Do you hold it against Jack Dempsey for not fighting Harry Greb?

Greb beat Miske twice and drew with him once. If we are throwing out ND bouts then you might as well exclude every fighter that ever got a shot in that era because they did it on the backs of no decision bouts.
Greb beat Gibbons two out of four but the two that Greb won were their last two and the last one was a 15 round decision fight promoted as an elimination bout for the winner to face Dempsey.
Greb beat Brennan 4 times. He defeated via 15 round decision on the same day Dempsey won the title. The last time they fought Greb almost knocked Brennan out in the final round.
Georges Carpentier was offered the second highest payday of his career to face Greb and turned it down instead to face Siki for (if I recall correctly) less than 1/10th what he was offered for Greb.
Tunney did notch 3 wins against Greb but here is the problem with that: Greb beat Tunney horribly in their first fight. In their second several reports said Greb beat him just as bad in that one yet Tunney got the decision. You can search this forum for previous posts on the subject but the fact is that ringside reports are beyond lopsided in the fact that a wide majority thought Greb won their second fight, many calling it the worst robbery in New York history. Some called for an investigation into it. I do not consider that Greb lost to Tunney in that fight. I do believe that Tunney beat Greb in their third. Its true that some still had Greb winning their third but this time the reports are flipped with a vast majority voting for Tunney. Their fourth fight was a no decision fight in Cleveland which once again, most reports have Greb winning, a couple having it a draw, and another couple having it for Tunney. If you are using a consensus of reports to establish who won a ND fight then clearly Greb wins fight 4. The first and only time Tunney really had a clear, indisputable edge on Greb was their 5th and final fight. Greb went into the fight with broken ribs and Tunney reinjured them in the third or fourth round. Most reports have Greb winning prior to that point. However, regardless Tunney won a clear decision in this fight. However, this fight, the only time he really had any kind of margin on Greb took place in 1925, six years into Dempsey's reign. If the argument is that Dempsey fought a better guy than Greb, so he wasn't ducking tough fights, and was justified in avoiding Greb in favor of Tunney then the question begs to be asked: What was he doing for the previous six years? Because Greb was already an established threat to the division before Dempsey even won the title. Furthermore, it shouldn't need pointing out that the first time Dempsey defended against a fighter on Greb's level HE LOST. So it really doesn't do much for those trying to defend Dempsey's tepid reign.

 

I will right after you ask Mendoza ..

 

Everybody also knew at that time Dempsey would have murdered them both

 

I agree with this.
It’s a bad look for Dempsey to miss both Greb and Wills. Dempsey was such a money making machine during the decade I don’t think his handlers were interested in finding the most qualified opposition for him that “could” upset the gravy train.
And i’m Someone who does believe that Dempsey was a very good fighter. He was athletic in his prime, had explosive power, with a great chin and great left hook. His past prime fights against Tunney and Sharkey where although dominated by Tunney he still managed to floor him badly and against Sharkey where he survived an early onslaught and slugged his way back into the fight tell me in his prime the man was the real deal. However his handlers or him for not speaking up as much as he should have were more interested in Benjamin’s than quality opposition.
This was the 1920’s Houdini, Ruth, Silent Screen stars, the American public wanted shows they came out by the thousands for them, they wanted stars, Dempsey was treated as such.

 

I didnt mean this to attack Greb's greatness as much as it sounded, particularly as a fighter in general as opposed to a heavyweight contender whom the World champion allegedly ducked.

But...you say every fighter got a title shot through their no Decision newspaper wins. Is this really correct?

I am pretty sure that it was Bill Brennans dozen or so actual wins that got him the title shot against Dempsey, not his Newspaper decisions.
I also thought that the last dozen or more wins by Tommy Gibbons was more important than his no decision fight with Miske or even his points lost to Greb.
I am pretty sure Tunney wasnt getting a title shot against Dempsey of his KOs of Gibbons, herman, Madden, ODowd and Carpentier were all ND wins, even with the impressive last Greb win.
Carpentier had popularity and all, but it was his KO streak that got him the shot not any decision fights.
Firpo was exactly the same.

The title had never changed hands on a points decision until Tunney came along and even then it was only because Tunney was so dominant that there was hardly no other result in question that this was accepted so readily. Of course fighters got more ground over a KO than a No decision. Especieally in a time when people couldnt even watch the ND fight to score it.

Greb was a great fighter, but he needed to actually put a string of KOs together before he could get a shot at the heavyweight title. That is just how it worked back then, particularly in Dempseys time.

 

Greb really wasn't a KO kind of fighter, especially against the guy that had big weight advantages against him.
He was a genuine contender for the HW title because of his great record against everyone, including Tunney. He and his promoters campaigned vigorously for the chance, and he was supported by contemporary newspaper writers. It's not like we're making this up.

 

I am have come down in favor of the prosecution here, but I do think that there were people at the time, who dismissed Greb as a contender due to his size.

You occasionally see lists of the best available challengers of Dempsey, that omit Greb from the list, but have Gibbons and Brennan on it.

You could imagine somebody saying "Yes Greb beat them, but Gibbons might have the defense to give the champion a good fight, or Brennan might have the power."

 

I am not necessarilly disagreeing, but at this time, which World Heavyweight Title fights were won by fighters who were not KO fighters. Corbett would be the closest, but his best wins were all KOs, not points decisions. It wasnt that long before this where fights were sometimes awarded based on who was winning the last rounds (ie looking like he was going to win the fight by KO) as opposed to who won the most rounds. Greb (on his record) could not KO Dempsey.

In fact, even if Greb had won on points in a shorter fight, given dempsey's popularity, i am not even convinced that the title would have changed hands (i know Tunney kind of proves me wrong). But i wouldnt be surprised if his fighters made some type of unification Superfight to the finish or 60 rounds or something similar.

 

It isn't the Greb duck alone. Were that the only guy he missed, it's plenty forgivable. But combined with the Wills saga, it makes chump defenses like Brennan, Carpentier and Firpo less forgivable. Team Dempsey mastered the art of low risk/high reward. Very modern in this regard, you might say.

 

I think the worst part of Dempsey was his inactivity , He did fight Tunney who did lose to Greb but beat him a few times after and he fought Sharkey.

Dempsey was a Big star inside and outside the ring like Ali was in his day but without TV and other forms of media.

I would have loved to see him fight Wills because I think he denied himself a huge victory, Greb on the other hand may have been a cagey & crafty foe small though & lacking the power.

Dempsey may have looked bad vs Greb if he didnt blow him out of the ring. Wills looked like he got hit too much to be hammered by JD but I didnt see him vs Langford who he also beat more than he lost to.

Inactivity was Dempseys worst enemy

 

There are two perspectives on Dempsey's career. For the modern day boxing fan, we can wish he had defended more often and against greater quality and kept fitter longer... and ultimately created a greater legacy.

However, for Dempsey, beating Willard represented the pinnacle. He had captured grasp of the brass ring. It was a long and hard time, against long and hard odds, for some mining camp skinny Mormon to reach that moment. What followed afterward was something similar to the stage and exhibition circuit that so many of his predecessors had enjoyed. Soft touches made the majority of their fistic diet while they milked the strap for all the ancillary money it would yield. He didn't really have a model to follow of a champion who fought the very best the most often. He bridged that era and a new era of show and big gates where the event surpassed the contest. And no one before had been such a champ at the event as Dempsey.