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

The quote didn't say he threw fights, it said he carried opponents for a few rounds before stopping them. David Haye carried Audley Harrison for a few rounds, does that mean he must have thrown fights?

You've been making the claims, it's on you to present the evidence for them. If it literally just consists of "some guys who weren't around at the time said it decades later" and piles or irrelevant crap, all that proves is that you don't know how to do research.

 

"do you need his opponent to admit it?"

How would the opponent know?

Which specific fights, other than I suppose you will say Carnera, was he handcuffed in?

Risko? Uzcudun? Maloney? Gains? Sharkey?

You mentioned in one of your posts that he was a sloppy trainer. He appears often to have started fast before fading. Not unusual for guys who are not bears for training.

The problem with Godfrey is that, unlike say, Elmer Ray, there are no wins to prove he was ever all that good. What fights would prove it? Blowing away Maloney? Old Fulton? Gains?

Godfrey was definitely a dangerous fighter with a big punch, but it appears he would fade if he didn't get a guy out early, as he did with Risko. And durable men like Risko and Uzcudun could ride out the early storm.

And do you have a quote from his manager from the manager's first hand knowledge rather than on what Godfrey told him?

 

So not actually a "direct quote", but a quote from someone decades later saying someone told him it. Not to mention the clear incentive of someone who managed a fighter to build the mythology around said fighter when interviewed later.

I guess I should be glad of having the privilege with speaking with someone who bought an IBRO membership, and posted on another forum, despite their clearly absymal understanding of research, considering they don't know the difference between a direct quote, and a second hand paraphrase

But ok, lets work with it, so why did so many of his DQs occur against black fighters?

 

History isn't about talking stories at face value and then making wild assumptions and trying to pass them off as fact.

Just because something sounds a bit plausible or fits with your general narrative doesn't make it true.

I'll ask again, why did he keep fouling our against black fighters? Why believe he was throwing those fights, and not that the black fighters he bear were the ones forced to throw fights? When you don't care about evidence anything goes.

 

The claims of the Risko fight being fixed are particularly implausible when you look at the next day reports. Godfrey landed some punishing blows in that fight, and it was hard fought.

 

You've not even provided halfway decent evidence of any of his fights being fixed. Just baseless confidence.

But let's just accept he did him taking part in some fixes doesn't come close to backing up claims of him being a genuine threat to Tunney, or even significantly better than his record indicates

There are also tons of white fighters who are expected of throwing fights to varying extents.

There's footage on YouTube of Willie zpep blatantly throwing a fight. Should we also assume all of his losses were fixes?

 

Years ago I did some research on the Risko fight. Here are some quotes:

James Dawson, New York Times (scored 6-4 for Godfrey, but admits most viewed Risko as the winner)

"The only thrill was the commendable work of Risko under every physical handicap. Godfrey is just a big, cumbersome heavyweight, whose tremendous strength constitutes his only ring qualification."

"Risko dominated the 8th and 9th. Godfrey looked foolish in those two rounds as Risko pounded him. The big man was helpless to defend himself or counter the fire. The crowd cheered the verdict."

Edward J. Neil, SF Examiner (called fight 5-3-2 for Godfrey but said the press row was split with many siding with Risko, who won the last three rounds as Godfrey tired)

"Risko, improving as the fight went along, poured his shots steadily into Godfrey. His artillery found its mark oftener and in the ninth and tenth sessions Godfrey was glad to defend himself and depend on his earlier margin to bring him home to victory."

Geoge Kirksay--UPI--(gave fight to Risko, but "Risko's margin of victory was slight")

"The tide of battle shifted after the fifth, Risko opening up a fierce body attack which Godfrey was unable to stave off. Risko carried four of the last five rounds. Godfrey weakened after the fifth round and attempted to clinch and hold at every opportunity."

The problem with claiming that Godfrey carried Risko is whom exactly did Godfrey ever KO who was as durable as Risko? Or Uzcudun? There is no proof, and actually weak evidence, he would knock these men out with his best effort.

Looking only at the top black fighters Godfrey fought--Larry Gains, Bearcat Wright, and Obie Walker--Godfrey managed one win in six fights.

 

I was a bit vague, but from how his efforts early in the fight are described, it doesn't sound at all like a fix. I believe he also landed a hard shot later in the fight that was also noted

 

So size is your threshhold for who should get title shots? I wont entertain the Wills question because he totally got screwed and was absolutely avoided by Tunney. But Sharkey, Maloney, and Godfrey never had a claim to being the best heavyweight while Tunney was champion or on the way up. Tunney was a full time heavyweight for only three of his thirteen years as a pro. During that time he had only a handfull of fights and of those fights he fought Dempsey who was 192 and 190, Risko who was 192, Heeney who was 203, as well as several others who hovered right around 190. Beyond leap frogging Wills, which shouldnt have happened, he fought who he should have and who he had to. Im not sure what your argument is exactly. How and why should he have gone out of his way to fight Sharkey, Maloney, and Godfrey if those fights werent on the table to begin with. Short of attacking them on the street there was no reason for those fights besides the fact that YOU think they would have been interesting. Maloney had been knocked out in a single round by Heeney. But you think he deserved a title shot over Heeney because he was bigger? I see no evidence that any of the guys you think Tunney should have fought were either more qualified than Heeney in 1928 or had sufficiently captured the publics imagination enough to elicit the kind of purses Tunney wanted in order to continue fighting.

 

Have you bothered to even watch this fight?

 

There is zero evidence to that, but you say "zero doubt"? You feel extremely strong about things nobody of us has any idea about...