Why isn't Michael Spinks rated higher at heavy......If Tunney is ??

First off I have no problem with Tunney rated so highly.......Top 10/15......A great p4per if ever there was one..........Spinks however isn't top 25..

But as Holmes and Dempsey were coming to the end of their careers and Holmes generally rates higher !!...........Why isn't Holmes twice plus the dangerous Cooney ranked comparably to Dempsey twice and Heeney..........

Doesn't matter that Spinks lost to the great Tyson........Tunney loses too.....

Their records are generally the same at heavy..

Think Spinks gets a rough deal in p4p lists and Heavy ones............Probably for being a gentle giant.......and for Tyson.........

No one holds Marciano 2 against Walcott !!

Spinks v Tunney would be a great fight though...........Spinks for me.....

Tunney didn't lose to Tyson though, that he might have done doesn't make it so, he probably doesn't freeze either but again it's conjecture. Add in that most had Holmes winning both fights and there isn't a strong case for Spinks.

Yes but their records are similar..........Tunney quit after three fights........You can't judge a fighter on what he might have done........

Spinks record is as good..

Spinks lost in a rather embarrassing manner to Tyson, Tunney did not lose that's the difference.

Tunney never fought a 220 pound monster like Mike Tyson....Like marking Frazier down because Johnson never lost to Foreman!!!!

..You don't know If Tunney would have froze.......

I don't believe Tunney beats a 220 pound Holmes..........

We can all speculate............

All we know is Spinks beat Holmes..........and Holmes ranks higher than Dempsey.......

No way there should be twenty odd spaces you'd agree ??

I rate Tunney very highly and think he'd have a good chance of beating an old Holmes, certainly for me rates higher than Spinks in all three categories. Losing to Tyson isn't a big deal but the way he lost is.

Do you mark Walcott down for Marciano 2.......and Frazier for Foreman ??

You not agree.........

a) There isn't 20 spaces.......between them..

b) Win wise they are identical at heavy..

c) Being dumped off an aging brawler for the long count isn't brilliant boxing..

Yes I do mark them both down, don't think Walcott is any great shakes as it is. Frazier would be a certain top tenner were it not for the Foreman fights.

Tunney getting decked by Dempsey is no worse than Ali getting dropped by Cooper.

Ali was playing with cooper.........Dempsey was more competitive.......

You obviously like Tunney........

Frazier for me is top 10.............

You're a funny lad you mark everybody down for defeats and yet Duran getting humiliated off Hearns and saying no mas doesn't matter......

Maybe it's only certain fighters you mark down...Hey ??

I mark down fighters for losing at or near their best weight not 3 divisions above their best. Frazier is in the 9-12 group at heavyweight largely for his losses to Foreman, he wasn't just beaten he was swatted like fly.

A knockdown is a knockdown, attempting to play with an opponent is no excuse, both went down, both got up to win easily, no big deal.

Spinks was way off the heavy division.........Holmes weighed 215........

Kind of a contradiction Mate.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ali was playing with cooper.........Dempsey was more competitive.......

You obviously like Tunney........

Frazier for me is top 10.............

You're a funny lad you mark everybody down for defeats and yet Duran getting humiliated off Hearns and saying no mas doesn't matter......

Maybe it's only certain fighters you mark down...Hey ??

Duran's loss to Hearns is a significant mark down on his ranking as a Light Middleweight, it does not affect his Lightweight ranking. Spinks' loss to Tyson is a significant mark down on his heavyweight ranking, it does not affect his Light Heavyweight ranking.

I'm talking about duran's alltime ranking..........Hammer has him top 10..........

I have no interest in going over that one for the hundredth time.

I wasn't talking to you........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm talking about duran's alltime ranking..........Hammer has him top 10..........

Apologies, I thought your post was in reference to Tunney and Spinks' respective heavyweight rankings, Duran's loss to Hearns does affect his all time standing. Although I still have him as a top 10 p4per

Also, Gene Tunney would not feature in my top 10 heavyweights for the record, although there is still a decent gap between him and Spinks on the basis of the Tyson loss.

You not think the Holmes wins were better than Tunney's........

You mark down Lewis for being destroyed against MCcall ??......He only beat a mental patient in the return..

Lewis would arguably be a nailed on top three heavyweight had he not lost to McCall and Rahman.

No he wouldn't.......Because he's too recent.........

Lewis standing like Manny, JMM, Mayweather, Jones jr will improve over time..

Tunney has more wins against great fighters at light Heavy. The wins over Greb alone set him apart. Throw in Loughran, Gibbon's, Carpentier etc.......

At heavy there isn't much in it. Spinks cacking himself against Tyson is burned into everybody memory though.

Qawi, Johnson and Mustafa were just as good as Gibbons types.........Carpentier was French and handsome half the reason he's a legend.

Well I think in terms of who was a 'better' Heavyweight between Spinks and Tunney ignoring results, or who would win a fight fought at 195 lb or so between them, there's nothing in it and it's tough to call either way, exactly as it would be at Light-Heavyweight.

But in terms of Tunney's historical ranking as a Heavy (and overall pound for pound, thought it's much closer in the latter case) there are a few reasons why he gets the nod over Michael, the obvious one being the ignominious drubbing Spinks took from Tyson.

Do I agree that a peak Tyson runs through Tunney as well? Yep, almost certainly. But it's the way Spinks just fell apart so abjectly against Iron Mike which tarnishes his Heavyweight credentials. You can forgive someone getting blasted out in a round as long as they gave it their all and at least tried to give themselves a chance of victory - did Spinks to that against Tyson? Not for me. Just didn't seem interested in fighting and, while this may seem an awful thing to say, I've never been fully convinced that he was actually knocked out in that fight, either.

Appreciate that Spinks was the natural 175 pounder and Tyson an absolute phenomenon, but Michael must (or should) have known that, eventually, there was always a chance of a better opponent than a slightly faded Holmes or a big-hitting but wooden Cooney coming along if he insisted on remaining a Heavyweight for the rest of his career.

With regards to your point about Holmes being a greater Heavyweight and bigger scalp than Dempsey. Well, I agree on both counts - but this is where Tunney's era helps him out a little. While we may consider Holmes greater than Dempsey, it's only in recent-ish years that such a view has become common (or more than just a fringe view, anyhow). Dempsey had spent more than half a century being lauded as one of the most popular Heavyweight champions in history before Holmes (who by contrast remains one of the least loved of them all) had even lifted his title. In 1950, Dempsey was still being voted as the greatest fighter (not just Heavyweight) of the previous five decades by the Associated Press in the States. Very, very generous to Jack, who I do consider to be one of boxing's most overrated historical fighters, but all the while it was this kind of stuff which helped to elevate Tunney's pair of victories over him.

By arguing that Holmes is greater than Dempsey, or a more considerable scalp for a converted Light-Heavy, you're essentially going against half a century and then some of historians, writers and fans arguing otherwise, and there are still a healthy number of hoary old sorts around today who'll balk at the thought of Big Pants being placed higher than the Manassa Mauler.

No doubt the glitz, glamour and enduring popularity of Dempsey and the esteem in which his era is held plays a part in Tunney's pair of wins over Dempsey being more highly thought of than Spinks' over Holmes.

Agree with you that Spinks-Tunney at either of the weights would have been a joy, though. Consider me on the fence.

Not sure anyone under 60 has dempsey above Holmes..Or Haz/Rodders

But thanks for the considered replies..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Qawi, Johnson and Mustafa were just as good as Gibbons types.........Carpentier was French and handsome half the reason he's a legend.

I can't agree at all that Johnson and Mustafa are just as good as Gibbons, Qawi at a push but it's his set of wins over Harry Greb that set him apart.

I imagine most fighters are more skilled now than those back then..........

Watching the films...

This is where you are the antithesis of Haz/Rodney, you give old timers very little credit and think the 80's was a gold mine in comparison.

Never said I didn't rate him...........Just that modern fighters are more schooled..which they are..

Early fighters were pioneers..