Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Dempsey as champion avoided his two best opponents in Wills and Greb.

The pity is he would have beaten both of them IMO.

If Dempsey and Kearns wanted the either fight it could have been arranged.

 

Harry Greb wouldn't have been one of Dempsey's "best" opponents anymore than Sugar Ray Leonard would've been one of Mike Tyson's "best" opponents in the late 80s.

Greb had ZERO power. Everyone went the distance with him. Hopping around the ring acting like a spazz in a sparring match for a few rounds doesn't qualify a guy for a heavyweight title fight today ... and it didn't then.

Dempsey should've faced Wills. But there were as many powerful people against it as there were powerful people in favor of it. Hell, there were 4 million people in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s ... including many politicians. It was a different time.

 

Styles make fights. Just because Ken Norton and Joe Frazier could beat Ali ... and Foreman beat them both inside two rounds ... doesn't mean Foreman beats Ali.

Michael Moorer beat Holyfield once. Holyfield beat Tyson twice. But I don't know anyone who thinks Michael Moorer lasts a round with Tyson.

People always say ... well Greb beat Tunney once ... like Gene Tunney fought anything like Jack Dempsey.

Harry Greb couldn't punch. The only video of him sparring shows him looking like a total spazz. Technical boxers have trouble with guys who don't fight like they are expected to.

The bigger, stronger Dempsey would've probably wondered what the hell Greb was doing for a few rounds, hopping and lurching all over the place, and then beat the hell out of him.

If there wasn't a guy on this board who wrote a Harry Greb book, nobody would've brought Greb's name up.

 

I think that the picture is more complex than you are allowing for here.

Beating somebody at light heavyweight, does not necessarily catapult you over them at heavyweight, and Greb did also loose to some of Dempsey's opponents during this period.

I am not saying that Dempsey should not be criticised here, because I think that he should, but lets not oversimplify the situation.

 

Power is a red herring here. An all-time featherfist can still win on points. Ask Willie Pep. Gene Tunney was hardly George Foreman in the punching stakes and it didn't stop him getting a title shot. Billy Miske was terminally ill and he still got a title shot.

Winning a title eliminator generally qualifies one for a title shot. Greb won a title eliminator against Tommy Gibbons and Dempsey opted to face the loser instead. Bill Brennan went life and death with Dempsey and couldn't win a round against Greb. All told Greb beat every heavyweight who would face him, often in one-sided fashion, and beat four men who fought Dempsey for the title. If that's not qualified then I don't know what is.

 

And Chris Byrd beat Holyfield, and he beat Tua, and he beat Vitali Klitschko, and he drew with Golota ... and Lennox Lewis tied with Holyfield and struggled with Klitschko and outboxed Tua and blew out Golota.

And Lennox Lewis took $1 million to vacate his title because he had zero interest in fighting Chris Byrd.

Does that mean Chris Byrd beats Lewis? Would anyone here have picked Chris Byrd to beat Lennox Lewis in 2002? Anyone?:roll:

NO!!!

Or is the more likely scenario that Lewis-Byrd would've looked just like Wlad Klitschko-Byrd (with Lewis jabbing him to death before dropping him with big rights) ... and the fight would've been a stinker ... and Lewis was just too old to want to mess with some slapping cutie?

He'd prefer to fight guys who'd fight him - like Vitali?

And I'll reserve judgement on whether Harry Greb beat "the sh*t" out of anyone until I actually see him do it. Chris Byrd says he beat the hell out of alot of guys when he didn't.

I only commented because the Steve Compton was calling people "Fanboy idiots" and he's the biggest fanboy on the whole site.

Because Dempsey and Greb beat the same guys, that doesn't mean the smaller, light-punching Greb WINS against Dempsey. That makes no sense at all. It doesn't hold true now with current fighters, and it didn't then, either.

Look at Dempsey in the ring. Look at Greb throwing awkward spastic punches in sparring footage, and realize he had one of the worst KO percentages ever ... and tell me who you pick head-to-head?

It isn't Greb.

But Dempsey should've faced Wills. However, given the times, I understand why it didn't.

 

You're mixing up who would win with who deserved a shot. They aren't the same thing. Byrd earned a chance at Lewis. Greb deserved a shot at Dempsey. Both would have been underdogs but there's only one way to be sure who wins a fight and in both cases the champion didn't fancy it, whatever their reasons.

Anyway, you said Greb was not qualified for a shot at Dempsey. That's patently untrue. He did more than enough to warrant a shot and was easily more qualified than several who did receive one. Seems to me that was the problem.

 

Sure there's a way to know who wins. Light-hitting, awkward Chris Byrd was never going to beat Lennox Lewis, just like light-hitting, awkward, spastic Harry Greb was never going to beat Dempsey.

You can use this "he beat the guys who got title shots" with EVERYONE. Every guy who got title shots lost to someone else.

Because Byrd beat Holyfield, Tua and Vitali doesn't mean he was MORE QUALIFIED than they were when they got title shots. And it doesn't mean Byrd would've provided a stiffer test to Lewis than they did.

Same with Greb and Dempsey.

But when we start talking about Harry Greb, people lose their freaking rational thought ... because nobody's seen him. He's a different fighter to everyone.

 

Same Clausewitz who said, "Prepare for your opponent's capabilities, not his intentions?"

Because intention can change in an instant, but capability cannot.

 

K, why not address Louis, Johnson and SRR doing the same thing avoiding the best black fighters and fought mostly white fighters? Do you always have to resort to name calling? That says more about you then you seem to know.
If you disagree with someone explain your position without resorting to calling someone a fanboy, that just weakens your position.

 

And Michael Spinks was more accomplished than anyone Tyson defended against up until that point, and Spinks was one of his easiest fights.

You guys just talk in circles.

Harry Greb didn't fight Jack Dempsey. Just because Harry Greb faced some of the same guys as Dempsey and won doesn't mean Greb wins against Dempsey.

Awkward Michael Spinks could outbox Holmes because Holmes tried to outbox him. Mike Tyson blew out Spinks because he didn't try to outbox Spinks, and Spinks didn't have the power to keep him off, so Tyson just walked right over him.

Michael Moorer beat Holyfield, he beat Bonecrusher Smith, he beat Botha ... and had an easier not against all of them than Tyson did ... but I don't pick Moorer over Tyson any day ever. Not then, not now.

Tyson blows him out.

Nearly a hundred years later, some fanboy writes a book about Greb ... and now all you guys think Greb was some scary opponent Dempsey ducked.

A hundred years from now, someone could write the very same thing about Byrd and Lewis.

That doesn't make it true. And doesn't mean the smaller, light-punching guy wins. That was the train of thought when Lewis had no interest in fighting Byrd, and that's the impression I get with Dempsey and Greb, too.

Since I've never in my life seen any footage of Harry Greb ever fighting in a real fight ... JUST LIKE NONE OF YOU HAVE ... only sparring footage where Greb looks like he's channeling Mike "The Bounty" Hunter ... I'll take Dempsey.

Like Tyson vs. Spinks ... Dempsey KO1 Greb.

 

Byrd beat Tua and Holy several years after they faced Lewis. His win over Vitali was three years before Vitali-Lewis. Imagine Tua losing four times to Byrd, and then getting a shot at Lewis. Or Byrd winning a title eliminator against Vitali, and Lewis chooses to face the loser next. Or fights an ailing Tommy Morrison when Byrd is his top contender. That's closer to the Greb-Dempsey situation.

Again you're mixing up who deserves a shot with who you think would win. They aren't the same thing. It doesn't really matter if you think Greb would be a first round Dempsey KO victim. Fights aren't determined on that basis. If they were then Lewis-Rahman would never have happened. What's the point? Everyone knew Lennox would walk through him, right?

Greb more than earned his chance by winning an eliminator, beating four Dempsey challengers and numerous other top heavyweights. He deserved it, and it seems clear to me that Dempsey didn't fancy it, preferring to face weaker or less qualified challengers, who were often former Greb victims.