Rating Gene Tunney

[Rocky]

Gene Tunney has a rating of 13 on Title bout. Do you think this is accurate, if not what rating 1-15 would you give him

[IceTea]

I have him as a 14

[Jersey-Jim]

Gene Tunney was a master boxer, so I think 13 is pretty accurate. He's small, of course, by today's standards... but he's also difficult to nail with more consecutive punches and was always in fantastic condition. He survived one of the best Heavyweight finishers of all time in Dempsey, although Dempsey was probably past his prime. He had the misfortune of following Dempsey as champ. He wasn't as colorful, well liked or appreciated. Sort of similar to Holmes following Ali.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Rocky

Gene Tunney has a rating of 13 on Title bout. Do you think this is accurate, if not what rating 1-15 would you give him

Originally Posted by IceTea

I have him as a 14

I agree with the Tea Man, here. Just curious, you have Dempsey at 11-12?

[bear]

I posted my ATG heavyweight ratings elsewhere in this forum.

Historians All-Time Heavyweight Rankings

The 13 presently in the game or the 14 Icetea gives him work for me.

Tunney was one of the smartest fighters ever, had the best footwork of any heavyweight other than Muhammad Ali, and was under-rated as a puncher.
He was the first man to ever KO the tough as nails trial horse, Bartley Madden. Madden was the type of fighter that could be hit with a billy-club and keep coming at you. So, yes, Tunney was that good. The only quibble about Tunney as a HW, might be that he only had a 12 to 14 bouts at that weight with the rest of his career at LHW.

Bear.

[Thunder]

Their all-time rankings always confused me. Dempsey I think is the benficiary of some roaring 20s folklore. To me, he was not quite a fighter of Gene Tunney's caliber.

Records:
Tunney 81-1-3 (1 nc)
Dempsey 66-6-11

Tunney never lost as a HW and avenged his lone defeat (to Harry Greb).
Dempsey was knocked down nine times in the first round in a "draw" with Johnny Sudenberg; He probably lost another "draw" with Billy Miske; He was KO'd in one round by Fireman Jim Flynn and lost twice to Willie Meehan.

Knockouts
Dempsey had 51; Tunney 48

Dempsey is supposed to have been a hard, non-stop punching machine, Tunney a light-hitting stand-up boxer. I'm not seeing it in those numbers.

Aging
Another "edge" I have seen cited in defense of Jack. He was only 23 months older than Tunney. Dempsey's pro career had only been 11 months longer when they fought. And Tunney had more fights! Jack was 31 and 32 for the fights; Tunney 29 and 30. They were Tunney's 84th and 85th bouts; Jack's 81st and 83rd.

Long count
Tunney had already beaten Dempsey once when this happened. Was it a gift for Tunney? I don't know. I do know fighters go by the count given them. Buster Douglas was down for about 13 seconds against Tyson, but he slammed his first on the canvas at 4, fully aware he had been caught, and could have easily gotten up if the count was quicker. He actually started to get up, then stopped and timed it to the count. Did Tunney time his rise? There are differering reports, but some say he was ready to go after about 6-7 seconds on the canvas.

This from Jack (albeit, some years down the road)
“I didn't know what I was doing, I guess I was punchy. I didn't get to my corner. Besides, Tunney wasn't hurt that bad.”

Odd, but apropos?
Jack Dempsey = Wlad Klitschko.
Because,
Johnny Sudenberg = Lamon Brewster
Fireman Flynn = Corrie Sanders

Although to Wlad's credit, Lamon Brewster had a better record than Sudenberg's 5-9.

Summary
Tunney wasn't a HW very long, spending almost his entire career at LH. Thus, I can see how Dempsey's accomplishments of 80-plus fights are viewed the way they are and a guy with about 10 fights, no matter the results, has a hard time comparing.
But Tunney was a better fighter . . .significantly better.

[nelsth]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Summary
Tunney wasn't a HW very long, spending almost his entire career at LH. Thus, I can see how Dempsey's accomplishments of 80-plus fights are viewed the way they are and a guy with about 10 fights, no matter the results, has a hard time comparing.
But Tunney was a better fighter . . .significantly better.

Because of the major difference in the number of fights Tunney had at hw and lhw, why is he a 13 in both divisions?

[IceTea]

Originally Posted by Thunder

I agree with the Tea Man, here. Just curious, you have Dempsey at 11-12?

Dempsey 14......he was post prime when he matched with Tunney.

[IceTea]

Here is what I have:

15s (0)

14s
Tunney
Marciano
Dempsey
Ali
Louis

13s
Tyson
Johnson, Jack
Jeffries
Jackson, Peter
Frazier
Holmes

12s
McVey
Lewis, Lennox
Lanford
Jennette
Foreman

11s
Willis
Schmeling
Miske
Liston
Klitscho, V
Holyfield
Corbett
Charles
Burns
Bowe

10s
Young
Witherspoon
Ward, V (female)
Uzcudun
Sullivan
Norton
McCall
Ellis Chuvalo

9s
Walcott
Valuev
Tucker
Tua
Toles
Thomas, P
Terrell
Summerline
Spinks, M
Simon
Shavers
Sharkey, T
Sharkey, J
Ruiz
Peralta
Patterson
Page
Mercer
Lastarza
Klitschko, W
Jones Jr, Roy
Godfrey
Fitzsimmons
Conn
Farr
Chageav
Cleroux
Brewster
Bear
Bonavena

* I'm only into the 7s, some of them may be elevated to 8s or 9s or be dropped lower.

[meade95]

Good discussions.......

Though I can in no way see Tunney, Dempsey or Marciano being rated a "14"..... I could take Tunny at that at LHW.....(but not HW)...

[a87star]

Meade this is one thing I agree with you on.

This is how I would have it

Marciano - 13
Dempsey - 12/13
Tunney - 12/13

But that's just me. But the other ratings look real solid.

[professordp]

A very interesting question and extremely fascinating statements by all of the above forum members. Nevertheless, the boxer rating is a cumulative number based upon ratings on a variety of factors. It would be interesting to see where you guys think he was over-or under-rated by TBCB in specific categories, i.e., punching accuracy, power, recovery, etc. As we all know there's a lot of ways to wind up at a total numerical rating! Maybe it might be instructive (and fun) to "dissect" Tunney's rating.

[Mad Bomber]

Mark, with all due respect in no way is Tyson a 13, I would give him no more than a 11 at best, as I believe there are a number of fighters you have listed that could have beaten him.

In 1987 while I was working in the sports department Tyson hired Lennox Lewis as a sparring partner for his upcoming fight with Tony Tucker, and after the first round of sparring when Tyson give him some trouble, Lewis dominated him for the next two days, and was sent packing.

This is probably why Tyson was never interested in fighting Lewis until he neeeded him, and then with both of them post prime accepted his beating.

Greg

[meade95]

Originally Posted by professordp

A very interesting question and extremely fascinating statements by all of the above forum members. Nevertheless, the boxer rating is a cumulative number based upon ratings on a variety of factors. It would be interesting to see where you guys think he was over-or under-rated by TBCB in specific categories, i.e., punching accuracy, power, recovery, etc. As we all know there's a lot of ways to wind up at a total numerical rating! Maybe it might be instructive (and fun) to "dissect" Tunney's rating.

This is a good point to keep in mind.......and is important......


I try to typically not worry about the "overall" rating all that much (or at all) when I rate (or tweak/re-rate fighters)....I am more concerned / focused on each varible that makes up a fighter.....and making sure those ratings / varibles seem as accurate as possible.......(and from that pops out an "overall" rating).

With that said....I just can't imagine putting together all the fighters varibles in a manner which would show a "14" rating for Tunney, Dempsey or Marciano.....

(just went and looked at Tunney's ratings within my game. He is at a 13 - With a once or twice somewhat quick look over....I can't come up with any area that is blantant that I see needing for change........Also in my game Marcinao is rated a "12"......Which I find accurate...)

[IceTea]

When rating a fighter, a great chin will increase a fighters overall rating. Overall ratings are only a guideline. Certain fighters will perform above or below their rating depending upon where the numbers are.

If you play the game alot, you then know that there are a number of knockdowns. I had Vitali Klitchko fight George Foreman today. Vitali has a chin rating of (1) and a KO rating of (0) but he was still knocked down three times and ko'd after the third one. You really have to know how the game works before rating fighters.

0 KDR1 - excellent chin
1 KDR1 - very good
2 KDR1 - average
3 KDR1 - questionable or less than average
4 KDR1 - poor / china chin...will get knocked down all the time
5 KDR1 - club fighters

* Mike Tyson has a 1 kdr1 2 kor 3 recover

[IceTea]

Originally Posted by Mad Bomber

Mark, with all due respect in no way is Tyson a 13, I would give him no more than a 11 at best, as I believe there are a number of fighters you have listed that could have beaten him.

In 1987 while I was working in the sports department Tyson hired Lennox Lewis as a sparring partner for his upcoming fight with Tony Tucker, and after the first round of sparring when Tyson give him some trouble, Lewis dominated him for the next two days, and was sent packing.

This is probably why Tyson was never interested in fighting Lewis until he neeeded him, and then with both of them post prime accepted his beating.

Greg

Tyson, at his prime (spinks fight) could have beaten anyone in the history of boxing. He was vulnerable to boxers, but only Douglas beat him in his prime. You can't gauge a fighter by what he does in sparring. It is when the bright lights are turned on and the bell rings in a real bout is what counts.

It is all subjective though. The great thing about TB Boxing is that you can change the rating. I haven't been able to do that in Strat-o-matic yet.

MJ

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by IceTea

The great thing about TB Boxing is that you can change the rating. I haven't been able to do that in Strat-o-matic yet.

You can though . . maybe you need the Card Image option? It's been a few years for me.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by IceTea

If you play the game alot, you then know that there are a number of knockdowns. I had Vitali Klitchko fight George Foreman today. Vitali has a chin rating of (1) and a KO rating of (0) but he was still knocked down three times and ko'd after the third one. You really have to know how the game works before rating fighters.

The Knockdown process has changed from the board game days. I'm not sure if it was a Trunzo idea, an error in the original programming, or what.

But the Ratio of KD-5pt-4pt punches to
3pt-2pt punches is much greater.

So there are more KDs/KOs if one uses "traditional" TB ratings.

[professordp]

I don't think that Mr. Trunzo ever intended that these numerical ratings serve as a statement with respect to this fighter actually being better than that fighter. I've always looked at the ratings as a rough indicator of a fighter's overall ability for the purposes of scheduling a match. Thus they are an aide to gamers and not a pronouncement. Match a 5 against a fighter with 10 or over and you can expect a lopsided affair.

Personally, I take these ratings in a rather broad context. At the top you have those who are rated higher than 10. Next there are those 8 to 10, followed by fighters with a total assessment of 5 to 7. Then there are the rest in various degrees of mediocrity---or worse.

Whether a fighter totals out as a 14 as opposed to a 13 is, for me, of minor importance, and doesn't tell me too much. There's really not a significant difference between fighters who are rated one or two points apart. I've been playing variations of Title Bout for more than thirty years (bought my first copy when it was marketed through Negamco's "All Sports Digest") and could not tell you how many fights I've simulated and the number of times a fighter with an overall rating three points below his opponent won the match--and these were not always knockouts. Many were decisions.

The number of variables that come into play when you match up two specific fighters diminishes the importance of these overall ratings. Things like accuracy, defense, chin, power, etc. (all of which contributte to the total rating number) take on different levels of importance depending upon the two fighter being matched.

So I just take these ratings for what they are---a broad ranking of different tiers of talent and ability which helps me set up tournaments, matches, and recreations of historical bouts. I don't look at them as a definative assessment of this fighter being superior to another when there's a one or two point difference in the overall rating.

[meade95]

Originally Posted by IceTea

When rating a fighter, a great chin will increase a fighters overall rating. Overall ratings are only a guideline. Certain fighters will perform above or below their rating depending upon where the numbers are.

If you play the game alot, you then know that there are a number of knockdowns. I had Vitali Klitchko fight George Foreman today. Vitali has a chin rating of (1) and a KO rating of (0) but he was still knocked down three times and ko'd after the third one. You really have to know how the game works before rating fighters.

0 KDR1 - excellent chin
1 KDR1 - very good
2 KDR1 - average
3 KDR1 - questionable or less than average
4 KDR1 - poor / china chin...will get knocked down all the time
5 KDR1 - club fighters

* Mike Tyson has a 1 kdr1 2 kor 3 recover

Vitali with a KO rating of a "0" - I don't think he earned such a rating necessarily via his career - He was never tested enough (or fought enough of high caliber opponents) to have that rating - I can see maybe a "1" (and that is what I believe I have him at)....since he was never KO'd and because of his size....... At the same time his caliber of opponents was not the best for the first 25+ fights of his career - Vitali was rocked several times in his career -