Was Demspey's duck of Greb even more blatant than his duck of Wills?

I dont see how Greb could possibly be seen as the no1 contender for Dempsey, when by his own admission when Greb fought Tunney, Tunney had simply grown too big for him to handle. If anyone should have had the shot at Dempsey at this time, surely it was Tunney and not Greb?

I have to say, when you really think about it, There are arguments that Dempsey should or could have fought Greb, Tunney, Wills, Johnson and even an older Langford. Realistically, i dont think that you can say that Dempsey really cleaned out his division in the same way that many others like Tyson, Ali, Sullivan, Jeffries, etc, despite his crowd pleasing style.

 

Fair enough, i didnt check my dates. The Greb/Tunney series was obviously after this?

 

I would say that because Wills was a heavyweight himself who fought exclusively (light)heavyweights, as well as having established himself for a bit longer, was the worse "duck" of the two.

But certainly it goes to show you how much of an excuse the color line really was.


The other interesting thing is that you often hear about Charles getting a shot at Marciano after losing to Valdes, while Valdes was out of the title picture relatively fast, whereas Greb stayed on top for long and had 3 more guys beaten who got the shot. America loves Dempsey.

 

He dominated Firpo and Fulton, one of whom had received a titleshot and been in a competitive, widely exciting fight. Fulton was blown out, but also who pretty much put Dempsey forward as the #1 challenger. I think he fought a few others, but i'd have to go over it.


You do have a point, though. An underrated point, because i'd never thought about it in this way. Greb has so incredibly many fights that they may have gotten swamped a bit.

Yes, that was my point. For some reason, a relatively obscure Cuban challenger gets a lot attention, but a much bigger .... disgrace, if you will, gets almost no attention at all.

 

The problem with all these "ducking" accusations being put on Dempsey (and other fighters to some extent to) is people on this forum seem to ignore the fact that professional boxing is a business more than anything. When apparently "big" fights dont get made it's usually because the promoters backing the fighters cant agree and cant deliver terms that would satisfy both parties.
Dempsey was so far ahead of his time in money-generating power that it's not really surprising that he was so inactive and so many negotiations for fights broke down. When there's a cash cow of that magnitude involved everyone gets greedy, and every fighter is robustly challenging that cash cow, and every promoter wants a piece or thinks he can do it bigger. It's ironic really, the bigger the pie the more squabbling there is over how big each share is!
The headlines of the time c.1920 - 25 bear this out, there was lots of Dempsey fights that were supposed to happen (yet no one accuses Jack of ducking a rematch with Willard 1920-22, for example) but few promoters could really deliver what everyone wanted. Tom Gibbons got a title fight and didn't get paid, in hindsight I doubt his managers were glad they got that shot . Hey, maybe Greb was a warrior who would fight the heavyweight champion for peanuts (!?) but I doubt his manager was so confident in reality.

If an "easy" fight like Willard 2 stalled so many times it's not surprising that highly risky fights like Greb and Wills never materialised.
Why fight Greb or Wills when a guy like Carpentier can be built into a bigger draw ? When Tommy Gibbons would get fleeced and end up with nothing. Not to mention the movies Dempsey was doing (100% risk free ventures) that Doc Kearns was taking 50% from !

I cant excuse Dempsey's record of inactivity as champion and I wont. Or pretend he fought EVERYONE or the definite best men out there, he didn't.
But this "ducking" "Greb and Wills" thing gets a bit over-emphasised.

 

Chris, McGrain and Unforgiven are all correct.

Kearns guided Dempsey on his way to the title and as champion. It was huge business and he was able to pull it off. No doubt his ducking of Wills and Greb are huge asteriks but history outside of hardcore historians seem to have blown the facts off.

I have written before many times, I love the Dempsey I have seen and what he might have been. However, he remains a huge enigma to me.

 

very good thread gentlemen. from what i've read here, i may have to rethink my position. i assumed wills was the more blatant duck, especially as the contract was signed and that greb's duck was more low key, being partially brought about by greb's dominance in sparring. i didn't realize the number of quality heavies greb was destroying at the time, men that were not only bigger but solid contenders and potential opponents for dempsey. it's tough to say which was worse because he ducked soooo many people;(no offense to unforgiven) i have to disagree with his assertation that business was the sole reason for dempsey's lackluster reign; i've always been particular tough on dempsey and i fight his title reign to be pretty threadbare for an ATG heavy.

 

It must happen but I tend to give fighters the benefit of the doubt in that regard. And in almost every case I think money trumps fear. People fought Tyson when they really lacked confidence and had fear, they did it for the big bucks, some even called Tyson out ! And Dempsey is more of a Tyson is the equation rather than a Michael Spinks or a Bruce Seldon. I cant imagine Dempsey having a real lack of confidence against a Harry Wills (simply because of styles) or believing he has no chance in a fight with Harry Greb, or fear of either than them. He probably would have wanted a tune-up with both of them, but I seriously doubt he would resign himself to the loser role when considering either of them.

And it comes down to risk versus reward. Wills and Greb were better than Firpo and Carpentier, IMO, but I cant be so certain they'd have drawn a bigger crowd.

To an extent, yes.
But few fighters face everyone. Also, it's never easy to ascertain if either of the fighters are at fault or do we penalize both ? Champions are supposed to face everyone, yes, but few do.

That's right. I think if a Greb fight was the best deal on the table and both parties agreed with the purse splits and the overall figures the fight would have happened.
Dempsey made bigger money than anyone so, in business terms, that justifies his championship reign, regardless of whether things could have been done better or fairer.

I'm not disagreeing with your points, just looking at the whole thing from a different perspective, a different paradigm.
I dont think I can concede that Dempsey "ducked" Greb because the public interest and demand, as far as I can tell, never reached a pitch that made it that much of an issue.
People who paid million-dollar gates to see Dempsey fight or the audience who buys a Tyson PPV cant necessarily distinguish between a Miske and a Greb or a McNeeley and a Mercer.