"there would have been a period of years where all the older fighters were being blown away dramatically by the younger fighters, or even seemingly peaking fighters being blown away by newer, younger fighters." I think there is an argument that this did happen between 1937 and 1942 or so with the influx of talent such as Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Billy Conn, etc. I am certain there is a strong counter-argument, but I think there is a case which can be made. These men were not so far above the earlier talent that they couldn't lose one (Schmeling-Louis) but it does seem that they were a higher level on the whole.
I think you can make this case for a lot of eras though, so drawing that correlation to the evolution of skill in the sport is problematic. For instance in the late 70s and early eighties you had Spinks, Holmes, Leonard, Hagler, and basically a wave of new talent that emerged to replace the old guard. I would say this is more of a natural progression of championships and how the sport is set up than an evolution of the sport. Historically you typically see these waves every generation or two where the cream rises to the top, get old, then another generation emerges to take over. Its just harder to see today because the sport is so watered down. The talent isnt funneled up to the top like it used to be. A guy like Lew Tendler, who was a top contender in the old days but never a champ, would be a champ today and might not ever fight Leonard, or at least not in his prime when it matters, because he can make money defending against no hopers. So you dont really get to see a clear generational divide now because there are so many different paths to “success” and so few real opportunities to dominate and prove you are the best.
"When did Tunney back out of the contract?" This is a very good question. Until and unless Tunney signs it is not a contract. A contract is an agreement between two or more persons. One person signing a paper is legally nothing, actually. At most it would be a statement of intent. Hard to see it being in Tunney's interest to fight Greb a 6th time rather than fighting Dempsey for the heavyweight title, money aside.
I accept that there are good counter arguments. But are Holmes, Hagler, and Leonard viewed as a level above the previous decade's Ali, Monzon, and Duran? I think the view in the 1940's (strangely, to me) would have been that the "golden age" was back at the turn of the century, with perhaps the fighters of the late teens and twenties the "silver age" runner-ups. My guess is that very few would have felt that the 1937-41 or so group was inferior to the early thirties fighters they replaced and generally handled consistently.
Again, thats not the point. The narrative being proposed here is that Greb had capitulated to him and refused to ever fight him again because Tunney had finally improved beyond Greb. That narrative is simply false. Greb signed to fight Tunney again. You can argue what Tunneys motivation was for asking for a lesser opponemt and then not going through with any fight. Its a valid argument and smart on his part not to risk the Dempsey fight but the fact is that Greb agreed to it which kills any idea that he chose never again to dave Tunney because Tunney was so good.
But the 30s in general was seen as a kind of muddle, particularly at HW. If, in the 40s, you asked if that generation had evolved far beyond say Dempsey’s generation, to take the sport to the next level my guess is they would say no. To this day Im sure youll find people who think Dempsey was better than Louis, Leonard was better than Armstrong, etc. I wouldnt necessarily agree but Im sure there are plenty who would make the argument. I do think, skillwise, boxing peaked in the 50s and 60s but I think from the 20s to that point the transition was very subtle and gradual. I think the bigger jump can easily be seen from the 1900s to the 1920s. That progression is jarring but its easily understandable. The sport exploded during that time and competition, along with trainers etc simply got better. There were more fighters fighting more fights more often. The evolutionary curve narrowed dramatically. Between the 20s and the 50s I think it slowed because there wasnt as dramatic an increase in volume as you saw earlier. I see a guy like Mickey Walker and I dont see a guy who was so much more primitive than a Sugar Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong. But Walker, technically and physically, was a remarkable fighter. I think a better focus group wouldnt be the best fighters of the era but average fighters. I think in the 50s and 60s your average club fighter was better schooled than the average fighter of the 1920s and even today.
I agree mainly with what you are posting. I think Greb would have fought Tunney again if the money was right. The problem for me is was how involved was Tunney in any negotiation. It is unfair to say he "backed out" if there was no strong reason to risk this or any other fight. Tunney would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Is this possibly just publicity smoke from a promoter trying to puff himself up as a big league player?
Good points, but I think you don't give the fall of the color line in the late 1930's the impact it deserves. For me, this seems to have raised the level of competition noticeably. Also, the Depression must have left few options for a lot of young guys other than the boxing ring. I agree that Walker looks very good on film. But as a 5' 7" former welter champion he was able to compete with and hold his own with top heavyweights, even getting a draw with future champion Jack Sharkey. Robinson I think beats Walker at welter or middle, but there is no case for him being able to compete successfully with the best heavies of his era. I think this shows the general level of talent rising. Greb is not on film, but it is interesting that he did better than Dempsey against common foes. That outstanding smaller men could do so well exposes a general weakness, I think, in the heavier weights.
No Tunney was wintering in Miami and a promoter down there, Jess Baugh, had constructed a big new arena and was working with Tunney to promote a fight. Initially Tunney wanted Wild Bill Reed as the opponent. The local press poo-pooed the idea of Tunney fighting what they considered a setup and the promoter wanted a more bankable name. Greb was contacted by the promoter, agreed, and wired contracts to sign which he did. Tunney said no and didnt sign. The promoter and Tunney the agreed on Young Stribling who was popular in the south, had a solid reputation, but had lost every major fight he had been in. Stribling agreed but as the fight approached disvussions about Tunney fighting Dempsey heated up in New York. It has been alleged that at this point Tunney was already signed to fight Dempsey. Other reports have him close to signing at this point. Regardless, Tunney backed out of the fight with Dtribling resulting in a big shitstorm. Tunney alleged the promoters couldnt pay him his gaurantee, denied by promoters. Stribling alleged Tunney had reached out to him to agree to not try and it make it more of an exhibition and when he refused Tunney backed out, which Tunney denied. The promoters alleged Tunney feared a fight with Stribling on the up and up and backed out to preseve the Dempsey fight. Regardless of the end result the fact remains that Greb was contacted, agreed, and wasnt responsible for the fight not happening.
Im not saying that's not the case but I often wonder why the impact isn't felt until the 1940s when, not coincidentally IMO, the war is on and the cream of the white talent is out of the game. Because really, while the color line was in place, you still had great mixed race matchups in the 20s and throughout the thirties, and you didn't really see African Americans emerge as a dominant force in the sport until the war hit. I think the war had a much greater impact for years to come on the sport than simply "the color line went away and blacks proved they were better" I think the war (and to a greater extent Joe Louis) did two things: 1. It normalized African American heroes in white America. It allowed people to take them into their homes and hearts and realize they weren't the other. 2. The post war years created an environment in the United States with a booming economy, more jobs, and greater access to colleges and thus higher incomes. Its a sad fact but racism didn't afford African Americans with the same level of access to education, higher pay, and better jobs. Meaning, a huge segment of the white population that historically had to scratch to earn a living and thus went into a sport like boxing to excel or at least supplement their earnings, could now find better, easier work elsewhere. I just don't think you had as many white fighters or as talented white fighters as you did prior to the war. Not in every instance but generally. This is to take nothing away from African Americans. They likely would have continued to excel because there was imply more of them getting more opportunities. But the landscape of the entire country and as a result the sport, had changed dramatically. I disagree because I don't think Robinson could compete successfully against Jack Sharkey. I just don't see it. I think Sharkey was bigger and better than Joey Maxim and had more tools in the his tool box. I don't think Robinson not being able to compete with heavyweights points to evolution of ability. I think Robinson just had a lower weight threshold that he could overcome than Walker. Walker was just a different animal. Not necessarily better but just better suited for the big boys. That said, when he was prepared and motivated, Walker was a beast who could do it all. He could box on the back foot as well as anyone (see the Hudson fight), he could fight on the inside or out, match strength with men much bigger than him, he had a ton of heart, and could punch like a mule kicks. Walker is the type of fighter that would do great in any era. Look, today Max Schmeling would be a cruiserweight at best. Maybe even a light heavy/cruiser. You think Schmeling wouldn't kick ass at those weights? Because Schmeling looks damn good on film. Smart, calculating, great jab, moves well. To me he doesn't look like some pre-evolutionary product. He looks finished and polished by any standard. Technically Id put him ahead of guys like Lewis, Klitchko, Wlad, Vitali, and Joshua and Frankly, technically, he was better than Ali who did a lot of things wrong. He was also better than Marciano technically and maybe even better than Floyd Patterson technically. But again, we are talking about all time greats. I think a true measuring stick would be the "also rans." The day to day foot soldiers who wouldn't have achieved in any era but would have just been solid pros. Its hard to say. Styles and sizes mesh differently. Its why I hate having so many weight divisions. It makes everything cookie cutter. A guy like Greb who was fast, durable, and threw a lot of punches might be more adept to beating the smaller heavyweights of Dempsey's era convincingly over points than a seek and destroy guy like Jack. My suspicion is that if Jack and Greb had fought Wills you would have a different impression because Wills was really the only truly talented skilled technically proficient full sized heavyweight of that era (which helps your color line argument, not mine BTW LOL).
Thanks for all the info. I have no doubt that Greb would have fought Tunney again. Folks say a lot of things they take back the next day. Nothing unusual in that at all. As for Tunney, I am on his side on this one, and I am not one of his big fans. If the Dempsey fight was in the works, he would have been nuts to risk losing a homer decision to Stribling. As for what really happened, there is a myriad of "alleged" and "reports" here, but did Tunney actually sign. If not, it is a big to do about nothing. If he did sign, did the promoter later sue him for breach of contract?
I agree. I never said Tunney was a coward for not fighting Stribling or whatever. Just that he was ultimately, for whatever reason, the catalyst in the fight not happening. He absolutely would have been nuts to risk the Dempsey fight. Look, Tunney was as calculating as any fighter in history. He knew how to cover his bases so that he came out ahead. He was absolutely right to put all his eggs in the Dempsey basket and history proves that by the outcome. It completely changed his life and his career until the day he died. His gamble paid off and more power to him. Stribling or Greb for $50,000 (which was his proposed purse for that fight) or Dempsey for the millions that it ultimately got him over his life? Its a no brainer (and arguably an easier fight at that point in time).
This is an excellent post. One thing I do question-- "why the impact wasn't felt until the 1940's" I think there were African-American champions in the heavyweight, light-heavyweight, welterweight, lightweight, and featherweight divisions at the end of 1938. Hard to see this not being a tremendous impact. I think it a very good point that the relatively short Walker and Greb did better than Robinson against big men in part because they were not that tall at their own weights and so were used to carrying the fight to a taller man. I might be wrong, but I think the guys relatively short at their own weight have tended to do better when moving up in weight class. *a bit of an aside, but I re-watched the entire Robinson-Maxim fight because of a thread about it recently. Watched it three times. I think Robinson's performance is badly overrated. He didn't appear to me to land cleanly very often on Maxim other than flurries to the body. He simply wasn't controlling the distance like he did against shorter men. His left hoots were usually blocked. His rights either missed, badly at times, or Maxim seemed too far away to be impacted much. The force of the punch was spent. In contrast, Maxim didn't punch much and his punches didn't look like much, but when they landed they seemed to take a lot out of Robinson. It seems out of character for Maxim, but we have to remember he was basically a small heavy who could dry out to less than 175 and was used to fighting full-sized heavies. Size matters.
But that statistic is skewed by the mere fact that Armstrong held 3 of the 5 title you just listed. Its even harder to figure when you factor in that Armstrong lost his lightweight title the following year (and could have lost the WW title in the same match if the contract hadnt been written to protect it) and Tiger Jack Fox, a black fighter, lost the vacant championship to Bettina, which means that period in 1938 is a very small window historically, not even a full year. Again, there were high profile black/white matches throughout history and there is no doubt that African Americans helped elevate the game but I think taking a period of months in 1938 to illustrate that Africans moved the sport forward by leaps and bounds on an evolutionary scale is tough to illustrate much less prove. I trust my eyes here. I just dont see this huge leap in skill from 1920 to 1940, at least among the elites which is the focus group we are looking at (and again, I dont agree with that, your argument may very well be much better suited by looking at the average fighter). Guys like Gibbons, Tunney, Jeff Smith, ODowd, Kilbane, Frush, Dundee, Pete Herman, Jimmy Wilde, Walker, Leonard, those guys all look very good and very well schooled by any standard. Are there stylistic differences? To a degree yes but they are subtle and those guys still look like they know what they are doing. So again, I think the shift is subtle. Go back and watch Battling Nelson, Wolgast, Herman, Britt, Root, etc. Those guys look ok, not great, somewhat primitive but still look like they can fight. Then go back another generation to Fitz and Corbett. You can see a progression. But to me the biggest jump is betwen the earliest films and the late 1910s. You go from girls fighting in the schoolyard to guys who can handle themselves. Then things slow and the changes are there but they are subtle. From 1920 to 1930 its subtle. From 1930 to 1940, its subtle. From 1940 to 1950, its subtle. But compare 1920 to 1950 and its a little more jarring. Compare 1897 to 1950 and its pretty dramatic. Some will tell you that its because the film wasnt good. I dont buy that. Weve got good film on these guys. Its just that the sport was still in its infancy as we know it today. Could be. Greb is a wildcard. I wouldnt use him as an example. He was freakishly strong, tough, fast, and had so much stamina hes a bad example of how smaller guys do against bigger guys. Robinson just strikes me as not particularly strong physically to deal with a physically taxing fight against bigger man. Walker was a fireplug and a terrific athlete to boot. I just think he was better suited for taking big punches, being leaned on and wrestled around etc than Robinson. Maxim was a spoiler. Thats the biggest factor in this fight other than the heat. I dont think it was a great performance by either guy but I do think Robinson was WAY ahead just by virtue of activity. Clearly so. But go back and watch Maxim's fight with Patterson after watching that Robinson fight. See how he smothers and spoils what Patterson is trying to do. He makes Patterson do all the work in that fight. Hes not a fun guy to watch but he knows how to defend himself even against bigger harder hitting guys. He makes fights messy, makes the other guy work, and then just tries to stay ahead on points with the jab. Hes kind of alike a more skilled John Ruiz in that regard without the right hand. He was never going to beat Robinson to the jab though. I do think Robinson would have won under cooler circumstances (my opinion) but frankly I wouldnt have wanted to see them fight again. Its sad that a fight of that historical importance was so dreadful, in my opinion.
