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

The more you post the more reinforce the validity of Tunney's opinion that the crop of heavyweights he had to contend with were nothing special.

 

Right, so why is his opinion less valuable than the manager of Godfrey or Risko, or you for that matter? The job of any manager is get his fighter the best fights right? Hopefully get a title shot and hopefully get a title right? Harvey did that. Ive asked more than once who had a better claim than Heeney to a fight with Tunney and frankly nobody has really argued that point. In fact, its been agreed that he could have been seen as at least equal to anyone else if not better in terms of his bona fides for a title shot. So, again, short of you just not being as interested in Heeney as you are these other guys I dont really get what the point is. The more you post the more you provde Tunney's point in his retirement speech which you had such an issue with.

George Kirksey of the United Press made no mention of it being a controversial decision. He stated Risko battered Godfrey at will over the last 3 rounds as Godfrey tired and covered up.
Davis J. Walsh had Risko winning clearly. He called it a terrible fight "Godfrey was mainly responsible."
Fairplay had Risko winning clearly and said Godfrey was continually warned for holding.
James Wood took no issue with the decision and stated that Godfrey is only a good fighter for five rounds before he his weight begins to work against him.
Godfrey's hometown paper had him winning the fight by one round. That round was the tenth which no other paper Ive seen gave him.
Andy Laptula scored the fight for Risko by one point.
Edward J. Neil scored the bout for Godfrey but noted that several ringside scorecards had Risko winning by a margin of 5 rounds to 4 with one even.
Frank Wallace had Risko winning 5 rounds to 4 and stated that once Godfrey saw he couldnt break Risko's courage he folded up.

William Granger gave the bout to Godfrey clearly but called it a disappointing bout.
Joe Williams had Godfrey ahead by two points but admitted that the decision might have been correct. He was very critical of Godfrey's performance.

So, was this one of those fights Godfrey threw?

 

What is so BS about two guys eliminating each other. Heeney was good as it was going to get for an attraction. How can you scoff at the idea of these guys eliminating each other. Even the press argued that it was pointless for Rickard to keep eliminating fighters. Its clear none of these guys was proving himself to be head and shoulders above anyone else. Just continuing to fight each other is stupid. **** or get off the pot. Tunney stated he wanted to fight. He was ready to fight. He wanted a payday and he wanted to stay in shape. How can anyone criticize that?? Its asinine to continually monday morning quarterback how this title defense was made in light of the mediocrity available at the time. So lets say your fantasy comes true and there is an elimination bout in June between Heeney and Risko. Originally you were crying because Godfrey and Sharkey werent in the running. What changes there? Nothing. What if Heeney wins. Satisfied? Or does he now have to go and fight Sharkey again and then Godfrey in order to appease you? That pushes Gene Tunney past the date he has to defend. So thats not happening. So two of your golden boys are out of luck. What if Heeney and Risko draw? Then what? Do they have to fight a rematch? Do they have to fight Sharkey and Godfrey and then the winners face each other to decide who fights Tunney? What if Risko wins but breaks a hand? You arent thinking about this from the position of either Tunney or Rickard, i.e. realistically. You are thinking about this from the viewpoint of a fan who thinks everything is black and white and with a snap of a finger your flavor of the moment should get the fight you think is interesting to you. The sport doesnt work that way. Rickard and Tunney had a timeline that had to be adhered to and neither was entirely self imposed. The clock was ticking and again, Heeney was AT LEAST as qualified as anyone else. You just dont think Heeney was as interesting or, in hindsight, as good as some of the other HWs at the time. History doesnt care what you think.

 

Sounds like some people view it as a robbery, though 6-4 fights are usually close enough. Looking through all the sources available, it seems that the fight was competitive and some people disagreed with refs decision, but some were fine with it.

It could be a proof that refs gave it to Risko, but not that Godfrey fixed this fight. These two are entirely different things.

 

Results at the time not withstanding,I'm convinced that stylistically Sharkey posed a more serious threat than the pedestrian Heeney for Tunney.

 

"It's also possible that the spartan and uber consistent Tunney simply outclassed him."

Possibly. But we know he badly outclassed Heeney. And given that Heeney was a plodding mauler with a limited punch, why should anyone be surprised. Sharkey simply had a lot more to bring to the table.

As for the Sharkey-Heeney fight, it was by no means a consensus that Heeney should have gotten the decision. Here is the New York Times take:

"The judges and the referee at Madison Square Garden last night declared for a draw decision in the twelve-round bout between Jack Sharkey, the Boston Heavyweight and Tom Heeney, sturdy New Zealand fighter, and deprived Sharkey of a merited win."

 

But in that knockdown Tunney does not even look at the referee, if the clock they superimpose over the film is accurate, until the count would have been eight. He might have beaten a regular count, but it is not a sure thing. Shows that Dempsey still had a punch which could put a man in deep trouble in the blink of an eye.

 

My take would be that Sharkey and Tunney were the best opponents Dempsey faced. He knocked out Sharkey and he put Tunney down for a long count which ended up The Long Count. Could Tunney have beaten the count? Possibly, but it is certainly debatable, and watching the film and Tunney's reaction it is hard to see him getting up before a regular count of nine. So it was a hard knockdown and close to a KO. Heeney in contrast was just a punching bag who never seriously threatened Tunney.

 

"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."

Okay, strong evidence that it is Tunney who is in the driver's seat with Rickard.

"Rickard had already bound Gene over to a fight for $200,000 so he had to pick somebody in short order."

I am not certain what to make of this. Are you saying Rickard would have forfeited $200,000 if he didn't sign an opponent for Tunney? If so, it explains why he was willing to promote the fight, because he actually lost less money in the promotion than that.

"Richard was clear he was the one who chose Heeney"

What was he to say? "I didn't really want Heeney but Gene wouldn't fight anyone else." Come on. He had to put the best face on it while struggling to sell Heeney to the public.

"He, unlike Dempsey, intended to honor the edicts of the NYSAC and the NBA to defend his title at least once a year or be stripped."

So, your position is that a delay from July to September would have caused either or both of these organizations to strip Tunney. I don't think that is a plausible worry. And is Lydia Minon correct that Muldoon was in favor of a Heeney-Risko elimination?

"It would have looked absolutely ridiculous to have Risko and Heeney fight again."

Why? Uzcudun fought a rematch with Heeney. Sharkey with Risko. There were arguments to be made for both Heeney and Risko. After losing the decision to Heeney, Risko beat Uzcudun, Phil Scott, and Sharkey in his next three fights. Heeney had fought five fights with these three men had not posted a win. He went 0-3-2. So it boiled down to Heeney had a win over Risko, but Risko had done better against the other contenders. An elimination would have cleared the air and seemed to be what the press, Rickard, and even the NYSAC wanted.

"Godfrey"

Should not be lumped at all with the less qualified than Heeney group. Given the racism of the time, Rickard was not going to give him a shot, and Tunney certainly wouldn't have agreed to such a defense. I am more cautious about Godfrey than Suzie, but his record since late 1924 in 39 fights was 36-2 with one NC and 26 KO's. He had one loss in 1926 by a DQ and a decision loss to Sharkey in Sharkey's home town. His record was a bit padded, but he had done well with most of the better men who got in the ring with him. Maloney got blown out in one. He beat Uzcudun, something Heeney couldn't do in two tries. He stopped Gains. He was at his peak. Even given the down side of his poor training habits, he looks to me to be the most dangerous challenger out there, Sharkey not excluded.

"The focus is now on Risko and not Sharkey"

Because it was Risko, and not Heeney, who eliminated Sharkey, and for that matter, Uzcudun. As I said earlier, Heeney to a large extent came in the back door as Risko eliminated the better contenders.

"There was no cream to rise to the top"

Fair point. But the closest to cream among the white contenders appears to me to have been Risko. Sharkey blew his chance by losing to Risko.