Who ranks higher at heavyweight, Tunney or Charles?

[JAB5239]

most definitely not and i am surprised you have came up with a comment like that JAB.... i am here to discuss boxing not get under someones skin, i will be making my case for Gene Tunney later in the day... i notice the vote is standing at 2-2 on this thread is the other Tunney voter also casting his vote so as to get under greatest1942s skin?

You two have a bit of history these last 4 or 5 weeks and your reply mimicked his with the exception of Tunney instead of Charles. Fair enough though my friend, I look forward to you post and reasons.

[sonnyboyx2]

You two have a bit of history these last 4 or 5 weeks and your reply mimicked his with the exception of Tunney instead of Charles. Fair enough though my friend, I look forward to you post and reasons.

the history between me and him over the last few weeks started with him claiming i am the worst poster on the forum and finished with me saying if that is so then he should put me on his ignore list so my posts don't annoy him... yet he declined which show's me that he is an old alias trying to settle old scores and with him joining only 7 weeks ago and kissing your ass (the moderator) on a daily basis i can see what his agenda is...

[Spartacus Sully]

is the other Tunney voter also casting his vote so as to get under greatest1942s skin?

Yeah i am.

no but really

i think tunneys 2 wins over a 2 year older dempsey definatly beats charles 1 win over an older slightly overweight for his frame end of his title reign post war louis.

though not HW wins i think his wins over greb loughlan levinski and gibbons give good reason bet on tunney over charles head to head.

as far as a heavy weight its all about the chin and speed. over their carreer id say charles spent alot of time fighting heavier people giving to his speed to save him and not getting hit much as well as not allowing his chin time to slowly buil up to greater and greater weights fighting many a 180+ while baely being over 170. tunney fought all weights lighter and heavier but usually right around his weight class slowly builing up his chin and never having a problem with the speed of lighter or heavier people.

[JAB5239]

the history between me and him over the last few weeks started with him claiming i am the worst poster on the forum and finished with me saying if that is so then he should put me on his ignore list so my posts don't annoy him... yet he declined which show's me that he is an old alias trying to settle old scores and with him joining only 7 weeks ago and kissing your ass (the moderator) on a daily basis i can see what his agenda is...

I like both you guys and respect your opinions if I don't always agree with them. You're both grown men though, not some kids that come wandering from NSB. I think its time to bury the hatchet and move on. I'd appreciate it greatly if you both kept it civil if not respectful when you debate. I'd like ALL the regulars here to set positive examples so when we get new, knowledgeable posters coming in here they want to come back.

[Canes Ghost]

Very interesting thread Jab, both great fighters but I think Tunney shades it for me.

For me the fighting marine is one of the most underated fighters in history.

[sonnyboyx2]

This topic asks who was the better Heavyweight and IMO it has to be Gene Tunney who is an all time Top 10 heavyweight losing only once in 87 battles avenging that loss several times, Tunney beat the best there was at Light-Heavy just like Ezzard Charles did yet Tunney called it a day before actually reaching his prime as Heavyweight Champion whereas Ezzard Charles was on the slide during his Heavyweight career after being virtually unbeatable at 160 & 175lbs.... here is an excellent article on Gene Tunney with quotes from some of Boxing's greatest historians.

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_GTunney.htm

[Greatest1942]

While I agree with you, Im going to play devils advocate.

Skillwise these two fighters are pretty even with a slight advantage going in Charles favor. Both had excellent speed of both hand a foot. The biggest difference I see would be in Tunney's far superior chin and his more potent punching power. Ezzard was never the same after killing Baroudi (sp?) and just didn't have the same killer instinct.

Ohh..I have a thick skin for Sonny don't you worry.

You are right Tunney had a better chin.But Ezzard didn't have a slouch of a chin either. He lasted 15 rounds with Louis (who was past his prime may be , but still a heavy hitter), with Marciano and fought Bob Satterfield. Besides I never saw Gene Tunney as a KO artist. He seldom KO'd any good heavies. Gene fought mostly as light heavy, defended his heavy title once,and won against a past it Jack Dempsey (though better than Joe LOuis win of Charles). The chin doesnot play a huge part I think. Tunney is not going to KO charles. Ezzard beat Satterfield, Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Jersey Joe Walcott. He beat guys who outweighted him by 20-30 pounds, regularly. At lightheavy he beat Archie moore 3 times, which is where Gene fought most of the time.

Its a tough fight, but I will go with Ezzard at heavy, better punch power, almost equal speed and a very good technique. 2-1 to Charles

[Spartacus Sully]

Ohh..I have a thick skin for Sonny don't you worry.

You are right Tunney had a better chin.But Ezzard didn't have a slouch of a chin either. He lasted 15 rounds with Louis (who was past his prime may be , but still a heavy hitter), with Marciano and fought Bob Satterfield. Besides I never saw Gene Tunney as a KO artist. He seldom KO'd any good heavies. Gene fought mostly as light heavy, defended his heavy title once,and won against a past it Jack Dempsey (though better than Joe LOuis win of Charles). The chin doesnot play a huge part I think. Tunney is not going to KO charles. Ezzard beat Satterfield, Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Jersey Joe Walcott. He beat guys who outweighted him by 20-30 pounds, regularly. At lightheavy he beat Archie moore 3 times, which is where Gene fought most of the time.

Its a tough fight, but I will go with Ezzard at heavy, better punch power, almost equal speed and a very good technique. 2-1 to Charles

the chin wouldnt play a role in head to head but as a heavie it would. vs some one like tyson i see tunney having a chance to formulate a plan last the distance and come out ahead i see charles lieing on his back some time after the 6th round and the 4th had he fought a 197 ish prime louis.

[Kid McCoy]

Its a tough fight, but I will go with Ezzard at heavy, better punch power, almost equal speed and a very good technique. 2-1 to Charles

Agreed, plus Charles proved himself against much better opposition at both heavy and light-heavy. He dominated a great, great light-heavy era, and has multiple wins against Moore, Marshall, Burley, Maxim etc. Several of Tunney's big wins were against faded fighters, and there are also a few names missing from his resume. Can the same be said of Charles? His win over old Louis is equal to Tunney's over old Dempsey. Wins over Walcott, Bivins, Baksi, Layne, Ray and Satterfield and coming within a hair's breadth of beating Marciano when past his peak put him ahead of Tunney at heavy too for me.

[Tiozzo]

Yeah i am.

no but really

i think tunneys 2 wins over a 2 year older dempsey definatly beats charles 1 win over an older slightly overweight for his frame end of his title reign post war louis.

though not HW wins i think his wins over greb loughlan levinski and gibbons give good reason bet on tunney over charles head to head.

as far as a heavy weight its all about the chin and speed. over their carreer id say charles spent alot of time fighting heavier people giving to his speed to save him and not getting hit much as well as not allowing his chin time to slowly buil up to greater and greater weights fighting many a 180+ while baely being over 170. tunney fought all weights lighter and heavier but usually right around his weight class slowly builing up his chin and never having a problem with the speed of lighter or heavier people.

can we really build up a chin ?

never heard that before, I'd like to hear some details about that

please develop