The Great Trainers & Fighters on Jack Dempsey

Only on planet Dempsey. In the rest of the boxing world we agree, almost universally, that the top contenders get the first shots and that the people who back "ko merchants" to get the first shots are generally very casual fans who love knockouts.

Your OPINION that Wills would only have been competitive for 12 months of Dempsey's reign is neither backed by what occured, nor relevant. Your cry that it was "just one year" is bizarre. Dempsey ducked Wills for his entire reign. If you don't like that word, substitute "failed to fight". Writing it off as a year when Wills, in the second year of Dempsey's reign, was unbeaten and won 8 fights by KO (the supposed secret code for getting a title shot) is dishonest or stupid.

no he didn't!! Where do you get this stuff from? His wins in the second year of Dempsey's reign remain absolutely consistent with the wins in the first year of Dempsey's reign.

The challenger DOES NOT have to "surpass" what the champion does against opponents to get a title shot. This, along with your notion that fighters who are knockout artists deserve the first title shot come specifically from planet Demspey.

I didn't say during the Dempsey era! What I said was Wills beat better men, and he did. Then he maintained his #1 contendership throughout Dempsey's entire reign.

Actually it does. It's probably the single greatest reason for his descending average ranking on this forum. It's rarer and rarer to see Dempsey in a top 5 now, Janitor himself recently removed him from such a spot. The reason Dempsey is more hurt than any other title holder in history who ducked is that his duck was much longer (basically his entire reign) and it is augmented by his failure to fight Harry Greb.

You have spoken of Dempsey as reaching some glourious pinnacle. In a sense, I agree with you. However, Dempsey was basically untested against the very best his era had to offer. That's a big, big warning light for anyone placing him in a top 5 slot, or should be. I think the two HW's most likely to seperate Dempsey from his title were Wills and Greb. And guess what.

i love the way you are just repeating this now, like it is fact. It is, in fact, the worst kind of nonsense. In 1924 Dempsey fought NOBODY. Wills beat Firpo and Maddden. To your mind, Wills-Dempsey shouldn't have happened in this year. Only on planet Dempsey.

There was interest in the Dempsey-Greb fight. There were financial offers of money up front from promoters. Even in 1925 when Greb expected to lose he still wanted to fight Dempsey. The reason the fight didn't happen was Demspey.

"Beaten better". Is a knockout better than a shut-out? Is beating Meehan better than losing to him? Is beating Tunney better than losing to him? Only on planet Dempsey.

 

Yeah. Frightening stuff. I would hazard a guess that this is logic defined entirely by the career of one fighter - what Dempsey did has to be seen as "good" in order to inflate his reputation. Last guy we had on here like that was China_Hand_Joe (but at least he was really funny).

 

I've never held a different opinion. I see Dempsey as genuinely brilliant when at his best, and have since before you joined this forum:

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2008/07...ree-most-destructive-minutes-in-ring-history/

But some of your more deluded opinions - KO artists ranked above the #1 contender for title shots, Carpantier seen as more dangerous than Wills and Greb, Dempsey as having proved himself the best HW in the world - are what is absolutely worst about the Dempsey nut hugging on this forum.

 

Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons a little? Basing your entire opinion of an era on your father's collection of Ring magazines gives you a rather skewed view of things, I fear.

"Greb-Dempsey fight probable: Two promoters offer purses." This was July 21 1919 in the Pittsburgh Press. Greb had been trying to get a fight with Dempsey for 3 years by this time.

"So it's up to Dempsey. And it's going to be difficult for Dempsey to say 'go get a reputation', for Greb's fought four fights to Dempsey's one, and a licked as many heavies." From the same article.

"Tonight, locally, there is a lot of respect for Harry's challenge to Jack Dempsey, which it is hoped will lead to a Buffalo engagement for the pair." May 31 1920.

"Those at ringside marvelled at Greb's speed, hitting power and generalship, and frelly predicted that i boded ill for Champion Dempsey should Greb ever succeed in getting the former into the ring. It was the general belief that Dempsey would find considerable trouble in landing."

Pittsburgh Post, December 1920.


Greb was sure he would win. According to Male Magazine, he would greet Dempsey with "when ya gonna fight me ya bum?" The New York Times was interested enough to interview Floyd Fitsimmons when he was en route to meeting Dempsey to try to get him to sign a contract to fight Harry "Greb May Meet Dempsey", November 30 1920.

Brennan, who Greb shut out over ten a year before Dempsey stopped him over 12, fought both and picked Greb to win should they ever meet.

LOTS of people thought Harry had a good chance.

Why?! Why are you and choclab so obsessed with this rare and short peak rather than the rest of Dempsey's anemic reign?! Regardless, Greb was desperate to box Dempsey in 1919, and certainly would have met him. They reason they didn't fight was that Dempsey chose not to fight him.

What year was this? Do you know the source? Greb said that he didn't expect to beat Dempsey IN 1925 (the final time Dempsey ducked him), but appeared confident the rest of the time - as well he might. He tended to thrash the men Dempsey chose to fight.

 

Wills was widely regarded as the best. What you are saying is just not true. Fighters like Jack Briton and Dave Shade AND Harry Greb all built absolutley massive reputations without concussive KO power.

Christ. You are like somebody gike. They don't HAVE to be better than Dempsey. The point I am making is that Wills beat better men than Dempsey. That is all. And are you SURE that Dempsey was better than Langford? I'm not. He may have been, but Dempsey sure viewed him as being firmly in his own class.

The difference is that Robinson fought some of the best fighter in history and beat them. Dempsey did not. He beat some good fighters form a good era but avoided the best two (for me). Robinson faced arguably the second best welterweight in history in Kid Gavilan, twice, winning twice. If Dempsey had twice beaten Louis but not fought Greb and Wills, it wouldn't matter. If Demspey had met and defeated Sonny Liston (LaMotta) five times, it wouldn't matter. If Dempsey had KO'd Tyson with one punch, beaten multiple champions multiple times, it wouldn't matter. Robinson ABSOLUTELY PROVED HIMSELF against the very highest class of fighter. Demspey did not. He had two available to him, and he didn't bother.

And what we would be saying 90 years later is, "Dempsey cleared out the division", not "Dempsey had the worst title reign of any great champion, and the most inactive. He avoided the very best on the way up AND when he had the title and lost to the best fighter he ever faced." How about something like that?

No. He was the best contender, widely seen as such. In 1922 The New York Daily ran a poll against who they thought Dempsey should meet for the title. Wills recieved over 3,000 votes more than his nearest rival and more votes than every other fighter put together. You are trying to write this off becauase Wills fought a draw with Bill Tate in a fight for which he was not paid, and new he would not be paid. That is beyond ridiculous into the realms of pathetic.

Greb came third in the poll by the way. Firpo? He was near last with 100 votes.

Well in 1922 of the 7,000 people polled, 100 wanted to see Dempsey fight Firpo and nearly 5,000 wanted to see Dempsey fight Wills.

You are so, so far off it is almost funny.

Nevertheless, it casts, uh, doubt?, on your claim that Greb never did better against common opponents, doesn't it?

You're right. Dempsey losing to Meehan makes Greb look bad.

 

Well. There's hope for us yet!

 

That's fine. I'm not calling you a liar. But it is possible that you mis-remembered details, it is possible that the source is not a good one, it is possible that you read the 1925 quote and mis-understood. You have your point of view based upon something you read. That's fine. I can't alter my point of view based upon something someone else read that i can't check up on. I'm sure you understand this, too.

Well, first of all, I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting we count Tunney II as a win for Dempsey. When I say anemic, here is what i mean:

He never met his #1 contender.

He never met the man who humiliated him in sparring.

He fought six title defences in 7 years.

He was totally inactive for three yeas.

Both Wills and Greb were champing at the bit for a fight in these years.

This is not about attributing blame. No I do not "blame" Dempsey for living the life. I do laud Louis for staying incredibly busy. I DO laud Lewis for beating more contenders than any fighter since Ali. I do laud Ali for fighting the greatest, sometimes over and again. Dempsey did none of this. But, still, you laud him and make excuses for him. Why?