Ranking Gene Tunney over Ezzard Charles at light-heavyweight: Can it be justified?

[kendom]

With Gene Tunney's wins over Greb, Carpentier and Loughran I think (experts correct me if I'm wrong) do you think its justified to rank Tunney over Charles at Light-heavyweight, or is Ezzard Charles the undisuted King? ( I rank Langford at middleweight)

[DarkTerror88]

With Gene Tunney's wins over Greb, Carpentier and Loughran I think (experts correct me if I'm wrong) do you think its justified to rank Tunney over Charles at Light-heavyweight, or is Ezzard Charles the undisuted King? ( I rank Langford at middleweight)

I dont think its justified by record alone. With his wins and resume at everyweight he competed at, Charles is a top 10 pound for pound fighter.

with multiple wins over Maxim
Lesnevich
Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall

and other top rated contenders, his resume if impressive to say the least. He also was one of them most complete fighters in the history of the sport. I think he would beat Tunney head to head as well.

I feel it is more than reasonable to rank Charles over Tunney, than to rank Tunney over Charles.

My list goes:

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb
and im no blowhard when it comes to ranking fighters.

[StarshipTrooper]

I have Charles at #1 but it's close enough that I wouldn't make a big deal over someone ranking Tunney higher.

Poet

[Kid McCoy]

It can be justified but personally I wouldn't. Charles' resume is much deeper than Tunney's.

[Scott9945]

There is that issue of Tunney never fighting any African American contenders. But based on their records you could go either way.

[IronDanHamza]

I dont think its justified by record alone. With his wins and resume at everyweight he competed at, Charles is a top 10 pound for pound fighter.

with multiple wins over Maxim
Lesnevich
Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall

and other top rated contenders, his resume if impressive to say the least. He also was one of them most complete fighters in the history of the sport. I think he would beat Tunney head to head as well.

I feel it is more than reasonable to rank Charles over Tunney, than to rank Tunney over Charles.

My list goes:

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb
and im no blowhard when it comes to ranking fighters.

Saad Muhammad in your list but no Harold Johnson?

Explanation!!

[IronDanHamza]

I think it's quite difficult to justify.

Gene Tunney is a great fighter no doubt about it but Ezzard Charles is simply better every way you look at it in my book.

[kendom]

I dont think its justified by record alone. With his wins and resume at everyweight he competed at, Charles is a top 10 pound for pound fighter.

with multiple wins over Maxim
Lesnevich
Moore
Burley
Bivins
Marshall

and other top rated contenders, his resume if impressive to say the least. He also was one of them most complete fighters in the history of the sport. I think he would beat Tunney head to head as well.

I feel it is more than reasonable to rank Charles over Tunney, than to rank Tunney over Charles.

My list goes:

1.) Charles
2.) Tunney
3.) Moore
4.) Foster
5.) Conn
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Saad Muhammad
9.) Rosenbloom
10.) Greb
and im no blowhard when it comes to ranking fighters.

Nice list, i dont feel knowledgeable enough to post my list of top 10 light heavyweights before i see more fights.

[Kid McCoy]

There are a few issues I find with Tunney's career that I don't see in Charles'. A lot of the big names he beat were near the end of their careers (Carpentier, Levinsky, Gibbons) and there are several top names from his era who many of his contemporaries fought but he didn't, for whatever reason. Compare to Charles, who fought everyone in a really deep era of light-heavies, usually several times, and compiled a winning record against most of them.

[kendom]

There are a few issues I find with Tunney's career that I don't see in Charles'. A lot of the big names he beat were near the end of their careers (Carpentier, Levinsky, Gibbons) and there are several top names from his era who many of his contemporaries fought but he didn't, for whatever reason. Compare to Charles, who fought everyone in a really deep era of light-heavies, usually several times, and compiled a winning record against most of them.

Who were these contemporaries?