A description of the Greb-Dempsey spar

Dempsey detractors are on the force on this thread.

I've never seen anyone else putting this much stock into a SPARRING SESSION..... that they've never seen.

Talk about reaching the bottom of the barrel.

 

Was that before or after you said his knowledge of the era was lacking?

Greg, tomorrow, the vast majority of the people on this board won't care that you arrogantly misread the situation and thought you had more knowledge of Dempsey's era than a guy who basically wrote an encyclopedia on it.

Stephen probably won't care. I certainly won't care. Everyone has argued with everyone else here. Everyone gets beat up some days and other days you dish it out.

But everyone basically gets along because we all like boxing and we accept that every once in a while it's going to be our turn to take the hit.

Then you move on. No hard feelings.

The real jerks would be the people who would copy and save what you did here and throw it back in your face year after year after year forever.

Those angry little people who love to dish it but can't take it when it's their turn ... and seethe for years over something as mundane as a debate on a boxing board.

And you couldn't wait to throw your arms around all them yesterday. Don't be like them.

 

I can't resist. My two bits: it woulda been a good fight to see.

 

Sure, if it was a three-round fight.

But 15 in a real fight and not sparring conditions? I don’t see how three rounds of sparring translates. I guess Billy Conn would have beaten Joe Louis if it was a three-rounder, lol.

 

He’s a self-published author. Let’s stick to facts.

He’s clearly a good researcher. He’s equally clearly from his posts here not great at taking the material he’s gathered while researching and making logical conclusions from it. Him collecting data makes him a good and dedicated researcher, not a good analyst.

You following him around post after post trying to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with him isn’t a good look on your. He doesn’t need a lap dog. He can post for himself.

 

Discredit away. I've argued with Stephen for years about a lot of topics. I don't have any hard feelings with him or him with me.

But I never, after bragging about how great I am about reading the situation, told a guy who spent years researching and writing on a specific area that he lacked knowledge in that specific era.

What a bad take.

And Greg doesn't need you to back him up. He's excellent at reading the situation (last one).

Gotta go. Have a good night. I definitely will.

 

Got nothing to say about Greg, it’s just your lap dog act is a little transparent.

I never claimed he didn’t know anything about what he researched. But that doesn’t mean every opinion he has on that topic is accurate nor that he can analyze and make proper conclusions about things to do with that topic.

 

It was sparring, just sparring. Hell my sister gave me a black eye during one of our sparring sessions and I guarantee you I'd beat her ass in an 8, 10 12 or 15 rounder. Greb absolutely got the better of Dempsey in their first session; there were eyewitnesses to the event. Beyond that fact, who knows? None of us has ever seen film of Greb nor the film of the sparring session, so everyone's opinion is both right and wrong.

Trying to be the UN over here...

 

So Im being accused of not being a good analyst but I havent seen anyone counter anything Ive said. Not with facts or otherwise. Its said Dempsey did better on their third day of sparring. I never said he didnt. I described it vividly in my book. That doesnt change the fact that Dempsey was pulled from the sparring session on the last day (both in New York and in Benton Harbor) because the session was getting heated and the fear was that Dempsey might get cut preventing his upcoming fight.

All I see is the goal posts getting moved. First it was just a sparring session. Dempsey was going easy on him. Now its, well a sparring session isnt a fight and over 15 rounds Dempsey beats him. Really? Since when is Dempsey a 15 round fighter? How many times did he go 15 rounds in his career compared to Greb? Let me help you with that. Dempsey went twelve rounds once in his career against Bill Brennan in a fight he was in danger of losing when he pulled it out and he went 15 rounds once in his entire career against Gibbons in a fight that was panned as a poor performance and won more credit for Gibbons than for Dempsey. Remember, this is the same Gibbons who got his title shot by losing a title eliminator to Greb in more convincing fashion than he lost to Dempsey.

We have a guy whose best performances were inside of three rounds and whose worst performances were 10 rounds or over and you think that his best chance against Greb is taking Greb deep? LOL! Greb, a guy who there are literally dozens of reports which state he got stronger the longer the fight went including one where he fought 20 rounds and was said to be faster in the 20th than the first and you think Dempsey is going to do better over a longer route? No in fact I think the fact that Dempsey typically set out to punish sparring partners and was a short distance fighter like Tyson makes his sparring sessions with Greb even more telling.

Greb had legendary stamina and speed, was extremely hard to hit clean, and was durable as hell. If Dempsey cant hit him and hurt him and keep him hurt early hes in for a world of trouble because swinging and missing takes a hell of a lot of energy and even if he got a guy like Greb, who had great recuperative powers, hurt and starts trying to get him out of there there is no guarantee that Greb isnt going to wiggle his way out of trouble leaving Dempsey tired from swinging for the fences.

If you dont look at the fight objectively and offer only "Dempsey was too big and hit too hard and a three round sparring session is different than a real fight" then which one of us isnt being analytical here?

Go watch a prime Dempsey struggle with Bill Brennan, who dealt with him primarily by circling, jabbing, and clinching. Dempsey was as confused as youll see in that fight and Brennan wasnt exactly a savvy operator. If your counter to that is "well Brennan was bigger and stronger" then go read the reports of how Greb handled Brennan and who the press said was the stronger of the two in their four fights. Spoiler alert: It was Greb. The ringside reports of those fights said that Greb manhandled Brennan in the clinches and was the stronger fighter.

Look at the Tunney fights and look how movement confused Dempsey. People always act like Dempsey was completely shot in those fights because he hadnt fought in three years. Really? Go compare his performance against Tunney to his performance against Brennan? We have the complete films of all three of those fights. Did he really look that different? Its not like Dempsey sat on the shelf during those three years. He continued to train regularly and had dozens of exhibitions each year. Was he rusty, sure, but the real factor was that Tunney, the supposedly smaller weaker fighter, took him into deep water and as both of those fights wore on Dempsey got worse and worse and more busted up and more tired and less effective. People act like Dempsey improved so much in their second fight because he knocked Tunney down but go watch the film and listen to the radio broadcast. Tunney took control again in the same round he was knocked down and by the final bell Dempsey was so weak that the radio announcer described his legs shaking and thought he was on the verge of a knockout loss only to be saved by the bell. And sure enough when you watch the film you can see Tunney landing a barrage and Dempsey not even aware the final bell rang looking confused.

No, Ive thought about this match as much as anyone and probably more and while Ive always said youd have to make Dempsey the favorite Greb is a very live underdog and it wouldnt have surprised me a bit to see him pull out what I would consider to be a minor upset. Dempsey wasnt a huge heavyweight and had very little experience against fast tricky guys like Greb who could pile on points while punishing you enough to keep you honest and staying out of trouble. No, I think Dempsey's best shot is to catch Greb early, hurt him and keep him hurt. Thats the big question mark for me. If Dempsey could catch Greb with a really good shot early could he hurt him enough to change the dynamic. If he couldnt I think Dempsey loses a decision. If he does then he probably stops Greb or forces him into a defensive shell but the amount of times that happened to the point of Greb losing a fight across four divisions you could count on one hand. But all of that is just a flight of fancy because it never happened. Greb should have gotten a title shot. He deserved it and had the financial backing but Dempsey and Kearns didnt want it. Period, they literally avoided it like the plague. Dempsey wasnt interested in taking on challenges. He wanted the path of least resistence. What we are left with are the facts as reported by the witnesses who saw those sparring sessions across five days at two different camps in 1920 and the vast majority credited Greb with making Dempsey look foolish and after Dempsey's fight with Miske those same eye witnesses stated that it should have been Greb in there with the champion, not the farce that was the Miske fight. Those are the facts and if anyone doesnt like them then post the sources. Not just one source here and there that supports the idea that Dempsey finally managed to do better on their fifth day of sparring but ALL of the sources and then let everyone here decide because a consensus of reports shows that most felt Greb gave Dempsey nine kinds of hell.

 

Wait, so you categorically admit that Greb got the better of the first session but then say who knows about the rest... why? There were eye witnesses to all of the sparring sessions.

 

I meant who knows who would have won a real fight. Yeah yeah I have your book and know about the entire event. YES eyewitnesses said Greb got the better of Dempsey in BOTH sparring sessions.

Jesus do you get an electrical shock notification if anywhere in the world the words "Greb" and "Dempsey " appear in the same sentence?

 

Not only do I have footage of Dempsey sparring Farrell the same day he sparred Greb in Benton Harbor in Sept 1920 but I also have footage of Dempsey sparring Douglas Fairbanks the same day he sparred Greb at Van Kelton Stadium in Brooklyn in July 1920. So cameras were there, whether the sessions were filmed is anyones guess. Greb stated that Dempsey had the camera men destroy the film of their session in September because he didnt anyone to see how bad he looked but that could have just been Greb talking.

 

Not a shock, its more like a tickle...

 

Bro I promise you nobody’s reading all that.