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

For 3 years, Marvin Hagler defended the Middleweight Championship against no middleweights. He gets a total pass. It is never even brought up! Different rules for different fighters baby.

 

Excuse me? Which three years were those?

I don’t see a gap with NO TITLE DEFENSES for any champion not named Jack Dempsey.

You can argue “this guy isn’t a true middleweight” or whatever, but he did defend the title against contenders who were ratified by sanctioning bodies. He did NOT go on a three-year sabbatical during which he never so much as set foot in a boxing ring.

Find me another champion who did not make a single title defense in three years and you can claim “different rules” ... but the only different rule here is for Dempsey, who put the most important title in the sport and arguably in all of sport in deep freeze.

 

Not middleweight contenders. Those guys died on the vine as Hagler went after money and sat on his ass only fighting nonranked non middleweight s. Different rules.

 

Hagler was fighting guys better than those in his own division. He'd basically cleaned house. Hearns had demolished the Duran Hagler had unimpressively decisioned not long prior and was a super fight that had been clamored for. Hearns and Hagler were probably the top 2 P4P rated fighters at that time. Mugabi was the number 1 rated middleweight contender for all 3 bodies i believe. SRL was SRL.

I'm a bit of a Hagler detractor but one can't fault the man on who he fought. His record is impeccable.

 

H bull****. He whined forever of not getting his chance then in 85,86 87 fought , not 1 true middleweight. Impeccable. See even you have different rules for Hagler. No middleweight in history did that. You're just a hypocrite. GRAHAM, KINCHEN AND ALL THOSE GUYS DIED ON THE VINE WHILE HYPOCRITE MARVIN LINED HIS POCKETS. FITTING HIS ENTIRE REIGN WAS RUINED BY LOSING TO A RUSTY WELTERWEIGHT WHO HAD FOUGHT 1 time IN 5 YEARS YET INTIMIDATED HAGLER INTO FIGHTING HIS FIGHT

 

Mugabi was considered the "true" top middleweight contender by all three organisations. These are the guys that run the show. At the exact time Mugabi fought Hagler he was also rated as the number one contender by Ring magazine. I'm not sure what else could be said on the Mugabi front.

Herol was not even Ring Rated in early 85 and was just 5th at the time Hagler fought Mugabi, who was 1.

Kinchen? He drew with Amparo in 84, lost to Schuler in 85, lost to Barkley in 86, lost to both Roldan and Musgrove in 87. He did nothing to stand out or force a title shot.

In the meantime Hagler was fighting ATG Hearns at his peak, a hugely regarded (and imo mostly unproven but that is beside the point) and number 1 rated across the entire board Mugabi and then ATG SRL who was actually good enough to beat him.

There are no holes there. IMO Hearns and SRL are the best two fighters he ever fought. Mugabi was as i said rated 1 across every platform.

There's nothing to criticize. Marvin was actually fighting the very best. You cannot fight every mundane contender that ever featured in the ratings.

 

After Hagler cleaned out the division he fought Hearns who not only was the biggest challenge out there but a guy that would go on to win both the middleweight and light heavyweight titles. I’m not sure if you believe your posts or just try spin to attempt a clever argument but it’s pretty weak here.

 

That argument is a fallacy. Who you rate higher has nothing to do with the question.

Dempsey clearly ducked Greb and should have made many more title defences. Dempsey's myth would not have the questions it does if he had fought and defeated Greb and Wills.

...and we wouldn't have to have these pointless circular arguments.

 

Hagler didn't duck anyone except Mike McCallum. He probably wins the fight but knew it would take a lot out of him.

 

Totally off topic, this thread worries me in the context of FMJ and Dre Ward. These are guys who respectively ducked and hit low with the best of all time. Will people in 100 years time be debating the greatness of these men, who have very clearly taken a path of least resistance but therefore not proven their greatness.

 

This is worthy of the forum's hall of fame 5hit posts. Maybe Wills wasn't rated because he didn't get the title shot he deserved.

Using "asinine" to falsely disregard an argument is asinine. "Anyone who disagrees with me must be asinine".

"Greb is not well known therefore he can't be good". Are you serious? PFP probably the best boxer known to man and that is your argument - he is not known to the general public. Do you use the same popularity argument for fighters such as Benny Leonard, Sam Lamgford, Charlie Barley, Ezzard Charles, Mike McCallum, Stanley Ketchell? They must all be hopeless because no-one knows them.

This may hurt some of you who love the Manassa Mauler but I honestly feel Dempsey was more a myth. Mythbusters might say the he was the first big overhyped boxer whom they protected in the ring. Looking at some of the things he did in his life I don't think he'd have any scruples about avoiding dangerous opponents. What's his greatest win? The thrashing of a 37 year old Willard. Did Jack's gloves look a little heavy to you? I wouldn't know.

All I know is Greb deserved the shot and Jack ducked him. He may not have been scared of Harry but it doesn't matter. Dempsey avoided that fight like the plague.

 

Frankly anyone complaining about getting Hearns Haggler is insane.

Hearns Haggler was awesome.

 

He went 1 year and ten months without fighting a ranked contender, that's what I'm going on about.

Foreman was the number 3 contender in 1971 and number 2 1972 , if that isn't considered a huge threat I don't know what would qualify!
Jess Willard went from March 1916 Frank Moran, until July 1919 Dempsey 3years 4months.
Joe Louis went from March 1942 Abe Simon ,until June 1946 Billy Conn, 4 years 3months.

 

It was the biggest fight out there. Hearns had solid backing too.

 

So did Firpo