Which heavyweight champion hurt his legacy the most by retiring in his prime or near

I'm still here the others sunk!

 

Indeed. There were quite a few heavies that could have beaten him albeit not as devastatingly as Tyson did.

 

Good post! I also believe that had Gene Tunney so desired, he could have held the title until the rise of Joe Louis. While it is possible that with advancing age someone could have upset him earlier, I believe that intelligence and discipline would have ensured that Tunney would have been properly conditioned and strategically prepared for all title defenses. That said, I give him a lot of credit for getting out while on top after accomplishing what he wanted to do.

 

OK, so what did they lose respectively?

Jeffries:
Potentially a huge amount. He was at his absolute peak, considered almost invincible, and there were a lot of green contenders, who would go on to be Hall of Famers.

Tunney:
Again, potentially a lot. There were a lot of name fighters, who he could potentially have beaten. I don’t quite buy into the idea that he would have reigned until Louis, because his heart would not have been in it for that sort of period.

Marciano:
Very little in practice. He would have got in a couple more defences, and they would have been against the guys who were rated at the time, who are not the guys that we rate today.

Spinks:
He might just have made things worse!

 

Jeffries could have beaten up on the white challengers for a couple of years,but the pressure would surely have built for him to sh*t or get off the pot as Johnson and ,even McVey to some extent ,beat the cream of the division,[or the ones that would fight them].This would have been similar to Frazier defending against Daniels and Stander while Ali took on Ellis,Mac Foster,Quarry,and Bugner.
I agree about Marciano ,he couldn't have done anymore to improve his standing really.
Likewise Spinks was on the tail-end imo.

I'd have picked Johnson to take Jeffries at some point IF he was given the chance..
Tunney I think could have gone on to beat Carnera, Baer, Schmeling ,and Sharkey.That would have been stupendously huge.

 

We know Gene was a masterful businessman, but his Tex Rickard promoted finale with Heeney LOST money (although Tunney nailed down a payday of $525,000), there were no more potential box office blockbusters with Dempsey III out of consideration due to Jack's retirement, then Gene got through Black Tuesday with his fortune intact and worth more than before.

Even if Tunney had been adversely effected like Dempsey was, both dominated the celebrity endorsement of boxing equipment and other products through the early 1930's. I have a Boxing Record Book from 1932, and in an era where only Major League Baseball was a real competitor for professional sports endorsements, just about every advertisement with a name attached was either Dempsey's or Tunney's.

Speculating on what Gene had the ability to achieve after Heeney is one thing. Why he would want to try doesn't require any speculation. He was the first to never be defeated in HW Title competition, and when in attendance at fights was always introduced as, "The Great Undefeated HW Champion of the World!"


Are posters voting for Michael Spinks reading and understanding the thread question properly? :huh What on Earth could he have POSSIBLY added to his legacy by returning to action after Tyson?

Years later, there was some brief discussion about Michael attempting a comeback in his late 30's. On ESPN before a card of Top Rank Boxing, Al Bernstein was asked about this (I believe by Sal Marciano), and Bernstein winced a bit when replying such a comeback MIGHT be feasible, if he returned to 175. It was clear Al didn't think it was a good idea, and speculation will always remain as to whether anybody at 175 could have defeated him over the championship distance. The fact remains nobody ever did, or ever even legitimately floored him at that weight.

Like Gene Tunney and Buster Douglas, Michael Spinks knew the gravy train would end with his final title bout, and was characteristically responsible with that payoff, rather than partying it away as if there was no tomorrow. (That's the one thing with Buster Douglas. He knew going in that his defense against Holyfield would be his only massive payday, and managed it accordingly afterward. His return to boxing after that diabetic coma at 400 pounds was literally to save his life. What's the point of being rich if the wealth kills you?)

 

What has escaped your ret*rded mind is that Fitzsimmons had to wait from Jun1899 until Aug 1902 FOR HIS REMATCH !
THREE YEARS!

Meanwhile Jeffries defended against two of his ko victims Corbett and Sharkey,[though Fitz was robbed by referee Earp].
Fitz was nearly 40 years old when he finally cajoled Jeffries into giving him a rematch! And I know the circumstances of how it came about infinitely better than you do! How he ambushed Jeffries into giving him a rematch calling over the top rope"you'll give me a fight now Jeff won't you ?" " Get up and shake on it". Jeffries was caught bang to rights and the crowd got behind Fitz, calling for Jeffries to take his outstretched gloved hand, after some hesitation,trapped Jeffries rose and took Fitz's hand.

I don't like white heavyweights? My favourite fighter is Jack Dempsey,I'm white myself , how absurd are you?

Give it up ,you're embarrassing yourself!?

 

None of the above for me. i'll say Foreman Mark 1. If he had got his head together after Young, he is much the same age as Holmes and proved he could adapt his style to suit being older. He could easily have tagged a reign similar to that enjoyed by Larry - say 1978-86 - on to his first reign. Even without the comeback, that makes him a top 5 atg, probably top 3. Not that he's viewed badly but carrying on through with career 1 takes him into the heavyweight stratospheres imo.

 

Obviously we can’t be sure whether Jeffries could have beaten the black dynamite crew, but it would have been within his power to make those fights at a time more favourable to himself than the opposition. In that context you have to think that it would have been worth his while to roll the dice.

I am a little bit sceptical of “Tunney era”, that many people are speculating about. Sustaining such a title reign requires a high level of motivation, and I am not sure that Tunney would have maintained it over such a timeframe. My best guess is that somebody would have toppled him, but I am not certain who.

 

I'll pick Marciano. Had he beaten Nino Valdez, his legacy would look very different from a modern perspective.

 

A testament to how ridiculous the traditional arguments against Marciano are.

 

Your points are well stated.
On Tunney, I believe he had the capability to beat his immediate predecessors whether he would have had retained the drive and desire is unknown.One would assume imo, that if he had elected to stay active ,with the mind-set he displayed, he would have.
.

 

Marciano beat what was around, Moore eliminated Valdes. The Cuban was overated imo

 

F**k me. Am I the only one on a thread of five pages, apart from McVey and Mendoza, not to have adhered to what the original poster asked? When a thread goes that long by the time I've read up to the last post, I forget what we were originally being asked.

In this thread, by the time I got to page 3, I thought the question was who should get the kids, McVey or Mendoza? Forgot all about Jeffries, Tunney and ... and ... and the other two.