove himself as much as moore.

moore showed he could outbox harold johnson who IMO is as good if not better a boxer than gene tunney. tunney and johnson are pretty similiar, both classical boxers.

moore by unanimous decision

[mcvey]

History and a close look at both men's records would suggest that Tunney actually had the better defense. How many times was Moore ko'd, and decked in his career? How many times was Tunney? If Tunney was capable of rising to the occasion of defeating the great Jack Dempsey, not once, but twice, I think he could have defeated Archie Moore as well. Archie was very cagey, but he wouldnt have been that effective against a highly orthodox, discipline classic boxer like Tunney, who continues to be the most persistanly underrated, overlooked great fighter of all time. Tunney would have won a decision over Archie, but there exists the possibility that he would have worn down, or maybe even ko'd the Mongoose with those hard, accurate right hands. One things for sure, Gene wouln't have deserted his game plan and wildly gone after Archie for a ko. He would have been very wary of Moore's old tricks, and like I said, would have remained disciplined and outboxed his man.
Good post!

[teeto]

I think this would be harder for Tunney than it was for Charles. This is because there is a possibilty it become a jabbing match, and it would be hard to outjab Moore, who was so crafty. But I think Tunney would beat him. Tunney is one of the best LHWs ever. People think he was just a great mover because of the Dempsey fights, but he used those tactics against Dempsey because they were right for that fight. Tunney could fight and had power. This would be a really good and close fight, but I think Tunney would win it.

Also I always come back to the fact that Moore lost a lot, and in his prime, which too many people argue his prime was at different times. Still, he was one of the best in the division's history, but Tunney was better, their styles could make a classic though, it could be a bit like Wright-Hopkins (plenty of ring generalship, tactics, and fighting), but with much more explosive power involved.

[SuzieQ49]

i think archie moore was better than tunney. as far as resumes go, moore proved himself and stuck his neck out their far more than tunney did

[teeto]

i think archie moore was better than tunney. as far as resumes go, moore proved himself and stuck his neck out their far more than tunney did
Both resumes are great at 175 pounds , both of these fought in golden eras for that division. Tunney beat Tommy Loughran and dropped him. He beat Harry Greb , who was really good at 175 (but better at middleweight) and one of the best of all. But Moore lost much more times than Tunney.

[SuzieQ49]

moore lost more times than tunney because not only did he fight better fighters near their peaks than tunney did, he also fought alot more for alot more years than tunney did! moore also fought much much bigger fighters than himself, while tunney in 95% of his fights outweighed his opponent! tunney also retired at 31 years old......moore didnt retire till 46 years old!

[McGrain]

. as far as resumes go, moore proved himself and stuck his neck out their far more than tunney did

This is unquestionabley true...though I don't know about the "better" part.

[teeto]

moore lost more times than tunney because not only did he fight better fighters near their peaks than tunney did, he also fought alot more for alot more years than tunney did! moore also fought much much bigger fighters than himself, while tunney in 95% of his fights outweighed his opponent! tunney also retired at 31 years old......moore didnt retire till 46 years old!
Archie Moore's losses did not only come when he was aging. He lost plenty before his title reign. Moore lost to people smaller than him aswell as the bigger ones, Charley Burley was great, but he was a blown up welter. Gene Tunney's era was golden at 175 pounds, and he was the best of the bunch. Look up his record and how many quality light-heavies were around. It is hard to say whoch fighter fought in a better era. It was most probably Moore, but this is not by a lot. Gene Tunney's record is impeccable . He beat Harry Greb.

[McGrain]

Teeto, I agree with a dose of your post, but I have to say that I agree with SuzieQ, Moore had the generally better level of competition.

Having said that, Tunney has the better wins - Greb and Dempsey, not a bad pair for starters!

[teeto]

And he beat Tommy Loughran and Georges Carpentier, 2 of the best light-heavies ever. I'm not saying Moore's level of comp is worse than Tunney's. I just didn't think it was right how Tunney's resume was dissd.

Still , I think Tunney did better against his than what Moore did. Moore was beaten by so many of his opponents, I know he fought a lot, but he was one of the best Light-heavies ever, and should not have lost that many. Shorty Hogue and Teddy Yarosz beat him, good fighters, but Tunney surely would have beat them. And so many fighters that shouldnt have beat Moore did beat him, these losses occurred in Moore's 20's. Tunney was great, his level of opposition and how good he fared against them should not be overlooked so easily.

[teeto]

Teeto, I agree with a dose of your post, but I have to say that I agree with SuzieQ, Moore had the generally better level of competition.

Having said that, Tunney has the better wins - Greb and Dempsey, not a bad pair for starters!
Thanks for the insight by the way, healthy debate is good

[McGrain]

Bottom line for me:

Moore fought more cracking fighters, hence he had more losses.

Tunney fought fewer cracking fighters, but he has the better wins.

You are welcome.

[teeto]

I never said once who fought the better fighters. It just wasnt good the way Tunney's resume was written off.
If you look up Archies record you will be amazed by the amount of losses by average fighters. Tunney's era at that weight was almost as good as Moore's. But he did better against them. Both fought cracking fighters, both fought some of the greatest fighters of all-time. Tunney beat more of them.

[McGrain]

If you look up Archies record you will be amazed by the amount of losses by average fighters.

Steady!

[teeto]

Steady!
Have you ever heard of Tiger Brown, Frankie Nelson, Sammy Jackson Kal Martin, I could go on if you like. I'm not disrespecting Moore , please do not get me wrong. I'm a fan. But this debate has progressed to a point where I must prove a point. Tunney I believe was greater than him, not by much though. They are both 2 of the greatest that ever lived. But I believe some people have overlooked Tunney's resume.

[McGrain]

Have you ever heard of Tiger Brown, Frankie Nelson, Sammy Jackson Kal Martin,

No! Who are they? Are you saying these guys beat Moore? Because I'd bet they didn't...what's your source for these guys holding wins over Moore?

[teeto]

No! Who are they? Are you saying these guys beat Moore? Because I'd bet they didn't...what's your source for these guys holding wins over Moore?
Lords of the ring - the greatest fighters since 1950. Moore's official record (all of it) is in it. I wouldn't just say this stuff. sorry Kal Martin never beat him , it was a guy called Billy Adams. Them losses were in the first two years of Moore's career. There's so many more , and I've looked these guys up. I don't want people to think I'm dissing Archie ,I would never even think about it. I was just backing Tunney up.

[McGrain]

Lords of the ring - the greatest fighters since 1950. Moore's official record (all of it) is in it. I wouldn't just say this stuff. sorry Kal Martin never beat him , it was a guy called Billy Adams. Them losses were in the first two years of Moore's career. There's so many more , and I've looked these guys up. I don't want people to think I'm dissing Archie ,I would never even think about it. I was just backing Tunney up.

Well, two things. I have a paper resume for Archie (Ageless Warrior) and i've shanked up Boxrec; neither have a record for these two fights.

Second, horrible losses in the first 20 months of a young black fighters career at that time is a hell of a thing to call upon in comparing Moore's record to Tunney's.

Would you dispute that Tunney, fighting to Moore's schedule/level of opposition would have had more losses? Because I promise you he would.

[teeto]

Well, two things. I have a paper resume for Archie (Ageless Warrior) and i've shanked up Boxrec; neither have a record for these two fights.

Second, horrible losses in the first 20 months of a young black fighters career at that time is a hell of a thing to call upon in comparing Moore's record to Tunney's.

Would you dispute that Tunney, fighting to Moore's schedule/level of opposition would have had more losses? Because I promise you he would.
The only reason I brought it up is that the guy before said that Moore's losses came in the twilight of his career.
And I don't recall once giving any impression that I would dispute that. But you underestimate Gene Tunney is the only thing I'm getting at. Look up his record and then look up the guys he BEAT , not lost to. The guy fought in a golden era. Do you disput that. Because if you do , then that is madness.

21/02/1936 - lost to Courtland Sheppard
16/04/1936 lost to Frankie Nelson
04/05/1936 lost to Tiger Brown
1/09/1937- lost to Billy Adams

I'm not saying they diminish his legacy, and I haven't said that once. I'm just letting you know that I'm not making them up.

[McGrain]

The only reason I brought it up is that the guy before said that Moore's losses came in the twilight of his career.

Yeah, fair enough.


I'm not saying they diminish his legacy, and I haven't said that once. I'm just letting you know that I'm not making them up.

And again.

[teeto]

Yeah, fair enough.




And again.
Can you please just answer my question then - do you dispute that Gene Tunney fought in a golden era of light-heavies and emerged as the best without actually winning that title (the same as Ezzard Charles did) ?

[McGrain]

Can you please just answer my question then - do you dispute that Gene Tunney fought in a golden era of light-heavies and emerged as the best without actually winning that title (the same as Ezzard Charles did) ?

He certainly fought and beat some very very good fighters.

[teeto]

He certainly fought and beat some very very good fighters.
Battling Levinsky, TOMMY LOUGHRAN , HARRY GREB , Georges Carpentier , Tommy Gibbons , Jimmy Delaney. All top level fighters of that time , and 1 of them is an all-time great , 2 of them are 2 of the best that ever lived.