Greb and the Heavyweights- Tommy Gibbons

****************

 

Wills-Dempsey is much discussed on the internet, that's true.
I'm not sure if there's more than 5 or 6 people discussing it though.

 

The idea is that no new facts have been uncovered that changes the known history from the 20's. What you have are very young inexperienced writers distorting the facts and at times making things up as they go. If you have not lived through the Ali era and don't have a grasp with went on during this relatively recent period how can you be trusted interpreting information from a time where no one is alive to present what was very well understood and known.

 

This idea that Dempsey was universally loved and absolved of blame for not fighting Wills by contemporaries is ridiculous. Even in his own time he was disliked by a lot of people and called out for many things, including his ducking of Wills, the foul on Sharkey and so on. Everything Dempsey gets criticised for now, he was also criticised for in his own time. The notion that all these criticisms of Dempsey were just made up 90 years later is pure fantasy.

 

5 or 6 is of course an understatement - but there's a lot to what you say.

These heated discussions we have here... isn't it funny to think, how little it all means in the grand scheme of things?

I mean, how many people in the entire world are aware that the Dempsey/Wills/Greb thing is a hotly debated issue amongst boxing nerds? That there are grown men actually arguing about this almost a century later?

Imagine being in a bar one night where the subject somehow turns to boxing, and you mention Jack Dempsey! They will probably all have heard about him, but how likely is it, that someone will say... "Dempsey, wasn't he the guy who ducked Harry Wills all through his 7-year title reign?" Not gonna happen! It's unlikely, that anyone in the bar would even know, who Wills was!

 

As mentioned you will find anything you want to find during any time period that boisters any argument you want to make. The point is the facts surrounding why the fight did not come off were resolved many decades ago.....the racism of the times, the Johnson legacy within a still racist time period, Rickard not wanting a mixed race bout, the NY state boxing commissioner a very powerful individual in the sport at that time blocking the bout from occurring. Dempsey going so far out of the norm to make the bout happen HIMSELF but even this falling through. People who today after 80 plus years of the known facts need to look into themselves as to why they want to interpret everything in a very different manner.

The punches that stopped Sharkey were not low.

 

Just letting you know that I think some of your posts in this thread have been well thought out a well put, you are putting up your case very well and a lot is well along the lines I see this subject. Enjoyable reading all of these posts.

 

Are they all discussing Wills-Dempsey ?
I thought this was something about Greb and Gibbons.

 

Just Einstein's theory of relativity in action. :hi::hi:

 

Benny Leonard:
I have just completed two careful studies of the Dempsey-Sharkey fight films, motion pictures of the fight in the Yankee stadium Thursday night. They do not settle in my mind the question as to whether the body blow struck by Dempsey in the seventh round, just before he put over the left for the knockout, was fair or foul.

They prove only one thing conclusively to me. That is, if you were a Dempsey rooter, the blow was fair. If you were a Sharkey rooter, the blow was foul. In saying this I have in mind that quotation, "man easily believes that which he wishes to believe." In the fight racket, I have found the fan "sees that only which he wishes to see."

 

I agree.

Many points about that fight have been completely distorted over time.

Many headlines read the blows appeared legal. The ref was adamant that the three right uppercuts to Sharkeys body were legal blows. In today's world the interpretation of the hats being thrown into the ring after the ko is the crowd was in an uproar over illegal punches. Could not be further from the truth. Dempsey received an ovation of cheers so powerful it shook the stadium.

I've watched the bout since the very early 70's and what is vital is the definition of a low blow at that time which was any punch that hits below the beltline. The beltline at that time was defined as an imaginary line the joins the hip bones.

 

What did the rules say on Dempsey leaving the ring at the end of the 1st round vs Jess Willard?