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

Thats hilarious. I dont know what to say to someone who has no doubt EVERYONE considered Risko, who lost to Heeney, a more dangerous opponent for Tunney than Heeney. Clearly that wasnt even remotely true. - Klompton2


Because that's Risko and his manager, they want a fight with the champion and so have every reason to insist he improve since he lost to Tunney, I've explained this numerous times.

If fight reports were talking about a great improvement in his fighting that would something to consider - Bitplayervesti


No Suzy-Q I haven't run away. I'm listening to others who seem to know there stuff. Heeney was a fine choice for Tunney, far better than Risko. My point that Tunney offered Wills a fight stands. Wills could have accepted it and put pressue on Tunney, yet he did not. Why is another question, I don't know why, nor do I pretend to read the minds of the dead. Others say the offer wasn't serious and was more of a gimmick. He could have last challenged Tunney on it. Did he? I'll read the link if you have proof, as this how I learn.

 

I said. "Others say the offer wasn't serious and was more of a gimmick" Wills ducked out of ofter offers before. Example he had several offers to fightGodfrey. My point was he could have at least accepted the offer in the press to put pressure on Tunney yet he did not.

As it worked out he fought Jack Sharkey next a fighter with multiple losses ( easier than Tunney an Dempsey fouled him ) and next was KO'd by Uzcudun. Tunney would have done the same.

" Wills was dropped to the canvas for a count of nine, and arose only to run into a volley of lefts and rights that put him under the lower rope, where he lay supported on his elbows while Referee Lou Magnolia counted him out. Uzcudun had cast aside his contract with Tex Rickard to fight Wills, after having been dropped from Rickard's heavyweight elimination tournament when Jack Dempsey refused to engage in more than one preliminary bout leading to a fight with Gene Tunney. Rickard's original plan was to match Uzcudun with Dempsey and have the winner meet the survivor of the Jack Sharkey-Jimmy Maloney bout. (AP) "

 

To correct a misstatement earlier in this thread, Dempsey was leading Sharkey on two of the three scorecards after six rounds.

Also the referee, O’Sullivan, stated that the three right uppercuts to Sharkey body directly preceding the ko blow were “at the belt line but not below”.

 

Idc if Sharkey was 1-2-1 in his last 4, he still would've been a much more interesting fight than Heeney.

Tunney missed out on a pretty big opportunity by not competing in the late 20s-early 30s. I think he would've likely beaten Sharkey and Schmeling, as well as other potential contenders like Loughran and Stribling. Could've been a heavyweight ATG

 

It is one of those cases of hindsight being a wonderful thing.

In hindsight we know that Sharkey was the second best fighter in the world, that Risko was probably the best of the era never to win the title, and that Heeney was just a flash in the pan.

At the time there was next to nothing to pick between the three as challengers.

 

We can watch this entire fight. Sharkey was kicking Dempsey's ass and was clearly fouled numerous times, not only just preceding the left to the jaw but also throughout the fight. Even the judges, who had to be blind having the fight as close as they did, both refuted the referee saying they saw the foul blows. As for whether O'Sullivan actually saw the blows or was just as biased in Dempsey's favor as the judges is up to debate considering he was on the opposite side of the fighters when Dempsey began delivering the first of several low blows that led Sharkey to complain. I myself doubt that he couldnt have seen them though because they were obvious and egregious. Calling the left hook "the KO blow" is ridiculous. Sharkey was grabbing his nuts and crawling around the ring, he wasnt unconscious or grabbing his jaw. It was clearly the low blows that did him in, not the left to the jaw.

 

Given that he started with saying there was no opponent who could attract real public interest, I think he meant ‘dangerous’ in the context of an opponent who the public would be as a real threat, a danger to take his title.

I think that seems pretty correct. Sharkey wasn’t seen as a monster (as noted, zero wins in his previous three fights) by the public: no contender considered to be a major draw or one that the public would clamor to see Tunney fight.

You seem hung up on the word danger as if Tunney said ‘I want to fight the most dangerous heavyweight, whoever that is’ and then went and found an opponent who wasn’t so dangerous. He fought a guy who was dangerous enough to fight Sharkey to a draw, so obviously Sharkey isn’t some way superior fighter.

 

Once again you make numerous overstatements.

Punches to the groin bring a fighter to the canvas immediately. Sharkey did not fall immediately. This was pointed out by several at that time.

The fight doctor examined Sharkey after the fight and found no evidence that Sharkey was hit low.

The ref was a few feet away from both fighters and he stated that he saw three right uppercuts to Sharkeys body “at the belt line but not below”. If you watch a clear video of the fight you can see the first two body blows and the blows are indeed fair.

You leave out that many saw fair blows not just the referee.

Rickard played the fight film at Yankee stadium for the writers who attended. Headlines- “Film of fight shows body blows were legal”

Sharkey is not grabbing at his balls, he was obviously not hit in his balls, if you watch the alternative view of the 10 count via Pathe he is just struggling to get up and his body is not responding.

Numerous writers in attendance wrote of Sharkeys “yellow” streak. He could not take Dempseys body blows and instead of fighting on trying to find a way to win he tried to claim foul. Dempseys body attack especially during the final two rounds was ferocious.

You are posting as if it was cut and dry that Dempsey hit low and nothing could be further from the truth. Many saw that the blows were fair. The referee stated later:

“Both fighters were guilty of hitting low but nothing that was flagrant nor intentional”

 

Dempsey did a Mayweather-Ortiz way before Mayweather-Ortiz on Sharkey.

By elimination tournament...what do you mean, exactly?

 

Who are you trying to fool here??? Again, we can watch this entire fight. Its plainly obvious how dirty Dempsey was fighting and the fouls he was committing. You can see in the final sequence his punches arching up and under Sharkey’s cup. The idea that Sharkey wasnt grabbing his balls when he was crawling around is simply willful ignorance. In this fantasy you paint Dempsey was punching to the body legally, Sharkey was…. What? Complaining to the ref about legal punches? And then goes down paralyzed with his hands coincidentally falling underneath his nuts as he attempts to regain his feet? Jesus. Good luck selling that load of hogwash. Anyone with two eyes and two brain cells to rub together can see thats the delusion of a biased observer.

 

Tunney had accomplished his main goals -- financial security, the man who beat Dempsey, professional recognition of his qualities -- he was wanting the marry, which can be a bit of a challenge, and also the lady in question was a well settled heiress; and the Heeney-Tunney fight was a cash disappointment. He could retire as champ, fight till he got beat (and Tunney was hardly a young champion), or try to build legacy by fighting the top contenders for sub-optimal purses (which he no longer particularly needed), at physical risk (both general, and specifically to his vision, which had begun to be compromised in his 1927 training for Dempsey II), and perhaps with less than his previous level of motivation and concentration. Tunney decided to forgo scalp-collecting to cash in the chips and settle down, and I can't blame him.

 

Some people on here have strange ideas about how fighters are supposed to not have normal concerns or try to get out with their physical health and mental acuity and instead should ‘fight for honor and legacy.’

It’s a profession. It’s called prizefighting because there’s a prize … money. That’s the reason people become professional boxers … to make a living.

Get in, get yours, get out. Legacy don’t pay bills, and if someone reaches financial security and retires, good for them.