So fighting a black guy is some kind of right of passage to greatness? Why do we blow up the Harry Wills issue? It's unwarranted considering nobody in their right minds would think Wills would stand a chance. It's as if you WANT to blame Dempsey for something, and this is the lowest hanging fruit.
That's all this forum is really. We all have our deeply rooted beliefs about certain fighters, and we will pick from our choice of 1,000 reasons to support it.
I call them as I see them, usually backed up with facts. But in this case, your buried him with facts and squashed him like a bug at the same time. I partially liked the following:
No fighting the best out does. That was Wills. The other option Greb. Both men certainly would have a chance. As stated a good collection of black fighters Langford, Siki, Norfolk, Godfrey, et al did not get a chance to meet Dempsey before he became a champion or after he became champion. Dempsey's best black opponent was John Lester Johnson, and he had a rough go there.
No one thought Braddock stood a chance against Baer, or Clay against Liston, or Spinks against Ali, or Douglas against Tyson... And furthermore, it's not about who anyone thinks would win. It's about earning the right to decide the argument in the ring. It's about deserved opportunity.
Don't have a problem with that, other than to say, occasionally deserved opportunity clashes with the business of boxing, and when this occurs, the business of boxing usually wins. Case in point, there were numerous fighters more qualified to fight Lewis besides Tyson, but the $$$ dictated that this was the find to make. You can fight countless cases of this taking place.
I get your point. Jack Dempsey vs. Harry Wills would've been a great fight, and a great addition to boxing history. But it's not fair that it's used against him so often, when it really means so little compared to his accomplishments.
I think the problem is, and this is to address the post above yours also, that Wills remained the best contender for so long. It wasn't like a Chris Byrd who could have been the best possible contender to Lewis for a few months.
It's a fair point. But I think it's a tiny detail compared to how great his power was, or his ferocity, and unique style. Dempsey was a killer in the ring. And using up a huge portion of this thread about him being a coward just doesn't feel right. It just doesn't fit.
He was a natural born fighter, through and through, but the more I research him and the operation behind him the more I see him as a rube and a tool of Rickard and Kearns, much as Pac has been the same of Arum. What exactly are Dempsey's great victories? Outside of the hyperbole and paid-off press agents, there really are none of great substance.
Is it possible that you associate misplaced significance with the new information you research? Again, the way you ask that question, it's hard to take serious. Anyone can read the accounts on Dempsey, watch the Willard fight, and put 2 and 2 together. By asking me "What are his great victories?", you're asking me to defend fights that I know so well in my heart that are great, that stooping so low to defend them in argument is something I cannot do. I'm uncomfortable with it because of the fact that I would have to seriously address a question that I know in my heart is a joke. Again, it just doesn't fit. Which Dempsey fight was the greatest is a topic that I can invest myself in. Yours isn't.
Because you know these fights so well, because you have been told they were greatness in action since an early age, you can not see the forest for the trees, you can not face facts such that Carpentier was an unqualified imposter who hadn't won an unfixed heavyweight fight of significance in 7 years, that Bill Brennan was a complete retread who had been beaten by a featherfisted middleweight 5 times, that Tommy Gibbons- a career middle and lightheavy- had lost the eliminator to face Dempsey but got the shot regardless. Now, if one were to fully comprehend the level of manipulation and contrivance of Dempsey's rise to prominence, and to discover that it was a lot more smoke and mirrors than the fistic rampage it was made out to be, if one were to see the greater view of contemporary contrivance and fakery in the sporting world (Black Sox anyone?), then one might come to a better appreciation of the Dempsey Phenomenon. But wallowing in tired old tales and fable will merely keep you in the murky delusions of untruth. Praise be. Praise to be. Amen.
Rez, save yourself some agita and refrain from arguing with a few posters who 90 years later claim that the thousands of fighters, boxing writers, trainers and fans were somehow all duped by the man called Jack Dempsey, and these naysayers who truly have an agenda whether they know it or not, to change boxing history forever to fit their social ideology...THEY will never see the light Rez. cheers...
I don't have a grandpa on a rocking chair that tells me tales of Jack Dempsey. I learned everything on my own. And it's just obvious to me. And I think it's obvious to most people that Dempsey is exactly who they made him out to be. You think Dempseys rise to prominence is due to "manipulation and contrivance?". I think you're just saying that to get a rise out of people.