Who was Jack Dempsey's third most deserving title opponent who never got a title shot?

On this I think we can all agree. Fighters not trying, not giving 100%, showing up to collect a paycheck and take an "L", or showing up injured or out of shape is bad problem today. I have no problem whatsoever with throwing a fighter out of the ring, suspending him, and taking his purse under those circumstances. A perfect example is Pac-Mayweather. Those guys didnt give two shits about the fans. They both phoned it in and both should have had some of their pay taken. In Pacs case fighting with a known injury he shouldnt have been paid. He robbed the fans. Fighters shouldnt be rewarded for avoiding each other for years and then when the fight doesnt matter anymore showing up and going through the motions. The same thing happened when Holyfield and Lewis first fought. Attrocious. Like I said, in the ND era that **** didnt fly. There were consequences for those actions. As great a fighter as Gene Tunney was he suspended twice and docked pay for not giving his best effort in bouts, one of which was a ND bout.

 

Again why is it nonsense that he chose to forgo that massive offer by Rickard? More than likely it was strategic thinking on Carp's part, why fight Greb when there were bigger fish to fry or so he thought, the Dempsey- Carp II for instance. If that fight had been made Carp stood to make more vs Dempsey. In today's world Cuban fighters like erislandy Lara, who nobody wants to see continuously challenge GGG and anybody else who he can make money with, does that mean that GGG is ducking him if he doesnt accept? No, it doesnt an offer has to be accepted before a fight can be made, just cos a massive offer was made doesnt mean it has to be accepted. There was no obligation for Carp to take the Greb fight, it was up to team Carp, and they chose another route, plain and simple.

 

Tough to say. It wasn't really a great era for heavyweights, and Dempsey got to most of the top guys during his reign. There are guys that he could have met, like Weinart, Renault and older fixtures like Langford and Johnson, but it's difficult to think of anyone who really separated themselves from the other contenders like the other two did.

 

but none of that rules out the possibility of a percentile being glorified exhibitions. injuries happen in sparring just the same. people getting hurt does not prove one bit that all fights were genuine anymore than now. holding back you can still hurt. winning hurts. losing hurts more. fighting that often simply is not fighting "flat out" all the time. its not possible believe me.

dont forget expert boxers can make genuine fights look good. "gee fights" from the fairground boxing booth days could be made to look more sensational to watch than the real thing. often the same guys who performed exciting gee fights were forced to go for real but could then only offer a lousy spectacle. many could only look good fighting phoney. i dont see how (for many of the fights) the no decision era could be any different if only for "some of the time" ...and it would have to be for so much official ring activity.

 

I agree with the gist of the post. It sucks to see guys pansying around waiting for their rivals to get old or shot before taking them on, avoiding mandatories etc etc.

 

Problem is, there's a whole generation of fans, perhaps several generations, who seem to think Mayweather-Pacquiao was acceptable.

 

Who took this poll? Who are the writers? Can you reproduce all of those individuals. You are quoting from boxrec which itself is quoting from a non specific newspaper article. I didnt quote a poll for Greb-Tunney 2 I conducted the poll myself by gathering every single first hand result I could find. I can quote them verbatim. Im not satisfied with what I just read off of boxrec. Can you say the same vis a vis Louis Walcott? If I conduct a poll on Louis-Walcott would I come up with the same results? Maybe. Maybe not. I might come up with 50 ringside reports instead of 32 and the other 18 might have voted for Louis. That exact scenario happened with Greb-Tunney 2 when one paper quoted a ringside poll saying that Tunney had won something like five of the 7 opinions with 1 being a draw and 1 going to Greb. Makes a nice story but you have to go out of your way to exclude the literally dozens of ringside reports that felt Greb was robbed royally in that fight only to pick the few reports that voted for Tunney and of those many were alleged to have been paid... As I said, its an important statistic in regards to Louis-Walcott but until I have more rock solid facts based on the same level of research Ive done into Greb-Tunney Im not going to come on here and make an idiot of myself by claiming the sky is purple like you always do. There is enough dissenting first hand evidence to call into question the idea that Joe Louis categorically won a robbery. Just like there is a plethora of information that obliterates the notion that Tunney somehow figured out Greb after their first fight and went on his merry way beating him every single time out from that point on. One could also turn your question around and ask: based on the film, the radio broadcast, and a comprehensive accounting of the ringside reports (which you dont have) do you think the result should be changed? Do you feel that comfortable with the limited knowledge you currently have making that determination? You might say yes because you say an awful lot of stupid **** on here but my gut tells me deep down even you dont believe that nonsense.

 

You are absolutely right and thats sad. When I hear guys defend such tripe as "well boxing is a business" I wonder why they even watch it. I pay my money to see a fight, not to see two men in shorts pretend to haggle around a board room. But, thats also why I havent paid for any modern boxing in going on a decade. They can have their "business." Id rather watch fights.

 

You are obviously going to believe what you want to believe but, and I really dont mean any disrespect by this, your opinion is rooted in ignorance. No offense but it is. I'll say again, where is your proof. Where is your evidence. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Its easy to see why its hard for you to believe that level of activity was legitimate but how would you explain someone like Sugar Ray Robinson? He fought 200 fights against a wide range of talent and sizes and was still pretty darn competitive at the end. Were his fights all fake as well? Same with Henry Armstrong or any number of other fighters who fought tons of fights. I hate to break it to you but in those days men were simply tougher, born out of a much more difficult existence and they had to fight often to make money because the big dollars werent there. If boxers today had to live that tough and were forced with the choice of making a few hundred dollars a fight (and splitting that with a manager) or working a back breaking 16 hour day for peanuts you damn well better believe wed have fighters today who have over 100 fights.

 

Some of those old-timers were quite open about the fact that they carried opponents.
Of course there's different degrees of "faking it".

 

i agree with most of what you are saying. sure they were tough. obviously the big fights where there is overwhelming evidence that they were on the level it is factual that they were real, but by the nature of a career, the thousands we witness, read, sift though and study, it is impossible to say each and every fight was on the level. (when was it ever??) but they had to be going through the motions a heck of a lot of the time.

archie Moore is documented as falling out with jimmy bivins over unnecessarily crucifying a journeyman because it meant him being out of action. taking one guy out (for real) hurt all the guys looking for work. since it is obvious guys got carried. they had to because they worked so often. it dont stop the times being tough or the fights being better.

the whole expression about hand cuffs says it all really. it takes nothing from any great fighter saying this. if you understand the physical side of boxing you understand it.

all champions get a large amount of set ups. thats hiw they learn. thats why they need to win tournaments as amateurs to atract finance enough to secure a safe route to money fightd in the pros.

alis trainer did not want his kid beat up in the clubs so he put him in the olympics to lure the right investors. but you know this. the trainer got shafted. the point is, too much competative fights at the wrong time is not good. it's naive to think otherwise.

all the time, even in the amateurs you hear "dont knock him out, hes on next week" or "we only got this because i agreed to a rematch" boxing at every level is about deals.

now, back when there is no official result, no film, often no really big money or really any kind of big crowd or important reporters present there is no deals? no hand cuffs? no gee ups?

 

You are the only poster here who believes he can accurately judge a fight on highlights.

 

I would be much more interested to hear your opinion about the original question.

If we set aside Wills and Greb, who was the most credible potential challenger, that Dempsey did not defend his title against?

Suggestions so far include Norfolk, Renault, Weinert, Tate, Johnson, and even Jack Johnson, or rematches with Fulton or Willard.

Your call?