Heenan was the American Champion of 1858-1862, and was involved in some of the most significant fights of the 1860s. He fought Sayers to a draw in 1860, and fought LPR ATG Tom King. No doubt he was a important figure at the time, but how skilled was he? Sayers was past his prime, at a significant weight disadvantage, and was left to fight one handed after injuring one of his arms in round 6. This didn't stop Sayers from keeping a very competitive fight, but he was also still outweighed 150-195. However, he did also have success against elite fighters like Tom King and John Morrissey. So just how good was John C. Heenan?
I think that it is fair to say that he was a difficult man to beat. If Sayers and King both went life and death with him, then he was probably no going to be an easy night for anyone. He should arguably have been the first World Champion. Sadly the paucity of the contemporary sources makes if difficult to assess him with any certainty.
Going by his cyber boxing zone page only 3 of his recorded fights had results. The loss to Morrissey, the draw to Sayers and the loss to Tom King. Assuming this is correct then Heenan is the only person I know of to be put into the hall of fame for his boxing career without a recorded win. He got the American belt by default when Morrissey retired. According to wikipedia (so obviously take this with a grain of salt) "Heenan loudly demanded a rematch, but Sayers's damaged arm made this impossible, and the two men were finally reconciled, each being awarded a championship belt. " So to recap he became American champion, was awarded a world championship belt and got into the hall of fame without a recorded win on his record. If any of the posters who are experts on bare-knuckle boxing would like to correct this please do. I know very little about the bare knuckle era so I could be extremely wrong here. If I'm not wrong then this is one of the most interesting careers in boxing history and I want to know more.
Yeah he may be 1 draw and 2 loses, but this was an era were you pretty much had ten fights or 6 before you retire. King himself was only in like 7. It was pretty much make a name for yourself win lose or draw in a epic fight, ( like Heenan did vs Sayers) and kinda of live off that epic fight. Remember fights back than were fights to the finish or a draw if one can't overcome the other. Even though he did not win any of the 3 fights, he did make a good account in all 3.
I understand that. My point wasn't to criticize Heenan. I was just pointing out that he's the only fighter like him as far as I can tell. Unless you can think of another hall of famer who got into the hall because of his boxing career (not coaching or commentating or something else) and had no wins? He's a one of kind situation as far as I can tell and in a sport as old as boxing that's extremely impressive. I have nothing but respect for him.
Other era, Heenan was deem a top fighter by pretty much having that draw with Sayers which in a way can be consider a win for Heenan press wise. For the real top fighters like Cribb, Pearce, King, ete you only have like a few attempts to make it to the top in that epic fight, It is not like today where you can "Build" up some record and then get a fight vs the champ. You need I suppose "Street" cred or something back then. Hey I gave Sayers hell, so I am the best fighter in the world ete. Kinda of hard to believe how it was done back than with out some record build up. I suppose Cribb kinda of started that, but even than he retired with 15 fights.
Harry Cleveland in his book 'Fisticuffs and personalities of the prize ring' had a whole chapter entitled "Pugilists who never won".
Thanks for this! I'll have to check this out sometime. Off the top of your head do you recall anyone in that chapter being in the hall of fame like Heenan is?
