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

It is obvious to us today that Sharkey was a much better fighter than Heeney, and that Risko probably was too.

It would not have been obvious at the time.

 

interesting discussion fellows. and an interesting topic.

Looking at it now, it appears to me that Johnny Risko, who was very erratic, distorted the division. He lost to Heeney, but beat Uzcudun, Sharkey, and Godfrey.

Heeney overall looks like a journeyman who put his five best career efforts together in late 1927 and early 1928 to earn the shot. He still didn't beat Uzcudun or Sharkey. What really seems to have put him over is the win over Risko.

I think Klompton2 has the right facts of the matter.

Suzi, though, is on target from our perspective. Sharkey and Godfrey, for all their weaknesses, would have been so much more interesting challengers. Sharkey had some high level boxing skills. Godfrey had size and a dangerous punch. Heeney was an uninteresting mauler with a style made to order for Tunney.

 

Uninteresting to who? His five fights immediately preceding his challenge of Tunney were all big draws with large gates for the era. Almost all of them were filmed which didnt happen for every fight, just the marquee events. He was clearly interesting to the fans at the time. Again, I think his detractors are judging him in hindsight. Its easy to say he was made to order for Tunney when we already know the result but who in 1928 would have picked an inconsistent headcase like Sharkey to outbox someone as consistent as Tunney? Its just as likely that the public felt it would be silly for someone to try to outbox a master like Tunney. And again, from a promoters standpoint i.e. the standpoint of the guy who is actually making the fight, you want to match fighters that will make a good fight. Two counterpunchers is not going to enthuse the fans. Rickard said as much when discussing the prospect of the fight. He stated that his thinking was that Dempsey almost beat Tunney on weary old legs, if Heeney could keep up the pressure on young legs that dont get tired it would make for an interesting fight. It was only when ticket sales lagged as the fight drew near that Rickard began second guessing his choice but he also second guessed holding the fight in July over the more favorable conditions in September, and he blamed Tunney's relative lack of popularity. This is all academic though because the original post basically lay the blame at Tunney's feet as if he ducked Sharkey or Godfrey in favor of Heeney and thats not at all what happened. The decision was entirely Rickards. We never got to see if Tunney would duck Sharkey or Godfrey because he wasnt offered the fight with them.

 

Was Sharkey merely a counterpuncher, though. He carried the fight to Dempsey in the early rounds, and in 1930 to Schmeling. He could be aggressive.

Against Tunney he would have to fight coming forward and pressuring. He had the skills to fight that way.

Calling Heeney "uninteresting" was not a good choice of words on my part, because being interesting is in the eye of the beholder. One-dimensional would be more accurate. All he could do was plod forward with a mauling style and modest punching power. Hard to see many thinking that would work against a talented boxer like Tunney.

 

Agreed and given the outcome of the elimination tournament there is a strong argument for Heeney being no worse than tied for #1 contender.

 

"no worse than tied for #1 contender"

Yes, but he did it without scoring a win over Sharkey, Uzcudun, or Godfrey. It was Risko who beat those men, and so the win over Risko in 1927 was the key in putting Heeney into the ring with Tunney.

The view from 1928 does not have our hindsight, but all three were better contenders in retrospect.

How they saw it at the time and how it looks in retrospect are two different issues.

How it looks in retrospect is mainly of importance in how we view Tunney's achievements at heavyweight. Beating Heeney doesn't help his historical positioning much.

 

What evidence is there of him throwing fights other than him repeatedly fouling out (which there are a number of fighters with similarly high numbers of DQs that aren't assumed to be fixed)?

 

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Widely understood by who? Ive never seen any evidence that Godfrey was always wearing the cuffs like his apologists allege. Regardless of why he lost to Risko, whether he threw the fight or lost legitimately the fact remains that he lost. You dont get title shots based on claiming you lost a fight on purpose instead of actually winning it. Isnt that self evident?

You are misquoting Tunney and taking this quote out of context on top of that. Tunney stated that ONE of the reasons he was retiring was because he didnt see anyone dangerous enough on the horizon to peak the publics interest. The emphasis was on the publics interest in the wake of the financial bath Rickard took on the Heeney fight. Tunney was right about that by the way. No fight after Dempsey-Tunney 2 made a million dollar gate until Louis-Baer nearly a decade later and that fight just barely broke the million dollar marker. Tunney tieing the publics interest to how dangerous an opponent was (and he did tie those two statements together) came at the end of his speech more as an afterthought than as the main reason he retired.

Again, this is hindsight.

Again, you are mischaracterizing Tunney's comments. Or at least focusing on what was a very small part of his speech. He gave several reasons why he was retiring in his retirement speech and the least of those was his lack of a compelling opponent. His reasoning had less to do with how dangerous anyone was and more to do with their inability to draw. He tied their inability to draw to the "danger" they presented, thats true, but again this not the primary reason he gave by a damn stretch.

Who says it didnt? But you can also look at it as Sharkey was winning the fight and then quit trying to get a DQ. He wasnt unconscious when he lost to Dempsey and it clearly wasnt the hook that hurt him. He was crawling around gripping his jewels. Not exactly a noble way to go out on your shield. Furthermore, why should it just have been ignored that he turned in a tepid performance against Heeney and that at least half of the people, both reporters and fans, present thought Heeney deserved to win? Why should his loss to Risko be ignored? I just dont get your criticism of selecting Heeney over Sharkey or Godfrey when there was no real justification to select those guys over Heeney and why you lay that blame on Tunney?