Who ranks higher at heavyweight, Tunney or Charles?

[JAB5239]

This topic asks who was the better Heavyweight and IMO it has to be Gene Tunney who is an all time Top 10 heavyweight losing only once in 87 battles avenging that loss several times, Tunney beat the best there was at Light-Heavy just like Ezzard Charles did yet Tunney called it a day before actually reaching his prime as Heavyweight Champion whereas Ezzard Charles was on the slide during his Heavyweight career after being virtually unbeatable at 160 & 175lbs.... here is an excellent article on Gene Tunney with quotes from some of Boxing's greatest historians.

I can't see having Tunney in the top 10 greatest heavyweights. His accomplishments at that weight simply don't merit such a lofty status in my opinion. Good article on a great fighter though. Thanks.

[sonnyboyx2]

I can't see having Tunney in the top 10 greatest heavyweights. His accomplishments at that weight simply don't merit such a lofty status in my opinion.

many historians have Tunney in the Top 5.. IMO in H2H match-ups against all other heavyweight champions i cant see many beat him, if he could work-out Harry Greb he would work-out every fighter. Muhammad Ali & Gene Tunney are "Top of the Tree" when it comes to Footwork.. and that makes it very difficult for them to be defeated. his accomplishments at heavyweight are far better than most fighters who many seem to place in their Top 10

[JAB5239]

many historians have Tunney in the Top 5.. IMO in H2H match-ups against all other heavyweight champions i cant see many beat him, if he could work-out Harry Greb he would work-out every fighter. Muhammad Ali & Gene Tunney are "Top of the Tree" when it comes to Footwork.. and that makes it very difficult for them to be defeated. his accomplishments at heavyweight are far better than most fighters who many seem to place in their Top 10

In my opinion fighters should never be ranked on fantasy h2h match ups. You will get no argument from me about how talented Tunney was. But resume and longevity at a particular weight is what defines all time greatness in my opinion. Gene doesn't have it in either department.

[sonnyboyx2]

Agreed, plus Charles proved himself against much better opposition at both heavy and light-heavy. He dominated a great, great light-heavy era, and has multiple wins against Moore, Marshall, Burley, Maxim etc. Several of Tunney's big wins were against faded fighters, and there are also a few names missing from his resume. Can the same be said of Charles? His win over old Louis is equal to Tunney's over old Dempsey. Wins over Walcott, Bivins, Baksi, Layne, Ray and Satterfield and coming within a hair's breadth of beating Marciano when past his peak put him ahead of Tunney at heavy too for me.

Charles wins over Moore, Marshall, Burley, Maxim etc are all immaterial as they was not fought at Heavyweight, Joe Louis was much more far gone than Jack Dempsey was when losing to Tunney and Charles suffered more loses at heavyweight than he scored victories, Charles was not the brilliant fighter he had been at 160 & 175lbs when fighting at heavyweight whereas Tunney was never beaten at the higher weight and retired before ever reaching his fighting peak at that weight, so we will never know just how good Gene Tunney would have been if he had continued another 3yrs or so... would he have beaten Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera & Baer yes most certainly.

[sonnyboyx2]

In my opinion fighters should never be ranked on fantasy h2h match ups. You will get no argument from me about how talented Tunney was. But resume and longevity at a particular weight is what defines all time greatness in my opinion. Gene doesn't have it in either department.

i would not call them "Fantasy H2H match-ups" the term i would use is Hypothetical H2H match-ups, as they are on a similar level playing field.

Can we claim Ricky Hatton to be a greater 140lb fighter than Aaron Pryor because of Hatton's number of title defence's and longer length of time at the top... no we can't, so hypothetical H2H match-ups have to be brought into the equation when selecting your all time great fighters at each weight otherwise it would all boil down to counting the numbers up.

[Kid McCoy]

Charles wins over Moore, Marshall, Burley, Maxim etc are all immaterial as they was not fought at Heavyweight, Joe Louis was much more far gone than Jack Dempsey was when losing to Tunney and Charles suffered more loses at heavyweight than he scored victories, Charles was not the brilliant fighter he had been at 160 & 175lbs when fighting at heavyweight whereas Tunney was never beaten at the higher weight and retired before ever reaching his fighting peak at that weight, so we will never know just how good Gene Tunney would have been if he had continued another 3yrs or so... would he have beaten Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera & Baer yes most certainly.

Which is why I said light-heavy and heavy. Charles' resume at light-heavy is better than Tunney's and so is his heavyweight resume. I can't see a case for rating Tunney ahead of him in either division.

No Charles wasn't as good at heavyweight, however he did more in the division than Tunney did. Like Tunney he won his title from a faded great (I don't agree that Louis was much more faded than Dempsey), but he followed up by defending it against some good contenders, and even after he lost the belt he was still beating good heavies. It's easy to say Tunney "certainly" would have beaten guys he never faced, however he didn't stick around to find out. We know how good Charles was in the division. Tunney's greatness at heavy is very speculative.

[sonnyboyx2]

Which is why I said light-heavy and heavy. Charles' resume at light-heavy is better than Tunney's and so is his heavyweight resume. I can't see a case for rating Tunney ahead of him in either division.

No Charles wasn't as good at heavyweight, however he did more in the division than Tunney did. Like Tunney he won his title from a faded great (I don't agree that Louis was much more faded than Dempsey), but he followed up by defending it against some good contenders, and even after he lost the belt he was still beating good heavies. It's easy to say Tunney "certainly" would have beaten guys he never faced, however he didn't stick around to find out. We know how good Charles was in the division. Tunney's greatness at heavy is very speculative.

Guys like Ray Arcel & Doc Bagley sung Gene Tunney's praises to the day they died... Yes Louis was more faded than Dempsey alright Louis was using narcotics and film footage of him against Charles & Walcott show his skills had diminished considerably.

[StarshipTrooper]

While I agree with you, Im going to play devils advocate.

Skillwise these two fighters are pretty even with a slight advantage going in Charles favor. Both had excellent speed of both hand a foot. The biggest difference I see would be in Tunney's far superior chin and his more potent punching power. Ezzard was never the same after killing Baroudi (sp?) and just didn't have the same killer instinct.

Actually it was Charles that had the better power even accounting for his laying back after the Barodi incident. One old-time trainer in prepping his charge to fight Charles (Bimstein maybe?) put it this way (paraphrased): "Charles is like Tunney with the difference being that Tunney coluldn't really hurt you with his punches while Charles can knock your brains out with both hands". I can't wait until I get my old issues of Ring Magazine out of storage so I can start referencing these things right :hah9:

Poet

[DarkTerror88]

Agreed, plus Charles proved himself against much better opposition at both heavy and light-heavy. He dominated a great, great light-heavy era, and has multiple wins against Moore, Marshall, Burley, Maxim etc. Several of Tunney's big wins were against faded fighters, and there are also a few names missing from his resume. Can the same be said of Charles? His win over old Louis is equal to Tunney's over old Dempsey. Wins over Walcott, Bivins, Baksi, Layne, Ray and Satterfield and coming within a hair's breadth of beating Marciano when past his peak put him ahead of Tunney at heavy too for me.

co-sign. I havent seen you around until recently but you are a VERY good poster. Hope to see you around more.

[Greatest1942]

Agreed, plus Charles proved himself against much better opposition at both heavy and light-heavy. He dominated a great, great light-heavy era, and has multiple wins against Moore, Marshall, Burley, Maxim etc. Several of Tunney's big wins were against faded fighters, and there are also a few names missing from his resume. Can the same be said of Charles? His win over old Louis is equal to Tunney's over old Dempsey. Wins over Walcott, Bivins, Baksi, Layne, Ray and Satterfield and coming within a hair's breadth of beating Marciano when past his peak put him ahead of Tunney at heavy too for me.

Yes true, Charles probably is the #1 lightheavy and one of the best heavyweights.

Sully your comment of CHArles laying flaton his back is a bit ...Well that means Marciano was no puncher, Satterfield, Elmer Ray(who was on a 50 fight winning streak when Charles stopped him) was none too. And say what you will about the aged Louis he did give Charles trouble . Just look at his face after the fight. Charles faced plenty of punchers please take a look at his resume. That jab of Louis was still heavy. Yes he was more past it than JAck of Tunney. But except the faded Jack who did Tunney beat at heavy pray. He didn't defend against Sharkey, never fought Godfrey or any other good heavy from that era. As kid pointed out he missed a lot of good fighters from his own era (not I blame him). But resume wise and looking into the fact that Charles was the champion for a longer time, I can't see how one article swings it for Tunney