How is Tunney not in peoples top three ?

[JAMIE COLLETT]

Tunney lost only once in 68 fights,Beat Dempsey twice,Beat Harry Greb three times in five attempts...

Surely amongst the top three of all time...

how many other fighters had that type of record WITHOUT a series of losses on the ends of their career

That is pure class

[Goodnight, Irene]

Now hes in your top-3, and its crazy not to have him there?

I love me some Gene (to borrow a common phrase around here) but he is closer to being UNDISPUTEDLY outside the top-3 than in it.

Hell, you could make a decent case for him being outside the top-3 JUST AT LHW ALONE --- let alone all-time.

[The End]

Now hes in your top-3, and its crazy not to have him there?

I love me some Gene (to borrow a common phrase around here) but he is closer to being UNDISPUTEDLY outside the top-3 than in it.

Hell, you could make a decent case for him being outside the top-3 JUST AT LHW ALONE --- let alone all-time.

Glad someone said it . I didn't feel like arguing .

[dempseyfire]

Now hes in your top-3, and its crazy not to have him there?

I love me some Gene (to borrow a common phrase around here) but he is closer to being UNDISPUTEDLY outside the top-3 than in it.

Hell, you could make a decent case for him being outside the top-3 JUST AT LHW ALONE --- let alone all-time.

While I vehemently disagree with your other latter statement, I agree that one can easily rank the likes of Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Langford over Tunney lb for lb all-time

At 175, you could put Langford, Charles, and Moore over Tunney, but he's right up there with sound arguments.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Are you sure you disagree?

I was exactly thinking of those three men ahead of him at LHW --- for the record, I have Tunney at #1 (LHW), but what Im saying is there is a case he can be outside the top-3 at 175...frankly, I think he has no business at all in the top-3 pound-for-pound.

[JDC]

Somewhere between 5 and 10. Maybe just ahead of Langford & Langford is my favourite of the lot.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[JDC]

:??

Langford certainly isn't a top 5 lock, although I do have him in there. Don't see the humour tbh

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I was laughing at the thread, not you. Though I can't see a scenario where Tunney rates over Langford on accomplishments.

[King Carlos]

Not to mention Langford is most certainly a lock for the top 5.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Not to mention Langford is most certainly a lock for the top 5.

I cant see a top-5 without him, really. Hes my #3, ahead of even the truly great (but too mythologised) Robinson.

[greynotsoold]

Gene Tunney is possibly my favorite fighter of all time, but I don't think that he would be in my top 10.

[The End]

Not to mention Langford is most certainly a lock for the top 5.

I cant see a top-5 without him, really. Hes my #3, ahead of even the truly great (but too mythologised) Robinson.

Out of curiosity what's your top five?

[Goodnight, Irene]

1. Armstrong
2. Greb
3. Langford
4. Robinson
5. Charles

[JDC]

I was laughing at the thread, not you. Though I can't see a scenario where Tunney rates over Langford on accomplishments.

Ok, NP

On accomplishment I agree. Langford had some pretty erratic results in there too, and these shouldn't be entirely ignored. Just depends how much weight is put on his negatives compared with Tunney's consistency.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I was laughing at the thread, not you. Though I can't see a scenario where Tunney rates over Langford on accomplishments.

Ok, NP

On accomplishment I agree. Langford had some pretty erratic results in there too, and these shouldn't be entirely ignored. Just depends how much weight is put on his negatives compared with Tunney's consistency.

Tunney would have had some erratic results if he had another 200+ fights and fought into his forties.

[Boilermaker]

I was laughing at the thread, not you. Though I can't see a scenario where Tunney rates over Langford on accomplishments.

Ok, NP

On accomplishment I agree. Langford had some pretty erratic results in there too, and these shouldn't be entirely ignored. Just depends how much weight is put on his negatives compared with Tunney's consistency.

Tunney would have had some erratic results if he had another 200+ fights and fought into his forties.

Would have or might have?

It is just as easy to argue that Langford might have had unavenged losses or draws to the likes of Jeanette, Jackson, Jim Barry, Gunboat smith and many, many others, if he only had fought as frequently as Tunney. Neither did. There records are what they are. Different, but both great.