What was so bad with Dempsey vs Gibbons?

Of course, I understand why it was okay in practice to fight the guy 4 times. It made sense commercially, as you say it could continue to draw a new crowd in different locations.
The point is, it doesn't enhance Greb's rating beating Brennan a 3rd or 4th time.

Of course, the flipside to your very argument, is that Dempsey could draw a crowd against anyone in those days too, with fight fans (and thousands of no-nothing 'casuals' too) will to pay to see him - and while they might have heard that Harry Wills or Harry Greb or whoever were the best qualified challengers out there, they hadn't actually seen it either. And if drawing a curious crowd of paying customers justifies a match, then it's hard to knock Dempsey's defences against Carpentier and Firpo on any grounds. Those fights sold big and drew huge crowds.

That's the logic of a loser on the roulette table. The longer the losing streak the more chance the next one will come in good.

In other words, he's taking more of a risk fighting a guy he's 3-0 against than a guy he's 1-0 against ? And someone he's 6-0 against ? I guess that's an even tougher sort of fight.

No, he didn't. Dempsey knocked him out twice.

I believe Dempsey battered Brennan all over the place and knocked him out in 6 rounds before Greb had even fought him.

Dempsey fought Brennan twice and knocked him out twice.
Greb fought Brennan four times and won over the distance four times.
You want to argue that Greb did so much better but it doesn't ring true.

 

Ive never criticized the fact that Dempsey fought Carpentier. In fact I have stated numerous times it was a fight that was too big not to happen. But, by your own argument (a Firpo is a perfect example) a Dempsey fight against anyone, particularly people as popular and well known as Greb and Wills was going to be a draw regardless. The simple fact that Dempsey chose to take the path of least resistence because he could still make good money doing so (especially after building up demand with 1, 2, and 3 year layoffs) is hardly going to win him any kudos or support your argument.

Tell that to Juan Manuel Marquez.

Yes, and in the process was behind on points, wobbled, and had his ear nearly knocked off his head. Spin that into Dempsey being dominant if you want but come from behind KOs are not a sign of dominance or easy opposition.

What is your point? Are you trying to hammer home the point that Dempsey consistently chose opposition inferior to Greb and Wills? Thank you for helping me make my point.

Greb never once struggled with Brennan. What doesnt ring true is that you are wanting to convince people of the fantasy that Dempsey, as champion, struggling with a guy who Greb dominated easily (and had on the verge of a knockout in their final fight before Dempsey defended against him) is not a sign that Greb was serious contender for Dempsey's crown or serious competition for him to begin with. Thats a pretty tough argument to make with facts as they stand which is why you are floundering.

 

Are you obtuse? Im not using it to build Greb up Im establishing the context of the era. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean you cant go back and rewrite history to your liking.

Again, none of whom he fought as champion which is the issue here.

Uhhh, and Firpo got a title shot. Thats what is supposed to happen when you win a title eliminator. NOT for the guy you beat to get a title shot for no reason other than that hes the easier fight for the champion.

You do realize that winning and losing in boxing isnt solely dependant on knocking your opponent out right? There is a points system and Brennan was ahead on points. I never said he had knocked Dempsey down or that Dempsey was on the verge of quitting. What I said was that Dempsey had been hurt more than once (a fact) and that he was down on points. Had the fight gone the distance it is conceivable that Brennan could have won on points with an impartial score. Again, to spin that fight any other way is simply giving Dempsey FAR too much credit.

No you are trying to argue that Greb didnt have credentials as a top contender at HW and he clearly did and was clearly thought to be by many experts at the time, not the least of which was Jess Willard who thought Greb had the best chance of anyone to beat Dempsey.

Exactly, so beating a guy who Greb had dominated 3 years earlier in a title eliminator catapulted Tunney into a title shot. So Gibbons was still held in high enough esteem in 1925 by the public and experts to give Tunney credibility as a challenger when he defeated him but Greb doing so 3 years earlier when Gibbons was at the top of his game and considered the best white challenger is somehow in your mind illustrative of the idea that Greb didnt have a credible HW resume. :roll:

 

It depends on the style of fighter.
Dempsey was a knock out fighter. That was his M.O.
He fought Brennan twice. First fight was pretty easy and one-sided. The second fight was pretty tough, competitive and gruelling.
Both were KO victories for Dempsey.
That's what he did. He knocked guys out, and sometimes he took a fair bit of punishment in the process.

It's not spin. It is what it is.

I'm not trying to hammer home any point. Other than the fact that Brennan should have been eliminated as a serious top-tier heavyweight contender when Dempsey beat him in early 1918.
I agree that he was a VERY poor choice for challenger in 1920.
I'd also point out that he was very clearly inferior to the top contenders when Greb first fought him in 1919.

Again, you're inventing imaginary arguments to argue against now.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I never said Greb wasn't a serious contender.
I don't put him very near the level of Wills or Dempsey though.

 

No, because you (or perhaps McGrain) starting talking about 1918, and Dempsey's ducking of Greb, fighting Levinsky instead etc.
It's strange how we can go back to pre-championship Dempsey when it serves your case vis-à-vis Greb chasing Dempsey.
But no one's allowed to point out that in those days Dempsey KO'd Fulton in 1 round and destroyed the champion Willard in 3 ?

He established himself against higher-ranked fighters.
The one he didn't fight was Wills.

Well, I addressed that in my following statement. I've already said Greb was obviously more deserving than Gibbons, as Firpo was more deserving than Willard.

That's a big f***ing "IF" when Jack Dempsey knocked him out with 10 minutes of fighting time to spare, (and had in fact knocked the same guy out in their ONLY previous fight).
It's not as if Dempsey knocking a man out was some sort of unusual 'fluke' occurrence.
"Ahead on points" means very little when you're in the ring with a Dempsey, or a Louis or a Marciano etc.

No, I'm not actually arguing that.

I'm not really arguing the case for or against Tunney.
My perception is that Gibbons' stock actually increased when he went 15 rounds with Dempsey, and he had a win over Kid Norfolk a few months before facing Tunney.
Tunney was quick to pounce on the fact that he knocked out a man who Dempsey couldn't knock out.

 

So Gibbons is considered Dempsey's #1 white challenger, loses to Greb, undeservingly fights Dempsey in a unsatisfying fight but goes the distance which according to you RAISED his level of qualification, then Tunney beats him 2 years later to establish himself as a champion which your hemming and hawing cant mask that you think this an acceptable way to climb and yet you accuse others of circular logic?

So Dempsey wasnt a points fighter but Gibbons going the distance with him in losing a points decision somehow elevates his credentials? I dont deny thats the what happened but to pretend that Dempsey having as much trouble with Brennan as he did is somehow excusable is ridiculous.

Ok so if your not arguing that Greb had better HW credentials than anyone Dempsey defended against what are you arguing? That he didnt fight Wills? Big ****ing deal neither did Dempsey. That he didnt fight Willard? When was that supposed to happen? Willard was inactive from 1916 to 1919 at which point Greb would have challenged had Willards fat inactive ass not gotten knocked out by Dempsey and then went inactive for another four years before having two fights in two months against two HWs that avoided Greb before retiring completely. The simple fact is that Greb fought the guys that were available for him to fight and beat them. You can split hairs and say they werent all dreadnaughts but big ****ing deal there werent many huge HWs back then. 6'1" 200 pound Bill Brennan was considered a big HW. The only people who think size was the only thing that matters are the ones who act like inept clumsy lummoxes like Willard and Firpo are a feather in Dempsey's cap and completely ignore that LHWs like Greb, Tunney, and Gibbons proved stylistic challenges for the champion. Its also the reason why Wills, who was considered the biggest skilled HW of that era was avoided like the plague. Its easy to shoot down slow moving Zeppelins but when you have a large, fast, agile bomber its entirely another matter.

 

The Gibbons fight definitely elevates Dempsey's credentials.

If it had not happened, we would be left with serious questions regarding his ability to win a fight over the distance, or beat a clever boxer on points.

The questions it answers, outweigh the value of another quick knockout.

I also think that if the fight had never been, Gibbons would be held up as a third dangerous contender that Dempsey failed to meet.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Gene Tunney was quite deserving of a title shot. As was Harry Greb.

I never said Dempsey's trouble with Brennan was "excusable".
I agree with you that the second Brennan fight was a poor performance. Certainly by his standards.

I disagreed when you said he "almost lost".
I think his two fights with Brennan show he was a superior fighter. I think it's fairly clear. He knocked the guy out twice, and there was nothing 'flukey' there.
I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding this.

1 - I've never said it was a big deal that he didn't fight Wills. I would say there's a clear separation between the two (Wills and Greb) at the respective heights as HW contenders.

2 - Fred Fulton was a top-rated man who both Dempsey and Wills did fight in eliminators. He pummelled Sam Langford badly when Langford was still decent. Both Dempsey and Wills knocked him out. Harry Greb turned down a fight with him.

Dempsey beat who he beat.
Greb beat who he beat.

Some of those guys you dismiss as lummoxes had some quite credible wins too. Willard did well to beat Floyd Johnson, who was decent at that time. Firpo did well to beat Willard and Weinert.

 

Well, at least we know how Gibbons did fighting two opponents at once.

 

Dempsey's left hand and Dempsey's right hand!

 

Drawing with the Champions sparring partner doesn't shout your chances at the Champion.I have no problem saying Wills deserved his shot.I also have no problem picking Dempsey to clean his clock had they met.

 

This is beneath you.

 

Whatever extreme might have been manifested in the support of Dempsey in the past, we have found the opposite extreme!

 

Opinions are like assholes.


When Pacqiauo lost to Bradley did that hurt Pac's standing? No, because everyone knew he was the better fighter regardless of the decision. Its also why Wills and not Tate was selected to fight an elimination against another of Dempsey's black boogaboos Kid Norfolk, won it, and was still ducked. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, if Dempsey were as confident as his modern fans that he would "clean Tates clock" then he would have signed that fight in a heartbeat, made his largest purse ever, and come away a hero. He knew better.

 

If you are going to crucify Dempsey for not fighting Wills, then unfortunately, you don't get to gloss over Wills disaster against Tate.

Either credentials matter if they don't.