Page 1 of 1
A pretend game . . .
Posted: 19 Jul 2018, 11:25
by APerno
History geeks like to play a game called Alt History (Alternative History) and create 'what if' scenarios.
What if, in 1929 when Gene Tunney retired there were three major sanctioning bodies operating, (WBC, WBA, IBF) how would the 1930s have played out?
OTL (Original Time Line) -- Tunney retires; Sharkey-Schmeling are matched -- it then goes Schmeling to Sharkey to Carnera to Baer to Braddock to Louis.
ATL (Alternative Time Line) -- ?
Would there have been three HW champions? Who would they have been? Would Buddy Baer today be remembered as 'a champion' ? (ouch) Who would have been the claimants? Would Louis consolidate the titles and become undisputed?
Re: A pretend game . . .
Posted: 20 Jul 2018, 11:02
by Ambling Alp II
Had those three major sanctioning bodies all been around at the time, there probably would have been 6 different fighters fighting in vacant title fights 6 months to a year of Tunney's last fight.
(One interesting thing to note that is often overlooked is that Max Schmeling was a contender at the time of Tunney's retirement. After Tunney's last fight, things were sort of limbo for a while. Schmeling scored some key victories and he and Sharkey emerged as the top fighters. They didn't meet until almost 2 years after Tunney beat Heeney.)
My best guess is that out of Sharkey, Stribling, Godfrey, Uzcudun, Risko, Maloney, and Scott, six get shots at vacant titles.
Depending on who matched whom, it's hard to say who the three champions would have been.
Schmeling eventually would have gotton a piece of one of the titles. Things probably would have in chaos for several years; like they usually have been for the last 15 years. Then Louis probably would have cleared it all up in the late 1930s.
Re: A pretend game . . .
Posted: 28 Jul 2018, 22:08
by SenorPipino
Could Galento have copped one of the vacant titles during the 30s?
I've been viewing some of his fights. What a treacherous, dirty guy but he could whack and possessed some sublime skills.
Looked like a barroom brawler but knew his way around the ring. Gave Lou Nova a terrible beating.
The early to mid 30s wasn't a time that the heavyweight landscape was blessed with terrific talent.
I think on any given night, Galento could have upset any of those pre-Louis heavyweight champions (even if an older Galento was pummeled by Baer).
And let's not forget that Galento gave Louis a pretty uncomfortable evening.
Re: A pretend game . . .
Posted: 30 Jul 2018, 10:54
by Ambling Alp II
I am usually on the same page as you, but not with Galento.
Could he have won the title in the early 1930s? Well I suppose anything is possible. He would have had a remote puncher's chance against Schmeling, Sharkey, and Carnera, And the champions between Tunney and Louis were inconsistent, so he conceivably could catch one of them on an off night.
However they were all clearly better than him. There were other fighters such as Schaaf and Risko who were better as well.
Yes, Galento did beat Nova. However, he won by fighting dirty and probably should have been disqualified. He really doesn't have any other wins of much note. He also had several losses against journeyman.
Too much is made of the Louis fight. Yes he scored a knockdown. He also got whipped pretty soundly.
He had virtually no skills to speak of. And if you watch the Baer fight, he doesn't even look tough. For whatever reason, he clearly terrified of Max Baer and hung on for dear life for as long as he could.
Buddy Baer beat him as well.
Re: A pretend game . . .
Posted: 31 Jul 2018, 01:14
by APerno