Which one these fighters belong in the top 20 heavyweights?

[DeeMoney]

As you know, when Tunney elected to retire following his title defence against # 3 Ring ranked Tom Heeney, and his marriage to Polly Lauder, he was already a billionaire, adjusted to inflation in today's dollars. He'd beaten the great Dempsey twice, Harry Greb, a top competitor against heavyweights, thrice; and top rated contenders Tommy Loughran, Battling Levinsky, Herb Crossley, Paul Samson Koerner, Martin Burke, Charley Weinert, Jack Renault, Chuck Wiggins, Jimmy Delaney, Harry Foley, Erminio Spalla, Georges Carpentier, Tom Gibbons, Bartley Madden and Johnny Risko, in an age when the leap from lightheavyweight to heavyweight was no more than a shot of courage; Tunney had done his bit, completely. If he'd stayed on and beaten Max Schmelling, Jack Sharkey, George Godfrey, Paolino Uzcudun, Knute Hansen, Jack Dorval, Arthur DeKuh, Phil Scott, Vittorio Campolo, Jimmy Maloney and the others available at the time, it would be more of the same.

Tunney was far more than the dancing master who befuddled Dempsey. Tunney was a vicious fighter who brought it.

I agree Tunney was an ATG, no need to try to sell me with your last sentence.

I was just a bit surprised to have someone outline their criteria being complete resume rank Tunney so highly as a heavyweight, when he had such little work as a heavyweight. Thats why I asked if you were just counting his Light Heavyweight resume towards his heavyweight ranking, which as the above shows you were. Its a heck of a resume for Light Heavy, I just don't really think its fair to rate him highly as a heavyweight if we are going to proclaim resume is the key.

Along those lines, listing all of the available heavies you feel he would've beaten doesn't really jibe with your articulated criteria of resume. Its a predictive head 2 head type of thinking, which is what I prefer but once again not really anything to do with resume.

[Willow The Wisp]

I agree Tunney was an ATG, no need to try to sell me with your last sentence.

I was just a bit surprised to have someone outline their criteria being complete resume rank Tunney so highly as a heavyweight, when he had such little work as a heavyweight. Thats why I asked if you were just counting his Light Heavyweight resume towards his heavyweight ranking, which as the above shows you were. Its a heck of a resume for Light Heavy, I just don't really think its fair to rate him highly as a heavyweight if we are going to proclaim resume is the key.

Along those lines, listing all of the available heavies you feel he would've beaten doesn't really jibe with your articulated criteria of resume. Its a predictive head 2 head type of thinking, which is what I prefer but once again not really anything to do with resume.

Nearly all of those Light Heavyweights had showed up in the Heavyweight rankings before, during (see below), or after Tunney's tenure as champion.
Hence my corrective in an age when the leap from lightheavyweight to heavyweight was no more than a shot of courage.


The Ring Magazine February 1928 Heavyweight

• Gene Tunney, Champion

1. Jack Dempsey
2. Jack Sharkey
3. Tom Heeney
4. Johnny Risko
5. Paolino Uzcudun
6. Jack Delaney
7. Vittorio Campolo
8. George Godfrey
9. Knute Hansen
10.Jack Dorval
11.Jack Renault
12.Arthur De Kuh
13.Phil Scott
14.George Cook

[DeeMoney]

Nearly all of those Light Heavyweights had showed up in the Heavyweight rankings before, during (see below), or after Tunney's tenure as champion.
Hence my corrective in an age when the leap from lightheavyweight to heavyweight was no more than a shot of courage.


The Ring ****zine February 1928 Heavyweight

• Gene Tunney, Champion

1. Jack Dempsey
2. Jack Sharkey
3. Tom Heeney
4. Johnny Risko
5. Paolino Uzcudun
6. Jack Delaney
7. Vittorio Campolo
8. George Godfrey
9. Knute Hansen
10.Jack Dorval
11.Jack Renault
12.Arthur De Kuh
13.Phil Scott
14.George Cook

I get that. Being a heavyweight pre WWII was a standard weight class jump from light heavy. Thats not what I'm taking issue with. What I am is the premise that resume is your articulated criteria; yet Tunney never fought most of those specific fighters at heavyweight. So they shouldn't count towards his heavyweight resume, and as such don't contribute to his being considered a great heavyweight (at least when considering resume).

Maybe this comes off as being pedantic, but its one of the reasons why I think just going off resume is so limiting.

[DeeMoney]

Good point. How about also title defenses? That's usually another criteria additonally.

I'm fine with various different criteria, it all depends on what you are trying to find. Personally, I prefer to try and figure out how good a fighter was in the ring. The problem is there is so much subjectivity to it that a lot of people shy away from it.

So we end up with people just comparing resumes, which I don't really care for, because it ends up being less about who was the better fighter and more who had the better resume (there is rarely any context to it). Sure, resumes should play a part in it, but they should be a tool, not the whole solution. Thats kind of why I questioned Willow on his Tunney rating, not because I am against Tunney (my view on him is irrelevant), rather because he was so adamant about it being just resume, but really he is far more in depth than just resume (in other words I agree to a large extent with what he's doing, just by a different name).

So to circle back to title defenses, I think they are a useful tool too, depending on what you are looking for and if you give context to them.

[Willow The Wisp]

Great post. Just gave it a like. I have to thank you for that. I've had so many dumb arguments on this forum lately, that's it's been nice to have a few actual enjoyable, intelligent discussions here in this thread with your posts, as well as others here overall, the movie review discussion and now the wrestling thread in the Boxing Scene Lounge. Thank you.

DeeMoney is a good poster. As are you.
Naturally, ranking criteria across eras is an amalgamation of body of work, as well as impact on the sport, observation of style & ability, prospective envisioning of H2H match-ups, contribution to the craft, etc.
Heavyweights add an extra wrinkle due to the evolution of medium size; where the distinction between lightheavyweight and heavyweight has grown increasingly distant.
Tunney is the ideal example of the latter.
But in terms of the impact on the sport, indeed, on history, Tunney came up through Lightheavyweight (the hard way, lol), and exhibited his vast skillset there most frequently; but was not the World's champion there; and rather, is remembered as The Heavyweight Champion of the World. One who dethroned a massive legend, and participated, as his championship body of work and contribution to the sport, in one of the most genuine Fights of the Century; winning it outright. His is, therefore, a legacy at heavyweight; and one of the greatest of all-time.
My thinking is simply that he is and should be measured within the bracket in which he became the world's Champion.
I hope I'm able to clarify this.

[shawnkemp804]

Earnie Shavers,Floyd Patterson,Buddy Baer,Max Schmeling,Jersey Joe Walcott,Gene Tunney,Tyson Fury or Ken Norton do they all deserve a spot or some need to drop.

Lol most of the people you named aren't heavyweight by modern standards. Then you name guys like Buddy Baer who was considered crude even for his era.

[QueensburyRules]

I'm fine with various different criteria, it all depends on what you are trying to find. Personally, I prefer to try and figure out how good a fighter was in the ring. The problem is there is so much subjectivity to it that a lot of people shy away from it.

So we end up with people just comparing resumes, which I don't really care for, because it ends up being less about who was the better fighter and more who had the better resume (there is rarely any context to it). Sure, resumes should play a part in it, but they should be a tool, not the whole solution. Thats kind of why I questioned Willow on his Tunney rating, not because I am against Tunney (my view on him is irrelevant), rather because he was so adamant about it being just resume, but really he is far more in depth than just resume (in other words I agree to a large extent with what he's doing, just by a different name).

So to circle back to title defenses, I think they are a useful tool too, depending on what you are looking for and if you give context to them.

- - Problem with title defenses is they were rare when Boxing was illegal and now grown to massive proportions.

Fighters are like us in that we can only be in our era for all the better and worse that may be.

[JAB5239]

- - Problem with title defenses is they were rare when Boxing was illegal and now grown to massive proportions.

Fighters are like us in that we can only be in our era for all the better and worse that may be.

This directly contradicts your own assertion that 'precious few heavies in the Pantheon can beat Usyk, and precious few have anywhere close to his immaculate 12 year record as a Heavy." If fighters can only be in our own era than Usyk has only been a heavyweight for 5 years with 6 fights at that weight. Pick your poison, because as usual you're all over the place.

[QueensburyRules]

This directly contradicts your own assertion that 'precious few heavies in the Pantheon can beat Usyk, and precious few have anywhere close to his immaculate 12 year record as a Heavy." If fighters can only be in our own era than Usyk has only been a heavyweight for 5 years with 6 fights at that weight. Pick your poison, because as usual you're all over the place.

- - U got no IQ to contradict anyone.

Fitz and Burns were teensy, yet heavies in their day, yet have no chance vs today vs Usyk.

[JAB5239]

- - U got no IQ to contradict anyone.

Fitz and Burns were teensy, yet heavies in their day, yet have no chance vs today vs Usyk.

It's not about who would win or stand a chance today. Your own words were "fighters can only be in their own era for better or worse". Heavyweight was an open division back than, today it's not. Therefore Usyk has NOT been a Heavyweight for 12 years. This is an indisputable fact. You could say he would have been a Heavyweight back then, but he didn't fight back then. And according to you, you moron, "fighters can only be in their own era". Your double standards when trying to make a point only serve to make you look that much more biased and illogical.

Don't you ever tire of making a fool of yourself?