BoxRec

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.

dempsey was far past his prime and knocked tunney down for 14 seconds

heeney was nothing special


risko was 21 and very green

Decagon wrote:Right. You can only imagine. Your problem is that you base your rankings on what you imagine instead of what actually happened.

other people believe ezz beat harold johnson. like holyfield lewis

Decagon wrote:Charles was as far out of his prime in 1953 as he was in 1943. That's the point.

i wouldnt say far. far was post marciano fights.


from 1948-1954 charles only REAL losses were to walcott, marciano and a fluke loss to valdes

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.

Just looking through a few old threads and thought I'd take a peak at some classic 'Boxers of the past' banter...

Anyone here looking at their old lists and think they'd like to change them?

Here's my take on this worthwhile subject...

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Gene Tunney
4. Sam Langford
5. Michael Spinks
6. Tommy Loughran
7. Bob Foster
8. Harry Greb
9. Tommy Gibbons
10. Harold Johnson


Honourable mention to: Jack O'Brien, Jack Delaney, Billy Conn and Kid Norfolk

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Gene Tunney
4. Sam Langford
5. Bob Foster
6. Michael Spinks
7. Billy Conn
8. Tommy Loughran
9. Roy Jones Jr
10. Harold Johnson

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:on my scorecard ezz beat harold johnson 6 rounds to 3 1 even. CHARLES DID NOT LOOK SHOT ON FILM, film doesnt lie. charles looked awesome against johnson and he was still a very dangerous fighter, better than anyone johnson beat post 1955.

Interesting. I'd heard that before. Makes sense, considering the fight was in Johnson's hometown.

I didn't realize there was film of the fight. Also interesting.

I don't know if I can do a top 20 list, but top five I would probably say:

1) Charles
2) Moore
3) Foster
4) Greb
5) Spinks

How many times do I have to mention that Charles was thrown out of the LH division, for becoming HW champion. He was publicly scorned and told never to return and informed he would never be considered in LH lists again. Once you win that HW title you are barred from being considered in LH lists.

Don't look at me, I don't make the rules.

dr_devious wrote:

Decagon wrote:My top 40:

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Michael Spinks
3. Archie Moore
4. Gene Tunney
5. Bob Foster
6. Harry Greb
7. Sam Langford
8. Billy Conn
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Roy Jones
11. Tommy Gibbons
12. Jimmy Bivins
13. Tommy Burnzs
14. Joey Maxim
15. Maxie Rosenbloom
16. Eddie Muhammad
17. Battling Levinsky
18. John Henry Lewis
19. Lloyd Marshall
20. Jack Dillon
21. Gus Lesvenich
22. Tiger Jack Fox
23. Matthew Saad Muhammad
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Dwight Muhammad Qawi
26. Harold Johnson
27. Georges Carpentier
28. Virgil Hill
29. Jack Root
30. Michael Moorer
31. Victor Galindez
32. Jose Torres
33. John Coteh
34. Antonio Tarver
35. Dariusz Michalschewski
36. Tommy Hearns
37. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
38. Sugar Ray Leonard
39. Marvin Johnson
40. Jim Braddock

How the hell does Sugar Ray Leonard get into the top 40 when he never fought at light heavyweight? His WBC crown came in a 168lb fight vs Donny Lalonde where he took both the SM and LH "titles".

Easy answer:

Because Hexagon is a shill for Leonard.

Decagon wrote:It was an old list. I rank super middleweights as light heavyweights.

How quaint.

Anybody want to talk 175?

Leonard on that list just made me throw up in my mouth. So did Foster over Greb, Langford, Loughran & Rosenbloom. I'm not sure why Bob flies under the radar of resume hunters. He is among the most overrated champions in history from my evaluation. That isn't to say he wasn't great, but he doesn't belong next to guys who proved it time and again against other elite fighters.

It's a shame Mina had to retire early. He was special. Even if he couldn't crack this Decagon's list. If only he could have faced the mighty Donnie Lalonde.

Foster’s win over Finnegan is probably undervalued. Finnegan was an exceptional fighter who would have been champion in another era.

Foster has the dimensions, the skill and the punch to be a big problem for any of the greats in the division. He probably doesn’t have as good a record as some of the others but I can see why he gets rated highly.

I can see picking him to beat other greats. But if you look at Rosenbloom, Greb or Loughran's ledger and give Bob the edge. I just can't see that. It's a testament to how great the division has been more than a shot at Foster. But I can't see him in the top 10.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Leonard on that list just made me throw up in my mouth. So did Foster over Greb, Langford, Loughran & Rosenbloom. I'm not sure why Bob flies under the radar of resume hunters. He is among the most overrated champions in history from my evaluation. That isn't to say he wasn't great, but he doesn't belong next to guys who proved it time and again against other elite fighters.

It's a shame Mina had to retire early. He was special. Even if he couldn't crack this Decagon's list. If only he could have faced the mighty Donnie Lalonde.

You've got to give SRL some credit for being the only figher in boxing history to win a 'world' title in a weight class he never even fought in!

Even Sugar Ray Robinson couldn't have managed that feat. :P

No recriminations...

Alp posted his top 10 exactly 5 years to the day...

Alp, do you still adhere to that list or do you see things differently now?

Syntax Error wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Leonard on that list just made me throw up in my mouth. So did Foster over Greb, Langford, Loughran & Rosenbloom. I'm not sure why Bob flies under the radar of resume hunters. He is among the most overrated champions in history from my evaluation. That isn't to say he wasn't great, but he doesn't belong next to guys who proved it time and again against other elite fighters.

It's a shame Mina had to retire early. He was special. Even if he couldn't crack this Decagon's list. If only he could have faced the mighty Donnie Lalonde.

You've got to give SRL some credit for being the only figher in boxing history to win a 'world' title in a weight class he never even fought in!

Even Sugar Ray Robinson couldn't have managed that feat. :P

Yes, you have to tip your hat to a man that emaciated a Light heavyweight belt holder and had another title created for him all in the same night.

One of my favorite divisions: I keep Grab at middle even though he beat a lot of great 175 lbers. Fitz I think is more suited to lb for lb lists . . he doesn't really fit in any weight class.

1) Sam Langford (at his peak around 175 . . I rank him at light HW)

2) Ezzard Charles

3) Gene Tunney

4) Archie Moore

5) Tommy Loughran

6) John Henry Lewis

7) Billy Conn

8 ) Harold Johnson

9) Jack Dillon

10) Tommy Gibbons

11) Jimmy Bivins

12) Maxie Rosenbloom

13) Michael Spinks

14) Battling Levinsky

15) Bob Foster

16) Philadelphia Jack O'Brian

17) Jack Delaney

18) George Gardner

19) Mike McTigue

20) Gus Lesnevich

Roy would maybe make the top 25 . . .but already I'm thinking of a slew of guys (Mina, Berlanbach, Root, Bettina) who I'd rank ahead of him going further along . .

Dariusz Michalschewski is rated far too low. If he was American, he'd be top 20 with ease. Bad bad bad.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Dariusz Michalschewski is rated far too low. If he was American, he'd be top 20 with ease. Bad bad bad.

No, Darius shouldn't be near anyone's top 20 be they European,American or New Guinean.

dempseyfire wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Dariusz Michalschewski is rated far too low. If he was American, he'd be top 20 with ease. Bad bad bad.

No, Darius shouldn't be near anyone's top 20 be they European,American or New Guinean.

Who did Jones beat at Light Heavy that was so much better than Darius' opponents?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Dariusz Michalschewski is rated far too low. If he was American, he'd be top 20 with ease. Bad bad bad.

No, Darius shouldn't be near anyone's top 20 be they European,American or New Guinean.

Who did Jones beat at Light Heavy that was so much better than Darius' opponents?

Well, for starters he didn't lose to a mediocrity like Gonzales when he was still champ or need the ref's help twice vs Richard Hall.

He also legit beat Tarver in their first fight, which is much better than any win Darius has.

I also think you have to give Roy some credit for his 168 lb resume here since historically 168 lbs was light heavyweight . . .

BarryWashington wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: No, Darius shouldn't be near anyone's top 20 be they European,American or New Guinean.

Who did Jones beat at Light Heavy that was so much better than Darius' opponents?

yo goin off resumes dariusz shouldnt be anywhere near the top 20 regardless of his nationality. here are some off jones jr's best wins at lhw:

montell griffin
clinton woods
antonio tarver

those three opponents and the times he fought these opponents were much better than dariusz. i probably wouldnt have jones jr in my top 20 lhws of all-time but he def deserves to be ranked higher than michalczweski.

Darius beat Griffin, Hill and Graciano Rocchigiani. He lost when he was past his best, same as Jones. I'm not saying Daruis should be rated above Jones, just very close.

BarryWashington wrote:hell virgil hill had an awesome 175 career he should definitely be candidate for a top 25 or at least honorable mention. very very good 175 career.

I agree that Hill is underrated. After the Hearns loss, he really struggled to recoup his reputation.