Any one else on here Rank Gene tunney higher than Micky walker

[Kid McCoy]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about Walker vs Tunney. But when you have people comparing Tunney to Sven Ottke than something is wrong. Ottke was a fighter who can't even compare to Tunney in the least bit. Even better undefeated fighters as Calzaghe, Lopez, or Jack McaAullife. If you want to compare Tunney to Ottke, than why not compare Walker to Guillermo Jones? Jones is a modern fighter who won fights from Welterweight all the way up to the Cruiserweight division. The modern Cruiserweight division is like the old heavyweight divsion. Walker being 5-7 beating HW's is not like today.

I don't think Guillermo Jones even witht that P4P distinction of beating guys in 6different divisions makes him a hall of famer, let alone put him in the same class as Walker, so to say Tunney is like Ottke is silly than so is comparing Jones and Walker. Tunney beat like 6 hall of famers and won fights with injuries or being roughed up, Tunney was clean as a whistle and relied on skill and not fouls to win, unlike many of his opponents.

I didn't compare Tunney to Sven Ottke. That example was a response to your argument that Tunney ought to be rated ahead of Walker because he has fewer losses. If that were the case then Tunney ought to be ranked ahead of just about every heavyweight not named Marciano. Fritzie Zivic had 64 career losses, yet both Sugar Ray Robinson and Billy Conn spoke very highly of him. Number of losses is a pretty flimsy basis for ranking fighters.

The State Athletic Commissioner William Muldoon thought Tunney's first win over Greb "unjust", and there were many who also felt Greb edged their drawn fight. It's a myth that Tunney somehow dominated the Greb series, or that he handled him easily after their first encounter.

All power to you with your pick of Tunney as he was a wonderful fighter for sure. But I'm sticking with Walker. To me he beat more top quality fighters than Tunney, fought more top quality fighters than Tunney, and accomplished more in more divisions than Tunney did. Any boxer who fights scores of top notch opponents (including many well above their natural weight-class) and fights on past his prime is going to accrue a few losses, so I'm not going to downgrade Walker much for that.

[HaglerSteelChin]

I didn't compare Tunney to Sven Ottke. That example was a response to your argument that Tunney ought to be rated ahead of Walker because he has fewer losses. If that were the case then Tunney ought to be ranked ahead of just about every heavyweight not named Marciano. Fritzie Zivic had 64 career losses, yet both Sugar Ray Robinson and Billy Conn spoke very highly of him. Number of losses is a pretty flimsy basis for ranking fighters.

The State Athletic Commissioner William Muldoon thought Tunney's first win over Greb "unjust", and there were many who also felt Greb edged their drawn fight. It's a myth that Tunney somehow dominated the Greb series, or that he handled him easily after their first encounter.

All power to you with your pick of Tunney as he was a wonderful fighter for sure. But I'm sticking with Walker. To me he beat more top quality fighters than Tunney, fought more top quality fighters than Tunney, and accomplished more in more divisions than Tunney did. Any boxer who fights scores of top notch opponents (including many well above their natural weight-class) and fights on past his prime is going to accrue a few losses, so I'm not going to downgrade Walker much for that.

I think you are confusing me with someone else, as i don't only rate a guy higher due to won-loss record. I have guys like Greb, Langford, and Armstrong higher than Tunney, and they had more losses. Those three guys mentioned beat many future hall of famers than Walker and were more durable.

There was only two fights that Tunney dominated Greb, the one in minnesota and the 2nd Nyc fight, i remember the cleveland fight was close and the rematch.

SRR was champion only in two divisions and almost a third and is considered to be P4P the greatest, mainly for a combination of resume, skill, durability, and longevity. In the 5 criteria that i use, Tunney has the edge on Walker 3-1-1.

I don't get on Walker for his 19 losses, but about a third of those were knockout losses,and some were early in his career to guys his size. It wasen't always bigger guys knocking him out. Does it tarnish his entire record? No, but it puts into a more proper context compared to the guys in the top 10 P4P.

Tunney beat 6 hall of famers, and a newspaper decision win over another, just going by memory, correct me if i am wrong? He won while injured and found ways to win with intelligence and fighting without fouls. That is a testament to his skill that he became a world champ at LHW and HW.

I do think winning titles in different divisions is admirable, and as i said i do rate Walker quite high but not as high as some of the multi division guys as Canzoneri, Ross, Duran, etc. Walker going by memory, had few title defenses and even his win over Tiger Flowers for the title was disputed.

Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, and Monzon were pretty much champs in one division, yet they still rank very high due to a combination of their competition, skill, impact, durability, and longevity. I rank Walker high, but i feel that overall Tunney is higher on the ATG list.

[JAB5239]

I don't get on Walker for his 19 losses, but about a third of those were knockout losses,and some were early in his career to guys his size. It wasen't always bigger guys knocking him out. Does it tarnish his entire record? No, but it puts into a more proper context compared to the guys in the top 10 P4P.

Im not well versed in Walkers early career so this question may not even pertain to him. But does the context of early losses change if a fighter had little or no amateur experience? A good example would be Billy Conn. Conn had no amateur experience and early career losses yet went on to defeat many excellent fighters. Should those losses still be held against him or looked at for what they were.....a learning, on the job experience?

[HaglerSteelChin]

Im not well versed in Walkers early career so this question may not even pertain to him. But does the context of early losses change if a fighter had little or no amateur experience? A good example would be Billy Conn. Conn had no amateur experience and early career losses yet went on to defeat many excellent fighters. Should those losses still be held against him or looked at for what they were.....a learning, on the job experience?

Good question. I think there is some leeway when it comes to losses depending on several factors. Henry Armstrong loss his first fight and it became trivial as he pretty much consolidated an exceptional record.

I think most forgive early losses for 1)lack of experience or youth-as Pacquiao loss to Torrecampo, 2) If you avenge those losses as both Hagler and Monzon did, 3)If you become consistent and have a long winning streak as Arguello did after some early losses, 4) Also how you loss?, i mean SRL loss a close fight to Duran and was not knocked out- although he was on queer street for a few seconds in Rd2, i think knock out losses hurt you little more than a decision loss.

Greb did badly cut and injure Tunney in the first fight, and love or hate the guy he refuse to quit even when there was enough blood coming down his face to help a Red Cross blood drive.

I think most people are not going to hold every loss against you depending on the individaul circumstances, how you loss?, and who beat you? Not every fighter starts out like 132-1 as SRR did.