A comparison between Tunney and Holmes who was better and why?

[billeau2]

I want to thank Big George for inspiring me to put this thread out there, it simply had not occurred to me.

Before I color the water with my own remarks, what do you guys think?

[StarshipTrooper]

I want to thank Big George for inspiring me to put this thread out there, it simply had not occurred to me.

Before I color the water with my own remarks, what do you guys think?

p4p it's Tunney; at Heavyweight it's Holmes.

[billeau2]

p4p it's Tunney; at Heavyweight it's Holmes.

Keep in mind something: There are a couple of ways of looking at the heavyweight division: If we look at it as another weight class we have to respect that it is a weight class with no weight limits. So... One can fight at virtually any weight desired as a heavyweight. One cannot do this as a middle weight.

Part of the tradition of the division is when great fighters went into the division from a lower weight class to fight for the heavyweight title.

With Tunney specifically, the fact that he was a light heavyweight should not preclude one from viewing him as a heavyweight under certain conditions, including beating a great champion to win the division. NOne of this is meant to detract from Tunney's light heavyweight career and I would agree that Tunney had his best years as a light heavyweight.

[billeau2]

p4p it's Tunney; at Heavyweight it's Holmes.

I should also say: Starship made the right distinction in his comments. I was merely using his post to head off a lot of posters who will assume that one is not looking at Tunney completely as a light heavyweight, when comparing him to Holmes.

[Sugarj]

Well; in terms of legacy it is roughly equal.

Tunney and Holmes both have exemplary ring records. Holmes has the more comprehensive heavyweight record and a ridiculous career length.

Tunney was only beaten once and is arguably one of the finest light heavyweights in history.

As for ring skills, this is a little trickier to ascertain. We do have a fair bit of footage of Tunney but a lot is grainy and appears jerky/inconsistent; which is typical of the era. But stylistically there is similarity with Holmes. The mobility, jab, combinations and defensive smarts are very much all there.

[Zaroku]

I want to thank Big George for inspiring me to put this thread out there, it simply had not occurred to me.

Before I color the water with my own remarks, what do you guys think?

Gimme a few days and I'll get back to you.

Fascinating question! Jhonny is smoking weed... He loves boxing!

[OctoberRed]

Well; in terms of legacy it is roughly equal.

Tunney and Holmes both have exemplary ring records. Holmes has the more comprehensive heavyweight record and a ridiculous career length.

Tunney was only beaten once and is arguably one of the finest light heavyweights in history.

As for ring skills, this is a little trickier to ascertain. We do have a fair bit of footage of Tunney but a lot is grainy and appears jerky/inconsistent; which is typical of the era. But stylistically there is similarity with Holmes. The mobility, jab, combinations and defensive smarts are very much all there.

^^^^ practically me exact thinking on the topic.

[rightsideup]

in terms of respect and legacy both get underrated. head to head i like larry

[The Old LefHook]

They were equally difficult for their own eras to overcome. At their best, no one in their respective eras had an answer for either of them. If you are talking about WBW (who beats whom), the question is not fair for obvious reasons. We know the bigger black beast will beat Gene though he is a hard man. Tunney can make himself difficult to catch, nullifying most of the beast's advantages. Gene's big brain probably saw the dividends and offered a little cash for a larger ring, which Larry snapped at with his tiny head and wolfed down on the spot.