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

[Ambling Alp II]

It it nice to see after all of these years that you do seem to some sympathy for black people.

However, you are conflating different subjects together to make a point which simply isn't accurate.
Yes, Tunney was a racist. So was Sullivan and Corbett. Would have been nice to see him fight Siki. however, Tunney never got a shot at the light heavyweight title. He certainly should have. Hard to argue that Siki would have been cheated out of a title shot if he never got one. There is no evidence that Tunney ducked Siki.

None of these means that Tunney should have defended the title against Godfrey.

Godfrey never beat any of the real top contenders by then. The guys that he beat were never serious contenders to get a title shot. He was in no way the logical #1 contender. Hardly anyone thought that at the time. He had lost to Sharkey as well.
Heeney was the most deserving contender at the time, that isn't really arguable.

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]

And again I point to the ring magazine ratings at that time had George Godfrey, if you count the Risko "loss" as a win, defeating more top ten-fifteen contenders than Heeney.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_R ... ings:_1925

As stated before Godfrey was #6 in 1925, and inexplicably not rated at all in 1926. In 1927 he was #9 and 1928 he was #2.

In 1925 the following were rated contenders:

Renault #4, Bud Gorman #5, Paulino Uzcudun #9, Jim Maloney #10

1926:

Maloney #4, Uzcudun #5, Renault #7, Risko #10, Munn #14

1927:

Risko #5, Uzcudun #6, Delaney #7, Renault #12

Godfrey defeated Renault in 1925 as well as Fred Fulton. 1926 he defeated Larry Gains and Bearcat Wright. 1927 he defeated Maloney and Munn. 1928 he defeated Uzcudun and was robbed against Risko. This ain't counting all of the other wins he had against other opponents.

A loss to Sharkey in 1926, for whatever reason, held him out of the 1926 ratings and out of title contention. The major wins against Gains and Wright in 1926 were treated as nothing. So it goes to show that something fishy was going on.

Furthermore... I have always cared about minorities, after all my own ancestry is blended and my fiance is biracial, etc. Just because I don't vote Democrat and don't believe in liberal solutions to problems does not make me a bigot or a racist.

[mattdonnellon]

Enjoying the intellegent and reasonable debate on Godfrey, Tunney etc. Some thoughts; I don't think Tunney ever boxed a black fighter, tht if I'm correct is, well, amazing. Godfrey was well thought of at the time, looking back now, his record then was not overwhelling, but good. Gains is mentioned a lot but he was not considered a serious contender then, and correctly so. Godfrey was generally considered to have won over Risko 5-3-2 and I;m sure was jobbed by Tex in his tourney. Godfrey's reputation as a boxer was based on what people saw in the ring and I'd be pretty sure that he was better than Heeney at this point in time. However, the fact remains that Heeney came out on top in the tourney despite that Sharkey, also was a better fighter. It suited Gene to have an easy fight to ride off into the sunset, for us boxing buffs, a contest with Godfrey or Sharkey would have told us a lot.

[Frostieballs]

How can a title be undisputed if some people were excluded from competing for it?

[Ambling Alp II]

And again I point to the ring magazine ratings at that time had George Godfrey, if you count the Risko "loss" as a win, defeating more top ten-fifteen contenders than Heeney.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_R ... ings:_1925

As stated before Godfrey was #6 in 1925, and inexplicably not rated at all in 1926. In 1927 he was #9 and 1928 he was #2.

In 1925 the following were rated contenders:

Renault #4, Bud Gorman #5, Paulino Uzcudun #9, Jim Maloney #10

1926:

Maloney #4, Uzcudun #5, Renault #7, Risko #10, Munn #14

1927:

Risko #5, Uzcudun #6, Delaney #7, Renault #12

Godfrey defeated Renault in 1925 as well as Fred Fulton. 1926 he defeated Larry Gains and Bearcat Wright. 1927 he defeated Maloney and Munn. 1928 he defeated Uzcudun and was robbed against Risko. This ain't counting all of the other wins he had against other opponents.

A loss to Sharkey in 1926, for whatever reason, held him out of the 1926 ratings and out of title contention. The major wins against Gains and Wright in 1926 were treated as nothing. So it goes to show that something fishy was going on.

Furthermore... I have always cared about minorities, after all my own ancestry is blended and my fiance is biracial, etc. Just because I don't vote Democrat and don't believe in liberal solutions to problems does not make me a bigot or a racist.

And again, the ratings were made by Tex Rickard, a boxing promoter. He obviously had his own self-interests to look out for. i.e. he was probably going to be biased towards fighters that promoted. He also has questionable boxing knowledge. The Ring Magazine ratings at the time don't mean anything.
The guys that Godfrey beat up to that point were not considered top contenders by serious boxing people at the.

Heeney was clearly the top contender at the time. Godfrey clearly wasn't even #2.

[Ambling Alp II]

Enjoying the intellegent and reasonable debate on Godfrey, Tunney etc. Some thoughts; I don't think Tunney ever boxed a black fighter, tht if I'm correct is, well, amazing. Godfrey was well thought of at the time, looking back now, his record then was not overwhelling, but good. Gains is mentioned a lot but he was not considered a serious contender then, and correctly so. Godfrey was generally considered to have won over Risko 5-3-2 and I;m sure was jobbed by Tex in his tourney. Godfrey's reputation as a boxer was based on what people saw in the ring and I'd be pretty sure that he was better than Heeney at this point in time. However, the fact remains that Heeney came out on top in the tourney despite that Sharkey, also was a better fighter. It suited Gene to have an easy fight to ride off into the sunset, for us boxing buffs, a contest with Godfrey or Sharkey would have told us a lot.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I didn't mean to give the impression that Heeney was a great fighter or anything like that. Just saying that at the time, Heeney was the most deserving fighter to get a title shot against Tunney.
Realistically, Tunney could defend the title against Sharkey, who was winless in his previous three fights.
Obviously, Heeney's career wasn't very good after that. However, you can't fault Tunney for that. He defended the title against the most deserving contender at the time.

[HomicideHenry]

How can a title be undisputed if some people we excluded from competing for it?

Fair point.

And Alp...

If the ratings meant absolutely nothing from Ring Magazine because Tex Rickard had a stake in it all, then how can you say in the same sentence that Heeney was clearly number one? If those were the only ratings in the sport to go by then your comment and argument makes no sense because it was those ratings that determined Heeney was the guy.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was clearly number one because he did the best against the other top contenders, (Godfrey, Risko and Sharkey). There was a definite gap after those four at the time. (When I say the top contenders, I am not referring to Tex Rickard's rankings. I am talking about the consensus of the people that followed the sport).

I have pointed out twice the records of the top contenders against each other. Except for a Godfrey-Heeney fight, all of the possible fights between the four had occurred in the previous two years. Even if you want to count the Risko fight as a win for Godfrey (which I don't) Heeney still had the best record among the four against each other. He was the obvious choice at the time to get the title shot.

I really don't know I can be any more clear.

[p4p1]

How can a title be undisputed if some people were excluded from competing for it?

It can't be.
Titles were also infrequently defended which if done today would have fans in uproar.
Corbett defended twice in 5 years. Fitz didn't defend for 2 years. Willard defended twice in 4 years. Dempsey took 3 years off in the middle of his reign. Imagine if fighters did that now. We would all go nuts. I don't blame the guys for not fighting often at the time. They didn't have to and had put in some very hard yards previously.

[Ambling Alp II]

The sport was set up differently. Starting out, a fighter would often take on other young prospects and tough veterans. fights between guys of two different weight classes was fairly common. Basically, a fighter would often take whatever he could get. A fighter's win/loss record was not as important. Travel and communications was much more difficult than it it would become later. Basically, a fighter would often take whatever he could get, sometimes on short notice.

Once a guy won the title, he didn't want to lose it. He wanted to cash in by different ways that didn't including putting his title on the line. One thing we need to consider is that these guys were thinking how they would be viewed on the Internet in 100 years.

[Cojimar 1946]

up through the 1940s many champions seemed to feel they weren't obliged to fight the best. It wasn't really until subsequent decades that champions were expected to face their best challengers.

So realistically a lot of champions were not the best in their divisions or at the least never proved it.

[Cap]

Prior to the TV era, the print media dominated and internationally known sportswriters often took it upon themselves to rate fighters and suggest contenders for champions. When Jeffries was still champ some experts thought he should fight Jack Johnson or Marvin Hart. During Jack Johnson's reign Sam Langford was constantly mentioned and white hopes like Luther McCarty and Gunboat Smith were also suggested. When Willard was champion Fred Fulton's name came up a lot, as did Frank Moran and Jim Coffey. Even Sam Langford was suggested though he was well past his best. As for Dempsey a campaign in one newspaper chain to name his next challenger produced Harry Wills. He didn't fight Wills because politics got involved in an era when black boys and men were routinely lynched all over America.

Back in the day there was no real world governing body for the sport or even an international one. The IBU was not recognized in America. The "world" title was often in dispute. In the heavyweight class it came down to the man who beat the man, but even that was contested. Some saw Corbett as the first world champ because he boxed a draw with Peter Jackson, knocked out John L Sullivan and Joe Choynski and beat the British champion Charlie Mitchell. It was really a matter of who Joe Public thought was the legit title-holder.

[Benny The Kid]

I'm with Ambling Alp, the black Boxers proved they were Great.

I'm not of the option fighting someone numerous times diminishes anything (maybe past 7 fights or so) . I am of the belief often one fight series has the wrong person superior for that single night. History is loaded with these examples on rematches.

IN simulation you're going to have to follow the format Langford & Mcvey laid out fighting about half a dozen times. Often the amount of separation even in simulation is rather slim (such as Ezzard charles vs Walcott).

John L Sullivan I think he would of had several losses to leading contenders of his Time (black & White) But again the win margin is very slim in simulation. It simply indicating he might have several losses.

Jeffries Would of had some difficulties in 1905-06 Staying the Top Dog. There's no question he was the best Boxer in 1904 he would beat any version of a black fighter in 1904. They weren't quite developed enough.

Dempsey in the mid 20's would have a much easier time with black contender's than in 1919.

Dempsey would lose to Harry Wills the first encounter almost no question about it, wills was way too crafty in 1919 he hadn't totally faded out like he was when he fought Jack Sharkey, Nothing In Dempsey resume would have him prepared for Wills. I think the fight would very much resemble Greb vs Tunney 1 by this I'm saying someone with a huge amount of championship caliper rounds logged vs an Upstart but Legendary newbie. It would be a symphony of destruction.

Wills would deliver a huge punishment to him. There was several underclassmen Black Fighters whom certainly could really push for a win against Dempsey such as Jeff Clark & Kid Norfolk in 1919. If Tommy Gibbons can go 15 rounds without getting knocked out I'm sure they could too. Dempsey should of fought Norfolk Immediately after winning the title. Wills was head & shoulders better than both Norfolk & Clark, Dempsey did nothing to prove he was head & shoulders better pre 1920, thus i am of the option Wills would walk all over him in the first meeting.

Simulation show's Dempsey struggles with Wills quite a bit. Almost zero chance Dempsey would go 5-0 against him in a series such as Mcvey &Langford ZERO CHANCE. I would bet my life saving Wills will cremate him first fight when he is the most green. Wills is far superior too Willard in simulation by a large margin. Dempsey was largely untested with the best fighters of the teen's only willard & Fulton whom all rank below the black challengers while wills clearly proved himself no amount of hype can change these events. Dempsey is more than capable of taking some rematches in simulation but he has a learning curve just as it took Tunney a learning curve.

So undisputed Champion I would say no way if you're dodging the best black fighters.

Speculation might have people actually believing Dempsey was superior to Wills. Resume Wills is way ahead.
In analytics (simulation) it heavily backs Wills although they go back & forth in latter rematches..
Speculation is the only thing keeping the dream alive that Dempsey was Superior.
Wills has drastically far more competitive championship rounds boxed than dempsey.
Wills is superior to him in every way possible.

Too often people reduce Wills to what they want based on film of him a decade past his fighting peak with Sharkey.
The Newspapers accounts dont lie plain & simple he was viewed as the best fighter in the 1910's which has quite a few legendary names.
Too often people use a scope looking backwards in history use the scope of the day in newspapers they tell the truth most often about greatness. They all thought Wills was far superior to Willard. NO QUESTION.

Dempsey would be like evel knievel trying to jump the grand canyon going from a Willard boxing merit to a Harry Wills the gap is huge.

Had Dempsey actually took a different route he could have been unquestionable the Heavyweight with the deepest Resume. The exact route Joe Louis used beating older legendary heavyweight's..

He could of fought a past his prime Sam Langford
a prime Harry Wills
a prime Kid Norfolk
and a prime Harry Greb
a prime Gene Tunney

If he had those five on his resume he would be viewed far far far differently and chances are he would of far more developed than he actually was when he fought Tunney by getting in more championship caliper rounds boxed like the way Greb did. He was too bust going soft messing around with Hollywood & women. Very few fighters have that kind of opportunity of heavyweight legends at their reach.