Micheal Spinks/Tunney: Heavyweight accolades

[Willow The Wisp]

Before the thread goes of into tangental arguments of dubious educational value, I thought I'd volunteer to button up the original querry.

When Gene Tunney beat Dempsey for the title towards the end of 1926, he was an average sized 6'1 1/4" 190 lb. Heavyweight without an ounce of fat on him. He did most of his work at LightHeavyweight and was Harry Greb's master, but he was never world's champion at that weight, and therefore, was not identified as principally a LightHeavyweight historically; and the decision was never in question, and was, in fact fairly wide.
Tunney defended, then retired at 61-1-1 (48), and became the very first Heavyweight champion in modern times to break absolute liniage by never returning to the ring.

Tunney is in every sense a truly GREAT Heavyweight Champion, and a strong candidate for best boxer to ever lace on a glove.

When Michael Spinks beat Holmes for the title towards the end of 1985, he was the undisputed LightHeavyweight champion of the world having defended as a LightHeavyweight world's champion 10 times. As a longstanding LightHeavyweight world's champion, he, unlike Tunney, is historically identified as a LightHeavyweight. At the time of his challenge to Holmes he was seen as a career 175 pounder being fattened up by Mackie Shilstone to become a smallish 6'2" 199 3/4 lbs guy seeking to become the first 175 champion to do the deed.
Spinks succeeded in his mission, but that fight and the rematch both were exceedingly close fights, and both raised many eyebrows as fans and writers wondedred aloud if the table had been tilted in order to block the somewhat caustic Larry Holmes from eclipsing the 49-0 unbeaten log of the beloved Rocky Marciano, which he was on the verge of doing. Spinks would defend against capable Norwegian Tangstad and Cooney, leading up to his total destruction at the hands of the red hot title claimant Iron Mike Tyson at just 1:31 of round one in their unification match.
Spinks would retire with a mark of 31-1-0 (21).

There are similarities to be sure; but the differences I've outlined have answered the question posed to anyone's satisfaction.

Not to close yet another thread at Boxing Scene. Posters are encouraged to prattle on for their own amusement, as always.

[joseph5620]

Before the thread goes of into tangental arguments of dubious educational value, I thought I'd volunteer to button up the original querry.

When Gene Tunney beat Dempsey for the title towards the end of 1926, he was an average sized 6'1 1/4" 190 lb. Heavyweight without an ounce of fat on him. He did most of his work at LightHeavyweight and was Harry Greb's master, but he was never world's champion at that weight, and therefore, was not identified as principally a LightHeavyweight historically; and the decision was never in question, and was, in fact fairly wide.
Tunney defended, then retired at 61-1-1 (48), and became the very first Heavyweight champion in modern times to break absolute liniage by never returning to the ring.

Tunney is in every sense a truly GREAT Heavyweight Champion, and a strong candidate for best boxer to ever lace on a glove.

When Michael Spinks beat Holmes for the title towards the end of 1985, he was the undisputed LightHeavyweight champion of the world having defended as a LightHeavyweight world's champion 10 times. As a longstanding LightHeavyweight world's champion, he, unlike Tunney, is historically identified as a LightHeavyweight. At the time of his challenge to Holmes he was seen as a career 175 pounder being fattened up by Mackie Shilstone to become a smallish 6'2" 199 3/4 lbs guy seeking to become the first 175 champion to do the deed.
Spinks succeeded in his mission, but that fight and the rematch both were exceedingly close fights, and both raised many eyebrows as fans and writers wondedred aloud if the table had been tilted in order to block the somewhat caustic Larry Holmes from eclipsing the 49-0 unbeaten log of the beloved Rocky Marciano, which he was on the verge of doing. Spinks would defend against capable Norwegian Tangstad and Cooney, leading up to his total destruction at the hands of the red hot title claimant Iron Mike Tyson at just 1:31 of round one in their unification match.
Spinks would retire with a mark of 31-1-0 (21).

There are similarities to be sure; but the differences I've outlined have answered the question posed to anyone's satisfaction.

Not to close yet another thread at Boxing Scene. Posters are encouraged to prattle on for their own amusement, as always.

No and No.

[Willow The Wisp]

No and No.

A couple things to remember joseph5620. This first thing is that I know more about this subject than you will ever know, and the second is that without a thirst for learning and allowing ourselves to become open to the wisdom of those who know more, we would all still be living in trees.

[JAB5239]

Before the thread goes of into tangental arguments of dubious educational value, I thought I'd volunteer to button up the original querry.

When Gene Tunney beat Dempsey for the title towards the end of 1926, he was an average sized 6'1 1/4" 190 lb. Heavyweight without an ounce of fat on him. He did most of his work at LightHeavyweight and was Harry Greb's master, but he was never world's champion at that weight, and therefore, was not identified as principally a LightHeavyweight historically; and the decision was never in question, and was, in fact fairly wide.
Tunney defended, then retired at 61-1-1 (48), and became the very first Heavyweight champion in modern times to break absolute liniage by never returning to the ring.

Tunney is in every sense a truly GREAT Heavyweight Champion, and a strong candidate for best boxer to ever lace on a glove.

When Michael Spinks beat Holmes for the title towards the end of 1985, he was the undisputed LightHeavyweight champion of the world having defended as a LightHeavyweight world's champion 10 times. As a longstanding LightHeavyweight world's champion, he, unlike Tunney, is historically identified as a LightHeavyweight. At the time of his challenge to Holmes he was seen as a career 175 pounder being fattened up by Mackie Shilstone to become a smallish 6'2" 199 3/4 lbs guy seeking to become the first 175 champion to do the deed.
Spinks succeeded in his mission, but that fight and the rematch both were exceedingly close fights, and both raised many eyebrows as fans and writers wondedred aloud if the table had been tilted in order to block the somewhat caustic Larry Holmes from eclipsing the 49-0 unbeaten log of the beloved Rocky Marciano, which he was on the verge of doing. Spinks would defend against capable Norwegian Tangstad and Cooney, leading up to his total destruction at the hands of the red hot title claimant Iron Mike Tyson at just 1:31 of round one in their unification match.
Spinks would retire with a mark of 31-1-0 (21).

There are similarities to be sure; but the differences I've outlined have answered the question posed to anyone's satisfaction.

Not to close yet another thread at Boxing Scene. Posters are encouraged to prattle on for their own amusement, as always.

I respectfully disagree here. Tunney was a heavyweight for around 8 fights with Dempsey coming from a three year layoff and Heeney as his only other top 10 opponent at heavyweight. It may just be my opinion, but that hardly makes an ATG heavyweight.

He was an ATG lightheavy, he was extremely skilled and has an argument as being inside the top p4p fighters of all time, but not he best boxer either.......in my opinion.

[Willie Pep 229]

Tunney should have defended against Sharkey. Sharkey verbally chased Tunney in the newspapers for two years after the 'long-count.'

Sharkey had dominated (possibly an old) Wills and was handling Dempsey until he suddenly didn't.

Should have gotten a shot at Tunney in '29. Then Tunney could argue he cleared the table.

P.S. Godfrey was off the table because Tunney was Tunney. Schmeling and Carnera still on the rise.

[them_apples]

Now I've heard it all.

I didn't say as a heavyweight, why did you edit my post? I was speaking in terms of p4p. that's absurd. What a strange thing to do. factoring in his career as a LHW spinks is certainly higher in the p4p ranking than Tyson.

Funny thing is though, now that you mention it. Spinks wins over Holmes and Cooney are better than anything Tyson has. How do you rate fighters?

[joseph5620]

A couple things to remember joseph5620. This first thing is that I know more about this subject than you will ever know, and the second is that without a thirst for learning and allowing ourselves to become open to the wisdom of those who know more, we would all still be living in trees.

You're never going to convince me that Tunney was a great heavyweight champion or the best to ever lace the gloves. Your arrogance about what you think you know won't change that.

Give me examples of why Tunney should be considered a great heavyweight champion. Let's start there. I guarantee I'll shut it down with facts and "wisdom."


You have no idea how much I know. You're welcome to find out. You'll find out you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

[Willow The Wisp]

I respectfully disagree here. Tunney was a heavyweight for around 8 fights with Dempsey coming from a three year layoff and Heeney as his only other top 10 opponent at heavyweight. It may just be my opinion, but that hardly makes an ATG heavyweight.

He was an ATG lightheavy, he was extremely skilled and has an argument as being inside the top p4p fighters of all time, but not he best boxer either.......in my opinion.

I respect that and you, of course.
Here's just a thought.
I see truth in your criteria for what constitutes a great heavyweight champ, that being long time as champion / Many title defences / Plenty of victories over other great or near great heavyweights at or near their prime.
That's standard, and it's right.

Just my thoughts here, but I'm thinking there's more than one way into heaven.
Afterall, one might suggest that Mike Tyson never acheived those things either, in measure against others at least. And I call him great too.

Dempsey was past his best to be sure, but he blew away Sharkey, Sharkey's bitching about a foul being ignored notwithstanding, and Sharkey was streaking at the time, having just beaten his arch-rival Jimmy Maloney decisively, and having just easily handled the two best black heavyweights of the era; George Godfrey (29 and prime), and Harry Wills (37) who hadn't lost (except for 1 DQ) in nine years, when leading up to the Dempsey clash. Wills, long the top contender, was "battered about the ring from the start." by that version of Sharkey, according to the Associated Press.
It's apparent from this that The Manassa Mauler was still very formidable; and the best in the world before Tunney 1 and the number 1 contender before Tunney 2.

But more than that. Far, far more than that, those Tunney-Dempsey fights are Cornerstones of boxing history. And Tunney won them both with room to spare.

It's a personal decision left to the observing fan as to whether or not that translates to "greatness". To every accredited and knowledgeable boxing historian who ever drew breath, it did.

As a first rate fighter, the input of those historians that could fill a library takes all the pressure off of me to defend these things.
We either accept their input, or we take it upon ourselves to reinvent the wheel and beleive that we know better. Further proof, I will submit; that some folks will beleive anything they tell themselves.

Not you though.
You are miles above that.

[Willow The Wisp]

You're never going to convince me that Tunney was a great heavyweight champion or the best to ever lace the gloves. Your arrogance about what you think you know won't change that.

Give me examples of why Tunney should be considered a great heavyweight champion. Let's start there. I guarantee I'll shut it down with facts and "wisdom."


You have no idea how much I know. You're welcome to find out. You'll find out you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Just pulling your leg there Joe, you don't need me to provide examples of anything so widely understood, and you sure don't need to shut me down. I have a wife for that.

[JAB5239]

I respect that and you, of course.
Here's just a thought.
I see truth in your criteria for what constitutes a great heavyweight champ, that being long time as champion / Many title defences / Plenty of victories over other great or near great heavyweights at or near their prime.
That's standard, and it's right.

Just my thoughts here, but I'm thinking there's more than one way into heaven.
Afterall, one might suggest that Mike Tyson never acheived those things either, in measure against others at least. And I call him great too.

Dempsey was past his best to be sure, but he blew away Sharkey, Sharkey's bitching about a foul being ignored notwithstanding, and Sharkey was streaking at the time, having just beaten his arch-rival Jimmy Maloney decisively, and having just easily handled the two best black heavyweights of the era; George Godfrey (29 and prime), and Harry Wills (37) who hadn't lost (except for 1 DQ) in nine years, when leading up to the Dempsey clash. Wills, long the top contender, was "battered about the ring from the start." by that version of Sharkey, according to the Associated Press.
It's apparent from this that The Manassa Mauler was still very formidable; and the best in the world before Tunney 1 and the number 1 contender before Tunney 2.

But more than that. Far, far more than that, those Tunney-Dempsey fights are Cornerstones of boxing history. And Tunney won them both with room to spare.

It's a personal decision left to the observing fan as to whether or not that translates to "greatness". To every accredited and knowledgeable boxing historian who ever drew breath, it did.

As a first rate fighter, the input of those historians that could fill a library takes all the pressure off of me to defend these things.
We either accept their input, or we take it upon ourselves to reinvent the wheel and beleive that we know better. Further proof, I will submit; that some folks will beleive anything they tell themselves.

Not you though.
You are miles above that.

That there in the bold is in my opinion why he gets rated so highly at heavyweight, because it was historical and it happened at the height of boxings popularity.

Spinks Beat a man who was dull in the personality department, and just didnt excite people no matter how good he was. I suspect even if Spinks win over Holmes was more widely recognized and he had never fought Tyson the Tunney's win over Dempsey would always trump Spinks heavyweight achievements.

Honestly though I don't have a horse in this race, I just found it interesting given the circumstances and wanted to hear others opinions.