Gene Tunney's decision to fight Heeney instead of Sharkey in finale

As the the 1925 fight where Godfrey won, look what I found on boxrec. @SuzieQ49 can you please please enlighten me of how that 30 page biography that descended from the heavens while angels blew on trumpets explains this?

Oakland Tribune- 1925 Jun 07
By Bob Shand
Just why boxing promoters will import two huskies from the east and pay them ten thousand dollars apiece for giving a wrestling display when two local longshoremen would be glad to do as good a job for two and a half, is on of the mysteries of the boxing racket. At Recreation park, San Francisco, George Godfrey, hige coloured person from the outskirts of Philadelphia, was given a ten-round decision over Jack Renault of Canada, when as a matter of justice to a long-suffering random they should both have been given the air, It was something terrible to behold. Perhaps the act had not been reheared, but, had it been, the execution could not have been more perfect. It was a classic in the way of extracting five-fifty from the ringside customers and making them like it.
Nothing quote so crude has been inflicted on a Western audience since the days of Jim Figg. If the men did their best yesterday they should be forever barred on the grounds of incompetency. If they did not do their best they should be barred on the general principles. They haven't got an "out" in the world.
BETTING WAS PECULIAR
An enlightening angle may be found in the betting odds. For several days before the contest Renault was a ten to seven and ten to eight favorite. Two hours before the fight the odd dropped to ten and nine AND AT THE RINGSIDE BETS WERE MADE WITH GODFREY FAVORITE AT ODDS OF TEN TO EIGHT. During the contest Renault twice claimed to have been fouled, once when he was hit on the ear and the second time when he was tapped on the chest.
In the ten rounds of mauling not one damaging punch was landed. In the fourth round Renault went to the floor and took a count of four from a light blow. Five seconds from the end of the round he went down again from a punch that would not have worried a lightweight and he ight have remained down had not the gong sounded.
The further it went the wose it got. From the second round until the finish there were demands from the spectators that both men be tossed from the ring and the purse be given to charity. Referee Laird would have been complied with a popular demand had he ejected the principals, but it was Tom's first appearance in big time and he was a bit nervous.
AN AMUSING FEATURE.
An amusing feature of the affair was Godfrey's wild swinging. In the fifth and sixth round, for no reason at all, he swing clear across the ring and tried to land with an open glove. With every swing he threw himself off balance and was a mark for any kind of counter. But did Renault accept the opportunities?- He did not. Instead he covered up or got on his bicycle. Any other boxer with more than three weeks' experience would have knocked Godfrey's head off when he left himself wide open after swinging.
There were other peculiat incidents in the ten rounds of clinching. For instance, when the boos and cat-calls increased so that it was barely possible to hear the gong, Renault started to hit Godfrey in the stomach in the clinches. Jack kept both hands going like pistons hammers away at the pantry. This might have looked good from the on-ten seats in the far bleachers, but from a ringside location it was apparent that there was not enough power behind the punches to disturb a recent inlay of pork chops.

 

I think it hardly likely that Fleischer would publish these stories whilst Godfrey was an active boxer.
As to proof. how much concrete proof is out there about any fights that are widely believed to have been fixed? Ali Liston2 Foneda Cox Liston's buddy and sparring partner after he asked Sonny why he let him bet his dough on him knowing he was going into the tank?Stated Sonny told him," with your big mouth we would both be wearing concrete boots."I believe Cox, just as I believe both Stribling v Carnera fights were fixed can I prove either? No.

Suzie has posted some interesting stuff and I think he's getting a raw deal here .The Fleischer statements are pretty compelling to me because Nat was always very reluctant to admit to tank jobs and dives in his beloved sport
.One poster dismissing his efforts so arrogantly, sarcastically, and rudely,[not you],is just how that individual conducts himself,just as he never gives another author credit,once even vehemently disagreeing with Adam Pollack over Johnson's trial and the way it was conducted though Adam is an Attorney and therefore, one would think has a fair grasp of law. I don't know Kevin Smith but I understand he has a good reputation among boxing authors and I've never read anything derogatory about him,well not until ,"Mr Boxing" put his two cents in here.
I'm sure you have read of or seen fights that you had your suspicions about, but without a confession a la Lamotta , how could you prove they were fake?

 

San Francisco Chronicle- 1925 Jun 07
By Harry B. Smith
GEORGE GODFREY, colored heavy weight, took a hairline verdict from Jack Renault, erstwhile champion of Canada, in their ten-round bout at Recreation ball park yesterday. It wasn't much of a decision, for the verdict of Referee Laird properly should have been a draw, but beyond that it was so little of a contest and so much of a wrestling match nobody save the fellows who had wagered their money on Renault stopped to bother with the ruling.
As a fight it would have been a keen wrestling match, for fully 90 percent of the timewas given over to tiresome holding and hitting in the clinches. As fighters, Renault and Godfrey might make fairly second class grapplers or perhaps better stevedores. As fighters with any pretention to class or aspirations to a championship, the less said of them the better.
To talk of putting either of them into the ring with Jack Dempsey, or for that matter with any of the better of the contenders, would be the heigh of folly.

San Francisco Chronicle- 1925 Jun 08
By HARRY B. SMITH
San Francisco fans were discussing yesterday, quizically, the sudden shifts in fight odds on the day of the fight. Right up to the day of the fight Renault was the favorite, odds shifting from 10 to 8 to 10 to 7.
On the day of the fight there was an unexpected shift in conditions, and not only was Godfrey made a 10 to 7 favorite, thereby shifting the odds completely, but there was a world of Godfrey money waiting to be covered.
Godfrey supporters explained this on the ground that the switch came because of the impressive showing made by the colored man in the gym. But if that is true, why a shift so late in the game?

 

For what it's worth (and I know you didn't mean myself) I don't have a problem with someone making the case the SuzieQ is making, however he has been extremely dissmissive and arrogant in responce to the slightest challenge or questions to his position. With the exception of Klompton, who he has been comically sycophantic towards in responce to Klompton calling his claims ridiculous.

I certainly have no objection to him sharing what he's been sharing, it's potentially quite interesting stuff, but he's been utterly unwilling to engage with other perspectives, or evidence that conflicts with what he's presenting.

For the faults I have, I think I've have atleast shown myself to be pretty open minded. If there's good evidence of Godfrey's having to throw as many fights as claimed, I'd be open to it. But I'm well aware that also, memorys have a tendacy to distort of emblish themselves, and mythologies have a tendancy to be made. I've read plenty of next day reports, and plenty of later accounts, and while the former is certainly imperfect, I think it clearly is a far more reliable way of finding this stuff.

Like you said, it is pretty hard to be sure if a fight was fixed or not, especially with no footage, but I think that's all the more reason that you need to be open minded about these things, and not just find a narrative you like and go full confirmation bias.

My comments that SuzieQ hasn't provided good evidence that any of Godfrey's fights, are purely intended to criticise the quality of evidence that he's put up. Which again, just sharing this stuff without doing a ton of research to check it would be fine, apart from his attitude in discussing it.

I wouldn't be shocked at all to find some of Godfrey's losses were highly likely to be fixed, even the Carnera fight has legitimate suspicion, but I think there's way too much contradictory evidence to believe the simple narritive that SuzieQ is presenting. For example the suspicious betting suggesting that his win over Renault may have been fixed.

My problem with SuzieQ is entirely in his attitude and approach towards the evidence, not the case he is presenting.

 

I wanted to make a longer reply, but BitPlayerVesti gave a good explaination of my thoughts. I don't think we shouldn't consider the possibility of Godfrey fights being fixed, but Suzie's approach doesn't accept different opinions about the subject. He doesn't gave any clear evidences of his stance, but he acts like he was involved with these fixes. We can make a more or less educated guess about it, but we should be open minded and keep in mind that out conclusions about fights from 100 years ago could be wrong.

I never said that Carnera fight wasn't a fix. I said it doesn't look like the one until the low blow. I don't agree that Godfrey dominated him and had too much pride to lose in any other way. Footage shows something entirely different.

Even if Suzie is right that all of Godfrey losses were fixed, what does it tell us about him? We have no idea how good he waw if that's the case and his effort against Black fighters doesn't show that he was Wills case here.

 

Without stating which specific fight, the claim is pretty nearly impossible to verify. Godfrey had tons of lackluster efforts, in both wins and losses, against both black and white opponents.

Lets go through every DQ Godfrey lost due to

Battling Owens- black
Tom Crowly- white
Jack Townsend- black
Chuck Wiggins- white
Larry Gains- black
Al Walker- black
Long Tom Hawkins- black
Primo Carnera- white
Motzi Spakow- white

Either he was throwing fights against black fighters as well, or there's no reason to assume any of his foul outs against white opponents were to throw the fight, without specific evidence.

 

As I explicitly explained, I said that in responce to your blatant agenda pushing to make a point about it.

Literally all I did was ask some basic questions, that anyone with even a halfway informed opinion of the subject would have easilly had a responce to, for you to start with a mix of condescension, and arrogant dismissal, that failed to even address the points.

Obviously not having a well informed opinion on something is absolutely fine, but in that case you need to accept there's things you don't know, instead of acting like you have the gospel truth.

 

"It is no secret that Tunney does not regard Sharkey as a suitable opponent"

Interesting that the New York Times considers Tunney's opinion of Sharkey to be important here. Why didn't they refer to Rickard's opinion if Rickard alone is making the selection?

The bottom line is we don't know what went on behind closed doors with Rickard and Tunney. Rickard certainly signed off on the Heeney fight, but was it with the knowledge that Tunney would only defend against a man of Tunney's choosing?

Whatever case is made, it is very hard to buy that Sharkey would have been anything like the underdog Heeney was.

 

Why would that be hard to buy?? When Herney signed to fight Tunney Sharkey had failed to win his last three bouts. Heeney was in the midst of an impressive run. If Sharkey never fought another fight after Heeney you wouldnt be saying this so clearly your opinion is formed by hindsight.

 

I don't think this 15-1 figure is right. The papers I've seen from the time pretty consistently give it as 3-1.

https://ibb.co/ySY6QhB