Tunney, Moore and Spinks as Light-Heavyweights and pound for pounders

Afternoon, duck eggs.

A couple of years back I posted an article aimed at trying to separate Roberto Duran, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker in the all-time stakes both at Lightweight and also pound for pound, as the three of them are (for me, anyway) incredibly close in both categories. All three men with the equal but differing share of pros and cons at 135 lb and also in their bodies of work above that weight.

In a similar kind of conundrum, I've got a different trio I'm trying to separate - Archie Moore, Gene Tunney and Michael Spinks.

All three of them waltz in to the top five Light-Heavyweights in history in my opinion and if any of them miss out on a top twenty pound for pound berth, it cannae be by much at all thanks to their ability to also perform to a high standard (albeit not as high as their former weight class) north of 175 lb as well. But who of this trio deserves to be #2 at Light-Heavyweight behind Ezzard Charles (I'm pretty well assuming that nobody is going to argue against Ezz's gold medal claims here?), and who had the greater career overall? Do they run in the same order at 175 as they do when you consider their careers as a whole?

We can go over the juicy details in more depth once the debate (hopefully) gets underway below, but just a quick chronological touch up for those who need it.

Tunney may have never held the world title at Light-Heavyweight, but his record at the weight clearly entitles him to a place near the top of the 175 lb tree. His one defeat as a Light-Heavyweight to the great Harry Greb (the only defeat of his career, in fact) was avenged more than once, while the era he competed in also housed the likes of Tommy Loughran, Battling Levinsky, Jimmy Delaney, Georges Carpentier, Jeff Smith and Tommy Gibbons, all meritorious names for any great Light-Heavyweight to have appear on their ledger - and none of them managed to beat Gene. Having had Heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey in his sights for many years, Tunney absconded the Light-Heavyweight division and eased his way to a clear points verdict over Dempsey in 1926 to finally bag his world title, repeating the trick a year later in the legendary 'Battle of the Long Count.' It proved to be Dempsey's last fight, and Tunney wasn't far behind him in heading for the exit door; he made one further defence against Tom Heeney and hung up his gloves while still champion.

Archie Moore, on the other hand, did get a chance to lift the Light-Heavyweight title, but it took a hell of a long time; he turned professional in 1936 and finally became world champion in 1952 when he outscored Joey Maxim over fifteen rounds. His precise age has always been a source of debate, but by any known record Archie must have been at least thirty-six by this stage. He's already proven himself a great fighter in the furnace of an outstanding collection of wins against a tremendous crop of Light-Heavyweights, including future champion Harold Johnson and a number of the great Black Murderer's Row combatants such as Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Jack Chase and Bert Lytell, but he still had enough time left to prove a wonderful champion too, making nine successful defences of his crown before retiring in 1963 having never lost his 175 lb title. A Heavyweight title proved elusive - Floyd Patterson knocked him out in five rounds in 1956, and before that Archie was clubbed to a ninth round defeat against Rocky Marciano having floored Rocky in the opener - but he did nonetheless score some impressive wins as a Heavyweight, most notably when he outpointed the big, hard-punching Cuban Nino Valdes, a win which saw him take Valdes' number one contender spot.

Nobody ever beat Michael Spinks as a Light-Heavyweight. The 1976 Olympic gold medal winner didn't fight as many contests at the weight as Tunney or Moore, but his undefeated tag still carries plenty of weight considering the era he fought in. A skilled technician but also a venemous hitter, Spinks floored and outpointed the mercurial Eddie Mustafa Muhammad for the WBA title in 1981, and two years later won a superb fifteen rounder against WBC title holder Dwight Muhammad Qawi to become undisputed champion. All in all, he made ten successful title defences at 175 lb, four of them undisputed, and his pre-title career consisted of wins over three-time title holder Marvin Johnson, vanquished with one of the most chilling one-punch knockouts of its time, as well as perennial contender Yaqui Lopez. When he ran out of opposition at 175 Spinks moved up to challenge Larry Holmes for the Heavyweight title in 1985, and stunned the world by taking a deserved points verdict to become the first Light-Heavyweight champion to repeat that success as a Heavyweight. He beat Holmes again in a rematch, albeit by a more dubious verdict this time, and racked up serviceable inside-schedule wins over Steffan Tangstad and Gerry Cooney before Mike Tyson gave him an ingnominious rout, knocking him out in 91 seconds in 1988, at which point Spinks retired.

I think I've got the order I'd put them at Light-Heavy in my head, and perhaps pound for pound as well, but before then I'm intrigued as to what you fellas say. A basic outline of their records lies above, but whose stands up to scrutiny and context better than the other guys'? Who do you rate as the greatest talent of the trio to go along with their records? How does your Light-Heavy ordering of them compare or differ to your pound for pound one?

All opinions welcome, lads. Cheers.

To be honest Chris I have always placed Moore second, but when you see the arguments laid out it does give me pause to think whether that is a consequence of him deserving it or laziness on my part. On Moore’s plus side he operated in just about the hottest period the decision it has ever seen, but this can also count against him. He certainly did not distinguish himself as top dog during this period, that honour obviously goes to Charles, but he may not even have done enough to establish himself as second best then, this honour probably deserves to go to Bivins. Gross over simplification as this does not consider his title reign, but it does give reason to consider his automatic placement at second.
 
Saying all that, his reign should not be readily dismissed or overlooked, can put any caveats you want against it, Charles had gone to heavy, Patterson did not really stick around the division to make a dent but to go a full nine years as champion when obtaining the belt so late in life is one heck of an achievement. Should also be said Moore was not some Hopkins type spoiling and mauling his way to questionable victories, he was fighting.
 
Of the other two Spinks is something of a blind spot for me, he is a light heavy version of Whitaker for me, suspect as I find his style a little aesthetically unpleasing I tend to overlook him, as such I can’t really comment on him with any kind of insight or do him justice.
 
Tunney’s claims for the number two slot at light heavy have some merit, as you have alluded to the likes of Levinsky, Smith and Greb are not to be sniffed at. I would guess if you wanted to be hyper critical, as we must in this discussions you could caveat his time with the fact that whilst the likes of Greb and Smith did enough at LH to be genuine contenders there, it is probably accurate to say their best days were at middle.
 
Of the two I feel vaguely qualified to comment on I think I would still be content to have Moore above Gene at light heavy, but would almost certainly have Tunney above him P4P. Whilst Moore was not an easy nights work for anyone at heavy pushing Marciano close does not quite compare with beating Dempsey twice.

There is a fair bit of contention about the Greb v Tunney fights with certainly one fight being suggested as Greb being unlucky not to get the nod.

Wow tough one you pose Chris, to start with Tunney two things a) He provides an excellent resume along with filmed proof of his abilities. He is certainly the most proficient and talented fighter filmed from his era. b) Gripes against Tunney are he didn't fight many of the best fighters in the 2 divisions he operated at.No Kid Norfolk/Prime Loughran at LHW, Wills/Godfrey/Sharkey at HW.

Then there's the fact he wasn't fighting at the top level for very long

SPINKS showed himself the best 175lber in probably the strongest era of the division. This without doubt makes him a top 5 all-time 175lber, throw in a couple two great wins against Holmes (whether you thought he deserved it or not) what happened with Tyson does slightly diminish his standing, but Tyson was flattening everyone back then.

MOORE was undefeated at light heavyweight for over a decade at the end of his career. He had the longest light heavyweight title reign of all time, was the oldest light heavyweight champion ever by a distance , beat some of the best opposition ever, and his longevity was unrivaled then came along Mr Charles

If it helps I'd have my LHW list something like this
1) Charles
2) Moore
3) Tunney (could be switched with Moore)
4) Spinks
5) Foster

P4P I think Moore edges it for me, won't argue either way though, great article

Cheers, Rodders

The second was considered perhaps fortunate for Tunney, from what I remember reading the third was close but deserved and from that point Tunney was winning with increasing margins if memory serves.

What is not up for debate is in the first Gene got an absolute shellacking, he would have been stopped fifteen times over was it fought today.

Thanks for the comments so far, lads. Some cracking stuff.

Interesting take on Moore, Rowley. Bivins' form in 1942 and 1943 was stunning before the War effectively cut his prime short so as you say, there's room for debate about whether or not Moore was even number two before the era of the Black Murderer's Row started to fade, and he didn't start beating Bivins until Jimmy was in terminal decline - but his title reign basically spanned a whole additional era on top of that afterwards.

That said, what really does it for me when it comes to Moore is his 4-1 record against Harold Johnson rather than what he did against the Row. I still don't think anywhere near enough people realise just how bloody good Johnson was. I'm still convinced he's one of the most underrated / underappreciated fighters in history - gets his dues, but not enough of them. Moore's 1954 victory over him in their only title fight (their fifth and final one overall) had similarities to Leonard-Hearns I, and years later Johnson was still putting on masterclasses against guys like Jones in defence of the title once he'd finally won it. That fight's a good indicator of Johnson's abilities.

He was prone to the odd hiccup back when the Row was at its strongest, not always necessarily against those men, but in general I think I've still got to go with Moore for the number two spot at 175. The sheer quality of the men he faced over such a long period of time is staggering. I guess it depends on how much you think his three unanswered losses to Charles count against him. It's rare for an all-time divisonal number one to have such a massive gap of superiority over the next guy in line (although in fairness they don't often compete in the same era) so I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Charles would have been able to replicate that kind of dominance over Spinks, Tunney etc.

To counter that, though, his Heavyweight credentials are the flimsiest of the three.

I have an old autobiography of Moore from the 50s at home. In it he suggests the decisions in the second and third Charles fights were harsh. I did some digging online to see if I could find any newspaper reports to support his claims. Whilst I'd be lying if I said I found a lot the bits I did find suggest this was sour grapes on Archie's part.

In a p4p list, I have;

1. Tunney
2. Moore
3. Spinks

Tunney, IMO, simply has the best names on his resume. Three wins (and a draw) over Greb, two over Dempsey, as well as wins over top level opposition such as; Gibbons, Levinsky, Carpentier, and Loughran. In terms of opposition faced, there really aren't many better resumes than Tunney's.

However, at LHW one could construct an argument that Moore had the greater career at that weight, specifically. Especially considering that, Tunney, as mentioned, failed to ever win the LHW crown. Moore also, as mentioned, beat some top names and made multiple defences of his Championship.

How much do we hold Moore's earlier losses against him? He fought so regularly that, it seems almost inevitable that he would pick up some losses along the way. Especially during the earlier years of his career. Unfortunately though, when trying to separate fighters like this, it would be remiss not to take them in to account. There is almost nothing between the two men for me, and I wouldn't argue with anyone who placed Moore above Tunney at 175lbs. However, due to those few losses, my belief that Tunney beat the slightly better level of opposition, and my, admittedly unscientific preference for him, I would put Gene 2nd on the 175lb list.

Spinks was a great champion, he vies with Bob Foster for 4th on my list.

I agree that Charles is a clear #1.

Strongback wrote:There is a fair bit of contention about the Greb v Tunney fights with certainly one fight being suggested as Greb being unlucky not to get the nod.

As Rowley has said, Strongy, Tunney got an absolute tanning in the first fight, despite having 12 lb on Greb. Grantland Rice wrote that by the third round Tunney was "literally wading in his own blood", while Damon Runyon said that referee Kid McPartland was covered in so much of Tunney's blood that he resembled, "someone who'd been painting his house red while under the influence of hard cider."

The Greb fights are a bit of a problem for me when it comes to rating Tunney. I know Greb was easily one of the greatest fighters of all time, but Gene's reputation isn't that much lower and he was a lot bigger / heavier than Greb in all of their fights. A great big'un should probably be more dominant against a great little'un.

He was 9 lb heavier than Greb for their second fight and most felt that Gene rode his luck. There is some brilliant information on this one in Tunney's biography by Jack Kavanaugh. Only four out of twenty-three newspapermen at ringside scored it for Tunney (15 went with Greb, 4 scored it a draw), and that's with Greb already losing points for repeated use of the head.

He was 3.5 lb heavier for their third fight, a whopping 17 lb heavier for the fourth one and just under a stone heavier for their final one, and even then he never managed to dominate Greb the way Greb had done to him in their opener. All the evidence seems to suggest that Gene was comfortably the better man in their third and fifth meetings but even then, many felt that Greb was a shade unfortunate in their fourth. He'd only defended his Middleweight title one week before he took Tunney on for the third time, and by the fifth had fought about four times as many fights as Tunney and was grief-stricken over the death of his wife.

Gene was just about the better man over their series and the fact that he ended it stronger speaks volumes for his ring IQ and adaptability (he put it down to Benny Leonard's advise of targetting Greb's body in later fights rather than his head), but it wasn't by much.

In a nutshell, this is the only problem with Tunney. He has all the names on his record, but if you wanted to be ultra-critical (and I guess you have to be when you're comparing legends) he did seem to have the knack of facing them at opportune times, when they were slightly faded and when he held notable advantages. Levinsky, Loughran, Carpentier, Smith etc. Tunney got the impressive results against them, but invariably outweighed them by significant amounts or faced them when their form had been patchy and they had gone past their best (or just a little before his peak in Loughran's case).

A closer look perhaps shows that the names on it make his 175 lb record look a little greater than it is - but it's still a great one and his consistency was excellent, particularly considering that his chronic hand troubles meant he had to adapt his style and beat guys with his jab alone sometimes.

It's very hard for me to split these guys on careers and achievements as they all have outstanding wins on their CV's and most of what I know about Tunney and Moore has come from books rather than footage I've watched.

To break it down simply:

At LH I've read that Tunney was a remarkable boxer for his time and a glimpse into a new generation of things to come, but he didn't win the title. This counts against him a bit, regardless of the high quality championship level opposition he faced. Moore was magnificent, skilful, hit hard, had the better and longer reign, and at LHW he gets the nod as no.2 without much inner uncertainty based on these factors. Then to confuse matters, what I have actually seen with my own eyes of Spinks, his opposition and his performances, sway me to fancy his chances against both. Logically I feel he has, at best, only a claim to third spot behind Charles and Moore.

However, At HW I probably rate Tunney's wins against Dempsey most impressive, Spinks win against an undefeated but faded Holmes second ( half cancelled out by the Tyson showing ), and Moores attempts at the HW title third ( although he must have been in his 40's by the time he met Rocky ) ... which kind of turns all my rankings on their head.

Overall, because I've seen a lot more of Spinks and he's a later generation of fighter, I think he would win in a head to head but... Moore, Tunney and Spinks in that order. Mainly because I'm letting their LHW careers determine the main outcome of their rankings and the HW careers are just the topping with Tunney's wins against Dempsey not being enough to dislodge Moore's claim but cement his place above Spinks.

Really difficult with the early parts of Moore’s career, when he was fighting in the early 40’s it was still the early part of his career, but he was nigh on 80 fights into his career, he was by no means a wet behind the ear novice. As others have alluded to there is no shame whatsoever in dropping the odd loss along the way to the likes of Charles, Burley, Booker but he was also capable of dropping decisions to guys who probably fall in the tier just below those names such as Yarosz and Shorty Hogue. Harsh to count it against him too much as he has enough in his ledger to cancel these kind of blips out, but as Tunney was not prone to these mistakes it probably has to come into the reckoning somewhere.

2. Tunney
3. Moore

Spinks doesn't come into it at all, he as Gentleman has said is vying for fourth with Foster which isn't a foregone conclusion.

We can get hung up on the weight differences between Tunney and Greb all we want but they are still without a shadow of a doubt better wins than anything Moore can lay claim to whilst p4p the victories over Dempsey means there is even more daylight between the two. I do like and respect Moore but a lot of that comes down to his longevity, his title reign aside from the come behind knockout of Johnson is not that great; the title he craved so much has historically come to mean little due in part to Maxim, Mills and Lesnevich.

Tunney was for a time between 1924-1928 the almost unquestionable number one boxer at any weight, the aforementioned wins over Dempsey putting the exclamation point on it. The main goals of their career were very different; Tunney was all about beating Dempsey, choosing opposition prior to that fight he could learn against whereas for Moore it was recognition and that world title.

The biggest difference between the two however is their consistency; at a time when the BMR were at their best it could be argued that Moore wasn't even as high as three although at Middleweight Booker and Burley had clear dominance over him too. It will be argued that he fought so often losses are to be expected but when you're not beating the best at their it becomes more of a trend than a little hiccup here and there.

Considering the stick that Hagler gets for losing his title to a smaller guy in Leonard, I'm not sure Tunney's one-sided loss to Greb and his subsequent struggles with him in other fights can really just be ignored, Hammersmith. That was a debatable points verdict in a nip-tuck fight, Tunney's first loss to Greb was a one-sided bloodbath.

Certainly impressive that Tunney came back to score a couple of convincing wins (Newspaper Decisions or not) later in their series (as it goes, Moore likewise had a decent track record of putting things right in rematches against certain guys who'd put the odd unexpected blip on his record as well), but to say that those wins are better than anything on Moore's record depends upon rating Greb, a natural Middle, as a better Light-Heavyweight than guys such as Johnson and Marshall who were more at home at 175 naturally. On record Greb is in their class as a Light-Heavyweight, I guess, but I still think Moore's era was superior to Gene's. The competition might not have been as fierce once he'd won the title, but Maxim, Johnson and Olson are hardly put in the shade by the likes of Levinsky, Carpentier and Smith, even more so if you take in to account where they were in their careers when they fought Tunney. As an example, Moore was severely outweighed by Bivins when he lost their opener, whereas Tunney outweighed more of his big name opponents at 175.

Won't argue that Archie has the Heavyweight credentials to run Gene close, because he simply doesn't. But I still feel slightly inclined to have him ahead at Light-Heavyweight. As for an overall rating, it's pretty close in my opinion but would concede that Tunney probably has an edge.

With regards to Spinks, I think it's pretty rough justice on him to say that he's basically not in the same class as these guys. He was totally dominant as a Light-Heavyweight; Qawi took five, maybe six at a stretch rounds off him over the long course of fifteen, but that was about as close as anyone got to beating him. I know, not as many fights as a Light-Heavyweight as the other guys mentioned here, but he showed a little bit of everything in the fights he did have and in my opinion, in terms of being a great all-round fighter, he was every big as complete and good as Tunney and Moore. I can understand his comparative lack of fights counting against him here to some degree, but by 1985 he'd wiped out every single worthwhile contender - not as if there was anything more he could do at that point.

As for what he did as a Heavyweight, personally I'll take Spinks toppling Holmes over Tunney toppling Dempsey any day of the week. Both Holmes and Dempsey were past their best, but Larry is just bigger and better than Jack for me, and wasn't nearly as soft and inactive as Dempsey had been. Outside of that, Tunney's knockout win over Gibbons was a very decent statement of intent from Gene, I'll concede. Gibbons was a bit long in the tooth, but his form beforehand had been good. He beat Risko without getting particularly good reviews - although again, that one can be at least partially chalked down to hand injury - and then had one impressive defence after the Dempsey fights over a previously never stopped Heeney. Those three fights look better than Spinks' over Tangstad and Cooney which would even things up quite nicely - if it weren't for that annihilation of Spinks at the hands of Tyson.

That has to peg Spinks behind Tunney in terms of how they rank north of 175 but the likelihood is that Tyson would have done the exact same to Tunney, too. But yep, what I think might have happened in other circumstances ain't as important as what actually did happen in real life, so no complaints from me on that front - Tunney's the great Heavyweight of the pair having timed his retirement perfectly. But again, at Light-Heavyweight I think Spinks is right in the same bracket.

Thanks for stopping by as well, Gentleman and DuransHorse.

DH, I've argued before that Tunney deserves to be considered the father or modern boxing more than the likes of Joe Gans or Jim Corbett, who tend to get that title more readily bestowed upon them. To me, he's the first great fighter (perhaps along with Benny Leonard who was kicking around in the same times, obviously) who looked like a fighter for all eras, with skills and a style appreciably transferable to the sport we see today. Gans and Corbett (who I don't really rate as much as others do, but who was a forward-thinker all the same and who in fairness Tunney cited as a big boxing inspiration) got the wheels in motion, I guess, but Tunney put it all together.

If you factor that in to the equation when you rank these guys - significance to the development of the sport etc - then Gene's credentials probably get a boost. I guess I'm focussing more on records and achievements, though.

As for whether or not Tunney's lack of a Light-Heavy title should count against him, I've generally not taken too many marks off him for it because Siki, McTigue and Berlenbach aren't fighters I'd consider to be in the same bracket as Tunney. That said, while Charles didn't win the title either, he did beat every single man who held the title in that era in non-title bouts at least once, aside from Mills who if we're being honest was never a real contender to be the best Light-Heavy in the world. The same can't be said for Tunney.

Common sense says that he'd have very probably beaten any of those three mentioned, but while his results mark him out as clearly the best overall Light-Heavy of his time, he didn't completely and emphatically clean out the division like Charles and Spinks did, you could argue. Splitting hairs a bit, maybe, but that's what you've got to do when you're talking about standards as high as the ones these guys set.

At Light-Heavy, I think I'd have them ordered Moore (second all-time behind Charles), Spinks (third) and then Tunney (close, but probably edging out Foster for fourth).

As Heavyweights I think it's pretty obvious that they make a 1-2-3 of Tunney, Spinks and then Moore, though, so not sure where that leaves me in terms of ranking their whole careers. In all cases the majority of their best work came at Light-Heavyweight, but Tunney and Spinks' forays in to Heavyweight were pretty historical ones so could be a breaker either way.

Tentatively, I'd go Tunney, Spinks and then Moore (the last two more or less level pegging, but I don't want to fence it) for the overall package the way I'm feeling right now. But that could easily change at any given moment.

Boxing News recently published their list of the top ten ever, apart from the complete nonsense of not having Charles in the top ten (a stern letter was sent) they had Bivins at four. Is one of those outlandish claims that may not actually be that outlandish.

Am I reading what you've written there correctly, Jeff - they didn't have Charles in their top ten Light-Heavyweights?

No, they genuinely didn't. I wrote in to pull them up on it, they had Moore 1 (0-3 against Charles) and Bivins 4 (1-5 against Charles if memory serves) they published my letter without pulling it to bits so perhaps acknowledge it was something of an oversight.

Truss has gone on record to say that doesn't rate someone if they haven't held the title at the weight. Perhaps he penned the article?

Not enough exclamation marks or full stops to have been penned by Truss.

Same old challenge comparing different eras. How do you look at a guy like spinks who dominated a good era, with a guy like Moore who fought so frequently. What is a fair set of criteria? I'm not even going to try though I enjoy reading other's attempts to.

What I will say is they all demonstrated different types of greatness.

Chris, I've seen it argued that tunney was in many ways ahead of his time, and I've seen it said that he just learnt from the best and didn't add much new. He may not have been a visionary but to me, along with gans , when you watch him he looks like a fighter from a different era. An intelligent defensive fighter and counterpuncher, and a student of the game and his opponents. How does that set of abilities ally with greatness? Would that same dogged and thoughtful approach have worked as well in a different era? Would his intelligence have enabled him to keep one step ahead. You'd have to say yes, to a degree but Who knows.

Moore's greatness was in overcoming adversity and making the very best of his physical talents... Not the fastest, not the greatest chin, but skillful, cunning and full of heart, with ludicrous longevity considering the era and the number of fights. But then he lost some he shouldn't have and Charles, the other similar sized ATG of his era, clearly had his number.

Spinks was just one of those guys who was better than everyone else in his weight class, and never looked close to losing in a good division until he moved up. Who's to say whether that translates to any era.

Ultimately it depends what values you put on great wins, bad defeats, longevity, ability in prime, head to head analysis etc. I'm not consistent enough to try. Looking at Tunney and Moore and how they achieved greatness, does it matter how or why you are great as long as you are.

So, sorry Chris for rambling on without attempting to answer the question!
I'm clearly in philosophical mood today.

For those that may not have seen it, Here's a nice piece from hauser on Moore, (who is my sentimental favourite of the three, given his character)...



http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/archie-moore-revisited-part-one
http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/archie-moore-revisited-part-two
http://www.maxboxing.com/news/max-boxing-news/archie-moore-revisited-part-three

Interesting outcome there, Chris. We agree on their order at LHW as Moore, Tunney and Spinks taking their places behind Charles ( I have Spinks and Tunney closer than you I think, arguing 3rd/4th ). At Heavy we the same order for Tunney, Spinks and Moore... then your overall outcome is almost the reverse of mine? I'm not going to argue with it, your overall order, and knowledge, can't really be argued with... but as primarily LHW's for most of their careers your overall order is the same as your HW order and it dislodged the best LHW from top spot to bottom of the three. When Tunney is talked of it usually centres around beating Dempsey so I do place more emphasis on that victory myself. Not arguing with your order, just surprised, especially as Marciano gets bonus points as no one beat him, let alone an aging LHW.

How do you rate them head to head. I mentioned I fancied Spinks, but I fall into that trap of not really knowing the advantages of modern v's older generation boxers. My thoughts are Spinks, Tunney then Moore.

Also, I find it hard not to rate significant amateur achievements when ranking professional boxers, and feel this also boosts Spinks claims.

Yeah, I thought my ordering might look a bit off to some, DH! Like I said though, could easily be changed. I'm relatively happy with an order of Moore, Spinks and Tunney at 175 and a 1-2-3 of Tunney, Spinks and Moore at Heavy is quite straightforward I think. Just tricky to weigh up how much relevance each set of exploits carries for each fighter.

I think at Light-Heavyweight the gaps are small between them all, but at Heavyweight there is plenty of daylight separating Tunney and Spinks from Moore, who was really just serviceable there. The distance that Moore trails them as a Heavy is greater than the one he leads them (in my opinion) by at 175 lb.

Appreciate that most of their work was at the lower weight, but as I said Tunney and Spinks' Heavyweight titles carry quite a bit of historical significance by hook or crook; Tunney beat the biggest name in the sport and bowed out while still arguably the finest fighter in the world, and Spinks was the first ever Light-Heavy champ to win the Heavy crown. Holmes was faded but it was still a wonderful achievement.

I might be overstating how much weight their Heavyweight records carry, but that's just one way of looking at it. Still feel the three of them are mightily close both as Light-Heavies and pound for pounders no matter what rating methods you go on.

I think Holmes’ constant whinging has distorted the picture a little on Spinks’ Heavyweight title win, by the way. Larry’s talk of conspiracies against him, ‘them’ not wanting him to eclipse Rocky’s 49-0, the judges being paid off etc means that it’s almost taken for granted in today’s generation that Spinks’ title-winning performance comes with a caveat or was undeserved.

Spinks clearly won the first fight. Pushed Holmes around, outmuscled him, out sped him, outmanoeuvred him – outeverythinged him. But because Holmes was only one away from Rocky’s mark and because he was good for a down-on-his-luck sound bite, the conclusion for some simply had to be that Holmes was robbed.

There’s an interview from about ten years back which is still kicking around online, with Bunce and Rawling having a chat with Holmes. Back in the studio amongst themselves they talk about Holmes being “sawn off” to save Marciano’s 49-0 record by the “powers that be” (or something along those lines) as if it’s a cold, hard fact. Appreciate that they’re going to tilt things slightly towards their featured fighter, but come on.

The rematch, now that was a bit more of a dubious verdict, granted. But across their two fights Spinks was, at least, just as deserving as Holmes.

You want to read Holmes' autobiography, not sure you'd expect otherwise from Larry, but if you think time or distance will have mellowed his views on the subject you'd be sorely disappointed.

Rowley, Was that the authorised version  'larry Holmes: my life as the greatest fighter in history' or the unauthorised version 'larry big pants: a bitter and twisted old cnut'

Spinks definitely won the first, no doubt about that for me. Holmes is now well know for being a bitter man so I'm not sure many think he was robbed any more. Also I might add, whilst I said Larry was faded I still make that result hugely significant in rating Spinks career. I guess Moore gets a little more sympathy from me at Heavy than others give him though. It's not just the age he Met Rocky, it's also that he didn't seem to belong there more than Spinks and Tunney, and when he did step up he might have met a met a guy similar in size but that guy was a relentless machine that some consider the no.1 heavy ( not me!!! ). After that his heavy campaign was definitely an uphill battle.

milkyboy wrote:Rowley, Was that the authorised version  'larry Holmes: my life as the greatest fighter in history' or the unauthorised version 'larry big pants: a bitter and twisted old cnut'

The reissue Milky - Larry Holmes - Ali and Louis can carry my jockstrap once Marciano is done with it.

Spinks' first fight with Holmes was a clear and deserved result which if you listened to Azania you'd think was the biggest stitch up there has ever been in boxing but I think we all saw through the reasons for that eventually.

Chris, I do most probably dismiss Spinks' claim at light heavyweight a bit too much but all the same I do think he's a fair chunk behind Tunney not so much Moore. I have in the past been accused of discrediting old Archie but I don't see how rating him as the third greatest boxer of all time in the strongest division of them all is doing him a disservice. He has the misfortune of a few clear head to heads that go against him; Charles had his number, Burley beat him up with contempt whilst it's hard to argue that he was better than Bivins or Booker emphasis on better not greater.

Now that i've written that I feel like doing a complete 180 and putting Spinks above Moore but will resist the temptation; longevity vs dominance is always tricky.

I think you'd be hard pressed to give any of them a big, clear edge over the other two in terms of head-to-heads, really.

Moore's the knockout artist with a leaky defence but also brilliant stamina and cunning, Tunney's the light-on-his-feet dancer who thought his way through fights on the back foot and kept things long, and Spinks is somewhere in between; not as heavy-handed as Moore, but a hard, hard puncher all the same. Not as balletic as Tunney and sometimes not as defensively responsible, but still a natural athlete with a load of technical skill.

I think if you examined each of them in every specific area Spinks would come out as the most 'complete' fighter of the trio, because along with the things mentioned he also had a solid enough chin, good speed, the ability to fight on the inside as well as at range and proven stamina of his own. But being good in all areas doesn't necessarily guarantee beating those who are deficient (relatively speaking) in some areas but who make up for it by being absolutely exceptional in others ones, as we know.

Johnson was an extremely solid all-rounder and Moore fared well (albeit the 4-1 scoreline doesn't tell the story of how much Johnson extended him even when Moore won) against him, but Spinks is a level even further up than that with his superior power and speed. He may just be a shade more durable and iron-chinned than Harold, too. Spinks outclassed a superb defender with a cagey style in Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and also excelled against a plain nasty, in-your-face whirlwind aggressor in Qawi; but maybe the key to beating him would have been to be more of an all-rounder than him rather than falling decisively in to one category, who knows?

Tunney's one defeat came about because, according to every report on the fight, he was thrown off badly by Greb's output, swarming pressure and non-stop head movement as he weaved in after him, but that's not really a stylistic fit for either Moore or Spinks, so again it's difficult to make a concrete argument about how or why either of them might start as favourte against Gene. Tunney had greater success against Greb once he'd abandoned his head hunting and started targetting the body, and Moore's famous battle with the bulge left him, by his own admission, a bit vulnerable to the body now and then if he'd had a hard time making weight, so maybe that's an area that Tunney could have exploited.

Fair points again, Hammersmith. Thanks for coming back to me.

Re Tunney greb. Tunney had a lengthy list of excuses for greb 1 in terms of issues before and during the fight... Broken nose in round 1,etc.

I guess his subsequent performances might support his claims, but he was a great learner and no doubt the defeat sharpened his focus of what he needed to do in the later fights.

What was it he said? Words to the effect of 'you were the better man tonight harry'... Emphasising 'tonight'.

Yeah, pretty much his exact words, milky.

It looks to me as if most people bought Tunney's excuses to some degree as it seems that the heavy, one-sided nature of the loss was seen as a bit of a fluke by many, because even after getting trounced first time out and only just scraping past Greb at the second time of asking via a pretty unpopular decision, Tunney was still a 2-1 favourite for their third fight, apparently.

I suppose one thing to factor in is that while Tunney had beaten some good names and was considered one of the better fighters going in 1922 when he first fought Greb, he was still a work in progress to some extent. The Paul Sampson-Korner fight was the start of Tunney's real hand problems; before that, he'd been on a long knockout streak. But he broke his right hand mid-fight against Sampson-Korner and afterwards realised that he needed to curb his attacking instincts a bit more and learn a more defensively-minded technique to make up for that.

There was only about eighteen months between that fight and the first Greb one, but even in that time Tunney's knockouts had dried up comparatively speaking. Maybe those who saw him before and after the Sampson-Korner fight in October 1920 realised that he was still developing the new side of his game when he first came across Greb, hence why they were so confident he'd turn the tide in rematches.

superflyweight wrote:Truss has gone on record to say that doesn't rate someone if they haven't held the title at the weight.  Perhaps he penned the article?  

You learn something new everyday...Always wondered why I had Charles higher in my ATG list than my Heavyweight one...