Johnson's was a slow climb, it's hard to compare. Dempsey's was an 18-month campaign, a barnstorming KO tour and some KOs of some contenders. While it should be noted that Dempsey dropped a decision to Willie Meehan in a 4-rounder in 1918, and didn't face Harry Wills, who was probably the other leading contender, it has to be said that Joe Louis's run at the title was rudely interrupted by Max Schmeling and Louis's managers then did their bit to de-rail Schmeling's rightful first shot at the title. Not saying Louis's record wasn't uber-impressive going in to the Braddock fight, but it's a clear example of the machinations of shrewd management being the deciding factor.
But I haven't done that. That would indeed be unresonable. It's the equivalent of seeing that single line and deducing that the fight was controversial in the absence of any other evidence. I mean you literally can't even say you've seen a report that has the fight to Levinsky! Why? Greb almost certainly beat the guy twice before Dempsey fought him. That's as close to a definition of fighting leftovers as i have ever seen. You want him to beat him three times to qualify? Or four? You can say he won it in the opinion of the huge majority of ringsiders, as far as we are aware. This is the exact definition of every valid points victory in history. People overlooked it all the time at the time.
Lots of fighters had beat Levinsky before Dempsey did. (I'm not sure Clay Turner didn't beat him in the fight previous. Reports differ) But no one had knocked Levinsky out before, according to Levinsky and the available record. Hardly anyone KO'd him after either, despite him fighting until he was all washed-up and almost 40 years old. In that respect, it's a good result for Dempsey.
a good result yes but considering it's one of the best wins for what some say is one of the best fighters ever, it's not that impressive
i'm a massive fan of wlad's. and if someone asked me to rate his resume, i'd say it's lacking. he is in a sub par era but fights the best he has. no all time greats though on his ledger
Dempsey could punch like mule kicks. And he often sold out his entire game to land big punches. I ain't going to deny that.
Good, not great. People got excited when Sam Peter knocked Jeremy Williams cold as a cucumber. No one had done that before. A similar head-turning victory but not a great one.
The crucial difference is that Levinsky was actualy regarded as being one of the better contenders of the period, while Williams wasn't.
Yeah, or to get down to brass tacks, why is fighting a guy another guy is beaten twice not leftovers and why is a one line second hand summary indicative of a controversial fight? But to answer your quesiton, one. Plus the wire, plus the four or five indicating Dempsey won on Boxrec plus two others (unless they are covered by the Boxrec detailing, I can't remember of hand). So that makes a ratio of something like 7-1 (or 5-1), overwhelmingly in favour of Greb. Unless, of course, you are excluding The New York Times Report, the Pittsburgh Post report and all the others that aren't printed within a few miles of where the fight took place for some reason. Thomas Hauser HBO 115-114 Bradley/Pacquiao Bart Barry HBO 116-115 Bradley/Pacquiao Controversial? Not because of the cards against, that's for sure.