View Full Version : Ranking Gene Tunney over Ezzard Charles at light-heavyweight: Can it be justified?


kendom
10-28-2011, 01:24 PM
With Gene Tunney's wins over Greb, Carpentier and Loughran I think (experts correct me if I'm wrong) do you think its justified to rank Tunney over Charles at Light-heavyweight, or is Ezzard Charles the undisuted King? ( I rank Langford at middleweight)

DarkTerror88
10-28-2011, 01:42 PM
With Gene Tunney's wins over Greb, Carpentier and Loughran I think (experts correct me if I'm wrong) do you think its justified to rank Tunney over Charles at Light-heavyweight, or is Ezzard Charles the undisuted King? ( I rank Langford at middleweight)

I dont think its justified by record alone. With his wins and resume at everyweight he competed at, Charles is a top 10 pound for pound fighter.

with multiple wins over Maxim
Lesnevich
Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall

and other top rated contenders, his resume if impressive to say the least. He also was one of them most complete fighters in the history of the sport. I think he would beat Tunney head to head as well.

I feel it is more than reasonable to rank Charles over Tunney, than to rank Tunney over Charles.

My list goes:

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb
and im no blowhard when it comes to ranking fighters.

Ziggy Stardust
10-28-2011, 01:55 PM
I have Charles at #1 but it's close enough that I wouldn't make a big deal over someone ranking Tunney higher.

Poet

Kid McCoy
10-28-2011, 02:14 PM
It can be justified but personally I wouldn't. Charles' resume is much deeper than Tunney's.

Scott9945
10-28-2011, 02:38 PM
There is that issue of Tunney never fighting any African American contenders. But based on their records you could go either way.

IronDanHamza
10-28-2011, 02:40 PM
I dont think its justified by record alone. With his wins and resume at everyweight he competed at, Charles is a top 10 pound for pound fighter.

with multiple wins over Maxim
Lesnevich
Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall

and other top rated contenders, his resume if impressive to say the least. He also was one of them most complete fighters in the history of the sport. I think he would beat Tunney head to head as well.

I feel it is more than reasonable to rank Charles over Tunney, than to rank Tunney over Charles.

My list goes:

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb
and im no blowhard when it comes to ranking fighters.

Saad Muhammad in your list but no Harold Johnson?

Explanation!!

IronDanHamza
10-28-2011, 02:44 PM
I think it's quite difficult to justify.

Gene Tunney is a great fighter no doubt about it but Ezzard Charles is simply better every way you look at it in my book.

kendom
10-28-2011, 02:46 PM
I dont think its justified by record alone. With his wins and resume at everyweight he competed at, Charles is a top 10 pound for pound fighter.

with multiple wins over Maxim
Lesnevich
Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall

and other top rated contenders, his resume if impressive to say the least. He also was one of them most complete fighters in the history of the sport. I think he would beat Tunney head to head as well.

I feel it is more than reasonable to rank Charles over Tunney, than to rank Tunney over Charles.

My list goes:

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb
and im no blowhard when it comes to ranking fighters.

Nice list, i dont feel knowledgeable enough to post my list of top 10 light heavyweights before i see more fights.

Kid McCoy
10-28-2011, 04:36 PM
There are a few issues I find with Tunney's career that I don't see in Charles'. A lot of the big names he beat were near the end of their careers (Carpentier, Levinsky, Gibbons) and there are several top names from his era who many of his contemporaries fought but he didn't, for whatever reason. Compare to Charles, who fought everyone in a really deep era of light-heavies, usually several times, and compiled a winning record against most of them.

kendom
10-28-2011, 04:49 PM
There are a few issues I find with Tunney's career that I don't see in Charles'. A lot of the big names he beat were near the end of their careers (Carpentier, Levinsky, Gibbons) and there are several top names from his era who many of his contemporaries fought but he didn't, for whatever reason. Compare to Charles, who fought everyone in a really deep era of light-heavies, usually several times, and compiled a winning record against most of them.

Who were these contemporaries?

Kid McCoy
10-28-2011, 05:14 PM
Who were these contemporaries?

Norfolk, Berlenbach, Delaney, Stribling, Flowers etc, plus I find it strange that he only had one fight with Loughran, which was actually pretty close (for comparison, Greb fought Loughran six times).

DarkTerror88
10-29-2011, 01:19 AM
Saad Muhammad in your list but no Harold Johnson?

Explanation!!

I don't enough about him, so I try not to "open my pie hole" about things I don't know. You seem like you could inform me though :).

GJC
10-29-2011, 01:51 AM
I'd go with Charles but got to say Marshall beat the daylights out of him when Marshall was prime, he avenged the loss but IMO Marshall was past his best by then. Burley was a welter/middle but at LHW Charles did have the Indian sign over Moore and Bivins is a great fighter. That said Loughran and Greb are great great LHWs and the Gibbons fight would be LHW these days.

GJC
10-29-2011, 01:53 AM
I don't enough about him, so I try not to "open my pie hole" about things I don't know. You seem like you could inform me though :).
Oh he will don't worry :)
Basically he was always Archie Moore tune up of choice ;)

Rockin'
10-29-2011, 01:57 AM
Bill Miller would strongly disagree with Tunney being better than Charles..........Rockin':boxing:

Terry A
10-29-2011, 02:04 AM
I have Charles at #1 but it's close enough that I wouldn't make a big deal over someone ranking Tunney higher.

Poet

It can be justified but personally I wouldn't. Charles' resume is much deeper than Tunney's.

Since I couldn't have said it better, I won't try.

IronDanHamza
10-29-2011, 11:44 AM
Oh he will don't worry :)
Basically he was always Archie Moore tune up of choice ;)

:lol1:

If you want to talk about tune-ups then your beloved Ezzard Charles made one hell of a tune up of your favourite, one Archie Moore. ;)

No but seriously, you know as well as I know on paper it may look like Moore had Johnson's number and yeah he certainly got the better of him in their series but they certainly brought the best out of each other win or lose. And, that 5th fight was a classic and Johnson was so so unlucky in that but this is another discussion.

IronDanHamza
10-29-2011, 12:07 PM
I don't enough about him, so I try not to "open my pie hole" about things I don't know. You seem like you could inform me though :).

I personally consider Johnson to be a Top 5 ATG Light Heavyweight but that gets me into a lot of arguments :lol1: I feel it can just about be justified, along with my personal bias. But I mean, I feel he has an argument.

I just cannot see how him not being in the Top 10 can be justified. I know you didn't include him because you don't know much about him and that's cool but he ticks every box to be minimum Top 10.

Johnson beat an incredible amount of Top ranked opposition at LHW, all the way into double figures. Plenty of excellent 'forgotten' fighters such as Paul Andrews, Sonny Ray, Gustav Scholz, Henry Hank etc etc etc.

Ontop of wins over Archie Moore, HOF'er Willie Pastrano (He was robbed) and a fighter I feel should be a HOF'er Bert Lytell.

I also personally give him some credit at LHW for his win over Ezzard Charles although it was offically a HW fight, they both weighed in at like 180, or around there.

His win over Jimmy Bivins applies to this logic also.

To me, is one hell of a resume.

And without a question a Top 10 calibur one.

GJC
10-29-2011, 12:55 PM
:lol1:

If you want to talk about tune-ups then your beloved Ezzard Charles made one hell of a tune up of your favourite, one Archie Moore. ;)

No but seriously, you know as well as I know on paper it may look like Moore had Johnson's number and yeah he certainly got the better of him in their series but they certainly brought the best out of each other win or lose. And, that 5th fight was a classic and Johnson was so so unlucky in that but this is another discussion.
Couldn't resist it :)

No arguments from me Johnson is top 10 for sure.

Ironic re Indian signs Charles had Moore's number which I think cements him as number one in most people's mind. Johnson suffers big time with his record against Moore but Loughran generally ranks above Greb despite their h2h record.

DarkTerror88
10-29-2011, 07:10 PM
I personally consider Johnson to be a Top 5 ATG Light Heavyweight but that gets me into a lot of arguments :lol1: I feel it can just about be justified, along with my personal bias. But I mean, I feel he has an argument.

I just cannot see how him not being in the Top 10 can be justified. I know you didn't include him because you don't know much about him and that's cool but he ticks every box to be minimum Top 10.

Johnson beat an incredible amount of Top ranked opposition at LHW, all the way into double figures. Plenty of excellent 'forgotten' fighters such as Paul Andrews, Sonny Ray, Gustav Scholz, Henry Hank etc etc etc.

Ontop of wins over Archie Moore, HOF'er Willie Pastrano (He was robbed) and a fighter I feel should be a HOF'er Bert Lytell.

I also personally give him some credit at LHW for his win over Ezzard Charles although it was offically a HW fight, they both weighed in at like 180, or around there.

His win over Jimmy Bivins applies to this logic also.

To me, is one hell of a resume.

And without a question a Top 10 calibur one.

Upon further investigation and study, i have seen your reason. I went and totally redid my lsit from scrathc. it looks ab it differetn now

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb


now its
1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Johnson
8.) Rosenbloom
9.) Loughran
10.) Saad Muhammad

IronDanHamza
10-29-2011, 07:43 PM
Upon further investigation and study, i have seen your reason. I went and totally redid my lsit from scrathc. it looks ab it differetn now

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb


now its
1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Johnson
8.) Rosenbloom
9.) Loughran
10.) Saad Muhammad

Much better :fing02: :lol1:

I think Foster H2H is one of the best LHW's ever but I don't think his resume is too strong. Especially not compared to Johnson's, for example.

I mean;

Moore
Lytell
Pastrano
Charles*
Bivins*

Wow. And that's just the stand out wins.

Without the long list of solid/good wins over Top ranked opposition which I mentioned earlier along with Bob Satterfield, Henry Hank, Doug Jones and many others. The list goes on for quite a while.

Harold Johnson is truley one of the most underrated fighters in history.

GJC
10-30-2011, 02:13 AM
Upon further investigation and study, i have seen your reason. I went and totally redid my lsit from scrathc. it looks ab it differetn now

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb


now its
1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Johnson
8.) Rosenbloom
9.) Loughran
10.) Saad Muhammad
Have another look at Greb's LHW resume DT think you might find you cut the wrong fighter for Harold. He's got wins over 3 of your top ten and if you expanded your list down to 20 and started considering fighters like Dillon, Gibbons, Norfolk, Levinsky he beat them too. Oh and don't forget Mctigue another world champion albeit not a great one IMO. Resume wise at light heavy he has a strong shout for number 1.

DarkTerror88
10-30-2011, 03:16 AM
Have another look at Greb's LHW resume DT think you might find you cut the wrong fighter for Harold. He's got wins over 3 of your top ten and if you expanded your list down to 20 and started considering fighters like Dillon, Gibbons, Norfolk, Levinsky he beat them too. Oh and don't forget Mctigue another world champion albeit not a great one IMO. Resume wise at light heavy he has a strong shout for number 1.

I'm against rating fighters in two separate weight classes. I have greb as the number one middleweight. I choose that as his best weight and rank him there.
My only exception(as of now) is having Robinson in both MW and WW lists. However he is also my number one p4p.


Let's just put it this way, I'm a complicated guy, but I compile my lists and rankings through logic and reason. I think I make a pretty good account for myself in terms being fairly well respected for my opinions.

GJC
10-31-2011, 08:49 AM
I think I make a pretty good account for myself in terms being fairly well respected for my opinions.

I would imagine you are more than fairly well respected by the majority I would hope you are very well respected, you have my highest respect DT. No problem with you keeping Greb to MW, the only reason I thought I'd throw some support Harry's way was you did have him on your original
List so I thought you'd dropped him rather than re categorised him.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 11:52 AM
With Gene Tunney's wins over Greb, Carpentier and Loughran I think (experts correct me if I'm wrong) do you think its justified to rank Tunney over Charles at Light-heavyweight, or is Ezzard Charles the undisuted King? ( I rank Langford at middleweight)
Nothing undisputed about #1 LHW seeing as though neither ever held the title. My #1, (at the moment) is the Mongoose. All three are famous as "uncrowned" LHW champions, yes Moore was considered for years as that before he finally got the belt, then even at that age he totally dominated the division for the best part of a decade. I think Tunney maybe should have had a shot at it before going up for Dempsey, but Moore left nobody in doubt as to being the real #1. I think dominating and defending the undisputed title is every bit as impressive as his resume of opponents.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archie Moore left Aussies in no doubt that here was a future ATG the moment he got off the canvas against the incredibly frightening Ron Richards and then outclass and pound the Aboriginal champion for two great victories way back in 1940.... Moore's career is very extensive and he is the all-time KO king of boxing history, he was a menange (i apologise for the attempt at French) of very subtle skills and raw power, he was the complete ring master.