BoxRec

In retrospect, it seems obvious that since Sharky was better than Heeney that should have got the title shot instead of Heeney.

However, what you have to do is carefully follow the timeline. Look at the dates that Risko,Godfrey, Sharkey, and Heeney had fights and how they did. It certainly wasn't obvious at the time that Sharkey was the most deserving.

Tunney defended the title against Heeney on July 26, 1928.
Sharkey had a three fight stretch where he went 0-2-1. This put him back. Had he had beaten Dempsey, he would have gotten a title shot instead of Dempsey getting a rematch with Dempsey in September of 1927.
But even after that, if Sharkey would have beaten Heeney and Risko, he would have been in line for a shot in 1928. However, Sharkey only had a draw with Heeney, and lost to Risko.

Think about it:
On July 27, 1927, Sharkey loses to Dempsey.
His next fight, January 13,1928, Sharkey has a draw with Heeney.
His next fight after that, on March 12, 1928, Sharkey lost to Risko.

How can you argue that a guy that just went 0-2-1 like Sharkey did should get a title shot in four months? (When Tunney fought Heeney)

There was no one contender that really established himself from the pack. However, at least Heeney had been the "hottest" of late. He really was the most deserving at the time.

Ambling Alp wrote:In retrospect, it seems obvious that since Sharky was better than Heeney that should have got the title shot instead of Heeney.

However, what you have to do is carefully follow the timeline. Look at the dates that Risko,Godfrey, Sharkey, and Heeney had fights and how they did. It certainly wasn't obvious at the time that Sharkey was the most deserving.

Tunney defended the title against Heeney on July 26, 1928.
Sharkey had a three fight stretch where he went 0-2-1. This put him back. Had he had beaten Dempsey, he would have gotten a title shot instead of Dempsey getting a rematch with Dempsey in September of 1927.
But even after that, if Sharkey would have beaten Heeney and Risko, he would have been in line for a shot in 1928. However, Sharkey only had a draw with Heeney, and lost to Risko.

Think about it:
On July 27, 1927, Sharkey loses to Dempsey.
His next fight, January 13,1928, Sharkey has a draw with Heeney.
His next fight after that, on March 12, 1928, Sharkey lost to Risko.

How can you argue that a guy that just went 0-2-1 like Sharkey did should get a title shot in four months? (When Tunney fought Heeney)

There was no one contender that really established himself from the pack. However, at least Heeney had been the "hottest" of late. He really was the most deserving at the time.

Believe it or not, but we all know the boxrec stats, Alp.

However, from all I know about the contemporary discussion, noone at the time was thrilled when Tunney picked Heeney as opponent, and as a consequence the fight wasn't even sold out. The choice was widely seen as a convenient move to avoid more dangerous opponents, notably Jack Sharkey.

Now, if you know anything -- for example a newspaper clip from 1928 -- that would challenge this storyline, please come forward with it. But spare us another repetition of the intelligence insulting "X beat Y and Y beat Z" business -- will you.

Thanks,
P

I wouldn't rank Tunney over Schmeling in terms of Heavyweight merit. Tunney is an ATG Light Heavyweight and an ATG on the p4p sense, but as a Heavyweight, I think he was a notch or so above Michael Spinks, Roy Jones and (especially) Bob Foster in terms of moving up to Heavyweight from the 175 pound class.

Tunney was a great fighter, no doubt, but his ledger as a Heavyweight wasn't as impressive as some men before and after him. 17 or so fights as a Heavyweight in a career based on fights held mostly at 160-175, isn't exactly what I would call the stuff of legend.

Where do I personally rank him among the Heavyweight champions (excluding alphabet champs)? I rank him above these men: Carnera, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, Jess Willard, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns [though in my opinion Burns was all but equal to Tunney in terms of a pound for pound sense], Riddick Bowe, Max Baer, Jack Sharkey, Jim Braddock, Michael Moorer, Patterson....but he falls short against the Jefferies, Johnson, Marciano, Ali, Sullivan, Corbett, Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis, Fitzsimmons, Dempsey, etc

I have him inside the top 15, but not quite top 10; though Tunney probably could have beaten some of the men who rank higher than him. But I base my criteria on merit, rather than a matter of right.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:In retrospect, it seems obvious that since Sharky was better than Heeney that should have got the title shot instead of Heeney.

However, what you have to do is carefully follow the timeline. Look at the dates that Risko,Godfrey, Sharkey, and Heeney had fights and how they did. It certainly wasn't obvious at the time that Sharkey was the most deserving.

Tunney defended the title against Heeney on July 26, 1928.
Sharkey had a three fight stretch where he went 0-2-1. This put him back. Had he had beaten Dempsey, he would have gotten a title shot instead of Dempsey getting a rematch with Dempsey in September of 1927.
But even after that, if Sharkey would have beaten Heeney and Risko, he would have been in line for a shot in 1928. However, Sharkey only had a draw with Heeney, and lost to Risko.

Think about it:
On July 27, 1927, Sharkey loses to Dempsey.
His next fight, January 13,1928, Sharkey has a draw with Heeney.
His next fight after that, on March 12, 1928, Sharkey lost to Risko.

How can you argue that a guy that just went 0-2-1 like Sharkey did should get a title shot in four months? (When Tunney fought Heeney)

There was no one contender that really established himself from the pack. However, at least Heeney had been the "hottest" of late. He really was the most deserving at the time.

Believe it or not, but we all know the boxrec stats, Alp.

However, from all I know about the contemporary discussion, noone at the time was thrilled when Tunney picked Heeney as opponent, and as a consequence the fight wasn't even sold out. The choice was widely seen as a convenient move to avoid more dangerous opponents, notably Jack Sharkey.

Now, if you know anything -- for example a newspaper clip from 1928 -- that would challenge this storyline, please come forward with it. But spare us another repetition of the intelligence insulting "X beat Y and Y beat Z" business -- will you.

Thanks,
P

No I don't have any newspaper stories from 1928 that support either Sharkey or Heeney being the most worthy. So what if I did? It would just be the writer's opinion anyway. If a writer in 2007 says something stupid about who is the best fighter now or who is the most deserving of a title shot, does that make it true?

Obviously Tunney must have thought Sharkey was very dangerous after watching him lose to Dempsey, get a draw with Heeney, and lose to Risko in 3 consecutive fights. Tunney must have been terrified.
Obviously a fighter should be the #1 challenger after going 0-2-1.

I'm sorry for letting logic and reality get in the way of a good story. My apologies.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:In retrospect, it seems obvious that since Sharky was better than Heeney that should have got the title shot instead of Heeney.

However, what you have to do is carefully follow the timeline. Look at the dates that Risko,Godfrey, Sharkey, and Heeney had fights and how they did. It certainly wasn't obvious at the time that Sharkey was the most deserving.

Tunney defended the title against Heeney on July 26, 1928.
Sharkey had a three fight stretch where he went 0-2-1. This put him back. Had he had beaten Dempsey, he would have gotten a title shot instead of Dempsey getting a rematch with Dempsey in September of 1927.
But even after that, if Sharkey would have beaten Heeney and Risko, he would have been in line for a shot in 1928. However, Sharkey only had a draw with Heeney, and lost to Risko.

Think about it:
On July 27, 1927, Sharkey loses to Dempsey.
His next fight, January 13,1928, Sharkey has a draw with Heeney.
His next fight after that, on March 12, 1928, Sharkey lost to Risko.

How can you argue that a guy that just went 0-2-1 like Sharkey did should get a title shot in four months? (When Tunney fought Heeney)

There was no one contender that really established himself from the pack. However, at least Heeney had been the "hottest" of late. He really was the most deserving at the time.

Believe it or not, but we all know the boxrec stats, Alp.

However, from all I know about the contemporary discussion, noone at the time was thrilled when Tunney picked Heeney as opponent, and as a consequence the fight wasn't even sold out. The choice was widely seen as a convenient move to avoid more dangerous opponents, notably Jack Sharkey.

Now, if you know anything -- for example a newspaper clip from 1928 -- that would challenge this storyline, please come forward with it. But spare us another repetition of the intelligence insulting "X beat Y and Y beat Z" business -- will you.

Thanks,
P

No I don't have any newspaper stories from 1928 that support either Sharkey or Heeney being the most worthy. So what if I did? It would just be the writer's opinion anyway. If a writer in 2007 says something stupid about who is the best fighter now or who is the most deserving of a title shot, does that make it true?

Obviously Tunney must have thought Sharkey was very dangerous after watching him lose to Dempsey, get a draw with Heeney, and lose to Risko in 3 consecutive fights. Tunney must have been terrified.
Obviously a fighter should be the #1 challenger after going 0-2-1.

I'm sorry for letting logic and reality get in the way of a good story. My apologies.

You have to look beyond the record. Godfrey and Sharkey were rightfully viewed a much more dangerous than Heeney. All objective sports-writers viewed Risko-Godfrey as a bad decision (and George's complete let-up in the last few rounds smelled very suspicious) and many thought he deserved the nod in the Sharkey fight as well.

Going by records, Jameel McCline has better wins than Sam Peter, but who is the big favorite if they fight? Going further, Peter's biggest win is over Toney . . looking at the record, one wouldn't know why, since Toney had only beat Holyfield, Booker, and Guinn at HW. But we know about the Ruiz NC, the very controversial first fight with Peter, and on top of that the overall skill-set Toney brought to the table which made him a difficult fighter to fight. Sharkey was on the verge of winning on pts when Dempsey nailed him while he was talking to the ref (not here to argue about that, but that needs to be put into the equation) It's not like Dempsey steamrolled him . . .Beyond the Tunney fight Sharkey gave Dempsey his toughest fight since Jack had won the title, and that sharply elevated his standing among the public.

Heeney didn't impress ANYONE with his performances. His draws with Sharkey and Uzcudun were stinkers, and I don't know anything about his win over Risko but I'd make an educated guess that fight stunk too.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:In retrospect, it seems obvious that since Sharky was better than Heeney that should have got the title shot instead of Heeney.

However, what you have to do is carefully follow the timeline. Look at the dates that Risko,Godfrey, Sharkey, and Heeney had fights and how they did. It certainly wasn't obvious at the time that Sharkey was the most deserving.

Tunney defended the title against Heeney on July 26, 1928.
Sharkey had a three fight stretch where he went 0-2-1. This put him back. Had he had beaten Dempsey, he would have gotten a title shot instead of Dempsey getting a rematch with Dempsey in September of 1927.
But even after that, if Sharkey would have beaten Heeney and Risko, he would have been in line for a shot in 1928. However, Sharkey only had a draw with Heeney, and lost to Risko.

Think about it:
On July 27, 1927, Sharkey loses to Dempsey.
His next fight, January 13,1928, Sharkey has a draw with Heeney.
His next fight after that, on March 12, 1928, Sharkey lost to Risko.

How can you argue that a guy that just went 0-2-1 like Sharkey did should get a title shot in four months? (When Tunney fought Heeney)

There was no one contender that really established himself from the pack. However, at least Heeney had been the "hottest" of late. He really was the most deserving at the time.

Believe it or not, but we all know the boxrec stats, Alp.

However, from all I know about the contemporary discussion, noone at the time was thrilled when Tunney picked Heeney as opponent, and as a consequence the fight wasn't even sold out. The choice was widely seen as a convenient move to avoid more dangerous opponents, notably Jack Sharkey.

Now, if you know anything -- for example a newspaper clip from 1928 -- that would challenge this storyline, please come forward with it. But spare us another repetition of the intelligence insulting "X beat Y and Y beat Z" business -- will you.

Thanks,
P

No I don't have any newspaper stories from 1928 that support either Sharkey or Heeney being the most worthy. So what if I did? It would just be the writer's opinion anyway. If a writer in 2007 says something stupid about who is the best fighter now or who is the most deserving of a title shot, does that make it true?

Obviously Tunney must have thought Sharkey was very dangerous after watching him lose to Dempsey, get a draw with Heeney, and lose to Risko in 3 consecutive fights. Tunney must have been terrified.
Obviously a fighter should be the #1 challenger after going 0-2-1.

I'm sorry for letting logic and reality get in the way of a good story. My apologies.

You confuse "boxrec says X beat Y on date z" with logic and reality. In fact, you confuse it with real information.

No I don't have any newspaper stories from 1928 that support either Sharkey or Heeney being the most worthy.

This goes without saying.

If you had -- well, if you had bothered to aqcuire just a bit of information on the circumstances and the real story of the fights where boxrec only lists the result -- you would know that the boxing world was deeply impressed how Sharkey toyed with Jack Dempsey for seven rounds before falling prey to a foul. And that the solid spell of the otherwise pretty ordinary Tom Heeney made a welcome excuse to avoid the inconsistent but far more dangerous Jack Sharkey.

The results of the fights that a fighter had in his career is not real information? Of course it is. They are facts. Of course they don't tell the "whole story". However, it's foolish to ignore them.

Facts are a lot more important that a 1920's reporter's opinion on who should get a title shot.

btw- I have read accounts of the Sharkey-Dempsey fight that say it was a competitive fight before the knockout.

Much more importantly, saying that Sharkey fell prey to a foul isn't very accurrate. For one thing, many people didn't think Dempsey's punch was low. Even if it was, that doesn't mean that Sharkey should drop his guard and complain.
He got knocked out. That is what is the most important thing concerning the Dempsey-Sharkey fight. Results are more important than style points.

Was the "boxing world" impressed with Sharkey losing to Risko?

Losing a fight by a 7th round ko (even if you are supposedly impressive for the first 6 rounds), having a draw in your next fight, and losing your next fight after that doesn't make you the #1 challenger. Common sense should tell you that.

The fighter that is the #1 challenger should be the fighter who is the most deserving. Not the fighter that supposedly is the most dangerous.

Ambling Alp wrote:The results of the fights that a fighter had in his career is not real information? Of course it is. They are facts. Of course they don't tell the "whole story". However, it's foolish to ignore them.

Nobody ignores them. But you portray them as if they were the entire relevant information. They are a small fraction of it.

Facts are a lot more important that a 1920's reporter's opinion on who should get a title shot.

I disagree. The 1920s reporter knew what you call "the facts" (without having to look them up on boxrec) AND the story around them. Thus he knew far more.

btw- I have read accounts of the Sharkey-Dempsey fight that say it was a competitive fight before the knockout.

Have you? Where?

Much more importantly, saying that Sharkey fell prey to a foul isn't very accurrate. For one thing, many people didn't think Dempsey's punch was low. Even if it was, that doesn't mean that Sharkey should drop his guard and complain.

Of course it's accurate. View the clip, I believe it's even on youtube. Btw, this was Dempsey's n-th foul in the fight. True, Sharkey's stupidity plus Dempsey's constant fouling did the trick.

He got knocked out. That is what is the most important thing concerning the Dempsey-Sharkey fight. Results are more important than style points.

Not sure whether it's the most important thing, but CERTAINLY it is not the only important thing. Or do you consider it unimportant that Sharkey toyed for 7 rounds with a fighter who until recently had been considered a force of nature?

Was the "boxing world" impressed with Sharkey losing to Risko?

I don't know, I haven't seen a report. Actually this would be interesting. Sharkey was known for being inconsistent, however, incredible one night and lacklustre another. And don't underrate Risko. He was more then once the #1 rated American heavyweight in his career, and regarded at least as highly as Heeney. Only his loss to Schmeling 1929 took him out of contention.

Losing a fight by a 7th round ko (even if you are supposedly impressive for the first 6 rounds), having a draw in your next fight, and losing your next fight after that doesn't make you the #1 challenger. Common sense should tell you that.

Hopeless.

The fighter that is the #1 challenger should be the fighter who is the most deserving. Not the fighter that supposedly is the most dangerous.

At the time it was Tunney who decided who is the #1 challenger. So in your theory he also decided who was "most deserving".

Fact is: the Ring and other contemporaries consistently rated Sharkey above Heeney. And for some reason, I put more value on this than your boxrec-copy-and-paste "X beat Y and Y beat Z" stats that a 5-year old could come up with.

Cheers,
P

You said earlier that the results of fights aren't "real information" which is ridiculaus. I merely said that they are real information. I never said that they are the only relevant information. In fact, I said that they don't tell the whole story. Of course there are bad decisions, and it's interesting to know how close a fight was which you don't know from just looking at the records.
However, looking at the results and dates of the important fights of the era forms a much clearer picture who is the most deserving fighter than some vague idea that Sharkey was more a dangerous therefore he should get the title shot.

Sharkey had opportunities to prove he was the best challenger for Tunney and he kept coming up short.

You might not be skeptical about who a sportswriter says who is the best challenger but I am. The writer could be unknowledgable or biased or both. Do you automatically agree with everything that a sportswriter writes in 2007?

I know that I have read accounts of the Dempsey-Sharkey fight as being compeptitive. I just opened, "The Illustrated History of Boxing", and it describes the fight and makes it sound competitive.
How competitive the Dempsey-Sharkey fight was for six rounds is a side issue anyway.

Do I think that the final result of the Dempsey-Sharkey was more important than how good Sharkey supposedly looked in the first 6 rounds? Of course. Winning is more important than style points.

I said "Losing a fight by a 7th round ko (even if you are supposedly impressive for the first 6 rounds), having a draw in your next fight, and losing your next fight after that doesn't make you the #1 challenger. Common sense should tell you that."
All that you can rebutt that with is "hopeless". Wow, that's insightful. You really picked apart that arguement.

Do you seriously think that if Ring Magazine had monthly rankings at the time, that after Sharkey had lost to Risko (his third fight in a row that he failed to win) that he would still be the #1 challenger?

Thanks for you classy comment about a 5 year old. Though maybe you have are on to something. Maybe this is so obvious that a 5 year old could figure out that it does matter who wins and who loses and therefore Heeney was more deserving than Sharkey.

Ambling Alp wrote:You said earlier that the results of fights aren't "real information" which is ridiculaus. I merely said that they are real information. I never said that they are the only relevant information. In fact, I said that they don't tell the whole story. Of course there are bad decisions, and it's interesting to know how close a fight was which you don't know from just looking at the records.
However, looking at the results and dates of the important fights of the era forms a much clearer picture who is the most deserving fighter than some vague idea that Sharkey was more a dangerous therefore he should get the title shot.

Sharkey had opportunities to prove he was the best challenger for Tunney and he kept coming up short.

You might not be skeptical about who a sportswriter says who is the best challenger but I am. The writer could be unknowledgable or biased or both. Do you automatically agree with everything that a sportswriter writes in 2007?

I know that I have read accounts of the Dempsey-Sharkey fight as being compeptitive. I just opened, "The Illustrated History of Boxing", and it describes the fight and makes it sound competitive.
How competitive the Dempsey-Sharkey fight was for six rounds is a side issue anyway.

Do I think that the final result of the Dempsey-Sharkey was more important than how good Sharkey supposedly looked in the first 6 rounds? Of course. Winning is more important than style points.

I said "Losing a fight by a 7th round ko (even if you are supposedly impressive for the first 6 rounds), having a draw in your next fight, and losing your next fight after that doesn't make you the #1 challenger. Common sense should tell you that."
All that you can rebutt that with is "hopeless". Wow, that's insightful. You really picked apart that arguement.

Do you seriously think that if Ring Magazine had monthly rankings at the time, that after Sharkey had lost to Risko (his third fight in a row that he failed to win) that he would still be the #1 challenger?

Thanks for you classy comment about a 5 year old. Though maybe you have are on to something. Maybe this is so obvious that a 5 year old could figure out that it does matter who wins and who loses and therefore Heeney was more deserving than Sharkey.

I can't discover a trace of value added in this. Why don't you come back once you have insights to offer that go beyond a 5 year old. Seriously, buddy.

Always a class act, aren't you?

pundit wrote:
At least Miske was well past it by the time he got his short at Dempsey. And Firpo was more a circus attraction than a great boxer. Still, he knocked Dempsey down twice. Carpentier was a light-heavyweight.

Doug Jones was a lightheavyweight. Henry Cooper weighed 10 pounds over the lightheavyweight limit. Leon Spinks was a novice who had only 7 professional fights. Cleveland Williams was a physical cripple, missing one kidney and ten feet of his small intestine, and trying to stand on a shriveled left leg. Archie Moore was 60 years old. Floyd Patterson had a sore back and couldn't stand up straight. Zora Folley was an old man.

So?

NOBODY who was hit by Dempsey could stand up to his punches.

NOBODY.

If he hit you, you were gone.

There is no other puncher in heavyweight history on that level.

When Dempsey was an old fighter with no legs, he knocked out the two best heavyweights in the world---Tunney and Sharkey.

And each time with a SINGLE left hook.

Decagon wrote:

tennessee wrote:yes, i rate him second best, tunney being first

Tunney the #1 heavyweight of all time? Are you shitting me? Who did he beat at heavyweight for you to make that ridiculous assertion?

Hexagon doesn't like Tunney for the SAME reason that Ken Burns omitted Stan Musial ENTIRELY from his many hour "history" of baseball

even though Musial won SEVEN National League batting titles.

I WONDER why.

LOL

Decagon wrote:

granberry wrote:NOBODY who was hit by Dempsey could stand up to his punches.

NOBODY.

If he hit you, you were gone.

There is no other puncher in heavyweight history on that level.

When Dempsey was an old fighter with no legs, he knocked out the two best heavyweights in the world---Tunney and Sharkey.

And each time with a SINGLE left hook.

... and a right uppercut to the groin.

Sharkey said Dempsey was a better puncher than Joe Louis.

But what would he know?

The people who REALLY know are the Ken Burns and Hexagons of the world, who never had a fight with their own sister,

but have a racial agenda to grind away on.

Decagon wrote:

granberry wrote:NOBODY who was hit by Dempsey could stand up to his punches.

NOBODY.

If he hit you, you were gone.

There is no other puncher in heavyweight history on that level.

When Dempsey was an old fighter with no legs, he knocked out the two best heavyweights in the world---Tunney and Sharkey.

And each time with a SINGLE left hook.

... and a right uppercut to the groin.

In Crankberry's fantasy world of boxing, the punch to the bollocks didn't happen. End of story.

Collins2000 wrote:

Decagon wrote:

granberry wrote:NOBODY who was hit by Dempsey could stand up to his punches.

NOBODY.

If he hit you, you were gone.

There is no other puncher in heavyweight history on that level.

When Dempsey was an old fighter with no legs, he knocked out the two best heavyweights in the world---Tunney and Sharkey.

And each time with a SINGLE left hook.

... and a right uppercut to the groin.

In Crankberry's fantasy world of boxing, the punch to the bollocks didn't happen. End of story.

In clueless Collins' world, Ali was Jesus Christ

and anyone else is a dirty rat.

Go genuflect at your Ali altar, Collins.

granberry wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Decagon wrote:... and a right uppercut to the groin.

In Crankberry's fantasy world of boxing, the punch to the bollocks didn't happen. End of story.

In clueless Collins' world, Ali was Jesus Christ

and anyone else is a dirty rat.

Go genuflect at your Ali altar, Collins.

Was there a punch to the nads, Cranky?

In the real world we all know there was, but I want to delve into The Crankberry Zone.

Collins-Buzz lives in the incompetent zone when it comes to boxing.

There will never be another zone for poor Collins-Buzz.

I talked with Dempsey at his restaurant about that very fight as well as a number of his other fights and what he learned from Jimmy DeForest.

I wouldn't besmirch anything I got from that on a site like this.

Keep your juvenile sniveling going, Collins-Buzz.

Dempsey does deserve recognition. Personally, I can see him mopping the floor with most of the current crop of Heavyweights. It seems to me that a lot of fans are either too far locked into one side or the other of the, "old timers vs new athletes" debate. Fighters of the past or present aren't inherantly superior. There were some old fighters who would make it, & some who wouldn't.

Dempsey would well & truly make it.