Even if you love Dempsey, it is time for a generation to accept -

You have NOT been judging their wins "objectively." As you yourself have acknowledged several times, you've been judging them incorporating your own pre-conceived notions of who is a great HW, who is not great, who is in your own top 40, who is better than who, etc., etc.

For example, do you give Dempsey more credit for beating Fulton than to Wills for beating Langford, given that Fulton completely crushed and outclassed Langford when they fought around that same time? Or do you give Wills more credit based purely on Langford being "arguably the greatest HW of all time" in your opinion? Unless I've misunderstood you (in which case I apologize), you seem to be giving Wills more credit for beating Langford than to Dempsey for anyone he beat, correct?

 

LOL, and yours is??

Look at how many times you've used your own opinions and pre-conceived notions as the basis for your judgements...

This isn't being "objective" at all, this is the total OPPOSITE of being objective.

 

That's a very bizarre and puzzling story. :huh I've never in my life heard of a guy being criticized for going after two higher rated contenders (Gibbons and Wills) in place of a lower rated one. Why does Kevin Smith (who didn't write Unforgivable Blackness BTW) single out Godfrey among all the other top 10 contenders as the guy Tunney "should've" fought? What sources did he derive this perspective from?

 

And yet Heeney was ranked higher than either of them at the time, and had held the Sharkey who had whupped Godfrey to a standstill, after which Heeney had another important win over Jack Delaney while Sharkey blew a fight to Risko.

You can't just say a guy deserves a shot more just because he's supposed to be "better." The guy who MAKES himself better is the one who deserves it. In 1928, when Tunney fought Heeney, neither Sharkey or Godfrey had made themselves any more deserving of a fight than Heeney, regardless of what happened in anyone's career before or after that.

The fact is, Wills, Gibbons, Dempsey, and Heeney were all rated higher than Godfrey at the time Tunney pursued fights with them. You can't criticize him for going after those guys because someone ranked beneath them at the time looke like he "might've" been better in retrospect.

 

Dempsey's fight with Firpo was such an incredible performance, along with his other great fights, that he gets the nod for high-action quality over the perhaps better resume of Wills, IMO. Firpo hit Dempsey hard enough to floor an ox.

 

Jimmyshimmy,

I don't know if you saw but Langford weighed only 187lb when wills beat langford the first time.


2ndly, you keep bringing the sharkey win up like its some memorable victory. It was a controversial win IMO, marred by cheap shots to the balls. Dempsey won, but sharkey gave him a boxing lesson for 6 rounds and was ahead on points, without the ball shots dempsey doesnt win.

 

Wills beat Langford in 1914. Fulton never beat the 1914 version of langford. He beat sam over 3 years later. langford of 1914 was a different animal.

 

Gave him a boxing lesson? The cards were close, Sharkey was barely up, the KO was clearly scored by a legit punch and both fighters were fouling up to the KO throughout a lot of the fight.

 

Sharkey was clearly outboxing dempsey. hurt him badly and came close to knocking him out in the first round, he was defintley up pretty big on my card after 6, dempsey maybe won one round.

right after two left hooks to the balls. sharkey was on his way to a points win

 

Tunney should have fought sharkey. no argueing that. sharkey was a great fighter, just as good as tunney. Also, the sharkey fight godfrey may have been on the cuffs. but tom heeney? no way over sharkey, godfrey and schmeling.

George Godfrey was the # 2 rated contender by Ring Magazine in 1928, Heeney was all the way back to # 9.


Here it is

1928 Ring Magazine


1. Young Stribling

This content is protected

3. Paolino Uzcudun
4. Jack Sharkey
5. Knute Hansen
6. Jim Maloney
7. Johnny Risko
8. Phil Scott

This content is protected

10. Otto von Porat


here is 1929 Ring Magazine heavyweight rankings


1. Jack Sharkey
2. Max Schmeling

This content is protected

4. Tuffy Griffith
5. Phil Scott
6. Otto von Porat
7. Young Stribling
8. Johnny Risko
9. Primo Carnera
10. Vittorio Campolo

Wow look at that. After facing a pathetic tom heeney, tunney retired with 3 prime hall of fame heavyweights 1, 2, and 3 in the rankings. WOW JUST WOW. he couldnt give one of them a shot?






I posted this a while back Mysense,


Larry Gains once said "Godfrey was the best of them all. I've sparred with Dempsey and fought just about every good heavyweight out there and I will tell you, George Godfrey was the best. I was afraid of only two men in my life, My Father and George Godfrey."





TUNNEY SPURNS GODFREY MATCH



"plans for a battle between geney tunney, former american lightheavyweight champion, and george godfrey, negro heavyweight, as the feature attraction on the annuel christmas boxing carnival in madison square garden on dec 18, today were abandoned. it was announced by the officials of the fund. billy gibson manager of gene tunney declinded the prooffered match. according the the fund officials, gibson asserted harry wills is the only negro heavyweight tunney will box." - los angeles times nov. 4 1925





EASTERN SNAPSHOTS by W. Rollo Wilson



Nov.12, 1925-The Baron of Leiperville is home again with wonderous tales of the mighty deeds of the "Shadow" along the gilded slope. The "Shadow" is just another way of denoting Gorger George Godfrey, Jimmy's (Dougherty) outsize white elephant. For white elephant George seems now to be. Nobody wants to fight him for love or money. Mr. Wills unostentatiously draws the color line. Mr. Tunney is more blatant in his announcement to the same effect. "I'll fight Harry Wills," broadcasts James Joseph, "but I draw the color line on George Godfrey."



Two things may be on the mind of the Apollo of Greenwich Village, Perhaps he thinks that one "shot" with Wills would give him enough of the filthy lucre for his future earthly needs. Win or lose he would be "in." Fighting Ole Black Lightning [Godfrey] would be a case of all to lose and nothing to gain, he probably thinks. At this time Billy Gibson and Tunney are saying that the Big Three of Boxing are Dempsey, Wills, and the modest Gene. Godfrey would fain make it a foursome, but you can be jolly well sure that the triumvira will continue to say him nay.



One of the first acts of [Dougherty] on his arrival was to release another challenge in the general direction of the above-mentioned Big Three. His latest offer is this:

All any promoter has to do is get Harry, Gene or Jack to sign the papers and pay them whatever they want. Godfrey will come in without asking for a dollar. The aftermath will provide the Dougherty clan with all they will want, because they feel that George can take any of the three.



As is well known Dougherty and Dempsey are the best of friends. Last summer a year ago (1924) Dempsey visited the baronial halls (Leiperville). While here the subject of a bout with George was broached. Jack declared that if he fought at all he would fight Wills, but not Godfrey. Jimmy pressed him for the reason and he said : "Godfrey is a big strong fellow and is young, Wills is getting older and I think he will be the easier man of the two. That is the reason I prefer to fight him, if I fight." - ROLLO WILSON was often referred to as "the dean of the Black Press.













"Tunney wanted nothing to do with Godfrey--plain and simple--too tough a fight. Godfrey is vastly under-rated. His record and career are somewhat mired in mystery. So many DQ's, knockouts and damn mystifying losses. I have no doubt, for instance, that he had the cuffs on against Sharkey. The high number of DQ's has more to do with him fighting to order than it does with him being sloppy. Tunney could outbox most heavies and I don't doubt that he could outbox George Godfrey for 5 or six or even ten rounds. However, George was fast for his size, was adept at chasing men down and could hit like a team of mules. If this were a fifteen round fight, I see Godfrey having a hell of chance catching up to Gene. Remember that Tunney's heavyweight resume is not that long or overly impressive. His two best wins were against Dempsey--over 10 rounds--and it is probable that Jack was past it then. Godfrey handled Larry Gaines fairly easily and Gaines was a boxer in both the mold and style of Tunney. Gaines stated that he feared only two men in his life, his father and George Godfrey. George was a beast--big, athletic, huge puncher and surprisingly good speed and movement for a man his size. I think in his prime, 1925-1931, he was about as good as it got. Nobody really wanted to fight George, and for good reason. Tunney avoided him like the plague. In his prime, with no handcuffs, and this is strictly my opinion, I think he could have beaten, Tunney, Sharkey, Carnera and maybe even Dempsey(certainly a post 1926 Dempsey)."- Boxing historian Kevin Smith Author of Unforgiveable Blackness


"Not only did Tunney duck Godfrey but so did Dempsey and Wills. From late 1923 Baron (James) Dougherty issued challenges almost daily for Wills to take on Godfrey, who was Philadelphia's greatest drawing card. Promoters Herman Taylor and Bobby Gunnis figured such a match in Phila would do between $250 K to $500 K. and the winner would be the "logical challenger" for Dempsey. Dougherty offered all kinds of perks to Wills including that Godfrey would take the match for $ 1." - Chuck Hasson

 

These ranking aren't from during 1928 though, when Tunney actually fought Heeney. This is how the rankings looked at the END of the year - in other words, a full six months after Tunney had whupped Heeney and retired.

What's the source of this list? I'll bet anything it's from the January/February '29 issue of The Ring, correct?

Going into 1928, their positions were exactly reversed (see http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1927 ):

Champion: Tunney
2. Dempsey
3. Sharkey
4. Heeney
5. Risko
6. Uzcudun
7. Delaney
8. Compolo
9. Godfrey
10. Hansen

After these rankings were compiled, Heeney drew with the #3 man, beat the #7 man, and the #2 man retired for good. Meanwhile, the #3 guy and the #9 guy both lost to the #5 guy. That meant NEITHER of them deserved a title shot more than Heeney.

No he didn't, he had ALREADY retired six months earlier.

Why should he have? -none of them had actually earned it at that time. It doesn't matter who "looks" to be the most talented, who individual sportswriters happen to sing the most praise for, or what conspiracy theories and secret agendas others speculate about. In the end, what a fighter actually does in the ring, with his fists, supersedes everything. Heeney went out and MADE himself the most deserving challenger as of July 26, 1928, so on that date he rightfully got the shot.

Probably irrelevant, but are you sure you're thinking of the right guy here?

 

Sharkey had failed to win in three fights in a row (once vs. Heeney) - that's what you can't argue with.

What's the justification for a guy deserving a title shot when he's just failed to win 3 in a row?

He may have been a great fighter, but there's little or no basis for saying he was as good as Tunney, at least at that time. He had three consecutive chances to prove that, and he fell short each time.

 

Exactly how much different would you say he was, and why? Was it enough of a difference that you could argue the 1914 version of Langford would've completely reversed the situation with the 1917 Fulton?

Accounts I've read seem to suggest he was not at his absolute peak even by 1914, but his genuine decline didn't start in earnest until after he was pounded by Fulton in their first fight, and probably came about as a result of it. That fight essentially seems to have been a sharp turning point in his career. It also is reportedly the fight that left him with eye damage, which impaired his vision through the rest of his career afterward.

 

There is a problem with all this focus on Fulton versus Langford. Dempsey beat Fulton. He did not fight Langford. Wills beat both Langford and Fulton. I think the edge is obviously with Wills.

 

"boxing historian Kevin Smith who has authored books on Black Dynamite fighters of the past told me once prime for prime he believes Godfrey would win."

Yes, Kevin Smith is a distinguished boxing historian, but I don't think he has seen any more of Wills or Godfrey than the rest of us have. Is there any footage of a close to prime Wills?

As for the people who saw them live, most seem to have thought Wills was better (although most probably judged Langford better than either).

Here is Jack Kofoed, 1920's era boxing writer, writing in THE RING in Nov, 1933:

"Godfrey had speed and a punch and boxing skill, but an inferiority complex regarding white men. I would rate him behind Wills in all-around ability."

I would be interested in any quotes you can unearth from the 1920's comparing Wills and Godfrey. Most of the comments I have seen favor Wills.