How good was Dempsey's title reign?

sorry, but i have read that same quote by Greb

 

what four hall of famers did he defeat during his career? he defeated Carpentier, Gibbons, and Miske (who is one of the least qualified HOFers IMO, Im still shocked he got in). He fought Tunney but lost both of those and his "victory" over Sharkey came after he lost the title. Likewise his victory over Levinsky came before. Of those three HOFers the vast majority of their fights were at 175 or well below (which also where they made most of the reputations).

 

Correction, you have both read a quote ATTRIBUTED to Greb which was not published until DECADES after his death by someone who may or may not have even known him and given no provenance whatsoever. All of that, despite the fact that Greb clearly stated throughout his career from at least 1918 to 1926 that he was able to beat Dempsey and actively CHASED a fight with him for 7 years(!!). It was Dempsey who constantly avoided these challenges yet somehow a quote emerges that Greb secretly felt he would lose to Dempsey. Thats ****ing laughable at best.

 

nice post Burt i go along with you in that Dempsey was the greatest from what i have read and from what my father told me... my grandfather seen both Peter Jackson & Sam Langford fight and rated Jackson as the best he ever set eyes on. both fought at Thirlmere Sports

 

So why would he have gotten any more credit for beating Greb than you've given him for beating the other guys who moved up in weight to face him?

I'd have loved for the fight to happen (and I think Greb would have a practically indisputable claim for #1 P4P all time if he pulls the upset off)...but Dempsey was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The more convincingly he beats Greb, the more the win gets written off because of the size issue. If he loses, his marketability is shot (and it's at least hurt if he does anything less than knock Greb out or win a lopsided fight). Losing to a bigger man or one closer to his own size left room for redemption; losing to a smaller man like Greb would crash his future earnings power like the Hindenburg. Not taking the fight at all was the easiest choice, and from a financial standpoint, the safest one.

I wouldn't expect any hobo who becomes heavyweight champion to do any different than to manage their reign for maximum overall earnings. Unfortunately, this resulted in Greb and Wills getting the short end of the stick. It's not fair, but fairness in boxing all too often is a pretty oxymoronic proposition.

 

Uh, maybe because Greb had beaten two of those three prior to their shots at Dempsey and the third refused to even spar with Greb much less fight him for a massive payday... The point isnt that Dempsey was fighting guys who moved up, it was that he was fighting guys moving up who hadnt even been able to prove their right to that shot over others waiting in line (bigger and smaller).

 

In a perfect world, the fight would've happened and we could check it out in re-mastered HD. It should have. I quoted you to show how history could've distorted the value of the win had it happened in just that same way- a career HOF middleweight (albeit with plenty of light heavyweight experience) gets beat by the heavyweight champ. Ho-hum.

From Dempsey/Kearn's perspective I can understand exactly why Greb was ignored. There's only one outcome of that fight that doesn't hurt Dempsey, and that's dominating Greb. If he does that, his stock would still stagnate because of the size factor being brought up as an excuse/reason. A loss to the much smaller Greb ruins his earning power because his aura of invincibility is shattered. A tough win also hurts Dempsey- what real, larger than life Giant Killer would struggle with a middleweight?

While I'd favor Dempsey, Greb presented too much risk for what was, at best, a lateral move for Jack's stock. The financial offers for a Greb fight in and of themselves were fair, but Jack wasn't about to risk losing bigger paydays in the future (both in boxing and as a celebrity) over it. Not when he could make cash with essentially no risk based off that image. It sucks that it played out like that, but the business is what it is. Can't say I'd have done differently in that circumstance.

 

No, they are not as much discussed as Dempsey and MArciano, at least not recently, but over-discussed nevertheless. And yes, hws are over-dicussed. I wish there would be more threads on fw to lhw fighters - I´m not too keen on the real little guys, don´t know somehow not that much interested in them. Everytime an interesting thread on those fighters is made it´s gone into obscurity pretty fast but make a topic on one of the big hw names and you have a guaranteed discussion for days even when it´s only about the colout of his underwear. :verysad

Yeah, you´ve got a point. But overall you´ve got to agree that Dempsey, and the likes are a bit discussed too much.

Quite an achievement raising so much interest even decades after beeing dead though.

For the thousands time: this fight was made but didn´t come of due to the guy promoting it not beeing able to come up with the money. Not Dempsey´s fault. Even Wills said so. Show me a quote were Dempsey said he doesn´t take on black fighters like Corbett or Jeffries did.

Klompton, I think everybody on here respects your opinion and you are probably the most knowledgable guy on that era on here. And I don´t wanna debate with you since I´d get raped but I have to say, and I think not for the first time, that you sound terribly biased against Carp. I´m not a fan of this man but winning European titles in like every weightclass and the lhw belt is something. He certainly wasn´t a bad fighter and he had some power. He was good enough to hang in there with the best American fighters and give them some trouble. And he did it for a long time. That needs to be accknowledged. Even by you, I think.
Who is overrating him? I don´t think anyone rates him as a p4p great. Or as a great in any weightclass he fought at. He isn´t. However, he was a worldclass contender from mw to hw. And he won the European title in every weightclass - or nearly. That´s an unique achievement. That´s why he is, and deservedly so IMO, in the HoF. Is that overrating him? I don´t think so.

Aside of that, I think JAB talked about Greb there not Carp.

Oh, and thanks for the effort in this thread. Tons of good information. :thumbsup

 

Greb was eminently qualified to challenge Dempsey, more so than anyone Dempsey defended againt except Tunney, in my opinion.
Whether that was known by a majority of paying public and press men at the time, I'm not sure, but I assume they all knew Greb was worthy simply on account of his record.
And, yes, he defeated many good heavyweights - Brennan and Gibbons among them, for example.

The Brennan fight was set for March 1922 in NY, but refused by Muldoon, who said something like Brennan needs to prove himself against one of these contenders - "Fred Fulton, Tommy Gibbons, Bob Martin, Bob Roper" ....... (this was before Greb beat Gibbons, but since three of the others, I think, had already been whipped by Greb, I doubt it would have made difference enough to Muldoon to include Greb !).
Brennan did beat Martin a few months after this.

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60C16F83A541B7A93C3A91789D85F468285F9[/url]

The July 1922 poll posted here earlier shows that the NY public didn't share the same view as Muldoon had expressed, and had Wills, Brennan, Greb as their top choices, in that order.

Brennan-Dempsey was set for November 1922 too, in Indiana, or at least mooted, to be promoted by Floyd Fitzsimmons. But was barred due to state laws against "prize fights", in late August.

Then, it was apparently being seeked by Tex Rickard for Jersey City.
And again, Muldoon reiterated his call for Brennan to beat a "good heavyweight", this time he mentioned Billy Miske !

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40916FD3B5D1A7A93C3AA1783D85F468285F9[/url]

All of which tell us that opinions and statements on who were "legitimate contenders" at the time were strongly divided, and not easy to figure out.
That several promoters showed interest and made declaration of interest in Dempsey fights that never took place, even against foes he had been twice already and were fading.
That someone like Muldoon can in one breath say Brennan was not a worthy contender and in the next list several guys who were no better, refuse to even discuss Harry Wills, and no mention of Greb.

You're right about Firpo, but that's pretty much how heavyweight challengers are built up, for the most part. Tex Rickard announced in March 1923 (after Brennan lost to Firpo) that if Firpo can beat the winner of Floyd Johnson v Jess Willard he will be in line for a shot at Dempsey. Rightly or wrongly, that's what went down.
Surely, if Willard had defeated Firpo the public would have been willing to see him challenge Dempsey again.

Brennan, who the public had considered still viable in July 1922, and promoters had "tried to" match with Dempsey in '22, had been eliminated by Johnson and Firpo .... Johnson eliminated by Willard ..... Willard eliminated by Firpo.

All of which is nothing to do with Harry Greb, granted. But it seems to suggest that Firpo and Willard was a semi-legitimate "eliminator".

There's so many different statements and versions of who were the legit contenders in those days, no consensus rankings, and so many "cancelled" fights, that we cannot take it too seriously.
Dempsey probably would have "sold out Madison Square Garden masturbating" to borrow a phrase, especially with Tex Rickard promoting.
But the amount of fights that didn't materialize is disturbing, as is the varying versions and reasons for turning them down or barring them.