Well this is not like Liston loseing the title shortly after winning it from Patterson, or Baer losing to Braddock, or even L Spinks. Tunney was at the top of his game, and he RETIRE. In truely fact, we never know how long he rein. He might have rein until 37 or so, or he could have lost it in his next defense, Boxing is strange that way. I think Tunney would have rein though out the early part of the 30's pretty well, until he loses his speed. I think Tunney has the chin to pull a Ali on Baer and most of the early 30's guys. The only guy I DO see beating Tunney is a up and coming Joe Louis. So I belive he would have taking Louis in 35 or so(Shortly after Louis beat Baer) to pull in other big pay day before he retires.
Good point. However, Godfrey got beat by many a lesser fighter than Tunney. And Tunney fought some tough nuts.
I am not quite sold. Virtualy every champion has been focused and dedicated while challenging for the title but the hardest challenge is to remain focused and dedicated once they hold the title. Verry few great fighters can. That is why guys who were predicted to dominate for years like Baer, Liston and Tyson didnt. Louis and Holmes stretched their reigns out as long as they did as much because they were able to retain focus in training for multiple defences ans any ability in the ring. So it is honestly imposible to say whether Tunney could have stayed on top of his game through the 30s. The fact that he chose to retire is a prety clear indication that he didnt want to. That is going to make it verry hard for him to dedicate himself if you efectivley force him to stay on as champion which is what you are doing in this hypothetical scenario.
Because Carnera was reaching his prime in the years after Tunney's reign, when he may have been there for the taking. Godfrey also lost to some lesser fighters and to Carnera himself. Yes, i've seen the fight, it may have been dodgy, but it was a power punch to the nuts and for all we know, he was a Golota-like fighter with great ability but not the mental capability to cash in on that. And then there's the question as to whether Godfrey would've gotten a shot at Tunney in the first place. Based on his record, he hardly earned one.
Depends how well he'd do when he faced Sharkey, Gains and Godfrey and depends when he faces them if ever
no not at all! while golota was a mental wreck who hit his opponents low on purpose, godfrey was FORCED to hit white fighters low so he could DQ himself, because he was on the cuffs! big difference. Boxing Historian and author Kevin Smith believe godfrey with no cuffs allowed to try his best would have beaten tunney
Perhaps, but I dont think Tunney is the guy to lose focus if he keep at it. He already had over 80 fights. All he wanted was to make a million(Tunney II) ad married into wealth. And he did that. Once he did that, there relly was no need to go on. Suppose Tunney did not married Polly, I think sooner or later he be force to go on.
Ive talked to whats in my opinion very reliable sources and opinions of respected boxing historians kevin smith and chuck hasson and others that I like there versions over other people who simply claim "godfrey couldnt have been on the cuffs" without offering proof. theres more proof godfrey was ON the cuffs, than off them. I also read many contemporary fighter accounts and newspaper articles of during the era that backup my opinion that godfrey was extremley dangerous all time contender a big threat to tunney and dempsey off the cuffs, HENCE the reason he was voted in the hall of fame recently. Also despite your claims, if you take a close look at godfreys record, you will see he actually beat pretty decent competition(impressive considering he wasnt allowed to try his best for at least half his fights)
Well so far you've only offered opinions of people looking back at the time, and that's not proof. I'm not saying he wasn't, but i've never seen any convincing piece of evidence that he was. Just because Mr. Smith or Hasson says so doesn't make it so. To be honest, i'm not that impressed with most boxing historians anyway and by no means should their opinion be taken as fact or strong argument. I've seen historians claim that Monzon was not a top10 middleweight. That Fitzsimmons was a top5 heavyweight of all time. That Lennox Lewis does not make the top15. Etc, etc.
wow, the equations are numerous and possibilities on par with the equations... From late `25- mid `28 Tunney had 3 fights.. Dempsey x2.. and Heeney.... Had remained more active in the ring defending the title, he was well within the realms of continuing his career, dispensing several more notables and gaining higher rewards..... "HAD HE REMAINED MORE ACTIVE..." Its total speculation again, and the reasoning for the question at hand, but I wonder if Tunney would have dispensed of Sharkey, due to his inactivity, let alone the younger Schmeling of the time??? I respect all views, as I should do.... and I offer a further ???.. Has anyone compared the delivery of both Dempsey and Schmelings right hand punch??? Hardly the standard 'straight right" as the recommendations would suggest.... although, very similar in style..