Heavyweight Title pre-Tunney"just a showpiece"?

I get your point but it doesn't exactly match-up. Sullivan was retired by the time Jackson arrived on US shores and made a case for himself. The question was not if Sullivan would defend against Jackson but would he come out of retirement to face him. Then Corbett and Jackson dueled to a draw. Sullivan, flip flopping on the color line, came out of retirement a couple years later and faced Corbett in what was his last real bout. Corbett came into his reign pre-excused (at least in his mind) of having already faced and done well against Jackson. He wasn't exactly interested in being an active and adventurous champion, rather preferred milking the bauble for as much cash as possible. Likewise, Jeffries retired at a time when there really were no fighters seen as viable contenders to his throne. Johnson had just lost to Hart. And whatever we make of the decision, neither were seen as viable challengers by the press after this bout.

Still, I get your point and do not think the tradition ever entirely died out. The belt is a great bargaining chip in negotiations but it is an advantage one can lose overnight. So, best to conserve it.

 

the pre-Tunney champs may not have fought their greatest challengers, but still they faced many worthy ones, so calling the HW title during those years a showpiece might be stretching it a bit perhaps, if I get your point

 

Interesting. I will also note that it was not uncommon for boxers to sit on their ass for several years and do nothing with the title. I would propose that Louis had to defend against the best as a 'model to his race' or whatever condescending phrase they used, so as to not be compared to Johnson. He was also more active for that reason, and also because he wasn't capable of cashing in like previous champs on vaudeville due to a confluence of factors (race, talking pictures, his personality, etc.)

I'm sure several more knowledgeable posters will disagree but turn of the century boxing was not a professional sport as we think of it. It was closer to what UFC was years back when they couldn't find a place to fight save Vegas. So it wasn't always easy setting up big fights and in addition there were easier ways to make comparable money, something that changed when.vaudeville died up,.and big money hit boxing. Didn't make sense to risk something for such little gain.

 

Mcgrain,

You're kidding about Tunney right? Two prime hall of fame heavyweights were around in Godfrey and Sharkey. Both were rated top 5 in the division at the time. tunney failed to fight either of the two men, and instead chose roly poly gooftrooper Tom Heeney instead. Heeney unofficially "won" a heavyweight elimination tournament that was a complete hogwash tournament, since it banned any negros from fighting in it.

 

but Dempsey took care of Sharkey between his 2 fights with Tunney, no ?

with retirement around the corner, I can't blame Tunney for not taking on his best challenger

 

You consider "taking care of" to be getting nearly knocked out in round 1, getting outboxed nearly every round and losing 5 of the first 6 rounds in the process...and having to cheap shot hit sharkey with uppercuts to the balls in order to knock him out? Everyone who knows boxing knows Sharkey was better than Dempsey in 1927...a much more challenging threat to tunney at the time.

In my opinion Dempsey-Sharkey should be changed to a DQ win for Sharkey, similar to golota-bowe.

 

Do you mean "heavyweight boxing royalty"?

Because Tunney is certainly an ATG in general terms.

 

Fitz could have rematched Corbett but would not do so.
It's hard to feel any sympathy for J J Corbett as he ducked Jackson .

I think Tunney would have boxed Godfrey's ears off ,but he did not give him a chance.
Pity Dempsey did not take on Wills, I think he would have stopped him.
Braddock ducked Schmeling, and went for Jacob's pension plan instead.
Louis could have fought a couple of black contenders , but there is no glaring omission ,imo
Marciano took on just about everyone ,[Valdes was eliminated by Moore].

Patterson's reign was disgraceful, but he redeemed himself as an ex -champ

Paying step aside money became commonplace in the 70's and 80's.

Several modern champs skirted opponents ,I don't think Lennox was keen on defending against Byrd, small gate, and the risk of looking less than overwhelming,so no incentive . Bowe ,[ or Futch ,] did not fancy Lewis. Didn't Tyson pay step aside money to Lewis at one time?

You could argue that before Burns, heavyweight champs were really only white heavyweight champions ,since they refused to defend against black challengers.
Obviously Johnson should have defended against Langford but despite much paper talk ,concrete cash offers were derisory.The American public wanted Johnson to fight white challengers ,with the chance that one of them might," redeem the honour of the White Race".
As Barney Curley , said two blacks fighting for the heavyweight crown won't draw flies in the States.

Jack, ever the pragmatist ,went for the easy money in defences for which half- decent condition would do, he knew he would have to train like a dog for Langford ,and could expect no more reward than he received for thrashing the likes of Flynn. As Burt said on the Dempsey thread "it's a business".

 

:roll:

protect yourself at all times

 

Sharkey was in severe pain after receiving 2 uppercuts right to the nut sack.

 

There you go underestimating Dempsey again. It only took one uppercut to the nutsack to cause severe pain.