Prime vs Prime Gene Tunney vs Ezzard Charles ?

[f read]

Does Tunney outslick a slickster does he do to Charles what Marciano did. Or does Charles prove to slick and outpoint Tunney.

[goose 5]

Charles-by a mile. Way too advanced for Tunney.

[DrDuke]

Tunney would outbox Charles behind the jab, combos and movement. Both were slick, but Tunney was sharper, more agile and had a better resistance to punches.

[scorpio83]

Either Tunney or Charles win by decision in a close fight while it would be a classic.

[Scypion]

At light heavyweight, late 40's Charles wins.

At heavyweight, it depends on age. If it is shortly after Charles won the heavyweight title, then Charles wins. If later, then it depends on how much later. Prime for prime, Charles wins, IMO.

[HomicideHenry]

The two greatest 175 pounders to never hold the light heavyweight title... Boy oh boy... Charles certainly had the better career at heavyweight (imho) than Gene, but Tunney literally could've been the light heavyweight champion at any time he chose if he wanted it.

What I mean by that is if you look at who the 175 lb champions were in that timeframe: Georges Carpentier, Battling Siki, Mike McTigue, and Paul Berlenbach--- there is no doubt that Tunney could have beaten any one of them, had he wanted the championship.

He could have simultaneously have been the light heavyweight and heavyweight champion of the world, but I guess his mindset was like that of Tommy Burns. He didn't need it.

The case with Charles is different because like so many black fighters of his time he was frozen out--- and like Gene Tunney there simply was nobody around who could have beaten him. After all he defeated Archie Moore three times once by knockout, and we all know how great Archie was.

It's really a matter of resumes I guess. The best win of Tunney's career was not Jack Dempsey but Harry Greb. Dempsey was an inactive champion diluted by money and fame when Gene got him. As for Greb, if the story is told true the former middleweight champion of the world was robbed a couple of times and that five fight series they had.

Much as I like Greb, he wouldn't have beaten Ezzard Charles. But I shouldn't compare performances--- after all the same Roberto Duran who went 15 rounds with Marvin Hagler got iced by Tommy Hearns, who couldn't go three rounds with Marvin. Boxing is funny that way.

I venture to give a safe answer. At heavyweight Charles wins. Even though he lost twice to Rocky Marciano, who was very much like Jack Dempsey, it was near the end of his capabilities as a great boxer--- whereas when Gene Tunney beat Dempsey he was at the peak of his powers, and even then he showed vulnerability to a man who was no longer his best.

So that leaves light heavyweight. I think it would take a trilogy to really answer the question. I can see Gene Tunney winning at least once. I'm not so sure he pulls off winning a trilogy. After all Charles won three out of five (truth be told four of five) against Jersey Joe Walcott. He was a man who seemed to get better in return matches--- as evident with his eighth round knockout of Archie Moore in their third and final fight together.

[gilgamesh]

Would be a tremendous fight. I think Charles would edge it in a close battle, but Tunney is often severely underrated. Charles too by a lot of people.

[Ambling Alp II]

This would have been a great matchup; particularly at light heavyweight.
It would have almost as good at heavyweight.

They are very evenly matched. Tunney could move better on his feet, and had the better chin. Charles was an even better all around boxer and would give a slight edge.