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

And herein lies the crux of the matter.

He probably would have lost motivation, and he would probably have been astute enough to recognise the implications of this.

The most likely scenario then, is that he decides to bow out at some point, as actually happened.

 

So who were the likely next opponents for these guys?

When Jeffries retired, Marvin Hart, Jack Johnson, Sandy Ferguson and Sam McVea were being discussed as possible opponents.

When Tunney retired the debate seems to have been about whether he should fight Jack Sharkey or Johnny Risko.

When Marciano retired the names being thrown about were Willie Pastrano, Nino Valdez, Tommy Jackson, and Floyd Patterson.

I am not sure who was discussed as a possible opponent for Spinks.

 

As soon as Tyson dispatched him as expected, everybody I recall automatically assumed Michael's career was over. Nor was anybody discussed during the brief moment a few years later when it was alleged he was considering a comeback, not when it wasn't even known what weight division he was looking at. (I'm not even sure he ever set foot in a gym, but maybe just spoke idly about a return.)

Concerning likely and potential next opponents, this can vary wildly from initial intentions and speculation. Originally, Ali undertook training for his final comeback just to lose weight and return to competitive condition for whoever his opponent happened to be. His first target was his successor to his resigned WBA Title, John Tate, but Tate fell to Mike Weaver while Ali was still in the early stages of his weight reduction process. He then set his sights on Weaver, and said "I will demolish the Beaver."

I don't recall exactly when Ali shifted from Weaver to Holmes, but I think it was sometime in the late Spring of 1980. Larry was mentioned as a "young, fast and smart" sparring partner for Muhammad in Ali's 1975 autobiography ghostwritten by Richard Durham, and everybody who watched that card had seen Holmes stop Rodney Bobick in the Manila semifinal. In August 1972, Ali also provided color commentary with Howard Cosell on ABC for Larry's third round DQ loss against Duane Bobick for the HW slot on the Munich Olympic squad. Ali had known Holmes well enough and long enough to feel pretty confident about what to expect from Larry.

Ali's initial aim I think was to reunify the HW Title, first by getting the WBA honors back, then pitting against Holmes to bring the WBC and WBA championships back together. Weaver was thought so little of after Tate that there were some who thought Ali might have a chance at decisioning Hercules if in proper shape at a reasonable weight. Leon Spinks II was the frame of reference here. Mike was questionable enough at 22-9 with that 12 round NABF UD loss to feather fisted 270 pound Leroy Jones that Muhammad was widely believed to have enough left to pull off that decision, setting up the only path to a formal HW unification bout until Tyson's ascension. (Widespread cries against Ali's return really only became ubiquitous after Holmes-Ali. Prior to that, there was substantial disappointment that Muhammad didn't attempt to regain the WBA Title from Weaver first, although there were certainly those who wished Ali would stay retired. Cosell was NOT one of those publicly outspoken naysayers however.)

Floyd entered 1955 at 166 for MW Willie Troy, and came in at 175 for Calvin Brad the month after Marciano. D'Amato and Patterson had no intention of being number 50 on Rocky's dossier, but were waiting for him to leave. Going into 1955, Moore's LHW Title was their publicly stated objective. They wanted the HW Title, but they didn't want to go through Rocky to have to get it.

Of the names on that list, Tommy Jackson was clearly the craziest. Marciano's number 50 probably would have been that nutcase.

 

Remarkable it might seem to a casual boxing fan or neophyte to the sport's history that the runaway winner so far is the man who opted not to attempt the added defense to get from 49-0 to 50-0. Maybe the magic numbers aren't the round ones.

 

my take

Jeffries----Certainly had the biggest upside, if he had been willing to drop the color line. A win over Johnson in 1904 or 1905--providing the rest of history went the same way--would be immense historically. Even if a defeated Johnson never got a shot at Burns, Jeffries defending against him would have put him just about above criticism as a champion. Johnson was clearly the best out there. In fact, Jeff's rep might be higher today even if he had defended against Johnson and lost, as long as he gave a solid account of himself. As is, Jeff's resume more or less froze in place after 1902. Corbett had been off for three years and was just a name from the past. Munroe was a fringe type.

Tunney----Everyone seems to be assuming that Tunney would have beaten Sharkey and Schmeling. I have my doubts. He dominated Heeney, but I judge Heeney one of the weaker contenders to ever challenge for the title. I doubt he would have scored many wins over Louis' bum of the month club victims. Sharkey and Schmeling were in a different league. Much depends on how much one thinks Dempsey had left in 1927. Sharkey beat him to the punch all night. But even if Dempsey was something like the old Dempsey rather than just an old Dempsey, time was marching on for Tunney. By 1929, he would have been 32 fighting a 27 year old Sharkey. Tunney never beat a boxer that big and that good. Schmeling is even more problematical. Could a 33 year old Tunney have handled a 25 year old Schmeling? I think he would have been eating right crosses over his jab more often than not. Bottom line--Tunney was wise to get out I think.

Marciano----Smart to retire. Nothing left to prove by fighting guys Moore had beaten on his way to a title shot, and Patterson would have been kept away from him for years. Rocky was pushing 33, old for that time and for a fighter with his style.

Spinks----I don't see having a few more fights as hurting him much or helping him much.

 

Patterson would have ripped Marciano apart in 56? HA!

Thanks for the laugh

 

Patterson’s name was being loosely mentioned in 1956, when Marciano formally announced his retirement. I agree however that he was not in the picture when the contracts would have to have been inked for fight number 50, and as you say his team were probably biding their time. This leaves us with Pastrano, Jackson, or Valdez as likely opponents. With such a weak list of potential opponents, it is not hard to see why Marciano picked that time to bow out.

 

I complete agree .. talk about a bad series of decisions and their impact .. A prime Jeffries in 1905 sure had a far better shot against Johnson than the 1910 version .. whatever the decision in 06 Hart gave Johnson a tough fight and I can only imagine Jeffries would have been much tougher .. by drawing the color line in his prime but fighting and being embarrassed in front of the world years later Jeffries by far lost the most ..

 

I also think it was Everett Skehan in his biography of Rocky who said Marciano's final bout needed to be as epic a finale as possible, not anticlimactic as Tunney-Heeney or Jeffries-Monroe. (Louis did have such an opportunity with JJW II.)

Archie Moore put Rocky on the deck, then came back in Durelle I, the two events he was most memorialized for when he passed. The Mongoose also did a terrific job with a media blitz to build up Marciano-Moore, something we wouldn't have a heavyweight challenger do again for the remainder of the decade.

Hard to see Ali retiring with such a triumphant finale after Inoki ruined his legs, but if he hadn't messed around with wrestling, and went right to Norton after Dunn instead, maybe he could have pulled off a suitable exit. (Instead, he was hospitalized to have his legs drained after Inoki, never producing a knockdown or knockout again, I suspect because Inoki took away his ability to plant his legs with sufficient power to be a dangerous puncher anymore.)

 

Keep in mind with respect to Tunney-Sharkey that Jack squared off with Tom and could only manage a draw, so Gene defended against the contender who Dempsey did not knock out. Sharkey would later draw with Mickey Walker. There's footage of both Heeney-Sharkey and Walker-Sharkey.

Take away the low blow and Dempsey's body shots were still wearing Sharkey down. Assuming no controversy to the ending, Sharkey was not going to reach the end of the championship distance, but get hammered down like Dempsey did to Bill Brennan in their title rematch. Dempsey had weathered the early storm. Sharkey had two chances to get to Tunney after Gene took the title, and failed them both. Nor was Sharkey ever that impressive in title competition. His best showing with a championship on the line was probably before the foul which ended Schmeling I.

Schmeling was losing Louis I prior to scoring the first KD. Tunney was too proactive to rely on countering against. Too much speed and volume for Max to win a decision over.

 

I agree with your points about Sharkey. Age would have to defeat Tunney, not Sharkey.

"Schmeling was losing Louis I prior to scoring the first KD."

"Too much speed and volume for Max to win a decision over."

Just disagree with this one. Tunney at 33 would have too much speed and volume?, and continues to have it over 15 rounds after Schmeling times a few rights? I just don't see Tunney as being that far above Schmeling.

As for Schmeling losing to Louis prior to landing that right, if he can't land his right he loses to Tunney, but I think he lands his right on any version of Tunney to some extent. He would have been a fierce opponent even for a prime Tunney.

But an aging Gene in his mid-thirties?

**My take is that Schmeling fought and defeated more and better heavyweights than Tunney did. Hard to see who Tunney handled that Max would not have. Greb? Schmeling was 20 to 25 lbs. heavier and with a big punch. Carpentier? Gibbons? Small and past their best anyway. Dempsey? Would a laid off three years Dempsey have handled Schmeling? I think that is dubious.

 

It's an interesting conversation.

Been a while since I reviewed Schmeling-Louis I prior to that initial KD. Certainly Max was focused on countering with his right and producing a knockout, but it wasn't my impression he'd pull off a decision without a severely hampered Bomber having been repeatedly clobbered with those rights. However, styles make fights, and I do believe that in a best for best first time showdown, Schmeling would have had Joe's number.

Tunney was champion during an era where Braddock could still go for a couple years without defending the title. Gene was extremely intelligent and insanely self-disciplined. (As a kid, he deliberately refused ice cream when it was readily available as an exercise in self control.)

With little wear and tear, and never having taken a beating from a hard puncher, Tunney was still actually improving when his career ended at 31. We have no way of knowing how long he was going to continue improving, but having worked as a lumberjack, his strength and size were peaking at 192, and his hands weren't being injured anymore.

We don't know when he might have started slowing down, but Schmeling, the other main subject being discussed here, may well have had Archie Moore type longevity when subtracting WW II and his grievous combat injuries at Crete out of the equation. (As it was, his first round knockout of Heuser a year after Louis II showed the Bomber failed to ruin him as a fighter, then he won two out of three during the postwar period in what amounted to a financially successful comeback when he purchased Coca Cola rights for Germany.)

Questions about size are interesting. At 6'3" Martin Burke was probably his tallest conquest, and I'm admittedly using Tommy Loughran in projecting that Gene could have beaten some of the big guys Loughran succeeded against after Tunney retired. Gene certainly had far more left at 31 against Heeney than Loughran had at the same age against Carnera.

 

Anubis

"we don't know when he might have started slowing down" (he=Tunney)

He did rely on his legs, and the old saw is that the legs are the first to go.

"Loughran"

Fair enough. But even though Carnera was a below average champion, I think he was a ton tougher to outpoint than Heeney, so I don't think the comparison is too good, although I agree Tunney seemed more on top of his game in his thirties than Loughran. Also Tunney had a better punch.

 

Much would depend on how well Gene adapted as his legs slowed. Braddock was moving in on 33 when his arthritis ravaged legs took him through his career finale with Tommy Farr, but Jim said years later that he really didn't have much choice other than retiring after Farr, as that arthritis had taken away his reverse gear. (Frazier's movement in his final two bouts with Foreman and Cummings are mind blowing when considering how severe his own arthritis was in his 30's. Competition wasn't the only place Smoke's toughness and guts were evident, but how he got to competition to perform as he did was an achievement in itself. Marciano overcame JFK type back problems to become a conditioning icon in boxing much the same way.)

Against Joe Louis, Jack Sharkey's previous spring is completely gone from his legs, and he's completely off his toes and flatfooted. He declined as much as Carnera improved from their first bout to their title rematch.

I love Canzi's masterful win over Ambers in their first bout, in large part because Tony compensated for all the obvious mileage his legs had been through with efficiency and experience against a hyper-energetic youthful ATG.

Could Gene have done this? Graham McNamee reported to the NBC radio audience during Tunney-Dempsey I that Gene was "out Dempseying Dempsey." His hands had gotten strong enough through lumberjack work that he could now dish out sustained beatings without injuring them, even if he wasn't born with Dempsey's slope shouldered deltoid configuration. (Incidentally, a biomechanical flaw in his right shoulder proved the true reason Gerrie Coetzee was continually fracturing his hand, then rendered "bionic" by repeated attempts to surgically repair it. I figured he'd raise the devil as WBA champion after that causal factor was identified and surgically addressed after his upset of Dokes, but he gave away too much in hand speed and lack of defense to withstand a focused Greg Page.)

Tunney was so smart that he may well have adapted as he got older to the loss of physical ability with increased savvy. Corbett actually lost Jeffries I because of a depth perception misjudgment due to slightly diminished eyesight he had no margin of error to allow for. (He never used glasses that I'm aware of, but we're discussing a greater subtlety than required for reading. Larry Holmes, on the other hand, entirely owes his longevity of career to modern optometry.) Might Gene's eyes have eventually let him down in the ring, if not his legs?

Still, I just don't see anybody dethroning him during "The Seven Year Famine" between his reign and the rise of Louis. Schmeling was already past his physical prime when he knocked the Bomber out, but I think Max would have separated himself dramatically from rival Sharkey AFTER Louis II, starting with Heuser and the EBU HW Title, on through the early 1940's. He never regains the World HW Championship from Louis, but I believe with no WW II he rules European HW boxing through the 1940's like Moore would rule the LHW's through the 1950's. (Also the way Hitler would have liked to rule Europe.) Personally though, I don't see Schmeling being able to get through Tunney in the 1930's prior to the rise of Louis anymore than Archie could get past Charles and Booker in the 1940's.