How Many Of The Fabulous Five Does Godfrey Beat

This is how I see it. Tunney Wills could have happened but Wills did not want it.

Godfrey lost too many times ( they can not all be fixes ) and was only doing slightly better on flim vs Carnera, but as I explained to those who did not read his fight reports, Godfrey lacked stamina, Carnera did not. Had the fight gone into the later rounds things could have swong Carnera's way.

While histroy did screw Godfrey, I still view Godfrey as a bully type, and boxing worst all time low blow cheap shot fighter.

Regarding Godfrey vs Sam Mcvey, I like McVey. McVey had a top chin 20+ round stamina and a good punch. McVey was the tougher man, and unless Godfrey keeps his cool, and boxes his way, I think he'll lose via TKO or DQ.

 

I dont think cuffs were on because they would have prohibitted the foul ball shot

 

Only after jack sharkey already exposed Wills in 1925 did tunney challenge him. tunney wanted no part of a live younger version of wills 1923-1924

 

How many of them are 5'9? How many "heavyweights" are 5'9 at all?


Anyway, the point is that Heeney sucked.

 

Upon which factual evidence do you make such a claim? In 23-24 he was fighting at lightheavy, tussling with such "sub-par" talents as Greb and Carpentier.

I am really amused regarding the lost wax process argument for Godfrey. Every loss on his record means he "had the cuffs on" unless it can be proven otherwise, an impossible task to do with certainty. Meanwhile, a champion with an impeccable record, who looks absolutely modern in method and exceptional on film is berated. Great stuff, truly scholarly.

 

Godfrey fouled Larry Gains so badly he dented Gain's aluminum cup that he was using as a jock. Maybe that is why Gains was so afraid of Godfrey? Godfrey probably got disallusioned after not gettting a shot at Tunney though.

 

Sharkey fought and defeated Wills in October 1926, after Tunney had beaten Dempsey. Tunney did sign a contract to fight Wills in 1925 at the same time Wills was negotiating to fight Dempsey. It must have been obvious at the time that Wills would not break off negotiations for a Dempsey fight in order to fight Tunney. I might be too cynical, but I think this whole Tunney-Wills thing was a Rickard charade so he could match Tunney with Dempsey while claiming Wills had avoided Tunney.

 

You may be right old fogster. There was no need for a 36 year old Harry Wills to have to fight Gene Tunney, Wills had already been # 1 contender for 6 straight years! he had proven himself enough! Wills was getting old and tired by 1925 and more and more he was losing motivation and hope.

An impeccable record without a black fighter on the list. Sorry but its true. not fighting black fighters eliminated 50% of the competition.

I never said anything badly about his light-H career, im strictly talking heavyweight. Wasnt he tangling with heavyweights like Johnny Risko and Charlie Weinhert by 1924?

I never said any of this. All i said was Tunney completley avoided a match with Godfrey. Did everything in his power to never have to face him in the ring.

 

"Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

This content is protected

Only after jack sharkey already exposed Wills in 1925 did tunney challenge him. tunney wanted no part of a live younger version of wills 1923-1924"

Seamus says " Upon which factual evidence do you make such a claim? In 23-24 he was fighting at lightheavy, tussling with such "sub-par" talents as Greb and Carpentier.

I am really amused regarding the lost wax process argument for Godfrey. Every loss on his record means he "had the cuffs on" unless it can be proven otherwise, an impossible task to do with certainty. Meanwhile, a champion with an impeccable record, who looks absolutely modern in method and exceptional on film is berated. Great stuff, truly scholarly. very loss on his record means he "had the cuffs on" unless it can be proven otherwise, an impossible task to do with certainty. Meanwhile, a champion with an impeccable record, who looks absolutely modern in method and exceptional on film is berated. Great stuff, truly scholarly.

Mendoza says: >>I agree with Seamus.

 

wow you guys are tops!!!!!! You guys great as IBRO!!!!! Mendoza Iagree withyou sir I think in my research Godfrey didnt have the skill Tar baby,jeanette,Mcvey(like to learn more on personal life)of course Galveston giant!! You know a lot of those Black fighters bak then had to hold back!!!Openin can of worms what about Hank Griffin,JIM Johnson(less skill heard) other Black greats back then,wish I had more Nat Fleisher data got his book Sepia Greats he knew his stuff, so do you gentleman,God Bless keep up good work old soldiers like me really really appreciate your wisdom &fun!!!!:hi:

 

The problem with the "great fighter Godfrey" is that there are no bones. There are all sorts of people claiming they have seen a Bigfoot. There is no credible evidence, such as bones. We have bones of every other animal currently known to live in North America. The same is true of the "great fighter Godfrey." We certainly hear of a great many sightings but there are no bones either in the record book or in the brief film with Carnera which survives. He simply lost or looked ordinary most of the time when he stepped up. He lost 2 of 3 to Renault, lost to Sharkey, barely edged Uzcudun, lost to Risko, fouled out against Carnera, etc.

Personally, I thought Carnera was leading at the time of the foul and Godfrey seemed to be slowing badly in the 4th round. And this is a green Carnera. Godfrey missing overhand rights does not prove Godfrey was wearing the cuffs. Check the Louis-Carnera fight on another thread. Louis missed plenty of overhand rights early in the fight and I don't think he was wearing cuffs.