Swap out Gene Tunney with Larry Holmes?

[Great John L]

Should Gene Tunney be swapped out with Larry Holmes on the top 10 list of all time heavyweight greats? I have always been a fan of Tunney, and he had an extremely good record of 66-1. He beat very good fighters of the era. He knocked out Georges Carpentier, Bartley Madden, Johnny Risko, Jeff Smith, Erminio Spalla, the Italian Heavyweight Champion, Tommy Loughran, beat Harry Greb 4 times, knocked out Tommy Gibbons, whom Jack Dempsey couldn't KO in 15 rounds, and beat Jack Dempsey twice. He beat Battling Levinsky for the American Light Heavyweight title, lost it and then regained it from Greb. Tunney was long respected by the Old Timers as a great scientific boxer, perhaps the best since Corbett. He achieved every ambition he set out for and carried himself with dignity. Though never in the top 5, the old historians always had Gene as one of the best, almost unanimous in having him in the top 10, and many times even above Marciano. In modern times Tunney is underrated by some and overrated by others, but generally underappreciated. Due to the respect he was shown by the Old Timers, and his amazing boxing abilities, I have always rated Gene in the top 10. But in doing mroe recent research I am tempted to swap him otu with Holmes. Holmes fought many more name fighters. Virtually all of which had winning records, while Tunney fought many tomato cans and bums on the way up. Holmes beat the likes of Leon Spinks, Shavers twice, Scott Ledoux, Mike Weaver, Tim Witherspoon, Trevor Berbick, Muhammad Ali, Randall Cobb and Lucien Rodriguez, Ken Norton, Bonecrusher Smith, Jose Ribalta, Ray Mercer, Soctt Frank, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes, Lorenzo Zanon, and Leroy Jones. Comparing them physically, Holems was bigger, stronger, iron chin, better jab, and superior height and reach. Comapring their careers, Larry ofught betetr opposition, had 21 title defenses in comparison to Gene's mere 2 defenses of the Heavyweight title, and Larry held the title for 7 years when Gene held it for 2. Gene's best opponent was a past prime Jack Dempsey, while Larry fought many great fighters. With the possible exception of a prime Jack Dempsey, I don't believe that there is any fighter on Gene's record that Holmes couldn't beat. Larry fought betetr opponents, was bigger and stronegr physically, with an iron chin that was proven numerous times, and what many call one of the best left jabs in hsitory, with the second longest reign and second most title defenses after the Great Joe Louis. Taking all of this into consideration, do you feel that Gene Tunney should be replaced with Larry Holmes. If I add Holems to the lsit I may ahve to rearrange the order of the lower rankign fighters ony my list, but is Larry worthy of being in possession of a spot in the top with Gene being downgraded to an honorable mention?

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Interesting topic.

It is pretty remarkable that, for the fairly brief time Tunney was a HW, his handful of fights at the weight were virtually all against fighters superior to just about anyone Holmes faced in all his long reign as Champion.

How I like to judge a fighter's place in history is one-part Mythical Head-To-Head, & one-part Career Achievements. As Heavyweights, I see Holmes beating Tunney. As Heavyweights, I cannot ignore Holmes having had by far the better career, given his whole life was at the weight, whereas little of Tunney's actually was.

That being the case, I cannot see a fair case for Tunney above Holmes on an all-timers' HW list, based on my criteria. Obviously, we are in agreement here. I disagree that Holmes fought many great fighters ("great," being distinct from good, to me), though. There is no one on Holmes' ledger while he was Champion Tunney wouldn't have also defeated, IMO.

I do, however, absolutely feel Tunney had the better career & should be recognised higher on an all-timers list which is pound-for-pound. Tunney was, at a minimum, Holmes' equal (quite arguably better) as a fighter, & his achievements as a whole beat Holmes' for mine. To be honest, though, don't most people already have Holmes above Tunney in their lists at HW?

In short, Holmes higher as a HW, Tunney higher PFP.

[Great John L]

Yes, I guess Holmes didn't fiight "greats" as you said, but fought the best around and most were better than a large chunk of Tunney's competition. But then certain fighters were above a large chunk of Holmes's competition. I had included Tunney on my list due to how highly the old timers rated him, his struggle to the top, and his being evry scientific, and beatign Dempsey in two of the Greatest fights of all time with record crowds and gates. But being fai, I can't seem to find a reason to have Tunney ahead. Holmes held the title far longer, made more defenses, he fought many classics, while Tunney's only really remembered fights are Dempsey, Greb, Gibbons, and Carpentier. Holmes jab is better, he was heavier and stronger. Tunney's best work was at Light Heavyweight He didn't have too many big fights as a heavyweight and did hold the title for far too short a time. His reign was 2 years and he had only 3 defenses. Once against a faded Dempsey and one against a low leevrl Australian punching bag. Concerning records, and physical attributes, and competition, I think Holmes should be included, but Tunney is definitely a candidate for a top 10 fighter, and even if not included iny my lsit, he was a great fighter.

[StarshipTrooper]

No. Gene Tunney was a career Light-Heavyweight who had a grand total of 5 fights at Heavyweight. No fighter should be ranked in a weight class where he was only there long enough to have a cup of coffee. Michael Spinks shouldn't be ranked at Heavyweight for the same reason. At least with Ezzard Charles you can make a case since he had a sizable run at Heavyweight. And what's with all the Holmes hate around here lately? :thinking9:

Poet

[Holtol]

I personally don't have a very good top 10 list of all time heavy weights. Because I don't have much knowledge of boxers before 1950. Even 1950 to present there are many gaps as I have not seen much of certain boxers. I personally don't know enough about Tunny so I can't answer the question. But I think there is already a disproportionate amount of boxers 1950 to present in most peoples top 10. And that is less then half of boxing history by about 10 years. One day I want to make a top 10 list based mostly on math. But I am still trying to figure out all the factors that would change the amount of great Heavyweights in different time periods. Even your top 10 list which looks fairly good has about 7 heavyweights 1950 on.

[Great John L]

When you say no, you are meanng Holems should be rated higher yes?

[StarshipTrooper]

When you say no, you are meanng Holems should be rated higher yes?

Of course. As far as I'm concerned Tunney shouldn't be rated at Heavyweight period.....For the afore mentioned reasons.

Poet

[Great John L]

What do you think of the historians who used to rate Tunney higher? Nowadays I see very few lists with Tunney on them, but Bert Sugar had him #13 on his top 100 boxers of all time. I think Tunney sued to be rated higher because there weren't many heavyweights in the 1960s and 1970s to choose from. Nowadays Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Ali, Frazier, etc are almost always on the top lists. But in the 1960s and 1970s, due to such a lack of high level heavyweights, they had to settle for fighters like Bob Fitzsimmons, who fought at 162 pounds in the Heavyweight division. I have never seen any list post 1975 with Fitzsimmons on it for the ATG Heavyweights. But back in the day he was viewed as #3 all time by Nat Fleischer. But they didn't have as many greats to choose from back then like we do today.

[StarshipTrooper]

What do you think of the historians who used to rate Tunney higher? Nowadays I see very few lists with Tunney on them, but Bert Sugar had him #13 on his top 100 boxers of all time. I think Tunney sued to be rated higher because there weren't many heavyweights in the 1960s and 1970s to choose from. Nowadays Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Ali, Frazier, etc are almost always on the top lists. But in the 1960s and 1970s, due to such a lack of high level heavyweights, they had to settle for fighters like Bob Fitzsimmons, who fought at 162 pounds in the Heavyweight division. I have never seen any list post 1975 with Fitzsimmons on it for the ATG Heavyweights. But back in the day he was viewed as #3 all time by Nat Fleischer. But they didn't have as many greats to choose from back then like we do today.

I think it had more to do with the mistaken notion that Heavyweight is somehow counts for more than other divisions. To many of those Historians got caught up in the mentality that if you win the Heavyweight championship then you automatically get counted as a Heavyweight.....even if the fight where you won the belt was your only fight at Heavyweight and regardless of what your resume says. Needless to say, I don't buy into that and I treat all weight classes equally without falling into the "higher the weight class the greater the prestige" trap.

Poet

[Great John L]

That is a very good point. Overall, even if Tunney was very scientific and whippped Jack and Carpentier and Gibbons, the larger bulk of his career was Light heavyweight. Holmes was a true heavyweight through and through. His competition was also true heavyweight.