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

You may be correct. 15-1 is definitely the odds listed in the Ring Record Book of 1976. You have produced a good source.

Sharkey was a 7-5 favorite over Dempsey. I don't know if the loss to Dempsey and a draw with Heeney would have dropped him as far as 3-1.

*box rec also says 3-1. The old Ring Record Book is apparently wrong, but I admit I am surprised that the odds would be that short given that Heeney hadn't been able to defeat either Uzcudun or Sharkey. Apparently contemporary respect for Tunney, at least at heavyweight, was not that great. In contrast, Marciano was 4-1 over Moore. Thinking on it, 15 to 1 seems extreme, but 6 or 7 to 1 would seem more reasonable, given Tunney coming off two wins over Dempsey.

 

One of those fights was against Dempsey. Is giving a good account of oneself against the former champion supposed to knock one below a guy who didn't fight him. Heeney and Sharkey drew, which is not an edge to Heeney. His advantage is totally on the Sharkey loss to Risko, although Sharkey had earlier beaten Risko.

If neither had fought after the spring of 1928, I certainly would rate Sharkey higher for his wins over Wills and Godfrey. I don't really see a big advantage for Heeney, other than he had won his one fight with Risko while Sharkey had split his two fights.

 

A lot of people thought Heeney beat both Sharkey and Uzcudun. You are just consistently giving him short shrift and over rating Sharkey out of context. 3-1 odds, even though betting was light, places Tunney as a solid favorite. 15-1 would have placed Heeney in non-competitive no-hoper territory and thats not how he was viewed. For some reason you and Suzie are just clinging to this idea that Sharkey was the better, more qualified candidate. In June 1928 he wasnt.

 

Dempsey was completely shot. He lost every round of both fights to Tunney and barring the knockdown in the seventh he lost 2mins and 45 seconds of that round as well. The only thing keeping Dempsey relevant by that point was his overinflated reputation from FOUR years previous. Remember, when Sharkey LOST to Dempsey Dempsey hadnt won a fight in four years. So "doing well" against that man shouldnt put Sharkey's rep above anyones.

 

Fair enough. The Ring Record Book seems to be wrong on the odds for this fight.

It does surprise me that the odds were that close. Marciano was apparently a stronger favorite against Moore.

 

You are touching on a good point. How much of the Dempsey reputation is ex-post facto, and with it Tunney's?

 

How can you not get the point of this quote within the context? BitPlayerVesti doesn't hate Marciano at all.

 

I supposed if you watched it in slow, in revers, upside down, closed your eyes and used your imagination you could somehow find a way to see it as competitive. But it wasnt. Neither fight was competitive. That knockdown he scored against Tunney kept his name in the discussion and even he admitted that but he had his face rearranged in their first fight to the point his handlers had to lead him to Tunney to congratulate him and in the second bout Graham MacNamee the ringside radio announcer mentions more than once how Dempsey is in trouble, wobbly, tired, in danger of going down, etc and when the final bell rings he say basically says Dempsey has nothing left. Tunney ran him ragged in those bouts.

 

What are you trying to prove in quotes like this one? It says nothing susbstantial, other than Godfrey was fast and skilled.

 

Fair enough, this quote is just unrelated to anything we discussed. Any new information is appreciated.
Don't play age card, it's lame.