Was the Undisputed Championship legitimate during existence of the Colored title?

[DrDuke]

It's popular to criticise the modern split of the titles, but aren't those vibes actually oldschool?

Was Sullivan the man? Or Jeffries? Or Dempsey?

[gilgamesh]

It was according to the thinking of the time.

With the proper context of the time and modern vision, this era is rightly criticized for many Champions refusal to duck their top challengers who were "Colored" Champion.

[DrDuke]

It was according to the thinking of the time.

With the proper context of the time and modern vision, this era is rightly criticized for many Champions refusal to duck their top challengers who were "Colored" Champion.

So, couldn't they all be wrong back then? People once didn't recognize Copernicus and stuff like that...

[Ambling Alp II]

It was according to the thinking of the time.

With the proper context of the time and modern vision, this era is rightly criticized for many Champions refusal to duck their top challengers who were "Colored" Champion.

Some would have lost to the "colored" Champion. However, depending on exactly what time period you are talking about, the white champion was often better. At one point in time, Sullivan, Jeffres, Dempsey and others were the best in the world regardless of race.

It is worth looking into the careers of guys like Godfrey, Peter Jackson, Langford, McVey, Jeannette, Wills, and Godfrey.

[HomicideHenry]

It's popular to criticise the modern split of the titles, but aren't those vibes actually oldschool?

Was Sullivan the man? Or Jeffries? Or Dempsey?

Sullivan did for a number years get into negotiations to have a fight with the original George Godfrey, but it ultimately didn't happen. I would say he was the best heavyweight in the world at least until the 1890-1892 time frame. That being said, I think Sullivan would have had a better chance against Peter Jackson than Corbett because Jackson was a boxer-puncher while Corbett was a boxer-mover.

I don't think that many could last toe-to-toe with Sullivan, but it is clear by 1890-1892 Sullivan had basically 0 interest in fighting any one which is why he priced himself out at $45,000 winner take all thinking nobody could come up with the money.

Jefferies was definitely the man at one point, even though you might make an argument when he retired that Jack Johnson was the logical number one contender, but since Hart defeated him it was clear that Hart should fight for the vacant title. Sam Langford Was considered by many to be the best colored heavyweight but even he promoted himself as, "willing to take on all comers except Jim Jefferies." That's how formidable Jefferies was in his prime.

With Dempsey the situation is harder to assess. He admitted that he did duck Langford throughout his career. But one can make an argument that during those years Dempsey was still in development. So it would have hardly been fair matchmaking. Dempsey by his own admission lost to John Lester Johnson. And then there's Harry Wills, the fight that never was. If Dempsey was "the man" it was briefly, although I think he could've probably defeated Wills because Wills was not as skilled as made out to be. He basically threw one-two's and that was it. He was just a big, strong man with good hand speed. I think Dempsey could have overcame it.

[DrDuke]

It's popular to criticise the modern split of the titles, but aren't those vibes actually oldschool?

Was Sullivan the man? Or Jeffries? Or Dempsey?

Sullivan did for a number years get into negotiations to have a fight with the original George Godfrey, but it ultimately didn't happen. I would say he was the best heavyweight in the world at least until the 1890-1892 time frame. That being said, I think Sullivan would have had a better chance against Peter Jackson than Corbett because Jackson was a boxer-puncher while Corbett was a boxer-mover.

I don't think that many could last toe-to-toe with Sullivan, but it is clear by 1890-1892 Sullivan had basically 0 interest in fighting any one which is why he priced himself out at $45,000 winner take all thinking nobody could come up with the money.

Jefferies was definitely the man at one point, even though you might make an argument when he retired that Jack Johnson was the logical number one contender, but since Hart defeated him it was clear that Hart should fight for the vacant title. Sam Langford Was considered by many to be the best colored heavyweight but even he promoted himself as, "willing to take on all comers except Jim Jefferies." That's how formidable Jefferies was in his prime.

With Dempsey the situation is harder to assess. He admitted that he did duck Langford throughout his career. But one can make an argument that during those years Dempsey was still in development. So it would have hardly been fair matchmaking. Dempsey by his own admission lost to John Lester Johnson. And then there's Harry Wills, the fight that never was. If Dempsey was "the man" it was briefly, although I think he could've probably defeated Wills because Wills was not as skilled as made out to be. He basically threw one-two's and that was it. He was just a big, strong man with good hand speed. I think Dempsey could have overcame it.

On the brief available footages of Wills and Langford there was nothing special in comparison to what we can see with Dempsey, but formally Jack didn't face the #1 challenger. Today, when Fury sabotaged the Usyk bout, many fans question his legitimacy as a champion, although he was a favorite over Usyk and has a more profound HW resume.

Conciously or not, people just afraid to go against the biases. Dempsey is considered to be a legend, while it's easy to sh1t on the modern fighters.

[HomicideHenry]

It's popular to criticise the modern split of the titles, but aren't those vibes actually oldschool?

Was Sullivan the man? Or Jeffries? Or Dempsey?

Sullivan did for a number years get into negotiations to have a fight with the original George Godfrey, but it ultimately didn't happen. I would say he was the best heavyweight in the world at least until the 1890-1892 time frame. That being said, I think Sullivan would have had a better chance against Peter Jackson than Corbett because Jackson was a boxer-puncher while Corbett was a boxer-mover.

I don't think that many could last toe-to-toe with Sullivan, but it is clear by 1890-1892 Sullivan had basically 0 interest in fighting any one which is why he priced himself out at $45,000 winner take all thinking nobody could come up with the money.

Jefferies was definitely the man at one point, even though you might make an argument when he retired that Jack Johnson was the logical number one contender, but since Hart defeated him it was clear that Hart should fight for the vacant title. Sam Langford Was considered by many to be the best colored heavyweight but even he promoted himself as, "willing to take on all comers except Jim Jefferies." That's how formidable Jefferies was in his prime.

With Dempsey the situation is harder to assess. He admitted that he did duck Langford throughout his career. But one can make an argument that during those years Dempsey was still in development. So it would have hardly been fair matchmaking. Dempsey by his own admission lost to John Lester Johnson. And then there's Harry Wills, the fight that never was. If Dempsey was "the man" it was briefly, although I think he could've probably defeated Wills because Wills was not as skilled as made out to be. He basically threw one-two's and that was it. He was just a big, strong man with good hand speed. I think Dempsey could have overcame it.

On the brief available footages of Wills and Langford there was nothing special in comparison to what we can see with Dempsey, but formally Jack didn't face the #1 challenger. Today, when Fury sabotaged the Usyk bout, many fans question his legitimacy as a champion, although he was a favorite over Usyk and has a more profound HW resume.

Conciously or not, people just afraid to go against the biases. Dempsey is considered to be a legend, while it's easy to sh1t on the modern fighters.

Mind you, my opinion is in the minority but...

For me it's difficult to rate the black fighters from those times because quite frankly they were fighting each other all the time. These days if you fight somebody more than 2 times people get not only bored with it but complain there is nothing new to learn from those fights because it's no longer a challenge.

Sam Langford and Harry Wills fought each other like a dozen times, and Joe Jennette fought Sam McVea at least half a dozen times, etc. There was no real diversity of opponents in terms of styles, abilities, sizes, etc. So one might make an argument that those guys might have been the number 1 or 2 or 3 challenger but they weren't as well equipped than say the white guys were because the white guys were fighting a wide array of different opponents.

I mean if you think about it, imagine a guy with 20 fights and he's fought basically 4 opponents. Four guys five different times. Would you say that man was the equal or superior of a man with 10 or 15 or 20 fights with 10 or 15 or 20 different opponents? I'm not so sure you could make that case cus you're going over old ground continuously.

I think a large part of the reason why Langford and Johnson succeeded where so many black heavyweights didn't was that they were able to compete against white guys more often than the others did. Therefore they were able to get more diversity under their belt and saw more styles, etc.

Now in the lighter weight classes there was less restrictions on blacks competing with whites so guys like George Dixon, Jack Blackburn, etc excelled and became truly great fighters--- I think the mistake a lot of people make is just because the color line existed doesn't automatically mean that they were avoided because they were too good.

It is a shame that a lot of the matches did not happen but I do think that when you're constantly facing the same opponents over and over again there's very little to learn from or to grow from. As far as the available film footage goes I don't think film tells the whole story, especially when it is snippets.

Concerning Fury, the public are more impatient than they have ever been largely because of social media and instant gratification. It is largely disappointing that the fight wasn't made when we all hoped but it doesn't mean that it won't happen at some point.



Ironically I don't hear Mike Tyson getting raked over the coals for giving Lennox Lewis step aside money, and didn't fight him until nearly a decade later. Or the continuing saga on this forum about Lennox Lewis not fighting Byrd or Ruiz and could've had an uninterrupted undisputed title reign rather than fragmenting the titles. Etc.

The public will always be fickle. But, Jack Dempsey did get a lot of criticism for not facing Harry Wills. Which is why he was so apologetic or made so many explanations or excuses in his autobiographies for why it never happened. I remember for a short time after Jack Johnson got out of prison he, also, pursued a fight with Jack Dempsey but he was avoided largely because he was such a controversial figure that nobody wanted him near the title ever again.

This of course gave rise to the myth that Dempsey and Johnson fought for a bunch of Klondike gamblers in Canada, because it was noted that both men were in Canada putting on exhibitions at the same time and some journalist in Chicago dreamed up the idea writing a hypothetical matchup and the Brooklyn Eagle got ahold of it thinking it was a real thing.

[Ambling Alp II]

Is nice to actually talk about fighters who aren't currently active on the Forum. That is the way this Forum is supposed to be and used to be.
Jeannette and McVey fought a ton of other guys besides each other. They fought Langford and Johnson several times. They each fought Wills. They each fought several other decent fighters throughout their careers. There is no question that they were great fighters.

No knowledgeable fan was calling for Lewis to fight Byrd and Ruiz. They knew that the WBS title belts don't mean anything. Lewis was the real champion.
Dempsey did sign to fight Wills, but the fight fell through. He was more than willing to fight him. We can only speculate as to what would have happened. Agree that the public is fickle and you can almost always say why didn't this guy fight that guy. Dempsey obviously deserves credit for being a great fighter. He does deserve some criticism for not defending the title for three years.

[HomicideHenry]

Is nice to actually talk about fighters who aren't currently active on the Forum. That is the way this Forum is supposed to be and used to be.
Jeannette and McVey fought a ton of other guys besides each other. They fought Langford and Johnson several times. They each fought Wills. They each fought several other decent fighters throughout their careers. There is no question that they were great fighters.

No knowledgeable fan was calling for Lewis to fight Byrd and Ruiz. They knew that the WBS title belts don't mean anything. Lewis was the real champion.
Dempsey did sign to fight Wills, but the fight fell through. He was more than willing to fight him. We can only speculate as to what would have happened. Agree that the public is fickle and you can almost always say why didn't this guy fight that guy. Dempsey obviously deserves credit for being a great fighter. He does deserve some criticism for not defending the title for three years.

The thing is the bulk of their matches were against a core group of guys. For example, Sam McVea. He fought 101 fights but of those 101 he fought Jeff Clark 6 times, Jack Johnson 4 times, Sam Langford 14 times, Denver Ed Martin 4 times, Battling Jim Johnson 6 times, and Harry Wills 5 times. Six opponents for a total of 39 fights.

That's nearly 40% of your fights being a core group of guys. The rest were either non-entities or were rematches with guys like Sandy Ferguson rather than series of matches. What is gained or improved from facing the same people over and over again?

It seemed to be the common practice of black heavyweights especially to be continuously fighting each other. Then again they really didn't have a choice in the matter, unless they went to a different country like Langford and McVea did at times and got matches with white opponents.

Although I might make an argument on their behalf that because they had more matches generally than the white guys did even if it was against each other it was like iron sharpening iron, so since they were always battle ready and hardened they had an edge over the white guys anyways because they were fighting more often.

[Ambling Alp II]

Ok, I get your point that that it is good to fight a variety of opponents. However, well in McVey's case (assuming your numbers are correct) that is still 62 fighters against other fighters. Some of those were against Jeannette, another great fighter than McVey fought.
And that is still 6 different guys that that he had the other fights with.
And you are going to learn some things fighting say Jack Johnson several times.

But yes, it would have been nice if there were more fights with the top blacks and the top whites in those days.

[cfang]

No is the answer really. Although it does depend on the era. So in Johnson's era you had a host of exceptional black heavys who when given the chance pretty much obliterated the white competition and then were left to fight among themselves for a few years. I think sometimes promoters didn't know what they were dealing with, like the British champion iron hague who langford destroyed.

In the 20s there was only really Wills who does look a bit limited if you see film of him but he was unbeaten for like 60 fights while dempsey was beating lt heavys and guys he'd beaten before a handful of times.

What fascinates me is the era between say 26 and 36. So a ten year period between wills and louis and there's a lot of black heavys but they didn't seem to be exceptional. Gains for example was a good fighter but there's very detailed footage of him fighting len harvey and he wasn't a joe louis. Same with a lot of the other guys of that era. Was it just that everything was against them? Or just a period where there wasn't a great deal of talent in the heavy division full stop? Like a lot of things probably a mix of both.

[Ambling Alp II]

The exact time period is important here. Take out the time period from about 1905-1918, and usually the majority of the best heavyweights were white guys. Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Jeffries were legitimate hw champions. Hart and Burns, not so much. Obviously, Willard has to be since he beat Johnson, and of course Dempsey and Tunney.

The period between Wills and Lewis is interesting. As you mentioned there were some good black heavyweights, but nobody outstanding. It is certainly possible that someone like Gains or Godfrey could have beaten Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Braddock or Baer on a given night for the title. But as you say, none stood out.

[Caractacus]

I think Larry Gains did defeat Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera too
( before they became HW Champions anyway)

[Ambling Alp II]

Schmeling was pretty early in his career and was still a light heavyweight. However, the win over Carnera was legit. Gains fought some of the contenders of his time, winning some and losing some.

[HomicideHenry]

Godfrey was the best of the black heavyweights in that timeframe between Dempsey and Louis. There can be a strong case made that Gene Tunney ducked the 6'4" 240+ pound Godfrey. The only problem with him was he either fouled himself out when he was winning, a bit like Golota, or there were rumors that he purposely lost for one reason or another. I think he was the last "colored" heavyweight champion and he was the IBU heavyweight champion, back when that title actually meant something.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Boxrec used to have a blurb about a Godfrey bout where JL was thrown in jail when he showed up, but Godfrey was a no show, probably insider info to remain safe. True or not, I know not but JL must hold the record for being thrown into jail for trying to fight.

After the Kilrain epic, JL fought nobody which is where the Peter Jackson myth comes in. He only fought the mouthy Corbett years later after a spat on stage where both were in a play as I heard it.

The next duck charge is Jeffries that has also been proven a myth. Approx 40% of Jeff's record are colored fights, Griffin most especially who whooped JJohnson. Saying that, I've always held that the black title was as legit then as anything and a great way to pay the fighter with extra attendance, and black fighters like Wills, Jeannette ect were seen as heroes, whereas JJohnson was always the bad guy that he personally cultivated. When the $$$ was impossible to turn down, Jeffries was there, now as a sick man willing to fight.

From Paris Jack Johnson contacted the judge in charge of his unfinished trial to ask permission to make a fight and presumably turn himself in afterwards. Also contacted White Champion Luther McCarty mgr McCarney before the Pelkey fight in Tommy Burns' Arena. They agreed to fight Johnson, so that White title enhanced by McCarty was the only fight Johnson was interested in, and I do believe it originated after Johnson beat Burns before McCarty won it.

When Louis in his comeback beat Savold, the BBB of c sanctioned that as a world title probably because Savold held the White Belt. The BBB of c is just as legit as the New York jurisdiction, so why Joe doesn't get any credit is beyond me. With the rise of the Orgs, black and white titles seem to have mostly died out.

Dempsey another duck myth long disproven. Harry Frazee owned the Boston Red Sox as a HOT theater producer offered something like a 300K purse for the Wills fight in Red Sox stadium for Jacks first defense. Boston politics killed it. Later Frazee made a deal with Yankee owner Ruppert to stage a fight in the new Yankee stadium, but again politics killed it, so the money was definitely there as well as magnificent venues as well as rabid interest as well as the two top fighters of that time. Kearns drew the color line, but never the money line. After those failures, the $$$ dried up because no backers to be found willing to back an impossible endeavor. Yet Dempsey who had taken Big Bill Tate with him to Hollywood to stay in sparring shape now absent Kearn and Rickard tried to make the Wills fight and spent a fair amount of $$$ combined with legal woes when the fights were killed. Vindictive Kearns had a lien on any bank account he created, so his Hollywood earnings went through his wife and/or agent.

Re the Dempsey Saskatoon fight with Johnson, Cyber Boxing shows a large blank no activity in their timelines at the time of that fight in December. We have the reporter's account of that secretive private fight in the extravagant Men's club basement whose members held the largest gold reserve in North America dwarfing the US and Canadian Mints combined. True or not matters little as we know Johnson had been calling Dempsey out and shaky offers were made. Private fights are easy to make if the money is there, and Dempsey had already proved he was willing to fight a better fighter in Wills.

Then Rickard lured Dempsey out of what amounted to a Kearns induced retirement, he offered Wills an eliminator against Tunney that Wills refused and the rest history...The End...

[Ambling Alp II]

Godfrey was the best of the black heavyweights in that timeframe between Dempsey and Louis. There can be a strong case made that Gene Tunney ducked the 6'4" 240+ pound Godfrey. The only problem with him was he either fouled himself out when he was winning, a bit like Golota, or there were rumors that he purposely lost for one reason or another. I think he was the last "colored" heavyweight champion and he was the EBU heavyweight champion, back when that title actually meant something.

There isn't a case at all that Tunney ducked Godfrey. Godfrey wasn't even close to be the top contender when Tunney was the champion. Both of Tunney's title defenses were against the most deserving contenders at the time.

[HomicideHenry]

Godfrey was the best of the black heavyweights in that timeframe between Dempsey and Louis. There can be a strong case made that Gene Tunney ducked the 6'4" 240+ pound Godfrey. The only problem with him was he either fouled himself out when he was winning, a bit like Golota, or there were rumors that he purposely lost for one reason or another. I think he was the last "colored" heavyweight champion and he was the EBU heavyweight champion, back when that title actually meant something.

There isn't a case at all that Tunney ducked Godfrey. Godfrey wasn't even close to be the top contender when Tunney was the champion. Both of Tunney's title defenses were against the most deserving contenders at the time.

The time frame is a bit tricky because one can either argue that Dempsey or Tunney didn't give Godfrey the shot. But I think the case can be made more against Tunney. If one looks at the annual ratings:

1924- Godfrey was #8
1925- Godfrey was #6
1926- Godfrey was unrated
1927- Godfrey was #9
1928- Godfrey was #2

When looking at the ratings with forgotten names like Spalla, Rojas, Persson, Keeley, Solomon, Montgomery, Seifert, Hansen, De Kuh, DeMave, Munn, Maloney, Gorman, etc being in the top ten or fifteen ratings it seems inconceivable to not list Godfrey at all in 1926 and only rate him high when Tunney vacated the title.

In that 1926-1928 timeframe Godfrey fought over 30 times with wins over Monte Munn, Larry Gains, Paulino Uzcudun, Jim Maloney, Jack Roper, Bud Gorman, etc. Many of whom were in the top 10-15 in the Ring ratings.

No offense to Tom Heeney but his title shot at Tunney surely wasn't as warranted as Godfrey's claim to the title shot. It seems inexplicable that a man with Godfrey's record and size not be given the shot. Tunney went for the easy payday and retired.

I might also add since I am a professional wrestling buff that the inclusion of Munn into the top ratings by Ring Magazine was morally and ethically wrong. His rating was simply because he was a well known professional football player and his brother Wayne Munn was the professional wrestling champion. And I might add he (Wayne) also boxed, and his fights were fraudulent dives so I would not be surprised if Monte's career was also built on dives.

[Ambling Alp II]

The rankings are just what Tex Rickard had. His impartiality and knowledge is questionable at best.

Total nonsense that Tunney took the easy payday and retired. Nobody was head and shoulders above the rest, but Heeney had as good of case as anyone. Better than Godfrey. Follow the timeline of the key fights:

Sept 21, 1926- Sharkey defeated Godfrey.
Two days later, Tunney won the title from Dempsey.
July 21, 1927- Dempsey defeated Sharkey in an elimination fight.
September 22, 1927 -Tunney defeated Dempsey to defend the title.
October 26, 1927, Heeney defeated Risko.
January 13, 1928, Heeney-Sharkey fight to a draw.
June 27 1928, Risko defeated Godfrey.

July 26, Tunney defeated Heeney.

So going into the Heeney-Tunney fight:
Godfrey had lost to both Risko and Sharkey. Heeney had beaten Risko and got a draw with Sharkey.

Heeney was the most deserving challenger at the time.

[Caractacus]

Gene Tunney "ducking" Godfrey" LOL
Gene Tunney never ducked anyone.
Have you ever read any of his books ?
the man was a fightin' Marine.
BTW did you know that Monte Munn was being trained by Jack Johnson ?

[HomicideHenry]

viewtopic.php?t=47025

Not necessarily there was men on this forum ages ago who explored this same question and showed the newspaper accounts of Gene Tunney wanting no part of George Godfrey.

And make no mistake the Fighting Marine was strategic with his matches. He said it himself that he trained for Jack Dempsey for 6 years. In short he was picking his right time. Don't get me wrong he was probably the 2nd best light heavyweight of all time next to Ezzard Charles, but his legacy as a heavyweight is one that really needs to be examined.

P.S.

George Godfrey was trained by both Sam Langford and Jack Johnson. He was the chief sparring partner for Dempsey for the Firpo fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes I remember this well. He said the same nonsense as you are. If you would read further, you will see that other people responded and said it was nonsense. I discussed tis Brocktonblockbuster not long before that thread and showed them the obvious facts. It is pretty obvious. Tunney did not duck Godfrey, or anyone for that matter.

If there were rankings the day before the Tunney-Heeney fight, they would probably be:

1. Heeney
2. Risko
3. Sharkey
4. Godfrey

[HomicideHenry]

I agree to disagree. I don't know how anyone could not think a 6'3"-6'4" 240+ pound man in his prime who had defeated most of the Ring's top ten or fifteen at that time would not have been a bigger threat to Tunney than the 5'10" 200 pound Heeney who would go 5-14-2 after facing Tunney.

Clearly Heeney was on the downside when he fought Tunney despite being supposedly the top contender. Prior to the Tunney fight, 1927-1928, he had draws with Sharkey and Uzcudun and he won by DQ over Gorman and won decisions over Risko and Delaney.

If anything, Sharkey had to be #1 and Godfrey #2 with Heeney as #3. Heeney couldn't beat Sharkey, Godfrey lost to Sharkey. What is clear is that after Gene retired Godfrey was ranked #2. But from my vantage point, looking back on these people retrospectively, Godfrey should've been ranked higher and Heeney didn't beat as many guys in that timeframe as Godfrey did.

It seemed Godfrey was penalized more for losing to Sharkey (in 1926) than Heeney was for the 2 draws. For me, I think a Godfrey-Tunney fight would've been far more competitive had it happened. Size differentials alone would've made it interesting considering Tunney never fought a large heavyweight who actually was skilled.

Let's look at 1927-1928 for Godfrey:
Prior to the July Heeney-Tunney fight

1927- 16 wins
Two of which were Maloney & Munn
1928- 2 wins, 1 loss
1 win was Uzcudun, 1 loss to Risko

Heeney between 1927-1928 fought a total of 7 in 1927, and before Tunney had 2 fights. So 19 matches to Heeney's 10. Heeney had lost to Uzcudun and drew Uzcudun, and drew Sharkey. The only thing really tipping the scales was Risko. But, all in all, Godfrey beat 3 top contenders in that timeframe. Heeney defeated 3 contenders also (Gorman, Risko, Delaney).

Following Tunney's retirement Godfrey would also defeat Gorman. So it's clear to me that he was on the upside while Heeney was on the downside. These things we can see in retrospect. Godfrey had the momentum, Heeney didn't.

http://newspapers.library.in.gov/?a=d&d ... 707-01.1.6

Especially when you figure that the Risko "loss" was considered one of the worst robberies of that year, where much of the press thought Godfrey won 8 out of the 10 rounds. So it seemed by design to keep him out of title contention.

The newspaper account above states that Gene Tunney publicly declared that he would never defend the title against a negro, and so did Heeney had he defeated Tunney. And that the newspaper reporters felt that the decision went the way it did because Tex Rickard didn't want any black person near the title either. Ironically later on in the newspaper it talks about Jack Dempsey losing a decision in court for never having faced Harry Wills as promised.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, I will refute your points

- Yes Godfrey was big. Weighed a lot more than the other contenders. Doesn't matter. He lost to Sharkey was weighed less than 190. He lost to Riskowho weighed less than 190. Weight doesn't win you fights. It has been proven time and time again.

-Heeney's record after Tunney is irreelvant. Tunney can only fight the best guy at the timeHe didn't have a crystal ball that showed that Heeney's career would fall aprt.

- Heeney was the downside going into the Tunney fight? Umn, that would be a big fat no. His previous fight he beat Delaney. The one before than he he had the draw with Sharkey. The before that he beat Risko. Scored a one-round KO in the fight before that. Heeney was the hottest contender.

-Your ranking make no sense. How could Sharkey possibly be #1? He was winless in his last three fights. Imagine if Tunney gave him a title shot. Besides, you can't say that Tunney ducked Godfrey if you think Sharkey was the number one contender.

Godfrey can't be #2. He had no major wins.

Risko beat both Sharkey and Godfrey. He would have been ahead of both of them. He lost to Heeney. Would have behind Heeney.

-Yes I penalized Godfrey more for losing to Sharkey than I did for Heeney for getting a draw with Sharkey. A draw is better than a loss. Can't believe you don't understand that.

Yes a newspaper writer thought Godfrey should have got the decision over Risko. Big deal.
Going into the Tunney fight, Heeney had the momentum. Godfrey didn't. That is clear as day.

Win/loss records between Risko, Heeney, Sharkey and Godfrey against each other:

Heeney 1-0-1
Risko 2-1
Sharkey 1-1-1
Godfrey 0-2

[HomicideHenry]

I'm standing firm on the Risko fight being controversial where more than one source thought it was a robbery. Therefore between 1927-1928 Godfrey in reality defeated 4 contenders to Heeney's 3.

In a just world the commissioners would have declared Godfrey the logical number one contender because of the fraudulent decision. Where the so called loss meant more than Heeney's last few wins and draws.

Furthermore, it's all there in a source from that time period that Gene Tunney said he would not defend the title against a black person anyway. That is a duck. Especially when the only 2 black people in the top 10 or 15 at that time was Godfrey and Gains.

Therefore, it was a clear directed comment towards Godfrey since he was the higher ranked of the 2 anyways. Mind you I'm not one of these "woke" snowflake types creating mountains out of molehills like so many people do today, but it seems pretty clear to me that the man was avoided by a racist.

After all Tunney never fought light heavyweight champion Battling Siki either. And in the 1940s Tunney signed a document that he felt that black people were not the equals of whites on the basis of their character and intelligence.