BoxRec

Forgive us if we don't take the word of a man who confused Joe Louis & Rocky marciano as gospel.

Don't take my word - just listen to 90 of boxing historians!

^^^

90%

Should give your 100% on every post.

Kilsby wrote:What is up with you people? Seriously.... Walcott ISN'T better than Tunney.

You are repeating the same points as before, yet you bring no evidence to the table and expect to sway the opinion's of others.
It's very eassy to be bullish and attempt to force your opinion on others by sheer repetition, but you will find that there are others on this site much more knowledgable than you.
;;-)

Now, you have given your opinion, it's here for all the world to see. Please stop repeating yourself.

And for your information, Jersey Joe Walcott is consistently ranked amonmg the top 15 Heavyweights of all time!!!

Whenever people discuss the top 20, you will find that there is a case of usual suspsects, go back through the pages and the see the countless number of threads on theis subject.

Kilsby wrote: Who was no more than a contender in the 40 & 50's - which is historically looked at (like today) as a poor period for Heavyweight boxing.

.

By people who don't know any better. The era Walcott fought in was very deep.

Yes, some historians rank Tunney as a HW. I rank him top 5 light heavyweight. I don't see his HW resume as being nearly large enough to warrant a top 10 ranking there. Define why it is and you'll be taken seriously, but if you keep saying 'he beat Jack Dempsey and Walcott lost 18 times' . . .well that just doesn't cut it.

dempseyfire wrote:I don't see his HW resume as being nearly large enough to warrant a top 10 ranking there. Define why it is and you'll be taken seriously, but if you keep saying 'he beat Jack Dempsey and Walcott lost 18 times' . . .well that just doesn't cut it.

Spoken with a heavy injection of common sense.

OK - you name me one fighter who was superior at heavyweight to Tunney?

One man who beat him?

Just one - thats all i ask - one?

As for me bring no evidence to the table other than "Jeez Tunney is better than Walcott"

Did you not read my full post? 90% of boxing historians rank Tunney as a top 10 heavyweight of all time.

Can't get any clearer than that can it?

??? Your whole point rests on "these guys said it, so it must be so"

Popularity contests mean jack squat.

HWs who would beat Tunney? Several . . .a prime Dempsey for one, Ali, Louis, Johnson, Liston, Frazier, Holmes, Lewis etc.

All these guys, like Walcott, proved their excellence at HW by beating lots of excellent heavyweights. Not just by beating an ATG who was past it (Dempsey) and then a few smaller contenders (Risko, Weinert). If Tunney had gone on to beat Sharkey, Schmeling, Godfrey etc. . . then your argument would be MUCH stronger.

I asked for one man who had beat him at heavyweight - not who would have beat him - bcoz thats just all speculation, & counter arguement!

Popularity means jack squat? These are boxing historians my friend - no disrespect but you people are just faceless "names" on a computer..... these historians are steeped in the history of boxing where people on here are just joe poluka!

The man of the street......... i respect we all have our opinions but i'd rather take their opinion (especially as its the same as mine) then yours - as you could just be an idiot.

No offence intended - at least they know what they are on about.

You can argue over virtually everything.... I could say Frank Bruno was better than Jack Dempsey...

& in physical standing i could be correct - after all, Dempsey was less than 13st & Bruno was 17st 7lb of muscle - Bruno could well of crushed him but of course historically Dempsey is way above Bruno.

Bruno (who never beat a quality fighter in his miserable career) crushing Dempsey? LMAO.

...because McCall was a decent fighter, not a quality one.

Kilsby wrote:Did you not read my full post? 90% of boxing historians rank Tunney as a top 10 heavyweight of all time.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? Is there something wrong with you?

Kilsby wrote:I asked for one man who had beat him at heavyweight

Actually you did not. What you actually stated was:

Kilsby wrote:OK - you name me one fighter who was superior at heavyweight to Tunney?

If you want, I can name several.
Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, George Foreman... Well, there's 3 for a start.

Kilsby wrote:I could say Frank Bruno was better than Jack Dempsey

You could say that, but then you would quickly become a laughing stock.

Kilsby wrote:& in physical standing i could be correct - after all, Dempsey was less than 13st & Bruno was 17st 7lb of muscle - Bruno could well of crushed him

But Dempsey would have hurt Bruno permanently!!!
Boxing is not about size being the deciding factor in every fight.
For example, look at David Haye defeating Nikolay Valuev... Smaller guys can win fights convincingly.

You are a bona fide moron crease…..

Why do I keep repeating myself? Is it bcoz you can’t refute my claim that most boxing historians rank Tunney higher than Walcott…. Can you tiny little brain not compute this simple fact?

Your swimming against the tide in your opinion on this matter….NOT me… YOUR in the MINORITY not me…. I’m with the historians – I’m on their side - & your trying to make me look silly? Lol!

You STILL haven’t answered my question (are you a politician?) Name one heavyweight who beat Tunney?

And I NEVER said Bruno would beat Dempsey – I said he COULD (theres a difference) & its not beyond the realms of possibility as Frank weighed 5st more than Dempsey.

You bring Valuev up as an example but that’s the exception rather than the rule unless Valuev would have a losing record wouldn’t he?

He’s bigger than all the opponents he’s faced & he’s only lost twice!

So its not the rule… it’s the exception (in Valuev’s case)

How does one become a 'boxing historian'? . . .frankly I think I'm as much as an informed (and more objective) boxing historian as/than mythology storyteller Bert Sugar.

Tunney didn't lose at heavyweight, yes . . .he also only fought 4 heavyweights of any quality in his entire career.

Dempsey beat several men both larger and better than Bruno. And Valuev officially has 2 losses but should really have 5, which is not good considering most of his career was spent fighting complete tomato cans.

Dempseyfire. i don't know how you "become" a boxing historian but surely you must have a bit of background in the sport, know what your talking about etc - i'm not saying their opinion is always better than ours - but when collectively they agree on something then it kinda gives that opinion some weight.

Like collectively "historians" view Sugar Ray Robinson as the GOAT - some could argue & say Ali, Armstrong etc but collectively its Robinson...

I'm much more inclined to think they are correct rather than a moron like crease.....

At least you sound like a intelligent person but i'd say Bruno would have smoked Willard (my opinion) & other than the Evender "loss" i can't honestly place the 2 other losses you speak about.

Kilsby wrote:You are a bona fide moron crease...

And so now we get to the insults... You are getting desparate now in this discussion aren't you?

Kilsby wrote:Why do I keep repeating myself? Is it bcoz you can’t refute my claim

Actually if your claim was valid and couldn't be disputed, then you wouldn't have to repeat yourself mindlessly and aimlessly.

Kilsby wrote:Your swimming against the tide in your opinion on this matter….NOT me… YOUR in the MINORITY not me…. I’m with the historians – I’m on their side - & your trying to make me look silly? Lol!

I don't need to make you look silly, you are doing a fantastic job of that yourself.
You really want to me seen as a lone wolf here, don't you?
I guess you just need attention.

Why don't you repeat yourself again?

dempseyfire wrote:How does one become a 'boxing historian'?

You start by hanging around TCBZ massaging the massive egos of Hysterical Stephen and Ice T.

Bruno now being tipped to crush Dempsey.

The internet has been a great thing for nutcases to get their "messages" out.

Louis, Ali, Marciano, Jeffries, Holmes.

Crease - I give up!

You’ve worn me down with your stupidity….

Your right, journeyman & serial world title failure Frank Bruno, (sorry!) I mean Jersey Joe Walcott is a FAR better heavyweight than Gene Tunney – a man who was never ‘bested’ by anyone in his entire fighting career.

Your logic is undeniable – I can’t believe I didn’t see it sooner... what the hell was I thinking???

Your argument was well thought out & it convinced me – just like that! (as Tommy Cooper would say)

Thank you for your help in this matter.

It will be noted for future reference that you are very much my superior when it comes to boxing knowledge - but there’s no shame in that, as you seem to know much more than virtually the entire respected boxing community combined.

I just feel blessed to have been able to “communicate” with your via a public forum.

If I ever get into another debate with people(s) on here I will be sure to seek out your opinion as a final say on the matter.

Forever in your debt…



Kilsby

Good for you. You're a better man today than you were yesterday.

Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Marciano
Liston
Tyson
Frazier
Foreman
holmes
langford

The 1bangkid wrote:Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Marciano
Liston
Tyson
Frazier
Foreman
holmes
langford

Is Ali 11th?