BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight






* tunney beat a green risko who didnt peak until the late 20s-early 30s


*sharkey got screwed vs dempsey, he showed he was better than the 1927 dempsey. did i mention tunney was down for 14 seconds vs dempsey?


* weinhert beat a 8-3 and 10-4 sharkey, weak arguement alp. sharkey was very green

Sharkey screwed himself agaisnt Dempsey. He made a drastic mistake in ignoring boxing's number one rule: protect yourself at all times. He thought it was a good idea to complain instead of concentrate on Dempsey and BOOM!!!, its all over. I didn't see the ref breaking Dempsey and Sharkey. Like I said, Sharkey screwed himself.

Decagon wrote:Foreman twice beat Frazier, who beat Ali.
Foreman destroyed Norton, who beat Ali.
Foreman beat Cooney, who beat Norton, who beat Ali.
Foreman beat Lyle, who beat Shavers, who got robbed against Ali.
Foreman beat Savarese, who beat Douglas, who beat Tyson, who beat Holmes, who beat Ali.
Foreman beat Moorer, who beat Holyfield, who beat Holmes, who beat Ali.

Yet, as strange as it sounds, Ali beat Foreman.

Decagon, I understand what you are saying, but I have to mention a couple of things.

Your first couple of examples concerning Foreman/Frazier/Norton/Ali are legitimate.
The others I have to mention some flaws.
Norton was well past his prime when Cooney beat him.
Ali was well past his prime when he fought Shavers, and I don't agree that shavers was robbed anyway.
Douglas was well past his prime when Savarese beat him, and Ali was completely washed up when Holmes beat him.
Holmes was well past his prime when Holyfield beat him.

When comparing Sharkey and Tunney, their common opponents were all fairly close in age when each of them fought them. So I believe it's a more valid comparison than most of the examples that you gave.

I undertand what you are saying about this guy beating this guy. If fighter A beats fighter fighter B, and B beats C, then it isn't automatci that A will also beat C.
However, usually this is the case. Think of this way. You are about to go against someone (pick a sport, boxing tennis, basketball, whatever). You have 4 common opponents. You beat them all. The guy you are playing lost to 3, and tie the other. Don't you think that you would probably beat him? The odds would heavily be in your favor.
Sure you can come up with exceptions to this rule. But for every exception, you can find 10 times when the rule works.
Of course styles make fights. But usually, the better fighter wins.
With Tunney-Sharkey, I'm not just talking about one common opponent. This is 4 common opponents. there are no common opponents that Sharkey won and Tunney lost.
As for a head to head matchup, Sharkey wouldn't really even have much of punchers chance even. Tunney had a good chin, was hard to hit, and Sharkey wasn't that hard of puncher anyway.

I'm not saying that Tunney was the best heavyweight of all time.I know a lot of people have a hard time getting a handle on where to rank him. I just think he deserves to be rated a lot higher than Sharkey.

Decagon wrote:Um, Jack Sharkey didn't punch himself in the crotch. Jack Dempsey did.

Jack Dempsey also nailed him with a left hook to the jaw when Sharkey turned to complain to the ref. Nothing illegal about that.

When comparing Sharkey and Tunney, their common opponents were all fairly close in age when each of them fought them. So I believe it's a more valid comparison than most of the examples that you gave.

disagree, read my post above. u will see weinhart beat a horribly green sharkey, and tunney fought a green risko. he never fought a prime risko like sharkey did.

Decagon wrote:Foreman twice beat Frazier, who beat Ali.
Foreman destroyed Norton, who beat Ali.
Foreman beat Cooney, who beat Norton, who beat Ali.
Foreman beat Lyle, who beat Shavers, who got robbed against Ali.
Foreman beat Savarese, who beat Douglas, who beat Tyson, who beat Holmes, who beat Ali.
Foreman beat Moorer, who beat Holyfield, who beat Holmes, who beat Ali.

Yet, as strange as it sounds, Ali beat Foreman.

Does Kevin Bacon showup anywhere in this list?

Decagon wrote:Mike Tyson punched Evander Holyfield after biting part of his ear off and shoving him across the ring. Nothing illegal about that...

Minus the fact that Tyson was penalized two points for biting Holyfield whereas Dempsey wasn't even warned.

Decagon wrote:Actually, a few years ago, some friends and I did a "Six Degrees of John Ruiz" game.

And since he fought RJJ, JT and a number of CW's early in his career, you could probably use just about anybody MW or over.

BB- I hope you read my entire post on the Schmeling-Sharkey thread.(April 5, 6:19 pm.) especially regarding your two vastly different spins on the 2nd Schmeling-Sharkey fight.

At the risk of sounding condescending, in the long run you will be better off only saying what you really believe.

You obviously love the sport and really like certain fighters and that's great. You just have to realistic about their limitations, which isn't always easy to do.

Some excuses are legitimate; sometimes one guy is well over the hill or there is a bad decision.
However, most excuses are just that, excuses. The vast majority of the time, the better guy wins.

my father went fishing with jack sharkey. my dad said sharkey spoke very well of dempsey, louis, but did not speak highly of tunney at all and jack told my father he would have beaten tunney. sharkey thought higher of max schmeling than gene tunney.


i will post some more sharkey quotes later

Decagon wrote:He set up the knockout on a foul. That is illegal.

I haven't watched the knockout in a while but my memory tells me that the "low" punch was not visible on camera. Was this true or is my mind playing tricks on me?

Decagon wrote:He set up the knockout on a foul. That is illegal.

Oh my god, a fighter broke the rules to win a fight. I've never seen THAT before!!

In regards to the controversy pertaining to his knockout
win over Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey said, "What did
you want me to do? Write him a letter?"

I think that alot of boxers would agree with Richard Petty,
the great American stock car driver who said, "If you ain't
cheating, you ain't trying."

- Chuck Johnston

Chuck1052 wrote:In regards to the controversy pertaining to his knockout
win over Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey said, "What did
you want me to do? Write him a letter?"

I think that alot of boxers would agree with Richard Petty,
the great American stock car driver who said, "If you ain't
cheating, you ain't trying."

- Chuck Johnston

I think Dempsey was asked why he hit Sharkey when Sharkey stopped protecting himself to compalin to the ref. He responded, "What did you want me to do? Write him a letter?"

"Tunney wanted nothing to do with Godfrey--plain and simple--too tough a fight." - boxing historian kevin smith

In regards to Gene Tunney's alleged avoidance of
George Godfrey, the decade of the 1920s was a
different era. For one reason or another, no
black man fought in a world heavyweight title
bout for over twenty years after Jack Johnson
lost his title to Jess Willard.

While reading the Pittsburgh Courier (a black
newspaper) on microfilm, one gets an idea about
the situation in regards to segregation in the
United States during the 1920s. I remember
reading that W. Rollo Wilson, a black sportswriter
of the Courier, was not able to mix with a group of
white reporters when they were interviewing Mickey
Walker during the middle 1920s. Wilson had to
"buttonhole" Walker for a separate interview!

- Chuck Johnston

Let us also not forget that the last time a black fought for the HW championship there were riots and lynching(read: murders) in the aftermath. That is the main reason Tex Rickard, promoter of the Johnson/Jeffries fiasco, never could fully commit to a Dempsey/Wills fight. He didn't want to go through that again.

Put yourself in that time and place for a second. If you were a matchmaker would YOU want to be put in that predicament??

pound per pound wrote:Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera, Baer and Braddock failed to make a successful title defense.

that's not true!

Cleveland, Muncipal Stadium, July, 3rd 1931
Max Schmeling retained World Heavyweight title against Young Stribling
by tko 15th rd.

Earlier I wrote that I believed Schmeling would have beaten Tunney.

I read some stuff during the recent weaks and I change my assessment. In the late 1920s the "master technician" was head and shoulders above all other competition. Schmeling and Sharkey - the strongest challengers - wouldn't have had more than an outsider's chance. Sharkey had a habit of trying to kill his opponents in the first 4 and to collapse thereafter - a bit like a modern Tyson - a strategy that woud have played into Tunney's hands. Schmeling would probably have tried to wore Tunney down, but Tunney had the tools to stay away from Schmeling's sweet right for 15 rounds .

Thus, I believe a motivated Tunney could well have remained unbeaten until Joe Louis came up.

Friedie wrote:

pound per pound wrote:Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera, Baer and Braddock failed to make a successful title defense.

that's not true!

Cleveland, Muncipal Stadium, July, 3rd 1931
Max Schmeling retained World Heavyweight title against Young Stribling
by tko 15th rd.

.... and he was robbed in the refight agasint Sharkey.

Until Schmeling lost to Baer he was considered the strongest heavyweight in the world.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

As far as sharkey "probably taking a dive against Carnera", umm no. He was knocked out. Call it a lucky punch if you want. But the fact remains that Sharkey lost yet another big fight.

thats ur opinion. IMO sharkey took a dive

I don't think so. Sharkey's head snaps back sharply as a result of Primo's punch, it looks like a legit KO.

More generally you would need to explain how Sharkey - a guy who had put obsessive effort into becoming world champ - was supposed to be bribable but not Max Baer (in Primo's nect fight), a guy who cared a sh!t about titles but a lot about easy money.

Nero3000 wrote:Let us also not forget two important facts:

1. Sharkey easily beat Primo Carnera in their first fight, thus casting even more doubt on his dismal performance in the second.

2. Just about all of Primo's big bouts were fixed. He was a mob-controlled fighter. That's not opinion, that's public record.

Back that record up. I'm not aware of anything definitive.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight






* tunney beat a green risko who didnt peak until the late 20s-early 30s


*sharkey got screwed vs dempsey, he showed he was better than the 1927 dempsey. did i mention tunney was down for 14 seconds vs dempsey?


* weinhert beat a 8-3 and 10-4 sharkey, weak arguement alp. sharkey was very green

Tunney did accomplish enpough overall. Noone would have given Sharkey a serious chance in 1929 against Tunney, and Schmeling wasn't even on the radar screen.

Fact: Tunney left the sport as the undisputed champ with noone left to fight.

Btw, Tunney won every single round he fought against Dempsey except the one where he went done (in contrast to Sharkey who never won more than 5 rounds agasint any top fighter before running out of gas). You can really shove that 14 seconds. They are a curiosity of bocxing history, no more.

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:Let us also not forget two important facts:

1. Sharkey easily beat Primo Carnera in their first fight, thus casting even more doubt on his dismal performance in the second.

2. Just about all of Primo's big bouts were fixed. He was a mob-controlled fighter. That's not opinion, that's public record.

Back that record up. I'm not aware of anything definitive.

One of the guys who managed Carnera wrote a book about him. It listed Carnera's record with an asterix next to all the fights that were fixed.

So which fights were these? And is the Sharkey titlefight among them?

And is te guy credible?

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight






* tunney beat a green risko who didnt peak until the late 20s-early 30s


*sharkey got screwed vs dempsey, he showed he was better than the 1927 dempsey. did i mention tunney was down for 14 seconds vs dempsey?


* weinhert beat a 8-3 and 10-4 sharkey, weak arguement alp. sharkey was very green

Tunney did accomplish enpough overall. Noone would have given Sharkey a serious chance in 1929 against Tunney, and Schmeling wasn't even on the radar screen.

Fact: Tunney left the sport as the undisputed champ with noone left to fight.

Btw, Tunney won every single round he fought against Dempsey except the one where he went done (in contrast to Sharkey who never won more than 5 rounds agasint any top fighter before running out of gas). You can really shove that 14 seconds. They are a curiosity of bocxing history, no more.

I would not say that.

I think Dempsey won round 4, vs Tunney in fight 1.(Good left hook by Dempsey nearly had Tunney knock Tunney down)
And I gave Dempsey round 3 in fight 2, for his body work, close round to score, but I think Dempsey may have nab a few rounds.

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote: Back that record up. I'm not aware of anything definitive.

One of the guys who managed Carnera wrote a book about him. It listed Carnera's record with an asterix next to all the fights that were fixed.

So which fights were these? And is the Sharkey titlefight among them?

And is te guy credible?

Tell you what. Instead of me going through all my files from 15 years of doing organized crime research, why don't you just look up Primo Carnera, Owney Madden and the relationship of organized crime to boxing in the 1930s. There's literally tons of stuff on the subject and I have studied far too much of it to whittle it all down to recommend one or two definitive sources for anyone.

It's like someone asking me to prove and cite sources as to why Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin were bad guys. It's all right out there for you to dive into yourself with no help needed from me.