Decagon wrote:pundit wrote:Tunney beat the old heavyweight dominator Dempsey twice and with Heeney and Risko defeated two top contenders. You can't ask for much more in such as short heavyweight career.
Yet you knock Mike Tyson for having a short prime, despite the fact that he was easily a better heavyweight than Tunney, beat better competition than Tunney, and didn't draw the color line as if he were creating a bantustadt.
So all of a sudden Dempsey is poorer competition than Spinks Berbick Bruno?
Except for an ill-prepared and way-beyond-his-peak Larry Holmes Tyson did not beat A SINGLE elite fighter in the history of heavyweight boxing (Michael Spinks is borderline); while his limitations were badly exposed by Evander Holyfield. There is no letdown like this in Tunney's career.
Besides, Tunney's prime lasted at least 6 years if you count in his period as l-h. It is true that his relatively short period at heavyweight creates difficulties when trying to rank him, but overall there can be no doubt the he was one of the most accomplished fighters in the history of the sport. He fought and beat legends including Greb, Dempsey, and Loughran; he lost to noone but legend Harry Greb (who he ruled on balance); and he retired at his peak rather than deteriorating into a sorry circus number.
I don't know why people put so much energy into denigrating Tunney. I've the feeling the fact that he read Shakespeare and spoke in full sentences hurts him even today.