Tunney's all time heanyweight ranking?

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

Going by THAT logic then why not rank Jones top-10 all-time at Heavy since he "woulda, shoulda, coulda" dominated the bums fighting in the division.....maybe becaus he was only there for fight? One fight or six fights, either way they weren't in the division long enough to establish any kind of legitimate track record there to get ranked. Hell, lets rank Hagler top-10 at Light-Heavy! He never fought there but he woulda, shoulda, coulda cleaned up on those mid-80s scubs :rolleyes9:

Poet

[bklynboy]

Going by THAT logic then why not rank Jones top-10 all-time at Heavy since he "woulda, shoulda, coulda" dominated the bums fighting in the division.....maybe becaus he was only there for fight? One fight or six fights, either way they weren't in the division long enough to establish any kind of legitimate track record there to get ranked. Hell, lets rank Hagler top-10 at Light-Heavy! He never fought there but he woulda, shoulda, coulda cleaned up on those mid-80s scubs :rolleyes9:

Poet

Yeah, I'm conflicted. I rate Greb high but have no video of him. How good was Wills, Ketchel, Corbett? I penalize Jones, Calzaghe and Lewis for picking and choosing their fights and for ignoring prime opponents and yet I don't penalize Tunney for marrying and retiring.

Hypocrisy. I hope not. Foolishness, maybe. :-)

[Grand Champ]

Someone tell me why Tyson is a top 10? youngest HW champ.. He beat LHW Spinks and Holmes (who just had lost twice to spinks before they met) lost his big fights against Holyfield, Lewis and Douglas.

Tyson was there for entertainment value but a top 10 ATG I never seen him as.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=CarlosG815;10473049]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?[/QUOTE]

My friend, you have yet to answer my questions to the hypocrisy of your comparisons. It is a stated FACT that Dempsey never fought Wills nor Greb even though the public clamored for it. He instead fought several fighters Greb had not only already beaten, but thrashed. I've heard claims that Lewis ducked both Byrd and Ruiz even though there was no public calling for either fight AND he fought and beat much better fighters than them in his career. Im sorry, but that is a double standard.

Its true that I hold Lewis in high regard, but hardly pedestal worthy. Those accolades are reserved strictly for Louis and Ali at heavyweight. But Lewis did beat every man he ever fought and proved when he didn't take a fight lightly he was totally dominant over the only two men to beat him. Dempsey, as great as he was, did the same thing with Flynn, but you conveniently over look that. Dempsey fought beat two ranked heavies as champion, Gibbons (who Greb had already beaten) and Firpo. Miske had beaten 1 legitimate heavyweight (Bill Brennen) and had won only 1 of his 6 previous fights. He fought a stable mate, Jimmy Darcy in a 4 round fight.He beat lightheavyweight Carpentier, who Greb had already beaten and beat Sharkey (good win) between the Tunney losses. Earlier in his career he had some good wins, but are they really that much better than the ranked fighters (by The Ring magazine) that Lewis beat through out his career?

Bottom line is Dempsey is lauded for his ferocity in the ring, and rightfully so. But if you look more closely at his record he can be as easily criticized as Lewis, and his failure to fight the two best fighters of the time (outside of Tunney) are huge strikes against him.I have no problem with Dempsey being toward the end of anyones top 10, but ranking him two is unrealistic in my opinion when you consider everything. Much of his lofty status is because he was such an icon of the 20's.

He was a great fighter and great for the sport, but he sports massive gaps in my opinion.

[mickey malone]

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.

Don't forget Lewis lol

[GJC]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;10474586]

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?[/QUOTE]

My friend, you have yet to answer my questions to the hypocrisy of your comparisons. It is a stated FACT that Dempsey never fought Wills nor Greb even though the public clamored for it. He instead fought several fighters Greb had not only already beaten, but thrashed. I've heard claims that Lewis ducked both Byrd and Ruiz even though there was no public calling for either fight AND he fought and beat much better fighters than them in his career. Im sorry, but that is a double standard.

Its true that I hold Lewis in high regard, but hardly pedestal worthy. Those accolades are reserved strictly for Louis and Ali at heavyweight. But Lewis did beat every man he ever fought and proved when he didn't take a fight lightly he was totally dominant over the only two men to beat him. Dempsey, as great as he was, did the same thing with Flynn, but you conveniently over look that. Dempsey fought beat two ranked heavies as champion, Gibbons (who Greb had already beaten) and Firpo. Miske had beaten 1 legitimate heavyweight (Bill Brennen) and had won only 1 of his 6 previous fights. He fought a stable mate, Jimmy Darcy in a 4 round fight.He beat lightheavyweight Carpentier, who Greb had already beaten and beat Sharkey (good win) between the Tunney losses. Earlier in his career he had some good wins, but are they really that much better than the ranked fighters (by The Ring magazine) that Lewis beat through out his career?

Bottom line is Dempsey is lauded for his ferocity in the ring, and rightfully so. But if you look more closely at his record he can be as easily criticized as Lewis, and his failure to fight the two best fighters of the time (outside of Tunney) are huge strikes against him.I have no problem with Dempsey being toward the end of anyones top 10, but ranking him two is unrealistic in my opinion when you consider everything. Much of his lofty status is because he was such an icon of the 20's.

He was a great fighter and great for the sport, but he sports massive gaps in my opinion.

Broadly agree, I'd have Dempsey top 5 but I factor in historical impact too. Don't think Carpentier ever fought Greb though, think he would have fought the Germans again before going near Greb

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=GJC;10475377]

Broadly agree, I'd have Dempsey top 5 but I factor in historical impact too. Don't think Carpentier ever fought Greb though, think he would have fought the Germans again before going near Greb

You're right, my mistake. Greb had tried to get a Carpentier fight several times for the world light heavyweight title only to be avoided. Good catch GJC.