Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

Burt - what do you say to the fact Harry Greb bettered Dempsey's results?

Against Miske, Brennan, Tunney, Gibbons, Meehan, G. Smith and Levinsky, Greb was more successful than Dempsey.

Greb is likely the greatest boxer of all time, but surely a contemporary of such standing as Dempsey, a fighter who was also much bigger, should have at least replicated Greb's results?

Yes, Dempsey was past his prime against Tunney, but in two tries he couldn't win. Greb fought better versions of Dempsey's other opponents, including Gibbons, lost to them less times and beat them more times.

I thought that a fighter said to defeat the likes of modern 220lbs+ heavyweights would have fared a bit better against Greb's whipping boys.

Can you explain this?

 

How was Greb more successful versus Levinsky, Smith, and Gibbons?

 

More to the point, how was he more sucesful versus Willard Fulton and Morris?

Greb matched some of Dempseys wins and Wills matched others, but neither realy put it all together.

 

:huh

Greb beat a better version of Gibbons, more times. 2-0 versus Smith. Greb was 6-0 versus Levinsky atsch

 

Gibbons also beat Greb. Smith? I don't see a big difference there Dempsey was 2-0 as well and knocked out a 'better' version of Smith. Dempsey blew out Levinsky in 3 rounds. Is that less impressive than all those decision victories.

 

Your points are good and worthwhile.

I am all for continued research and debate on any historical subject! And I agree Dempsey's years as champion deserve no mention among the all-time best's. His title run was impressive.

I believe the essence of Dempsey's time has been conveyed to us accurately enough to establish one truth: Jack Dempsey was one of the greatest heavyweight fighters of all time. In similar fashion, no amount of new research will change certain bedrock truths about the Roman Empire's greatness and influence.

60+ more years of perspective should not--due to the detachment of time-- change some basic truths: no promotor, however clever, can make it happen for any fighter. Dempsey was the first superstar because, with his ring prowess, he earned that status. Exploding media picked up on Dempsey, because he was worthy to be picked up on as the savage Mauler he was. People didn't know they wanted a product such as Dempsey. There was no precedent for him. He made them want and love Jack Dempsey, because he forged this product in the ring with his amazing skill. By contrast, today, boxing, despite this media-crazy, celebrity-crazed 21st century society, has no heavyweight hero. Why? Because no one has the skills, the uniqueness to. In the end, Jack Dempsey made Jack Dempsey. And only Jack Dempsey is Jack Dempsey, because there has been no other fighter like Jack Dempsey.

Was Sam a sell-out, though? He didn't need to say what he said unless he meant what he said. He said it of Jack Dempsey, no other. Sam was not an angling spin-master. He was one of history's greatest fighters and I respect his words. Likewise, perhaps I can take the opinions of commentators of the time, who never put a glove on, with a grain of salt. But the consensus of the fighters of the time is that Jack Dempsey was truly great. I respect those words, too.

In any other ring, the Willard destruction reads: TKO 1. I am sure you know enough about boxing to realize a little man, outweighed by 70 pounds (Heller), doing that to the tough, 250-pound top-dog is a beating for the ages, the stuff of...legend. A similar feat today would be whooped to the rafters and place that little man on the path to mega-celebrity and, yes, legend down the historical line. And the friendly reporters did not hold Firpo's hands behind the back for Dempsey to tee off. Dempsey, though hurt in the fall, didn't miss a beat, got back in and took his revenge as a champion does. That takes discipline. Dempsey did not go life and death with Firpo. He still had much left in the tank, but his huge foe only had enough for a round and-a-half.

Dempsey's status among the greats can be rightfully debated. I am only wary of those who, erroneously, see him as a thin, wild, overrated fabrication. In my view, that should be erradicated from a forum such as this.

 

I don't think there is any debating the fact that he was a savage, fast and powerful fighter. His career could have been so much more though.

 

The writers up until 1950 who saw him as one of the greatest HW fighters ever are not really disagreeing with what I say here are they?

If I'm to rank on that basis I probably put Dempsey number 3

Louis
Johnson
Langford
Dempsey
Wills


Might be how i rank those guys.


However since those days there have been heavyweights who surpassed him. Rocky, Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, Wladimir, Lewis. Maybe Bowe and Liston.

I ain't going against those great boxing writers, it's just that i have the benefit of another 60 years of boxing history.

 

Levinsky - I prefer 6-0 over a knockout victory. More decisive.

2-0 versus 2-0 over Smith. Call it even.

Like I said, Greb beat a fresher version of Gibbons, more times.

We could call Brennan even if you like.

And Miske, even.

Past prime Dempsey, 0-2 versus Tunney... Prime to late stage career Greb about even with Tunney, or Tunney perhaps holding some superiority.

Meehan? Advantage Greb, again.

Surely we can say Greb and Dempsey were at the very least even between common opponents? Or more likely, Greb as superior.

Not good for a supposed Klitschko killer (which, by the way, I think is totally unfair on Dempsey and ridiculous - he was clearly one of the best 185lbers ever).

 

well played good sir....well played indeed

 

The Philadelphia Record gave the fight to Levinsky. Now I lean to the idea that Greb probably did win it, but there was clearly some debate on the point.

That for me puts things in a somewhat different context, and Dempsey's rapid destruction of Levinsky is clearly going to be seen as a much more decisive win over the same fighter.

 

Thank you, sir. Always a thrill to see praise from the likes of you and a joy to read your insight.