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

It affects Dempsey's legacy. Let's say Wills and Greb were the number 1 and 2 challengers through Dempsey's reign, and Dempsey only made five successful defences in 7 years, against men ranked lower than 2 or unworthy of ranking at all. And Dempsey looked pretty damn good at times, but that's not a great fighting reign in the big scheme of things by any means. I dont believe these things criticisms were even controversial or disputed at the time, and most contemporary reporters certainly didn't alibi or white-wash Dempsey's failings as champion. Of course, he might still qualify as a "great champion" and a "great fighter" for various reasons. It's subjective exactly how much we weigh the pro against the cons, and open to intepretation, opinions will differ.


But "blatant ducking" is not the way I would describe it. "Blatant ducking" is what D'amato wanted Patterson to do with Liston. I see the Dempsey controversies a bit more multi-dimensional.

 

Unforgiven--Your distinction between Dempsey versus Wills and Patterson versus Liston eludes me.

It is also rather ironic in that Patterson stepped up to the plate and overruled his manager and, to his credit, defended against Liston.

Patterson could have made a great deal of money by continuing to fight second raters like McNeeley. If he had ducked Liston, Sonny would most likely have grown more frustrated, probably eased off more and more on training, and eventually been eliminated as he grew old by Ali or perhaps even a lesser fighter the same as Wills was. We would then have a lively debate on how Patterson would have done with Liston with Patterson getting plenty of support as being too young and too fast for the aging Liston.

I don't think we should cut slack in historical ratings of fighters who opted to not fight the best available opposition. If we do, why should any current fighter even think of accepting tough fights.

 

You correction is well taken.

I just don't see this "going where the money is" as cutting much ice as an argument. That might make you a good businessman. It does not make you a great champion.

 

If you don't mind me popping in between, i'd like to respond to the following:

I don't understand this paragraph, at all!
First of all, Patterson had a very well deserving trilogy with Johansson between '58 and '60, then had an easy defence (which he well deserved after the #1 contender three times in a row), then FOUGHT Liston half a year later.

See, Patterson did the honorable thing and proved that hiding behind the manager is just that: hiding.

It's always easy to blame your manager/promotor (see: Bowe/Newman), because the manager doesn't have a name to uphold and doesn't give a **** when someone tells him his fighter is ducking, though they'll always deny with smooth talk and one-liners.


Dempsey, on the other hand, avoided the #1 contender for SEVEN years as a champion, a record in history for all weight classes. How is that not the most blatant ducking case ever?

Whoa, that's a completely different scenario. Contenders who normally make 50k, max, obviously want to fight Tyson because that would mean a (multi) million dollar payday.

And as a contender, you can't rely duck the champion, now can you?

 

I find it hilarious when nerdniks (of which I am one) sit comfortably behind computers and judge such a fighter on his "legacy", a thing I am sure he gave a **** about. Like ALL fighters of his era and most beyond that, Dempsey was in the business to make money. He would fight anyone in order to get to the top. But once there, he wasn't risking his only cashflow source one iota more than absolutely necessary. He didn't get in the business to win the applause of internet honks 90 years later. He got in it out of necessity and to garner as much cash as possible.

 

True.

But he didn't prove himself against the two best contenders and that's the bottom line. The rest (whether he only played it smart, ducked or "blatantly ducked" them) is only semantics. It can be of some historical interest as to why the fights never came off, but when debating his legacy (and debating legacies is after all a big part of what all we nerdniks do on this forum) you only have to look at the bottom column. "Dempsey's number of wins over the two best challengers during his reign: 0"

 

When the Pacquiao vs Mayweather fight doesn't happen (Which I see as a 50/50 at this point) which fighters is to blame more (Assuming they both want at least equal or the top pay), which fighters legacy is going to be hurt more? Unforgiven gives us a realistic and honest perspective to a subject that's not as simple as "avoid" and "not avoid." Maybe I'm defending Dempsey with little merit to justify but I do feel he gets a slacking on ESB. Even if the business would've been good, too much greed over that business could've collapsed those deals. It's thin ice to argue, especially since it wasn't just Willis who Dempsey ducked. I still think the Willis is the bigger duck (Call it what you like) and one that hurts his legacy much more than avoiding or not avoiding Greb.

And yes, obviously it's fair criticism and damaging to his legacy. However, labeling it this or that may not be fair when we don't exactly know the intricacies of the situation. How much pull did Harry's people want? How much effort was put into making that fight happen? Was there on personal notes of Dempsey absolutely refusing to fight him? Or is this really just a simple case of ducking.

 

In Patterson's defense you could also say that D'Amato only avoided fighting the likes of Liston, Machen and others because they were promoted by the corrupt IBC and in Liston's case had ties to the mob.

"Once Patterson won the championship, D'Amato carefully selected his opponents both with an eye towards maximizing revenues for his fighter and thwarting the International Boxing Club (IBC). Although it meant bypassing many top challengers, D'Amato refused to match his fighter in any bout promoted by the powerful but corrupt IBC. The IBC was eventually found to be in violation of anti-trust laws and was dissolved. However, D'Amato's stance had the unintended effect of decreasing interest in boxing because Patterson fought infrequently and did not face many top contenders."

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/nonparticipant/damato.html