How good was Dempsey's title reign?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

Carp had been the European HW Champion since June 1913, ONE MONTH AFTER HARRY STARTED HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER! He took the EBU LHW honors in February 1913, and the European MW Title in February 1912, ALMOST A YEAR BEFORE GREB BEGAN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER! (Prior to that, the Orchid Man was EBU WW Champ in 1911.) While Harry was building up his legend through the advantage of living in a neutral country, Carp was inactive due to valorous wartime service.

Did Greb deserve shots ahead of Miske and Brennan? Probably, but Jack had apparently made pacts with KO Bill and the Thunderbolt that whichever of them got to the title first would afford the other a shot at it. There's no way Harry deserved a shot ahead of Carp though, who had waited the better part of two decades and survived the deadliest war in human history to get to this point. On top of that, the fact remains that they did combine to produce that inaugural million dollar gate, a live audience of 80,183, and more listening on radio.

Harry had 130 fights during Carp's wartime hiatus, but I have too many war veterans in my family (including a few who were gassed in Europe during WW I) to even contemplate suggesting that Harry should have gotten a title shot ahead of Carp. I just can't. Take away WW I, and Carp could well get a heavyweight shot before Greb's 1917 rise to MW contention. (That's assuming Willard could have been any kind of fighting champion.)

Yes, I agree with those who believe Harry was the P4P GOAT, and posted opinions saying so well before Stonehands published his series finale "The God of War." But Carp had waited too long already, in an era where the LHW Champion was frequently viewed as a top HW contender. He had held the EBU HW Title for eight years and defended it twice after the war ended. Harry was never a regional champion at the HW level. Taken within the context of 1921, Carp had established a HW pedigree which made him an acceptable challenger for Dempsey in public opinion.

I don't agree with a great deal of this; nor do I care to argue it, reallly.

My point was that Greb's being "to small" to fight Dempsey because it's a "no win" situation is pretty much negated by the fact that he matched Carpantier, who weighed in at 168 for his loss to Jeanette, and 170 for his DQ win over Smith.

If Greb is to small, Carpantier is to small.

If Carpantier is big enough to fight, so is Greb.

Can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by JAB5239

A+? Lmao!!

the difference between myself and you is that i understand boxing history having followed the sport for more than 40yrs... i voted A+ and you voted C

name me any other Heavyweight champion in history who had World title fights that was as exciting or as legendary in terms of historical fights as Jack Dempsey.

Dempsey v Firpo - most knock downs and wildest most brutal fight in heavyweight history

Dempsey v Willard - most brutal demolition of any heavyweight champion in history with Willard suffering broken jaw, cheeck-bone, eye-socket, ribs and loss of teeth.

Dempsey v Tunney - Battle of the Long Count

Add to this the million dollar gates and Jack Dempsey was rightly in a League of his own as the greatest fighting machine who ever lived....... JAB scored him a C

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

A couple of observations : Greb was so damn active during those days, that there wasn't a ground swell demand for the 160 pound dynamo to fight Jack Dempsey. I seldom ,as a boy read about Dempsey refusing to fight Greb,it
became a source of conversation many years later IMO. Why in the world would Jack Kearns,want this bout ? If Dempsey KO'd Greb, [and Greb in statements admitted that,"after 5 or more rounds Jack would kill me "] ,
the boxing world would cry out, "Dempsey's expected to ko middleweights,
for crying out loud ". It was a no win situation for Dempsey and Kearns..
Of course Dempsey never fought Harry Wills, though they signed for a bout for promoter Floyd Fitzpatrick, which was canceled because Fitzpatrick
couldn't come up with the money,and Harry Wills pocketed the deposit money. So Dempsey always get the rap for this cancellation, even though
the prime Dempsey would have been a prohibitive favorite to win, when Jack Sharkey beat Wills and Paolino Uzcudun kod Wills, soon after, most likely proved...
What is amazing is that the 160 pound, "seven year itch ", Greb was even considered in this post,as being the best oponent for the Heavyweight Dempsey,at that time !
Like wanting to match-up a Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon ,with a prime Joe Louis. So highly is Harry Greb rated...Amazing man was Greb to EVEN fight 300 bouts...His record and unique style can never be duplicated...

Great post, burt.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by quarry

the difference between myself and you is that i understand boxing history having followed the sport for more than 40yrs... i voted A+ and you voted C

name me any other Heavyweight champion in history who had World title fights that was as exciting or as legendary in terms of historical fights as Jack Dempsey.

Dempsey v Firpo - most knock downs and wildest most brutal fight in heavyweight history

Dempsey v Willard - most brutal demolition of any heavyweight champion in history with Willard suffering broken jaw, cheeck-bone, eye-socket, ribs and loss of teeth.

Dempsey v Tunney - Battle of the Long Count

Add to this the million dollar gates and Jack Dempsey was rightly in a League of his own as the greatest fighting machine who ever lived....... JAB scored him a C

The difference is that you're close minded with inflexible opinions who can't justify an A+ rating for Dempseys reign. Most exciting doesn't justify weak comp.

Most knock downs and the (arguably) worst heavyweight champion doesn't justify weak comp.

Long counts and gate receipts don't justify weak comp. Well, maybe gate receipts do, but it doesn't change the fact.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I don't agree with a great deal of this; nor do I care to argue it, reallly.

My point was that Greb's being "to small" to fight Dempsey because it's a "no win" situation is pretty much negated by the fact that he matched Carpantier, who weighed in at 168 for his loss to Jeanette, and 170 for his DQ win over Smith.

If Greb is to small, Carpantier is to small.

If Carpantier is big enough to fight, so is Greb.

Can't have it both ways.

Exactly!!

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by McGrain

quarry a fundamentalist, man. There is no getting through to dudes like that.


I think it's amongst the worst of the guys who held the title for a serious period. Maybe better than Johnson's. Maybe better than Sullivan's. Other than that, I would say it's not better than any decent title run.

What about Patterson´s? Wlad´s?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by quarry

JAB & McGrain... you have no evidence to back-up anything you are claiming here only your own assumptions.

I presented a huge post containing evidence on the prior page. You've engaged with exactly zero of it.

1/. if a poll was held in Manchester in 2008 asking who should be next to fight David Haye - Wlad or Hatton the poll would read 4-1 Hatton.

You can dismiss the poll if you like. Several have. All are Dempsey fundamentalists. The rest of the posters seem to understand that the poll carries at least some weight. I don't care either way.

What you can't dismiss is the mass of coverage that the proposed fight received. There are plenty of articles from other towns covering the possibility of the fight with some excitement. If nobody wanted to see the fight a hell of a lot of pressmen wasted a hell of a lot of ink on a hell of a lot of coverage of the proposed fight and the tortured attempts to make it over and over again for absolutely no reason.

2/. What you repeatedly leave out of your argument is that when Greb sparred with Dempsey they wore 16oz gloves not 4oz used in prizefights.

I think the fact that Dempsey never put a glove on Greb, was cut, humiliated and outsped to the point where he was withdrawn from the sparring is much more important, but I could see why a man in your position would want to concentrate on this small detail more than any other.

3/. you ignore the fact that Gene Tunney beat Greb and had to wait years for his title fight with Dempsey.

How is it relevant when Greb was chasing Dempsey for five years before Tunney beat him and for six years before he beat him definitively, and five before he was able to beat him without the result being labelled at least by some as a "robbery"?

5/. you ignore the claim of Harry Greb that in his own words he thought Dempsey would beat him.

Do you have a source for this quote?

No.

The reason?

One has never been provided.

This is something that Burt, a huge Dempsey fan, claims to have read many years ago. I don't call Burt a liar. I like the guy. But I think he could be mistaken.

Either way, it doesn't really matter unless you think it means that Louis would always lose to Marciano, Jeffries would always lose to Johnson etc etc because all of these men and more have had similar quotes attributed to them.

everything you both have claimed on this topic is only your own assumptions

On the contrary, you have been presented with a volume of facts about the Dempsey duck of Greb and completely failed to deal with any of them.

with those assumptions never being voiced by any boxing historian

Some of us like to do our own work around here.

And this isn't even true. Klompton and Paxton will both disagree with you vehemently (And each other )

Just because you've never read what they say doesn't mean it wasn't said.

and you ignore any links which show historians rate Dempsey as the greatest fighter who ever lived

I have no idea what this had to do with his having ducked Greb?

And i'm ignoring them because i've read them all before.

yet you post links by those same historians to back-up your arguments on other topics

Can you show me an example?

Originally Posted by JAB5239

You ignore the fact that that series could very well be 2-2-1 if you wanted to read all the newspaper accounts of the day. You're stuck on boxrec, buy a clue.

ffs... you are a howler mate. Tunney beat Greb 3-1-1 with Greb using fouls to try to get the victory and still losing. ... for your information i am not using boxrec i use my own knowledge of what i read unlike yourself who uses boxrec backed-up with repeated lying.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by quarry

ffs... you are a howler mate. Tunney beat Greb 3-1-1 with Greb using fouls to try to get the victory and still losing. ... for your information i am not using boxrec i use my own knowledge of what i read unlike yourself who uses boxrec backed-up with repeated lying.

Well your own knowledge is horrifically out of kilter with the reality.

Greb wasn't "using fouls" and Tunney said himself that his fouls tended to be retaliatory. It's also the case that the first Tunney victory, widely (but not entirely) regarded as a robbery caused Greb to fight especially clean in subsequent fights for fear of being persecuted.

It is also the case that, in addition to Gene Tunney himself, the New York commission defended Greb's conduct.

Frankly, you seem to be all over the place.

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by quarry

ffs... you are a howler mate. Tunney beat Greb 3-1-1 with Greb using fouls to try to get the victory and still losing. ... for your information i am not using boxrec i use my own knowledge of what i read unlike yourself who uses boxrec backed-up with repeated lying.

I bet you do so

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by bodhi

I bet you do so

Originally Posted by JAB5239

The difference is that you're close minded with inflexible opinions who can't justify an A+ rating for Dempseys reign. Most exciting doesn't justify weak comp.

Most knock downs and the (arguably) worst heavyweight champion doesn't justify weak comp.

Long counts and gate receipts don't justify weak comp. Well, maybe gate receipts do, but it doesn't change the fact.

So what you are saying here is that Gene Tunney was "weak comp"?

Luois Angel Firpo was undeserving & weak comp?

Willard should not have been champion by dethroning Johnson?

you obviously know nothing whatsoever about Jess Willard, Gene Tunney or Louis Firpo

again you avoided the 5 points i listed, choosing to just ignore them

To claim Carpentier as "weak comp" is laughable. Carpentier was thought by many at ringside to be the victor over Jeanette... did Greb ever fight Jeanette, Willard, Tate, Godfrey, Langford, Carpentier, Firpo, Wills?

Carpentier fought at 175+ Greb fought 159-168

[Pachilles]

i voted D, because there was no option to vote F.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by McGrain

If Greb is to small, Carpantier is to small.

If Carpantier is big enough to fight, so is Greb.

Can't have it both ways.

I agree.
Carpentier was too small - it's said that Tex Rickard and Carpentier's camp kept him at a safe distance from any press men who were likely to note in print how small the Frenchman was, in case it hurt the gate.

But Carpentier was the biggest potential box-office attraction, especially with the war hero/draft dodger angle that Tex envisaged and promoted.

Harry Greb being "too small" or "not too small" was obviously a talking point at the time.
Dempsey called him "too small" after the 1922 Greb-Gibbons go, but he might have been using it as a euphemism for "too good" ! On the other hand, Dempsey's win over Carpentier was downgraded after the event by several press men ands fans who decided it was a mismatch because Carpentier was "just a middleweight".
It's probably a bit of both.
Interestingly, Harry Wills refused to fight Gene Tunney in 1926 with the excuse, "he's too small for me", although he'd been fighting men of Tunney's size and smaller for years.
I guess it was a stock excuse for heavyweights back then. You end up getting more credit for beating big guys anyway, I guess.

[bodhi]

I voted B+. I´m used to German grades though which means from 1 to 6 with no plus or minus and stuff. One beeing best, six beeing first. This means Dempsey would be a four which is equivalent to sufficiently. The worst I would give any hw champ with more than 2 title defences. I rank him there alongside Johnson, Patterson and Wlad.