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

"Godfrey was a mauler with leaky defense and poor conditioning."

I think a fair evaluation off what we see on film. It is worth noting that Godfrey was 33 and might have been well on the way down.

Carnera looks not only the better boxer, but the quicker man, both more agile on his feet, and faster with his hands.

Off record, I can't see any reason to rate Godfrey ahead of Larry Gains or Obie Walker.

As for the Carnera fight, after a fast start, Godfrey was fading and Carnera coming on. It is likely stamina and conditioning would have won it for Carnera off what we see through four rounds.

The problem with Godfrey isn't that it is unlikely he might have worn the cuffs, but that there is no victory which looks impressive enough to prove that he was all that good. He just looks a decent contender because of strength, but with limited boxing skills. No more. I am not a big Max Baer fan, but I think Baer would have KO'd this version of Godfrey.

 

This is ridiculous. Who signs a sparring partner to a ten year contract a decade into a career when you are fighting once every couple of years??? Lol. As for Godfrey heing fired because he was hurting Dempsey, thats bull****. I have photos of Godfrey being dropped in those sparring sessions in Montana. This was the point in Godfreys career when he had been knocked out by every fighter of note he had fought, both black and white. Id urge caution for anyone using Kevin Smiths books as a source. This is the same guy who made up a sparring session between Greb and Panama Joe Gans in order to puff up Gans and then cited a source for the story that was easily verified as being a thousand miles away covering leadup to the world series at the time. You seem to take the word of any source, regardless of how biased they may be, as long as it supports your preconceived notion, while rejecting all others. Thats confirmation bias.

 

Godfrey didn't go down on punches that didn't land. It's much different situation, with contemporary reports smelling the fix. We don't have any objective sources calling Godfrey vs Carnera a fix.

 

Which win or fight actually shows that he was a championship level fighter?

He doesn't look that good against Carnera on film, and this is the 1930 Carnera who lost to Jim Maloney and a year later was out of his depth against Sharkey.

A problem with Godfrey is that his wearing the cuffs seems so inconsistent. He loses to Renault because he was wearing cuffs, but wins a rematch. He wears the cuffs against Sharkey but takes out Maloney in one round. The durable guys he fights, Uzcudun, Risko, and Walker, stand up to him. Cuffs? Perhaps and perhaps he wasn't up to stopping men like Uzcudun and Risko that Baer wasn't up to stopping.

 

So much bluster and so little substance.

 

Go learn some of the most rudimentary skills in critical thinking and research then get back to me.

That someone could be doing this so long, and be this bad at it is a bit mind boggling

 

Now I now it's not worth to discuss with you.

If someone has a different opinion, then he's just uneducated. That's a great approach for discussion.

It's also funny that @BitPlayerVesti showed you numerous contemporary reports, yet you call him "boxrec watcher". Are you aware that book authors don't have the access to some hidden knowledge? They work with the same thing that is available for us, they put up far more work on research than most posters here, but still. BitPlayerVesti put up more effort in researching and reading the best sources available than almost anyone. Your argument to authority doesn't work here. You also should understand how to work with written sources, because it seems you don't have much experience doing that