Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

I think it's terribly terribly obvious that if Gibbons is utterly outclassed by Greb at LHW, both go unbeaten at HW, and then Gibbons gets the nod for the title shot, something is very wrong. Who is better out of these two has already been settled. Both are campaigning at HW. Why talk in general terms or involve Tunney in a discussion where that is not merited?

And Greb did good HEAVYweight work after BEATING Gibbons, but is ignored. Totally exluding the fact that Greb had already proved himself the superior of Gibbons because it is at a different weight is the only possible justification, not that Dempsey seemed called upon to justify his title-contenders, before or after.

In fairness, I think Gibbons is perhaps the best HW Dempsey met during his title run. That needs to be said. However, you can contort as much as you like concerning Gibbons post-thrashing HW form, the fact is that he wasn't as good as Greb, and that this had been settled. And that is the point that is being made. He fought weaker men ahead of the stronger men available.

There's an awful lot of noise here about a very simple idea.

Loses and wins, yes. The loss was very closely contested and disputed by many - and likely hurt Greb's standing very lightly, if at all. Regardless, it can't change the fact that Gibbons was a weaker opponent than Greb, which, again, is the point.

I don't doubt some of this; my point is, was, and always has been that Dempsey wasn't tested at the highest level except by Tunney, where he was beaten. People bleat about Dempsey's "prime" endlessly when confronted with the facts of those two thrashings, but the fact is he had two great fighters desperate to meet him.

Let's say that you are right and that Wills was no longer the second best HW in the world (as i've said, I don't think he was and I think Tunney proved that before Sharkey did) after '23. Do you know why you aren't comparing the men Dempsey did fight to Wills? Of course you do. Because Dempsey was fighting nobody.

However bad the nine year (basically) undefeated Wills was, he was better than nobody.

It's apparent, though, that your opinions will almost always be contorted in such a way as to support the Dempsey position.

And that'll be a fact :good

 

Some details of Dempsey's duck of Greb:


The earliest reference i've seen to Greb's calling out Jack is in 1918, before Dempsey was even champion. This was directly after one of Greb's wins over Battling Levinksy, who Greb would beat six (i think?) times out of six. Greb's challanged went unanswered and Dempsey matched Levinsky in Novemeber of that year, knocking him out in three - Greb wasn't boxing in Novemeber due to injury, but was busy again in January, Dempsey - deliberately or not - having by-passed Greb in favour of a fighter Greb had proven his superiority to and then treading water until his challange against Willard. Greb remained busy, never knowing what it meant for a fighter to rest on his laurels.

Greb's run at the HW title had begun with Willard in possesion of the title. In 1918 he had beaten Billy Miske, but it was 1919 that he would really stake his claim, against Bill Brennan, described by the Pittsburgh Post as "the best man in his class in the country[outside of Jack Dempsey]". The two met first in New York in Febuary - Greb was Brennan's total master, some papers scoring this fight a shut-out. Brennan apparantly was claiming that he was out of condition for this fight, and Greb being Greb, a re-match was granted. The Pittsburgh Post's headline for that fight: "Bill Brennan Beaten In Every Round". In spite of every concievable advantage in terms of size - height, reach and weight - Brennan was not in the fight, he was totally dominated.

The two met again 16 months before Dempsey would match Brennan for the HW title. Again, the fight was a one sided beating. The New York Times and the Washington Post both gave Greb "every single round". Frankly, it seems Brennan was not in Greb's class...but the title shot would go to Brennan.Brennan would tell journalist Paul Kennedy that "if Dempsey was fighting [Greb] instead of me, I would be on Greb" after his eventual fight with Jack.


It seems that there was work afoot to bring the two together almost as soon as Dempsey lifted his title, with promoters Jimmy Shelvin anbd Matt Hinkle both trying to land the fight. The Pittsburgh Post: "It is up to Dempsey. And it is going to be difficult for Dempsey to say "Go get a reputation for Greb's fought four fights to Dempsey's one, and licked as many, if not more HW's." The fight, of course, didn't come off. Instead, Greb would fight Miske, who Greb had already beaten a couple of times, including a fight that went 8-1-1 in Greb's favour according the Pittsburgh Post...is anyone finding this disturbing yet? Dempsey's decisions to match men that Greb has already crushed instead of Greb himself seems bizzare to me...


And it's not over yet. After apparently mastering Dempsey in sparring, Greb would crush Gibbons "manhandled him gleefully and semed to get a deal of satisfaction out of it", and he also did better against Meehan than Demspey did.


Miske, Brennan and Gibbons all get title shots


But no title fight for Greb.



Some members of the press seem to have seen Dempsey as being even more established at HW than the champ.

 

Well I do totally disagree with you. People seem generally to be really, really understanding of Cochrane's, even Armstrong's refusal to meet Burley for example. "It was low risk, high reward" gets said a lot on the forum.


If you think, say, Wlad's blatantly ducking a desperate David Haye would be "forgotten in a year", I got news for you! The "crowd favourite" theme doesn't really play here. Dempsey and his Machine could have sold out a stadium against a flyweight, never mind a bigger, highly regarded HW.

The duck of Wills, supplemented by the duck of Greb, is so totally blatant that in learning about it people become slightly overcome by the injustice of it all, or that's what I think. I'll go this far - Dempsey is the worst ducker you'll see in any ATG top 10 for every weight division.

That is bound to get a reaction. I don't think it has anything to do with era.

 

Yeah, I agree with Q, I don't really understand this type of remark. In what way is it fashionable ffs? His opponents were good. What has to be agreed upon, is that none of them were better than Greb and none of them were better than Wills, who both were desperate to fight him.

 

Dempsey's prime...what I know of Dempsey's prime is almost nothing. That's because it seemed to last about 3 minutes. Having said that, i'm not picking any ex-MW champion to beat Dempsey at Toledo. So my answer must be Dempsey. Having said that, I think Greb has a very good chance to beat Jack between Gibbons and Firpo. The perfect time for them to fight would have been right after Dempsey lifted the title, instead of Miske. Dempsey was still very much on the boil and Greb was a forest fire. Over 10 rounds at that particular time I'd favour Dempsey, Greb's a little inexperienced at the weight.

A ten round fight two years later is a coin toss. I think Greb was better than every fighter Dempsey defended against aside from Tunney.


Wills is harder. I'm not even sure when Wills peaked. I think that the stylistic advantages for Dempsey are over-egged. Again, Toledo Dempsey is very hard to pick against, but to underline the problem of such limited vision, Tokyo-Buster Douglas is probably a fair match for him.

You?

 

Far from clear, but possible.

Regardless, he was better than everyone Dempsey fought (including three yeas of nobody - not even boxing nobodies, just nobody) during his title reign.


And for the fifth or sixth time, what this means is that Dempsey was never tested by a great fighter and came through that test, though two were available. This is of concern, especially when a fighter is leans so heavily upon his apparent abilities and the opinions of old-heads of those abilities.

Those abilities were never tested at the highest level.

This may be true of other great fighters, other fighters that weren't lucky enough to have a great fighter in their time, Wladimir Klitschko for example. OK, the picture has been distorted by alphabet belts, but you and I have spoken before about the importance of dominating a weak era. The reason for this is at some point you will have crushed the second best fighter of your time. The fighter may not know when. You and I certainly won't. But if you dominate, it will have happened.

These are the types of reign for which respect grows in time.

That is NOT the case with Dempsey. Gibbons wouldn't have emerged as the great talent of the era. Firpo wouldn't have clubbed his way to a title run. Brennan wouldn't have emerged as the man of the hour.

Why? Brennan tells you. There was already a great fighter for the era. Greb, who he picks to beat Dempsey. And if Greb gets the title? Maybe Wills seperates it from him and goes on to dominate. We'll never know. We'll never know because the champion didn't prove himself the best fighter of even his own division in his own time. Dempsey needs this endless rhetoric and enthusiastic opinion to justify his standing because the fighter didn't do it in his own time.

 

I don't think that's so laughable. I pick Rocky though.