Tunney's all time heanyweight ranking?

[Barn]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Joe Frazier
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Sonny Liston
10. Jack Johnson

Your list sounds like a Bert Sugar list. He's quite big on Jack Dempsey

Good list. I agree with your stance on Jack Johnson as stated earlier but, maybe not quite so low.

[JAB5239]

haha there's about as much evidence as LL being a fruit as him juicing.

There is a chance. There is a chance everybody else has and will continue to do it to. But when you say it's obvious and there isn't a shred of proof, that leads me to believe you have a biased agenda. Mike Casey is a wonderful historian and I respect his work, but no man is perfect and I disagree with him on this particular subject.

[StarshipTrooper]

Lol, I got all the way down to the part where he said LL's physique was "obviously" influenced by steroids and I stopped reading. That one ridiculous claim, with no proof to support it, undermines everything else he said in my opinion.

While I have my su****ions that most fighters post-1990 especially Heavyweights used some form of PEDs, being su****ious and knowing are two different things and I'm loath to point the finger at anyone in particular by name without having some rock-solid proof. Even with Evander there's only su****ion and no real proof (the "Evan Fields" stuff is suggestive but not iron-clad).

Poet

[JAB5239]

While I have my su****ions that most fighters post-1990 especially Heavyweights used some form of PED, being su****ious and knowing are two different things and I'm loath to point thge finger at anyone in particular by name without having some rock-solid proof. Even with Evander there's only su****ion and no real proof (the "Evan Fields" stuff is suggestive but not iron-clad).

Poet

This is exactly how I feel.

[Vadrigar.]

While I have my su****ions that most fighters post-1990 especially Heavyweights used some form of PEDs, being su****ious and knowing are two different things and I'm loath to point the finger at anyone in particular by name without having some rock-solid proof. Even with Evander there's only su****ion and no real proof (the "Evan Fields" stuff is suggestive but not iron-clad).

Poet

Why post-1990?

[StarshipTrooper]

Why post-1990?

Because that's when it really became rampant in practically all sports. Certainly there were examples of PED use in sports in the 70s and 80s (think Lyle Alzado) but it didn't really explode and become pervasive until the late 80s - early 90s.

Poet

[SBleeder]

Like others here, I don't rank Tunney as a heavyweight. I do consider him one of the top 5 light-heavyweights of all time.

Although, if you're an anally-retentive type... Gene Tunney is the last lineal heavyweight champion of the world. No one ever took the title from him. So technically, everyone since him has been a paper champion.

[CarlosG815]

Anybody can make a list and justify their reasons for why a person is where they are based on that person's criteria for making a list.

My point is that it is no more ludicrous that have Dempsey 2 (which many historians have him rated very highly) and Tunney 7 than it is to have Lennox Lewis rated at #5. To me, it is even MORE ridiculous to have Lewis at 5 than to see Dempsey at 2 and Tunney at 7. Tunney's win's over Dempsey, although Dempsey was far past it, is still better than any win Lennox has, and he looked more impressive doing it. And Dempsey's career speaks for itself. Far trumps Lewis'. Stomps Lewis' career into the dirt.

Jab you speak so negatively about rumors you have read about Dempsey fighting leftovers, yet you give Lennox a pass and put him on a pedestal. Why?

[Scott9945]

I like this one:
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

The dead horse beating works for me. Some topics here are this forum's version of Mayweather-Pacquiao. How many times can the same people repeat the same opinions?

[bklynboy]

It makes about as much sense as ranking Roy Jones there. Tunney had what, maybe a half a dozen fights at Heavyweight out of a 60+ fight career?
Poet

I disagree. Tunney ended up in the heavyweight division and stayed there for the last 3 years of his career. He also retired young at age 30 or maybe just turning 31. He could EASILY (but didn't) have fought another 2-3 years and have had 10 title defenses under his belt. He retired at the peak of his career to get married.


I think its the coulda/woulda been aspect that makes it very difficult. Going by resume he isn't a TOP 20. Going by fantasy (that he would have dominated the heavyweight division for a few years) that he would have easily beaten Sharkey and would only have had trouble with a Schmeling I can easily see him in the TOP 20 if not TOP 15 if not TOP 10.

You can say it's only fantasy but so is arguing whether Tyson could have beaten a prime Holmes (YES) or Holyfield (Don't Know) or any other ranking system.

I think that Tunney is vastly underrated.

All this "fantasy" ranking assumes two things -- that he was NOT knocked out in Dempsey-Tunney II and that it's reasonable to assume that he coulda/shoulda/woulda have dominated the division for another 2-3 years. In which case he would have fought as heavyweight for half his career and would have 10-15 title defenses.