Greb and the Heavyweights- Tommy Gibbons

Garbage is a term Aussies use a lot so not exactly the word Klompton would say. The Aussies do tend to be critical of our modern fighters but that is our perogative. Some fighters like Anthony Mundine, especially him, he is hated by many and he is open season or was. Our modern fighters are pretty poor compared to Darcy or Griffo or Dave Sands or Lionel Rose.

It is clear though that Klompton is highly critical of Dempsey if you look through this thread. I hear he also has low opinions of Joe Jeanette anyway Klompton isn't our problem.

 

Geale and "Solibum" are the current targets. Mundine seemed pretty good, and a fair nice bloke too, don't understand that.

Klompton is free to criticize Dempsey so long as he posts a coherent factual argument. He usually does.

 

I view Klompton pragmatically.

Sometimes he can be an excellent poster. No doubt there. I welcome his input.

Other times he spends too time on personal insults. He's not always right either. None of us are, but with him, he's 99.999% sure.

I have found he will avoid direct questions that go against his research. He guards his boxing collection, which is tremendous like a fictional dragon guards his treasure and has been burned too many times to trust what he can not confirm.

You could say he's a bit of a Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde type of personality. On the side, he's smart, well researched, can add with video or print, and a decent communicator. It just doesn't take much for him to change into the other guy.

 

Tell me one thing Ive ever said about Darcy that was untrue. One thing. The problem is Ive said a lot of things about Darcy that are 100% true and backed up by facts but dont paint Darcy in the same "sun shines out of his ass" light you paint him in so you take offense. Im not going to lie and pretend the guy was the greatest fighter ever. He wasnt. Im not going to pretend he was anything more than a prospect with a lot of question marks around him that never got answered. Im not going to pretend that when he made it big in OZ he didnt have every single advantage going for him, several of which wouldnt even be allowed anywhere else in the world. Im not going to pretend that the guy comes to the USA and just runs through every fighter he faces from MW to HW like **** through a goose. Thats pure fantasy.

The reason you "hear" I dont like Jeanette, is the same reason you think I hate Darcy. Because in a thread with your buddy Greg I put forth a case, a strong case, for Jeanette never once being in a position to claim he deserved a shot at Jack Johnson over several of his contemporaries. Does this mean I hate him? No. Was this unfair or a direct criticism? No. But Greg, who like you, has a personal interest in his hero, took MASSIVE offense and his response, much like yours that prompted all of this mess years ago, was way out of line. The difference between myself and other posters (and its a failing of mine) is that I dont suffer fools and Im willing to drop down to the same level you two take it and then drop it down another couple of levels.

Am I critical of Dempsey. Yes. Theres a lot to criticise. Another difference between me and fanboys like you is that I used to be the biggest Dempsey nuthugger around. Believe it or not. But the more I learned about him and immersed myself in that era the more inescapable it became that he was overrated and that his legend was largely built up by the press and not supported by his accomplishments. If nothing else, that proves that I am exactly the opposite of what those who claim I am unwilling to change to my mind and dogmatic to a fault. Im always willing to change my opinion if the evidence is there to support that change. But Im not going to change my opinion because some fanboy who hasnt done 1/100th of the research into the era I have doesnt like what I have to say. This thread is a perfect example of that. dempsey1234 has been arguing with me for several pages but admits he started this thread without really knowing the details or context. He basically just wanted to illustrate that Greb really wasnt a viable challenger. He started with an idea, went to a site that is flawed, grabbed a couple of blurbs that he THOUGHT supported his idea, and the posted those. Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Is it arrogance when I fire back and correct that with real actual research done over 15 years or more (and started without any preconceived notions mind you, letting the research take me where it would)?

 

Perhaps he grabbed and clutched so much because Dempsey was beating his ***** black and blue as he verified to reporters the following day. Meanwhile, Jack's old NY roommate, Jim Daugherty presided as ref and saw fit to look the other way.

 

Perhaps Gibbons just wasn't good enough to beat Dempsey.
We've seen the fight, Dempsey outfought him, outboxed him.

 

Of course he wasnt good enough to beat Dempsey. Thats precisely why he was selected for the fight LOL. You dont get a title fight by losing your title eliminator because they actually think you can beat their guy.:rofl

 

I agree.
But then again many champions have been caught out using that same reasoning.

 

This true but most find time to fight their top contender win lose or draw at some point.

Here is an interesting question: barring guys that were only champion for a short time or lost in their first defense, has any other hw champion ever not faced their top contender or what could be termed their top contender for the duration or majority of their career? I suppose maybe Johnson against Langford but Im not sure Langford was the top guy for all or most of Johnsons reign. Id have to think on that more.

 

Probably not.
Dempsey's "reign" was virtually a semi-retirement.

 

Which really good punchers did Greb beat and were any of them in Dempsey's class?

Dempsey was anything but a plodder. He was fast, and sparred often with smaller men, looking good in the process. This can be seen on film,

While I think Dempsey should have given Greb a title shot, Greb's chances in a 15 round match are pretty slim.

 

I have to admit, Dempsey is the all time great who I find the hardest to settle on just how good he was. In some ways, i can see why some people rated him the greatest ever and he may very well be. In other cases, i can see why others dont rate him in the top 20. I think there are arguments both ways.

Klompton posed an interesting question about no other long reigning champion avoiding their top challenger. I think that Jim Corbett avoided his top challenger. Wlad and Vitali, of course, avoided theirs. I cant say Johnson avoided Langford in the same way. I know it worked out that Langford was the no 1 for most of his reign, but Langford had key losses such as the McVey fight by the time Johnson got around to actually defending, and johnson had already defeated Langford as well as most of the fighters langford had beaten or was getting beaten by. Other than this, i cant think of any others, off hand. Bowe avoiding Lewis, maybe. Or Foreman avoiding Lewis if you count his reign.

Interestingly, with Dempsey, not only did he arguably avoid his best challenger, Wills, he also arguably avoided his second and third best challenger in Greb and Johnson. And these three challengers also avoided each other for the entire period, despite all three being very active. In modern times, it was almost a similar situation to today, where you could have a WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF champ all refusing to fight each other.

 

Getting this thread back on topic though, i would be interested to hear from others as to who they considered the 10 best fighters in the Dempsey era and who they considered the 10 best fighters Greb beat. (head to head rather than legacy). Klompton gave an excellent summary of Grebs opponents but I wonder what everyone sees their rankings relative to the era.

 

Good way to put it.