BoxRec

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:YOU CANNOT JUST USE BOXREC TO BACK UP UR CLAIMS. dont be a boxrec hunter. godfrey was viewed by the press as the much better and much more dangerous challenger than tom heeny. YET tunney opted for the much easier task.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:take a look at boxrecs ratings of the 1927 heavyweight division





Heavyweight 1927 1737.0 George Godfrey (http://www.boxrec.com/record017618.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1718.3 Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/record009046.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1671.8 Young Stribling (http://www.boxrec.com/record012052.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1660.5 Armand Emanuel (http://www.boxrec.com/record012069.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1645.0 Jack Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/record012049.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1638.0 Johnny Risko (http://www.boxrec.com/record012063.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1626.5 Jack Sharkey (http://www.boxrec.com/record010616.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1610.9 Clayton (Big Boy) Peterson (http://www.boxrec.com/record017620.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1554.1 Tom Heeney (http://www.boxrec.com/record013554.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1513.0 Jack Dempsey (http://www.boxrec.com/record009009.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1481.2 Martin Burke (http://www.boxrec.com/record011333.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1452.0 Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/record011300.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1448.9 Paolino Uzcudun (http://www.boxrec.com/record012118.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1411.7 Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/record011315.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1411.0 Harry Wills (http://www.boxrec.com/record017615.html)

THEY HAD GODFREY AS # 1 OVER TUNNEY! WHY IS THIS?? WHY IS HEENEY ALL THE WAY BACK AT # 9???

Is it just I, or does it seem like Brockton contradicted himself?

apparentley u missed my other posts where i gave u a newspaper report from the los angeles times AND quotes from boxing historian kevin smith.


what im doing here is im proving my point that u cannot not rely on boxrec as ur only source, as boxrec as weird systems of ratings and some info is not 100% correct. im showing alp that I CAN USE BOXREC AS WELL TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS if i wanted too, but its pointless.

i want to see some newspaper reports, quotes, etc. i have one more newspaper clipping i will post

Idon't know if it's a contradiction or not.
I will say that don't have any respect for Boxrec rankings, and I can't believe he does.. Of course he may be saying something he doesn't believe just make his case look good.
At any rate, I have pointed out again and again why Heeney was deserving of a title shot. I never said that Ring Magazine had him at # 1, in their annual ratings.
I keep trying to explain to Brockton that the rankings in 1928 that have Heeney at #9 came out in early 1929 after he had already lost badly to Tunney badly. He was highly regarded before he lost to Tunney.
If Tunney would have defended Godfrey, Sharkey, or Risko instead of Heeney, he would have been accused of not fighting the most worthy fighter. They had all lost recently, Heeney hadn't.

It should be noted that Ring Magazine rating in their early years were done by promoter Tex Rickard whose expertise and fairness is highly questionable. It would be like having Don King do the current rankings.

As for his numerous post regarding Machen, Folley and Moore, I will say this:
There is no way that Machen and Folley avoided Moore. that is absolutely ridiculaus. They would stand to make more money and get more prestige by beating Moore than almost anyuone else. Both of these guys were willing to fight Sonny Liston (before Liston was champion) and you're trying to say that they were scared of Archie Moore? No way.

It's fine to point out Folley and Machen's bad results, that is fair enough. (That's why I don't rate them higher than I do)
But to say, who besides Machen did Folley ever beat? Folley beat Chuvalo, Jones, and Bonavena. He also knocked out Howard King twice, who once got a draw with Moore. For what it's worth, Folley also beat Valdes, who you keep saying is a big win for Moore.

You also ask who did Machen ever beat? Well don't you know that he beat Quarry, Jones, Valdes twice and Baker, who was supposedly another of Moore's big wins.
And Machen also went the distance with Liston when Liston was knocking out everyone else. No way that Moore would have gone the distance against a prime Liston.

I have pointed out these wins for Brockton many times in the past.

So Moore's prime only went to 1955? That's convenient, since that is when Marciano beat Moore.

As for Moore's wins over Johnson, that is impressive. However that was at lightheavyweight, not heavyweight. Roberto Duran's win Leonard at welterweight doesn't make him a great middleweight because Leonard beat Hagler at middleweight. Moore's wins over Johnson at lightheavyweight are irrelevant when ranking him as a heavyweight.

As for Moore beating Jimmy Bivins, that really doesn't make him a top 30 heavyweight either. Jimmy Bivins was a very good lightheavyweight, but wasn't anything special at heavyweight.

Moore's wins over Valdes and Baker were not big deals. As pointed out many times to Brockton, both have many embarrasing losses (remember Folley beat Valdes and Machen beat both Valdes and Baker.) and few big wins.

It still remains that Moore's biggest win at heavyweight was against Clarence Henry, who was good but certainly nothing spectacular. That simply isn't enough to make him an all time great at heavyweight.

I keep trying to explain to Brockton that the rankings in 1928 that have Heeney at #9 came out in early 1929 after he had already lost badly to Tunney badly. He was highly regarded before he lost to Tunney.

I would like some evidence that he was highly regarded going into the tunney fight because im pretty sure tom heeney wasnt. in fact, challengers like george godfrey were considered MUCH MORE DANGEROUS challengers than heeney was to tunney. godfrey WAS HIGHLY REGARDED, heeney wasnt.


heeney lost to tunney badly cause heeney was not that good. jack sharkey was higher rated than heeney in 1927 and 1928 but never got his title shot. godfrey was considered the much better and more dangerous heavyweight than tom heeney.

larry gains, jack sharkey, george godfrey all defintley deserved shots over tom heeeny. all 3 were much better than heeney

If Tunney would have defended Godfrey, Sharkey, or Risko instead of Heeney, he would have been accused of not fighting the most worthy fighter. They had all lost recently, Heeney hadn't.

thats bull. he would have been alot more appreciated by the press of his time and by modern fans today for taking on the much better challengers in sharkey and godfrey.

-sharkey was rated higher than heeny btw

- black press and godfrey called out gene tunney but tunney wanted no part of him. tunney and tunneys manager avoided fighting a 235lb dangerous black heavyweight cause it was too hard of a fight

its so blantant that tunney avoided godfrey, he did everything he could to weasel his way out of a fight with godfrey. a huge powerful black man was clearly never going to get a shot by gene tunney, that was out of the question. gene would have shit his pants if a big powerful black man got in the ring with him.

so wut does tunney do? instead of taking on jack sharkey(who was whupping jack dempsey badly in 1927), tunney then decides to take on the lower rated challenger and considered far less dangerous challenger in tom heeney.

Walcott had a very solid chin, he took Marciano's best shots for 12 rounds, but it was Walcott's experience and skills that helped him be harder to knock out. In Foreman's case, there is alot of variables as to why he was stopped:

1.) The suffocating heat
2.) Foreman trained in air-conditioned conditions as Ali did not
3.) Foreman was side-lined with an injury
4.) He didn't take Ali seriously; believed he was invincible

but bottom line...Foreman just punched himself out. He banged away at Ali, even missing lots and lots of shots, landing them on the arms, if you watch the film closer, Ali actually won some rounds.

As far as Jimmy Young goes, I believe Foreman thought he was still invincible; hell after he lost to Ali he did that stunt with the Toronto Five, proclaiming he was still the baddest man on the planet and could beat Ali any place any time. Then you have the fact the heat was so awful, and Foreman was dehydrated. Young only had a kayo percentage of barely 30% yet dropped Foreman.

And we all know what happened afterwards...Foreman broke down in the dressing room, blacked out even, and had a religous experience, or for the athiests he was dillusional, and became a minister, and was inactive for well over 10yrs.

Foreman, like Liston, was easily manipulated. If they broke down mentally, you had one helluva chance.

It's fine to point out Folley and Machen's bad results, that is fair enough. (That's why I don't rate them higher than I do)
But to say, who besides Machen did Folley ever beat? Folley beat Chuvalo, Jones, and Bonavena. He also knocked out Howard King twice, who once got a draw with Moore. For what it's worth, Folley also beat Valdes, who you keep saying is a big win for Moore.

chuvalo, jones, bonavena?? wow big deal. anyone else?


-howard king got a draw with a 41 year old moore who was now past his prime. O MIGHT I ADD moore had already beaten howard 5 times inclouding 1 time by kayo!


-also u should do more research. the draw with archie moore was a bogus HOMETOWN DECISION in kings backyard

For what it's worth, Folley also beat Valdes, who you keep saying is a big win for Moore

valdes was past his prime when folley beat him. moore beat a prime nino valdes.

You also ask who did Machen ever beat? Well don't you know that he beat Quarry, Jones, Valdes twice and Baker, who was supposedly another of Moore's big wins.

he beat a green 20 year old jerry quarry


- bob baker was far past his prime and was suffering from terribly hand injuries when machen beat him. this was not the bob baker from the early 1950s.

- valdes was near his prime when machen beat him the first time and this is a very solid win, but the first fight was extremely close and in the 2nd fight valdes was way out of shape. valdes also was a bit in the decline in 1956, he had recentley lost wide decisions to bob baker and bob satterfield and he wasnt training hard anymore, he didnt have his same motivation that he used to have.

And Machen also went the distance with Liston when Liston was knocking out everyone else. No way that Moore would have gone the distance against a prime Liston.

totally disagree. due to styles, i think moore matches up very well vs liston and would have a very good chance at lasting the distance vs liston, PLUS giving him a closer fight than machen did. archie moore matched up very well vs the big hard punching boxers like bob baker, nino valdes. he matches up agaisnt them very well. what killed archie moore was speed aka floyd patterson or pressure aka rocky marciano. sonny liston was not a speed demon nor was he a pressure freak. liston liked to sit back and box and wait for the opening. only problem is moore never gave u an opening

sonny liston competitive but clear 15 unanimous moore

So Moore's prime only went to 1955? That's convenient, since that is when Marciano beat Moore.

his prime went to 1955 or 1956. do u know why? cause it was after this year that he stopped beating the top contenders in the light-H and heavyweight division like he used to. age was finally starting to catch up with moore. in 1958 he had the awful spell with durell and had a intense struggle with bert whitehurst a man who moore easilt kayoed in 1954. moore was clearly on the downcline in 1958.

As for Moore's wins over Johnson, that is impressive. However that was at lightheavyweight, not heavyweight.

actually johnson was always a LIGHT-H even when he moved up to heavyweight.

archie moore beat a 175lb harold johnson

johnson was 181lb when he beat machen. only 7lb more. but johnson was also 7 years older and clearly slower when he fought machen.

so as u see, moores win over a prime johnson far overshadows machens loss to a PAST HIS PRIME harold johnson

- I DONT THINK UR GRASPING JOHNSON WAS NOT IN HIS PRIME WHEN HE FOUGHT MACHEN BUT HE WAS WHEN HE FOUGHT MOORE

Moore's wins over Johnson at lightheavyweight are irrelevant when ranking him as a heavyweight.

bullshit because as i expained, harold johnson fought most of his heavyweight fights WEIGHING 175LB. so it does count.


johnson beat top heavyweight contenders henry, valdes, satterfield, charles, weighing 175-77lb

As for Moore beating Jimmy Bivins, that really doesn't make him a top 30 heavyweight either. Jimmy Bivins was a very good lightheavyweight, but wasn't anything special at heavyweight.

thats such bull and u know it. jimmy bivins is veiwed as one of the best heavyweight never to win a title. bivins was the duration heavyweight champ 42-45 during louis wars years. bivins was viewed as the clear # 1 heavyweight contender during the mid 1940s and some even believe that louis avoided a fight with bivins(which i think is not true, bivins had his chances in 1946 but blew them). bivins should have got a title shot vs louis though but never did.


bivins was one of the best heavyweight contenders of the 1940s, a VASTLY underated heavyweight era.


bivins has an oustanding heavyweight resume check out who bivins beat..........


bob pastor - very talented boxer, one of the best contenders of louis era. pastor beat many of the avoided black contenders of that era.
tami mauriello - top contender of the 1940s
lee savold - tough durable good boxer, contender of the 1940s
pat valentino - very tough strong contender of the 1940s
6'0 210lb lee Q murray- murray is a horribly underated and unknown fighter. murray was one of the best heavyweight contenders of that era. a highly avoided black contender. this may seem off the wall, but i veiw lee q murray as a top 50 heavyweight of all time. bivins went 3-2 vs murray. hatchetman sheppard said " of lee q murray......... "I fought Lee Q. Murray six times. He'd be a champ today. He would'a beat Riddick Bowe or Holyfield."
hatchetman sheppard- one of the hardest hitters of that era and a highly avoided black contender of the 1940s. bivins beat sheppard 4 times. sheppard would be considered a murderous puncher in any era.
melio bettina- bettina was 185lb and a top heavyweight contender when bivins beat him. bettina was a master boxer yet bivins won all 10 rounds in there 1943 encounter.
buddy walker- walker was another one of the dangerous avoided black contenders of the 1940s. bivins dispatched walker in 2 rounds
6'4 220lb johnny haynes- haynes was a huge black contender who had devasting power. haynes was a fringe contender who was a very dangerous threat to the top contenders/champs cause of his size, strength, power. this is a legite win over a big man. bivins starched him in 2.
omelio agramonte- agramonte was a very fast elusive stylish boxer. he fought similiar to jersey joe walcott. agramonte was a cutie and did a lot of tricks in the ring. he also supposedly had a good right hand. bivins took apart the young contender out in 2 short rounds.
6'0 206lb johnny flynn- flynn was a contender of the mid-late 1940s. dont know much about flynn, ill have to research him more thoroughly.
6'0-6'5??? 220lb sid peaks- peaks was a big ferosious hitting heavyweight like johnny haynes except peaks had more skill than haynes. peaks was a very dangerous contender of the late 1940s. a past his prime bivins soundily beat him in 1948
rusty payne- a past his prime bivins beat contender rusty paynes. paynes had wicked left hook.
6'3 205lb willie bean- bean is a unknown and underated fringe black contender of the late 40s-early 1950s. bivins was far past his prime yet still whipped bean. this is another bivins win over a big heavyweight.
5'10 222lb turkey thomspon- thompson was past his prime but so was bivins and thompson wasnt shot considering he was coming off wins over contenders (riveria, godoy, haynes). bivins soundily outboxed him the whole fight despite giving up 37lb weight advantage.
young clarence henry- clarence henry was green and had not peaked yet, but still an impressive win for a aging bivins over a young highly touted prospect like henrhy. henry would go on to become a top heavyweight contender and one of the biggest threats in the heavyweight division in the early 1950s. a threat enough that marcianos manager, al weill, avoided sending marciano in against henry in 1952 and opted instead for a fight with lee savold.
Tiger Ted Lowry- lowry was a highly experienced veteran black journeyman. lowry was a stylish defensive boxer who knew the tricks of the trade. he was the emanuel agustus of his day, a man who was always involved in close fights but was on the wrong end of bad hometown decisions.
6'3 200lb colley wallace- huge upset. wallace was 16-1 highly touted contender who was being compared to joe louis. in fact if u watch wallace fight, he fought a lot similiar to joe louis and looked exactley like louis. like louis, wallace had a very good jab, a wicked powerful right hand, and good boxing skills for a big man. bivins was far past his prime when he fought wallace yet he managed to catch wallace and score a stunning one punch KO over the big contender.

6'3 195lb Mike dejohn- THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE MAN. Bivins was absolute a shot fighter yet he managed to outpoint 27-2 very hard hitting contender mike de john. dejohn was one of the hardest hitting heavyweights of pattersons era and bivins was old and shot, yet he still managed to somehow beat dejohn. amazing.


as u see wut a heavyweight resume bivins has. its filled with very solid depth. bivins also has a lot of wins over powerful skilled big heavyweights. he handled the big men well.

- i can defintley see a peak 185lb bivins possibly outpointing machen and folley. i see bivins as a top 50 heavyweight of all time, right alongside machen and folley. also archie didnt just beat bivins. ARCHIE DOMINATED BIVINS IN THERE 1947 FIGHT, I HAVE IT ON TAPE. ARCHIE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF HIM KNOCKING HIM DOWN IN ROUND 8 AT THE BELL. now if archie is dominating a heavyweight in the class of machen and folley, then surely that merits a high mark on moores record. REMEMBER DOMINATION COUNTS TOO. the way moore dominated bivins, i cant see machen or folley ever being able to beat a prime HW moore.








bivins fought a near peak jersey joe walcott, a top 20 heavyweight of all time and bivins gave a very good account of himself in a close fight despite clearly losing(the scorecards are a lot closer than the fight appeared....walcott won handily). bivins showed in this fight he is not too far from the heavyweight class of a jersey joe walcott.

bivins was competive when he fought a peak charles, top 20 heavyweight of all time in there 1946-48 bouts.

bivins was dominated and knocked out by moore in 1947, this speaks more on behalf of how good moore was. but bivins bounced back and lost a razor thin decision to moore in 1948 at this point when he was past his prime.

bivins was pretty unbeatable in the 1942-45 period at his peak, and he was highly avoided by some of the white challengers during that period. the only top heavyweight from that period bivins never fought was elmer violent ray. too bad that fight never took place, it would have been a great one indeed.

There is no way that Machen and Folley avoided Moore. that is absolutely ridiculaus. They would stand to make more money and get more prestige by beating Moore than almost anyuone else.

than tell me why when moore was viewed as unquestionably the best heavyweight in the world in 1956, neither folley or machen stepped up to challenge moore??

Moore's wins over Valdes and Baker were not big deals. As pointed out many times to Brockton, both have many embarrasing losses (remember Folley beat Valdes and Machen beat both Valdes and Baker.) and few big wins.

It still remains that Moore's biggest win at heavyweight was against Clarence Henry, who was good but certainly nothing spectacular. That simply isn't enough to make him an all time great at heavyweight.

machen and especially folley beat past there prime versions of bob baker and nino valdes. baker was especially past his prime.


moore beat prime versions of valdes and baker




it still remains moores best win at heavyweight was over harold johnson. harold johnson even in his heavyweight career fought at 175lb so there is no difference between a heavyweight and light-h harold johnson. harold johnson wasnt like archie moore who would fight at 190lb in his heavyweight fights then drop down to 175lb during his light-H fights. johnson wasnt like that. johnson would fight at his same weight regardless of the size of the opponent. harold johnson took on 6'4 210lb nino valdes weighing only 176lb. as u see a 175lb harold johnson IS ALSO THE HEAVYWEIGHT VERSION OF JOHNSON.


also jimmy bivins was a 185lb legite heavyweight in 1947 when moore beat him.


prime jimmy bivins and prime harold johnson are the best heavyweight wins moore has, even better than moores win over the vastly underated clarence henry.

johnson and bivins are better than folley and machen.


* henry was just as good as machen and folley. henry was a good solid boxer with fast speed and expolisve power. before he started having eye sight problems, henry was one of the most dangerous contenders out there. papers started comparing henry in the class of a jersey joe walcott in 1952. henry was a threat to marciano, charles, walcotts throne. only harold johnson and archie moore were able to beat henry in his prime and it the harold johnson fight was very close.


bob baker and nino valdes in there primes were very legite skilled big men. these guys were just as good as some of the alpha champs of the 1980s. im talking these guys in there primes early 1950s.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I keep trying to explain to Brockton that the rankings in 1928 that have Heeney at #9 came out in early 1929 after he had already lost badly to Tunney badly. He was highly regarded before he lost to Tunney.

I would like some evidence that he was highly regarded going into the tunney fight because im pretty sure tom heeney wasnt. in fact, challengers like george godfrey were considered MUCH MORE DANGEROUS challengers than heeney was to tunney. godfrey WAS HIGHLY REGARDED, heeney wasnt.


heeney lost to tunney badly cause heeney was not that good. jack sharkey was higher rated than heeney in 1927 and 1928 but never got his title shot. godfrey was considered the much better and more dangerous heavyweight than tom heeney.

larry gains, jack sharkey, george godfrey all defintley deserved shots over tom heeeny. all 3 were much better than heeney

If Tunney would have defended Godfrey, Sharkey, or Risko instead of Heeney, he would have been accused of not fighting the most worthy fighter. They had all lost recently, Heeney hadn't.

thats bull. he would have been alot more appreciated by the press of his time and by modern fans today for taking on the much better challengers in sharkey and godfrey.

-sharkey was rated higher than heeny btw

- black press and godfrey called out gene tunney but tunney wanted no part of him. tunney and tunneys manager avoided fighting a 235lb dangerous black heavyweight cause it was too hard of a fight

its so blantant that tunney avoided godfrey, he did everything he could to weasel his way out of a fight with godfrey. a huge powerful black man was clearly never going to get a shot by gene tunney, that was out of the question. gene would have shit his pants if a big powerful black man got in the ring with him.

so wut does tunney do? instead of taking on jack sharkey(who was whupping jack dempsey badly in 1927), tunney then decides to take on the lower rated challenger and considered far less dangerous challenger in tom heeney.

You made some many inane comments from this and other posts concerning Moore and Tunney that it's difficult deciding which one's to address.
I guess first I will address your comment that you don't believe Heeney was highly regarded before he fought Tunney.
Well, since you think the Ring Rankings are so important, check them for 1927 (which come out in early 1928) Heeney is ahead of Godfrey.
He was only behind Tunney, Dempsey, and Sharkey,. Dempsey retired. That left only Sharkey between Heeney and Tunney. Then Sharkey lost to Risko in March of 1928. Therefore he wasn't worthy of a title shot in july of 1928.
See when you lose, you don't deserve a title shot right away. Get it?
Risko didn't deserve a shot because he had just lost to Heeney in late 1927.
Godfrey didn't deserve a shot because he lost to Sharkey, and also to Risko in 1928.
You keep bringing up Gains, he hadn't beaten anyone at all at this point and wasn't considered a serious contender.

To sum it up, Godfrey, Sharkey, and Risko had all recently lost. You don't deserve a title shot right after you lose. If Tunney would have fought any of these guys he would have been accused of not fighting the most deserving contender.
Heeney hadn't lost recently (and beat Risko) and therefore was considered the logical opponent. Remember, there wasn't monthy rankings at the time. If there was, Heeney would have been the # 1 contender on July 26, 1928 when he fought Tunney.
I have explained this to you several times, and you keep ignoring it. Think this through. It isn't rocket science.

As for your comments about Tunney being so scared of a big black man; grow up. Think before you say something so stupid. Show some class. I don't always agree with you, but I didn't think you were one of those who would stoop to this kind of gutter talk. (BTW, you yourself said you thought Tunney would have beaten Godfrey. He wasn't scared of Dempsey,and he wouldn't be scared of Godfrey. Godfrey hadn't done anything to make Tunney afraid. )

As for Archie Moore, you actually think he would be competitive against Liston and go 15 rounds? And you say you are an expert on films. Watch Liston. He would have absolutely destroyed Moore. Many other fighters got through Moore's defense and hurt him. I like Moore, and I don't like Liston at all; however I can be realistic at what would happen in this fight. It would ugly. Moore would lucky to make to the middle rounds.

Jimmy Bivins may have been the best heavyweight not to win the title? My lord. He lost to among others, Maxim, Murray, a washed up Joe Louis, and journymen Sid Peaks and Leonard Morrow.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with the guys from the 1940's that Bivins beat. I guess I agree with most people that the 1940's wasn't that good of decade for heavyweights. Most people said so at the time and there isn't much evidence since to contradict this. You keep naming names from the 1940's. So what. Every decade has names.

My favorite comment may have been that Mike DeJohn was an "Incredible Man" I thought so little of him that I didn't even list him as a guy that both Folley and Machen knocked out. Mike De John? Wow. Sorry if I'm not impressed that Bivins won a 6 round decison over the legendary Mike DeJohn.

As for Valdes being past his prime when Folley beat him,well he was only 31. Your favorites always seem to have such short primes.
Quarry beat a green when Machen beat him? Well actually he was 21, already had 20 fights and would fight to a draw with Patterson the next year. Machen himself was a day short of 34. That's a nice win for Machen.

Baker was past his prime when Machen beat him? He was only 30. Yet another case of one of your favorites being past it earlier than most heavyweights.

Nino Valdes wasn't motivated when Machen beat him? Well poor Nino. What a lame excuse.

And no Archie Moore doesn't get credit for Harold Johnson wins at heavyweight.
You said it your self that Tunney doesn't deserve credit for someone that Greb beat; so why would you give Moore credit for someone that Johnson beat,that Moore hadn't beat himself? Doesn't make sense.

And yes it does make a difference that Johnson weighed "only" 6 pounds more than the lightheavyweight limit. Obviously, Johnson thought he would be a better heavyweight at 181 than 175; other wise he wouldn't have bulked up. Moore didn't beat this version of Johnson. He beat the lightheavyweight Harold Johnson.

Some of these comments I (and others) have addressed many times. Yet you often keep saying the same things without refuting what we say. It seems obvious that you aren't reading my entire responses. Stop and read other mine and other entire people's posts. Then think about them before saying anything.
You have some interesting things to say; but you need to consider what others have to say as well. No one knows everything.

...kid chocolate kind of wasted his talent but when he was good he was very good indeed. but i still think willie pep would have boxed him silly.

if johnson was so concerned about bulking up, why would johnson feel the need to "bulk up" to 181 vs small eddie machen yet decide to come in at 175lb vs big dangerous nino valdes?? as u see ur comment about johnson bulking up made no sense. had johnson really been so concerned about bulking up, he would have come in heavier when he fought the big dangerouc nino valdes. but fact is johnson felt more comfortable fighting at around 175lb even when he fought the best heavyweights.

when harold johnson fought top heavyweight contenders ezzard charles and clarence henry.....johnson weighed in at 176lb and 177lb. not much different than 175lb huh? u see harold johnson was a natural light-H. he wasnt cutting from over 200lb every fight like moore was. so its not like a 175lb harold johnson was more weight drained than a 177lb johnson. not at all.

since harold johnson fought almost all of his top heavyweight fights close to the 175lb mark, i see no reason why we cant give archie credit for beating a heavyweight version of harold johnson. would it have really mattered if johnson stepped into the ring against moore at 177lb vs 175lb??



i might also add that harold johnson DID NOT bulk up vs eddie machen. that was natural weight 181lb, johnson was older now 33 and he naturally put on the weight. HOWEVER if u watch the films johnson is slower and his reflexes have diminished in the machen fight compared to the archie moore fight. so archie beat a younger faster better version of harold johnson. in comparsion machen lost to a 33 year old slower harold johnson. had it been the early-mid 1950s harold johnson, he most surely would have won a wide points decision over machen

And yes it does make a difference that Johnson weighed "only" 6 pounds more than the lightheavyweight limit. Obviously, Johnson thought he would be a better heavyweight at 181 than 175; other wise he wouldn't have bulked up. Moore didn't beat this version of Johnson. He beat the lightheavyweight Harold Johnson

moore beat a faster better younger version of johnson. 33 year old johnson looked slower in the machen fight than when he was in his prime vs moore. johnson came in heavier against machen cause of his age, not because he thought it would help.


even in johsnons prime he would come into heavyweight fights at around 175-178lb. is there any reason to believe a 175lb version of harold johnson is any different than a 177lb version of harold johnson? i say not. hell archie moore was weight drained in there 1954 encounter and he still knocked out harold johnson. NOW IMAGINE if harold johnson had to tangle with a 185-190lb version of moore. he would get even more hammered.


moore beat everyone he faced as a heavyweight except ali, patterson, marciano. these 3 fighters were FAR BETTER than machen and folley. out of over 75 fights as a heavyweight, only 3 men were able to beat archie moore and they were ATG's. thats amazing. archie was far more consistent than machen and folley.


it took an ATG at heavyweight to beat archie moore. were machen and folley ATG's??? no they were at the bob baker, clarence henry, nino valdes, harold johnson, jimmy bivins level.



archie didnt just beat these guys he DOMINATED THEM. domination counts.

TKO 9 jimmy bivins
TKO 14 harold johnson
2 unanimous decisions over nino valdes
TKO 9 bob baker
WIDE 10 unanimous clarence henry



as u seee moore dominated them. if moore had such litttle trouble with these guys, wut makes u think he would have trouble with machen and folley??




folley in his prime was knocked out by young jack johnson, johnny summerlin, alejandro lavorante, doug jones. NOW HOW THE HELL DO U RATE HIM OVER ARCHIE MOORE WHEN HES LOSING TO GUYS LIKE THAT?

LOSSES COUNT. archie in his heavyweight career never lost to fighters like that, LET ALONE getting knocked out 4 times in his prime by a fighter of that calibre. this is a really bad mark on folleys record. it shows far less fighters than moore were able to beat folley. surely if these guys can beat folley, then a master boxing wizard powerpunching sharpshooter like archie moore could. folley is vunerable to being knocked out. moore is the all time KO king, im sure he could find a way to knock out folley.

u expect me to believe folley can beat moore when light-H doug jones knocked out folley? doug jones was nowhere near the class of archie moore as a fighter, puncher, or a light-h.



hell alp, u should start by trying to make a case that folley can beat a 1962 archie moore. forget a prime early-mid 1950s moore, he was way above folley.

45 year old archie moore dominated and knocked out alejandro lavorante, the same man who knocked out a prime zora folley. now imagine if it had been the other way around, u would have been all over archie moore for this. this is a very bad mark on folleys record.


however it seems u like to ignore folley and machens losses and count the wins only. go figure



archies 3 heavyweight losses--- rocky marciano, floyd patterson, muhaammad ali

machens lost to- ingemar johannsen, past his prime harold johnson, zora folley, floyd patterson. can u imagine moore getting flattened in one round by ingo johannsen??


folley lost to-- johnny summerlin, young jack johnson, light-h doug jones, alejandro lavorante........ok ill stop right there before i embarras folley even more.


as u see folley and machen losses are a lot worse than moores. moores consistency vs world class competition is far better than machen and folleys.


how did machen fare vs the best boxers he faced??

L to 33 year old harold johnson
L unanimous to zora folley
L wide shutout decision to floyd patterson, machen down 5 times


this is not good. machen did not do well vs the best boxers he faced. this leads me to believe he would not be able to handle a boxer of moores calibre.

Baker was past his prime when Machen beat him? He was only 30. Yet another case of one of your favorites being past it earlier than most heavyweights.

bob baker was a old 30. he was far past his prime when he fought machen.


baker had lost 4 out of his last 6 fights going into the machen fight including losses to journeyman willie besmanoff and roy harris. NOT THE SIGN OF A PRIME FIGHTER TO ME. baker had considerable aged by the time he fought machen. the hand injuries he suffered over the years had finally caught up to him and he was suffering from terrible brittle hands as well as diminished reflexes. he wasnt training anymore cause of the hand injuries and didnt have confidence in himself anymore. he was losing consistently to low level competition. baker wasnt even in the top 10 anymore when machen beat him.


bakers prime was the early 1950s when he was consistently beating world class opposition and being ranked in the top 5 in the world.


had baker fought guys like roy harris, dick richardson, and willie besmanoff in his prime, he would have killed them.

* baker did beat hurricane jackson but was robbed in the rematch. AP scored the fight 8 rounds to 4 baker and new york times scored it 7 rounds to 5 for baker.


baker was a very good boxer, excellent handspeed for a big heavyweight and had solid power as well. he was also big 6'2 220lb. at his peak, baker would be a handle for anyone. a true big man with skills and power. a matchup between machen and prime baker would have been a very good one. this is a hard pickem.


if u think machen beat a near prime bob baker, then i suggest u start researching more on bob baker and marcianos era.

As for Valdes being past his prime when Folley beat him,well he was only 31. Your favorites always seem to have such short primes.
Quarry beat a green when Machen beat him? Well actually he was 21, already had 20 fights and would fight to a draw with Patterson the next year. Machen himself was a day short of 34. That's a nice win for Machen.

quarry had faced no world class opponents up to the time of the machen fight. quarry best win prior to the machen fight was over 8-2 average tony doyle. the best fighter quarry faced prior to the machen fight was fringe contender tony doyle who quarry couldnt even beat. quarry was very young and inexperienced vs world class opposition. quarry had clearly not reached his prime yet. machen used his experience to beat green quarry. quarry improved a lot the next year by the time he fought patterson. young fighters improve a lot in one year. but i have no doubt archie moore would have used his incredible experience to outclass the green 21 year old quarry.

in fact i think moore would have easily beaten the 1966 quarry


valdes was past his prime when he fought folley. he was still a dangerous contender, but that was not the peak nino in there. nino had lost 4 out of his last 7 going into the folley fight and was falling out of the top 10. he was clearly on the downcline.


favorites seem to have short primes?? well how long do u define prime?? u simply have an agenda against marcianos era, and u seem to highly favor the late 1950s heavyweights. just cause theres a lot of info on machen and folley does not mean they are better than some of the less known heavyweight contenders of the early 1950s. of course machen and folley are well known, they fought during the great muhammad alis era.

Jimmy Bivins may have been the best heavyweight not to win the title? My lord. He lost to among others, Maxim, Murray, a washed up Joe Louis, and journymen Sid Peaks and Leonard Morrow.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with the guys from the 1940's that Bivins beat. I guess I agree with most people that the 1940's wasn't that good of decade for heavyweights. Most people said so at the time and there isn't much evidence since to contradict this. You keep naming names from the 1940's. So what. Every decade has names.

wow do u know who jimmy bivins is?? hes a hall of famer. have u ever seen bivins on film?? he was a master boxer, one of the best pure boxers in history. treat the man with more respect.


- bivins was past his prime when he lost to morrow, sid peaks, joe louis, aand maxim. bivins prime was 1943-47. sid peaks WAS NOT A JOURNEYMAN. he was a big 225lb HUGE PUNCHING dangerous contender. peaks was a threat to any top contender cause of his size and power. SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR OTHER ERAS!

bivins was the duration heavyweight champ and # 1 contender during the whole WW II. most experts believe he defintley should have got a title shot vs louis and some believe he would have given louis quite a bit of trouble.


- watch bivins on film(pre 1948), he was perhaps a better boxer than both machen and folley. certainly just as good a heavyweight.




-i wouldnt call joe louis in 1951 washed up. he was the # 1 contender.

Excuse me if I'm not impressed with the guys from the 1940's that Bivins beat.

exuse me if i can see u clearly do not know anything about the heavyweight division in the 1940s. u have not studied it, not bothered to watch any film, and clearly have not read newspaper articles from that era. u give no respect to that era. just cause the era isnt as popular as the "incredible godly like" 70s era doesnt mean it was not good. cause the 1940s HW division had a lot of depth.

u simply use boxrec to make up ur mind about the 1940s heavyweight division. why dont u get off ur lazy ass and start researching it.

I guess I agree with most people that the 1940's wasn't that good of decade for heavyweights

speak for urself buddy




have u ever heard of

harry bobo
* jimmy bivins
eddie blunt
roscoe toles
lee q murray
hatchetman sheppard
buddy walker
turkey thomspon
elmer ray
otis thomas
lem franklin
big boy brown
gene tiger jones
kid riveria
johnny haynes
sid peaks

all these guys were avoided black contenders at some point in the 1940s. some of these guys were damm good fighters who unquestionably deserved a shot at joe louis title.



and im not even including guys like joe louis, jersey joe walcott ,ezzard charles and all the top white contenders which would make this seem like a good era.

Most people said so at the time and there isn't much evidence since to contradict this. .

please provide ur source of the people who said this.

- theres plenty of evidence, open ur eyes

You keep naming names from the 1940's. So what. Every decade has names

im sorry that u hadvnt done enough studying of this era to recgonize the names. start studying the era then come back and talk to me.

My favorite comment may have been that Mike DeJohn was an "Incredible Man" I thought so little of him that I didn't even list him as a guy that both Folley and Machen knocked out. Mike De John? Wow. Sorry if I'm not impressed that Bivins won a 6 round decison over the legendary Mike DeJohn.

im simply pointing out that a shot version of a fighter was able to score a huge upset win over a dangerous ranked contender like dejohn. and dejohn was dangerous, one of the hardest hitters of that era. this is a very good win on bivins resume considering the circumstances.

As for Archie Moore, you actually think he would be competitive against Liston and go 15 rounds? And you say you are an expert on films. Watch Liston. He would have absolutely destroyed Moore. Many other fighters got through Moore's defense and hurt him. I like Moore, and I don't like Liston at all; however I can be realistic at what would happen in this fight. It would ugly. Moore would lucky to make to the middle rounds.

i could look at it the other way and say if far less skilled guys like bert whitehurst, eddie machen, marty marshall could go the distance with liston, so could archie moore.

im sorry but ur not giving archie enough credit here. archie was a true master boxer in every defintion. he had a lot of heart, great recup powers, incredible ring smarts, excellent awareness, top notch defense. not to mention archie moore has incredible amounts of world class experience, he knows all the tricks of the trade.
based on these traits moore has, its very realistic to believe moore has a excellent chance at surviving the distance with liston, especially when far less fighters like bert whitehurst was able to do it twice.

And you say you are an expert on films. Watch Liston. He would have absolutely destroyed Moore.

obviosely u are not an expert. go watch the films again. archie moore matches up very well vs liston. WERE TALKING STYLES HERE.

- liston did not have the speed of charles or patterson nor did he put on pressure and aggresion like marciano did.

archie moore had a history of doing well vs the big skilled but slower sluggers. archie moore will have a lot easier time avoiding listons slower bombs than he would patterson and ezzard charles. archie moore was a master craftsmen.

- of course if liston catches and hurts archie bad, its over. but i dont see that happening. i see this being a boxing match with liston winning it based on his jab and physical advantages.


liston was a big standup boxer who liked to sit back and box and wait for the opening. liston was cautious, he never rushed things. he didnt go in there widly aggresive like foreman trying to knock ur head off.

only when u got aggresive and offensive with liston did he get very aggresive with u. but archie moore is too smart to mix it up with liston. he will sit back and counterpunch and make a boring fight out of it. difference is archie had better boxing skills than machen so archie will make a more interesting fight out of it for liston. archies old school shell defense, cute tricks, counterpunching, and survival mode will enable him to give liston some problems.

archie wont come out against liston like patterson and williams did. no way.


however i see liston winning a comfortable unanimous decision over moore with moore being floored. i see listons jab doing a good deal on moore. listons physical advantages and underated boxing skills will be too much on moore. but liston will have respect for archie since he is the all time KO king, and he will not wildy advance on archie. liston will be smart about his advances.

however in this fight moore wont get hit as much as u think. listons slower punches will be easier to avoid by archie. archie will also fight in survival mode like machen making it harder to knock him out.


liston 15 unanimous



its all about styles. moore matches up well vs liston.

As for your comments about Tunney being so scared of a big black man; grow up. Think before you say something so stupid. Show some class. I don't always agree with you, but I didn't think you were one of those who would stoop to this kind of gutter talk. (BTW, you yourself said you thought Tunney would have beaten Godfrey. He wasn't scared of Dempsey,and he wouldn't be scared of Godfrey. Godfrey hadn't done anything to make Tunney afraid. )

well this is evidence that tunney and his handlers were very scared to fight george godfrey, and godfrey is a big black man.


tunney never fought a black figther, he drew the color line far more than other champions of that era. this is a very bad mark on tunneys legacy.



please dont gimme that ratings bullshit. if u go back to 1928, almost all th experts viewed george godfrey as by far the most dangerous challenger to tunneys thrown and the most deserving of a title shot. tunney and his handlers wanted no part of godfey even though the black press and experts were calling for a godfrey-tunney match. tunney elected for the much easier fight with tom heeney. hell if tunney was going to defend it against a white challenger like he did, he should have picked the much better of the 2 white challengers..... jack sharkey. the way sharkey handled dempsey and the way it ended controversially the press was calling for a sharkey- tunney fight. tom heeney was not viewed highly in that era. jack sharkey was much more highly thought of.

-sharkey always claimed tunney ducked him. even told my father that tunney wanted an easy last title defense so he avoided him.


look at todays era.......the ring ratings are messed up. just cause a guys # 1 does not mean hes the best challenger out there.

in 1928, the entire boxing world veiwed jack sharkey and george godfrey as unquestionably the 2 best challengers out there.





as for larry gains, cause he was black he didnt get fair ratings. neither did godfrey. the rating system was manipulized against them. gaines should have been in the top 5. gaines was much better than tom heeney and the entire boxing world knew it.

why do u think gaines was so avoided by white fighters?



godfrey was on cuffs when he lost to risko. godfrey didnt try. had he tried he would have whupped risko.




tunneys handlers claimed he would only fight harry wills. of course tunney didnt want to fight A PRIME big strong powerful black heavyweight. they would only fight a old washed up black heavyweight.


- funny thing is tunney and his handlers waited until after sharkey exposed an old wills to finally say they were willing to fight him.


-gene tunney was one of the most protected fighters of all time




tunney did not fight godfrey or sharkey in his last title defense. he should be penalized for this. tunney did not beat the best challengers during his title reign. the best challengers were jack sharkey and george godfrey. tunney did not face them. tunney instead fought a old rusty dempsey and a nothing special tom heeney.

- tunney retired with 3 oustanding challengers godfrey, sharkey, gains begging for title shots. tunney wanted no part of them. especially godfrey.



btw i think godfrey would have whupped the 1926 dempsey. sharkey did whupp the 1927 dempsey but got cheated.

..jersey joe walcott once had a conversation. it was at a banquet. he said, "pardon me, but you're sitting in my seat." I said, "Oops, pardon me" amd got up. marciano did not come into the conversation at all.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

As for your comments about Tunney being so scared of a big black man; grow up. Think before you say something so stupid. Show some class. I don't always agree with you, but I didn't think you were one of those who would stoop to this kind of gutter talk. (BTW, you yourself said you thought Tunney would have beaten Godfrey. He wasn't scared of Dempsey,and he wouldn't be scared of Godfrey. Godfrey hadn't done anything to make Tunney afraid. )

well this is evidence that tunney and his handlers were very scared to fight george godfrey, and godfrey is a big black man.


tunney never fought a black figther, he drew the color line far more than other champions of that era. this is a very bad mark on tunneys legacy.



please dont gimme that ratings bullshit. if u go back to 1928, almost all th experts viewed george godfrey as by far the most dangerous challenger to tunneys thrown and the most deserving of a title shot. tunney and his handlers wanted no part of godfey even though the black press and experts were calling for a godfrey-tunney match. tunney elected for the much easier fight with tom heeney. hell if tunney was going to defend it against a white challenger like he did, he should have picked the much better of the 2 white challengers..... jack sharkey. the way sharkey handled dempsey and the way it ended controversially the press was calling for a sharkey- tunney fight. tom heeney was not viewed highly in that era. jack sharkey was much more highly thought of.

-sharkey always claimed tunney ducked him. even told my father that tunney wanted an easy last title defense so he avoided him.


look at todays era.......the ring ratings are messed up. just cause a guys # 1 does not mean hes the best challenger out there.

in 1928, the entire boxing world veiwed jack sharkey and george godfrey as unquestionably the 2 best challengers out there.





as for larry gains, cause he was black he didnt get fair ratings. neither did godfrey. the rating system was manipulized against them. gaines should have been in the top 5. gaines was much better than tom heeney and the entire boxing world knew it.

why do u think gaines was so avoided by white fighters?



godfrey was on cuffs when he lost to risko. godfrey didnt try. had he tried he would have whupped risko.




tunneys handlers claimed he would only fight harry wills. of course tunney didnt want to fight A PRIME big strong powerful black heavyweight. they would only fight a old washed up black heavyweight.


- funny thing is tunney and his handlers waited until after sharkey exposed an old wills to finally say they were willing to fight him.


-gene tunney was one of the most protected fighters of all time




tunney did not fight godfrey or sharkey in his last title defense. he should be penalized for this. tunney did not beat the best challengers during his title reign. the best challengers were jack sharkey and george godfrey. tunney did not face them. tunney instead fought a old rusty dempsey and a nothing special tom heeney.

- tunney retired with 3 oustanding challengers godfrey, sharkey, gains begging for title shots. tunney wanted no part of them. especially godfrey.



btw i think godfrey would have whupped the 1926 dempsey. sharkey did whupp the 1927 dempsey but got cheated.

Ok Brockton, please respond to these comments.

-You have cited Ring Magazine ratings in the past to try to prove a point. When I point out that Heeney was rated higher than Godfrey in 1927, you now change your tune and say "don't gimmie that ratings bullshit" and that the ratings are all messed up.
Why do the ratings mean something when you are trying to prove a point but don't when it works against you?

-You say that Tunney should have defended his title against Godfrey and Sharkey instead of Dempsey and Heeney.
Let's say he did defend the title against Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey. (Tunney had promised to fight the winner).
You don't thinki he would have been ripped by the press for doing this? You don't think that to this day Tunney wouldn't have been criticized for doing that?
I know that I would have criticized Tunney if he had not fought Dempsey.
Are you going to tell me that you wouldn't be criticizing Tunney if he hadn't fought Dempsey?

-If we are to believe that Godfrey lost to Risko on purpose, does that still mean that Godfrey should get a title shot?
Does throwing a fight entitle you to a title fight?

-Who should have Tunney have given the title shot to in 1928?

Fighter A (Lets callhim Godfrey) Who lost to risko and Sharkey.
Fighter B (Lets call him Gains) Who lost twice twice recently.
Fighter C (Lets call him Sharkey) Who recently lost to Risko
Fighter D (Lets call him Heeney) Who didn't lose recently and who beat Risko.

The best answer is A (Godfrey) ? the guy who lost twice and didn't beat any of the top contenders?
The worst answer is D (Heeney) who hadn't lost recently and had beaten a top contender?

You have said that Tunney was scared of Godfrey. Yet you yourself have said that Tunney probably would have beaten Godfrey.

Who had Godfrey actually beaten that would have scared Tunney?

Tunney wanted no part of Sharkey?
Why then did Tunney agree to fight the winner of Dempsey-Sharkey?
If Tunney wanted no part of sharkey, why would he have agreed to this?
Don't you think the thought crossed Tunney's mind that he might be fighting Sharkey?

Why would Tunney be scared of Sharkey who lost to Risko and could only get a draw with Heeney?

Tunney was one of the most protected fighters of all time? He fought for 11 years with only one official loss before he ever got a title shot. (He never did get a shot at the lightheavyweight title) He couldn't get a lightheavyweight title shot against Levinsky, Carpentier, Siki or McTigue. (He beat Levinsky and Carpentier when neither were champion). Do you think he was ducking the champion?
Isn't it more likley that was avoided by some fighters?

Please answer these questions directly without going on a tangent. (Such as Tunney was afraid of Godfrey becasue he was big and black)
Use some logic (Not comments like Tunney avoided sharkey because Sharkey says so)
I would like see your responses.

Ambling Alp wrote:-You have cited Ring Magazine ratings in the past to try to prove a point. When I point out that Heeney was rated higher than Godfrey in 1927, you now change your tune and say "don't gimmie that ratings bullshit" and that the ratings are all messed up.
Why do the ratings mean something when you are trying to prove a point but don't when it works against you?

Is this what’s called a redundant question?

I know I’ve never done such a thing… 8)

Jaclem wrote:..jersey joe walcott once had a conversation. it was at a banquet. he said, "pardon me, but you're sitting in my seat." I said, "Oops, pardon me" amd got up. marciano did not come into the conversation at all.

Ambling Alp wrote:
Ok Brockton, please respond to these comments.

-You have cited Ring Magazine ratings in the past to try to prove a point. When I point out that Heeney was rated higher than Godfrey in 1927, you now change your tune and say "don't gimmie that ratings bullshit" and that the ratings are all messed up.
Why do the ratings mean something when you are trying to prove a point but don't when it works against you?

-You say that Tunney should have defended his title against Godfrey and Sharkey instead of Dempsey and Heeney.
Let's say he did defend the title against Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey. (Tunney had promised to fight the winner).
You don't thinki he would have been ripped by the press for doing this? You don't think that to this day Tunney wouldn't have been criticized for doing that?
I know that I would have criticized Tunney if he had not fought Dempsey.
Are you going to tell me that you wouldn't be criticizing Tunney if he hadn't fought Dempsey?

-If we are to believe that Godfrey lost to Risko on purpose, does that still mean that Godfrey should get a title shot?
Does throwing a fight entitle you to a title fight?

-Who should have Tunney have given the title shot to in 1928?

Fighter A (Lets callhim Godfrey) Who lost to risko and Sharkey.
Fighter B (Lets call him Gains) Who lost twice twice recently.
Fighter C (Lets call him Sharkey) Who recently lost to Risko
Fighter D (Lets call him Heeney) Who didn't lose recently and who beat Risko.

The best answer is A (Godfrey) ? the guy who lost twice and didn't beat any of the top contenders?
The worst answer is D (Heeney) who hadn't lost recently and had beaten a top contender?

You have said that Tunney was scared of Godfrey. Yet you yourself have said that Tunney probably would have beaten Godfrey.

Who had Godfrey actually beaten that would have scared Tunney?

Tunney wanted no part of Sharkey?
Why then did Tunney agree to fight the winner of Dempsey-Sharkey?
If Tunney wanted no part of sharkey, why would he have agreed to this?
Don't you think the thought crossed Tunney's mind that he might be fighting Sharkey?

Why would Tunney be scared of Sharkey who lost to Risko and could only get a draw with Heeney?

Tunney was one of the most protected fighters of all time? He fought for 11 years with only one official loss before he ever got a title shot. (He never did get a shot at the lightheavyweight title) He couldn't get a lightheavyweight title shot against Levinsky, Carpentier, Siki or McTigue. (He beat Levinsky and Carpentier when neither were champion). Do you think he was ducking the champion?
Isn't it more likley that was avoided by some fighters?

Please answer these questions directly without going on a tangent. (Such as Tunney was afraid of Godfrey becasue he was big and black)
Use some logic (Not comments like Tunney avoided sharkey because Sharkey says so)
I would like see your responses.

Nice post.