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

So, like Tunney said there was a lack of exciting challengers.

Glad we've all agreed.

 

So, Sharkey shouldn't have fought Risko, but Heeney should have fought Risko, even though both Tunney and Heeney had already beat him?

Sharkey probably fought Risko because he was coming off a loss and a draw, and needed a credible win to get back in contention.

 

No. What I said is if Risko was eliminated by Heeney, Sharkey should have been re-matched with Heeney. If Heeney won that one he would have had a strong case. As is, he backed in. He didn't beat Sharkey, Uzcudun, or Scott. Risko did. Heeney went 0-3-2 against those three men. The whole Heeney case rests on that win over Risko the previous year before Risko eliminated the top contenders.

 

Wow Risko himself said he was better than when he lost to an injured Gene Tunney!!!

There's no conceivable reason for him to say that unless it was true.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle- 1928 Mar 14
By W. C. VREELAND.
"I HAVE attended all the fights between heavyweights in the last 35 years, but I swear I won't look at one if it is arranged between Tunney and Risko"
The speaker was one of the great unknowns who had witnessed the Sharkey-Risko. He was one of the great unknowns who had witnessed the Sharkey-Risko bout. He was a man well on in years and well off in this world's good, if good clothing is a true indication of a fat bank account. He had occupied a ringside seat, two rows behind His Honor the Mayor.
As he left the side entrance which opens out on 49th st., he expressed himself so that all and sundry of his friends—and there were a number of men in the party—could hear.
The man was florid of face. Whether he was naturally so or from the heat of his blood over the prospects of Johnny Risko being selected as an opponent for Gene Tunney, I know not. But judging by his words, he didn't relish any such thought for the future—a fight between Tunney and Risko for the heavyweight championship.
SPEAKS for Thousands.
AND that unknown was spokeman for man other men who discussed the Risko-Sharkey bout on their homeward journey Monday night.
. . .
And if Heeney and Risko fight, will that mean an honest-to-goodness opponent for Gene? Not much. Neither would pull a corporal's guard to the gate.
Better Dempsey, half blind, than Heeney or Risko. Dempsey is a fighting man.

 

No question Risko had improved significantly.

He was erratic all the way up to the loss to Jimmy Slattery on 3/28/1927.

Risko then turned it around. Over the next year, through the victory over Sharkey, he fought 17 times and went 15-1-1, losing only to Heeney after but 13 days rest between fights, while defeating Delaney, Uzcudun, Scott, and Sharkey.

In the 17 fights prior to fighting Tunney in 1925, Risko went 11-6. He lost to Quinton Romero, Sully Montgomery, Jack Renault, Young Stribling, Chuck Wiggins, and Jack Sharkey. His best win was over I guess Wiggins in a re-match. He was a solid opponent apparently capable of giving anyone a good fight, but lost consistently to the better men.

No so in 1927-1928.

 

You can make a case for Risko being better at that point, but there wasn't daylight between them, there wasn't much interest in Risko fighting Tunney, and Risko had already lost to Heeney and Tunney.

This is just absurd criticism. It would only come from someone setting out to criticise Tunney, and looking for any justification.

There were hopes of setting up Uzcudun, Delaney and Sharkey as challengers, but the results meant the top guys were Heeney and Risko, neither of who were seen interesting challengers and one of which he'd already beaten. There's nothing to criticise if Tunney fought either. It's perfectly normal for champions to fight top contenders that aren't the number 1 ranked anyway.

I wonder if you go through every other title challenger with such a fine tooth comb, and if you decide he wasn't the absolute best possible challenger, think that's a crticism.

 

I don't see what the point here is, as this author doesn't want Heeney or Risko. It doesn't really address which won was more worthy off his total record. Only shows what others in the press have said. It was a poor crop of contenders, at least at the box office.

 

But why should Tunney have selected his opponent? He wasn't the one who was going to lose money at the box office. That was Rickard's problem.

Tunney earned the criticism by intervening. If Rickard wanted an elimination, wait for the elimination and fight the winner.

I notice there is no answer to why Risko rather than Heeney is matched with Sharkey.

I strongly disagree that Heeney proved himself the outstanding contender.

 

Even if that's the case, it doesn't change the fact that a quote from the fighter themselves saying they are better now isn't good evidence of it. Fighters come out with that stuff when they are completely shot.

Considering how erratic a lot of the top guys were at that point, and the poor state of the division, I don't think we can discount the possibilty that he just had a bit of a lucky streak, he was getting the wins, but hardly setting the world alight. The only one of the guys he beat who ever did much as a heavyweight was Jack Sharkey, which was nearly all due to Sharkey's awful effort in that fight.

 

Why shouldn't he have selected his opponent?

Would you be outraged to find out Tyson Fury had some input on who his next opponent would be?

I told you why I think Risko was matched with Sharkey, Sharkey was supposed to win that fight, but he blew it.

So should Tunney have had to stay inactive until the full elimation was done? Or should he have fought a worse opponent then fought the winner of the elimination tournament?