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

I don't doubt that. I am not a boxing expert by any means, so in the end I will not leave the discussion with a strong confidence that I'm the only person who is right.

With that being said, I have very extensive history of evaluating basketball history and I know how many narratives turn out to be false, once you start analyzing footage and other available sources. That's why I prefer reading contemporary sources and watching games/fights, instead of going with opinions crystalized years after the questioned things happened.

 

"A lot of people thought Heeney beat both Sharkey and Uzcudun"

To be expected in draws. Probably a lot of people thought Sharkey and Uzcudun won also. The fact is in three fights against Uzcudun and Sharkey, Heeney did not post a win.

". . . clinging to this idea that Sharkey was the better, more qualified candidate"

You are both right and wrong here I think. You are right in that they apparently thought highly of Heeney in the spring of 1928.

"In June 1928 he wasn't."

Opinion doesn't make anything true. If they thought Heeney better than Sharkey they were wrong. Like favoring Jeffries to defeat Johnson.

The past is full of opinions we now know were wrong or even foolish.

History is after all somewhat the judgment of hindsight.

So I think Suzie is also right in a way. Tunney would have been more tested by Sharkey.

 

Ok, who, in the immediate run up to Tunney-Heeney had a BETTER record than Heeney?

This is a nonsensical statement. We arent arguing who ended up with the better career. We are discussing why, in the summer of 1928, Heeney got a title shot over anyone else. He got that title shot because in the summer of 1928 his record was just as good as any other heavyweight in the running, he was a strong and aggressive fighter who showed up in shape and came to fight, and he was exotic. Thats why he got the title shot. Period. Whether history has, 100 years later, judged Sharkey to be the better fighter is neither here nor there and has ZERO impact on decision making in 1928. Frankly, regardless of whether you or "history" has judged Sharkey to be a better fighter than Heeney he never proved it when they actually fought...

"Opinion doesnt make anything true." Sharkey was an inconsistent headcase. Its possible he could have tested Tunney. Its also possible that the spartan and uber consistent Tunney simply outclassed him. Sharkey had a lot more problems with small guys who boxed him than he did with big guys who came after him.

 

See there you go again. "it makes sense why Tunney

This content is protected

Heeney" "I can't be critical of Tunney's

This content is protected

" It wasnt Tunney's choice. Heeney was chosen by Tex Rickard, THE PROMOTER WHO WAS WILLING TO PUT UP THE MONEY TO STAGE THE FIGHT. Tunney could have "chosen" to fight Heeney, Sharkey, and Godfrey all on the same night but if no promoter is willing to offer up the money then the Tunney's "choice" doesnt matter. Conversely, Tunney could have "chosen" to fight a glass jawed bed ridden flyweight and without a promoter willing to pony up the money and sell the match it isnt happening. Rickard was clear that Tunney wasnt the box office draw that Dempsey was so its not like he was trying to pitch him softballs. If a more exciting fighter takes Tunney's title then all the better. This idea that Tunney was sitting there picking and choosing Heeney over Godfrey and Sharkey is comical given the fact that neither of those guys had distinguished themselves. Godfrey's only qualification was that he was big and black. Thats it. His record is nothing special at all. Sharkey's record was one of highs and lows to that point. His career at the time was called "uneven" "up and down" "erratic" not exactly the descriptions of a guy who was going to be feared to take the title from someone as consistent as Tunney.

Tunney was smug but he was also right. After he retired the division went downhill and purses decreased. Thats not an opinion its a fact. It was two years before the a new champion was crowned. It was nearly a decade before another million dollar gate and that fight, Louis-Baer, broke the million dollar mark by less than $1,000. Tunney's point, as spelled out to you numerous times, in saying that there were no dangerous fighters was actually that there were no fighters dangerous enough to capture the publics attention and command the kind of purse he wanted to stay in the game (he literally said this in the same speech). He was right about the economic side of that argument, hes entitled to his opinion that fighters like Sharkey and Godfrey werent dangerous, and hes entitled to retire for whatever reason he wants to. So you think hes smug and dont like that he didnt think highly of Sharkey or Godfrey. I doubt he would have cared then and I doubt he cares now.

 

That Rickard picked Heeney might not be all that clear.

This is a quote from "From Poverty Bay to Broadway: The Story of Tom Heeney" but Lydia Monin. Pages 178 to 179

After Risko's win over Sharkey,

"Rickard and Muldoon decided a Heeney-Risko match was the best way forward. But Tom had already beaten Risko."

"Harvey was adamant that if there was anyone left between Tom and Tunney who hadn't been eliminated, it was only Dempsey"

Garden matchmaker Jess McMahon responded

"Heeney only drew with Sharkey, and Risko defeated Sharkey. Risko has beaten Jack Delaney, Paulino Uzcudun, and Jack Sharkey, three men who are listed among the best in the division. If Harvey wants to compare records, Risko has a better one than Heeney. The records show that Heeney lost and drew with Paulino. Risko beat the Basque decisively. Harvey is changing his tune. He wouldn't fight Jack Delaney until I signed an agreement to match the winner with the winner of the Sharkey-Risko fight. Now he is trying to back out of it."

Then the author has this passage:

"The title shot continued to elude Tom and neither Rickard nor the Commission wanted him in the ring with Tunney. But there was one very influential person on Tom's side. The champion himself. Tunney considered Tom his next logical opponent and the winner of the tournament. He'd done everything Rickard asked of him. Tunney probably didn't want to fight the boorish, rough Risko again. But he had other concerns. The contenders might keep eliminating each other until there was no one left to fight."

"Rickard travelled to Florida to talk to Tunney. It was thought he'd tell the champion there'd be no defense on 14 June as originally planned; that he wouldn't get his $500,000 if he insisted on fighting Tom; that a Tunney-Heeney fight wouldn't be popular; that he should wait until a better challenger turned up."

"'Mortification has set in' ran the title of McGeehan's column in the New York Herald Tribune on 14 March. 'At the current writing, it looks as though the plodding Thomas Heeney is about the best of very bad lot of contenders. Even that is going a little strong. It might be more expressive to say that Thomas is the least fromagenous, with Johny Risko, the Bouncing Bohemian Baker Boy, the runner up.' The gloom at the garden is thick and Rickard wallowed alone in his sorrow in his private office."

*fromagenous--a word I am not familiar with. Fromage is French for cheese, so this might mean cheesy. I could not find the word in the dictionary.

 

Lots to digest here.

The win by Heeney over Risko in 1927 managed to eliminate Risko, which can be justified, but is also in a sense unfair because the actual best record overall going into the summer of 1928 was that of Johnny Risko.

No one seems to consider Sharkey a leading contender.

If this biography is accurate, Rickard wanted an elimination between Risko and Heeney with the winner to get Tunney in September. Not surprisingly, Heeney's camp didn't want to take a chance. The key here seems to be Tunney, who was all in on fighting Heeney.

If this author is accurate, it appears it was the pressure from Tunney which led Rickard to back the Tunney-Heeney fight in July rather than having an elimination to find an opponent for a September defense.

This passage supports Suzie's take.

The bit about Tunney worrying about all the contenders eliminating each other rings false to me. A Risko-Heeney winner would have been the obvious challenger, especially Risko, as he was the one who actually eliminated most of the tough contenders. And a win would have given Heeney more stature.

 

Tunney didnt specify who he wanted to fight. He just specified that he had every intention of fighting in June. He wanted to fight in June for two reasons 1. To stay sharp, he hadnt fought in almost a year and had fought only twice since 1925. 2. He, unlike Dempsey, intended to honor the edicts of the NYSAC and NBA to defend his title at least once a year or be stripped. Rickard had already bound Gene over to a fight for $200,000 so he had to pick somebody in short order. Furthermore, there were a few other promoters who were making offers to Tunney and Heeney for a championship match. If Rickard defaulted on his promise Tunney could have walked. There was no time to sit there and wait for endless elimination tournaments to find someone from the group of heavyweights who over the past two years hadnt been able to put forth a solid candidate. And again, I will take Rickard's word over someone writing a book 90 years later. Rickard was clear he was the one who chose Heeney and of course he did, again, it was his money he was fronting, nearly a million dollars. Im not really getting why the focus is now on Risko and not Sharkey as you have been arguing all along. I get it, its clear you cant admit that Heeney was the man of the hour but the fact is that Heeney, not Risko, not Godfrey, had the best claim at that moment in time. And frankly, why should Heeney have had to fight Risko again?? He had just beaten him. You want to use this promotion as a cudgel to beat Tunney with but your argument is misguided. Rickard was so intent on tieing up the HW championship that he was offering these monster purses to promote these fights. He was always hunting for the next million dollar gate. Thats all fine and well if you have the money to throw around but Rickards problem was he couldnt keep Tunney on the shelf while he percolated his promotion. The days when a fighter could go three years without defending his title were over. That ended when the NYSAC kicked Dempsey-Tunney out of New York. It would have looked absolutely ridiculous to have Risko and Heeney fight again. It was apparent to everyone that there was no cream to rise to the top and thats exactly what Tunney was saying when he retired. You are basically saying the same thing while arguing you dont like that he gave voice to what everyone else was saying as well.

 

Boy you sure love taking quotes from fighters managers as gospel. Why isnt you havent quoted Heeney's manager yet? Ya think he might have something favorable to say about his fighter?