How good was Dempsey's title reign?

I never spoke of a "fight-barring" prejudice.
I'm speaking from the beginning of this thread of why the clamour for a Greb match probably wasn't anywhere near as big as it should have been, and why he probably wasn't viewed by the public and promoters at large as any more pressing a challenger as, say, Brennan, or Firpo, at the peak of their credibility.

If he comes 3rd and 4th in two polls from the early 1920s, doesn't that suggest that the demand wasn't quite as serious as what your retroactice ranking of him would merit him ?

With the benefit of 90 years hindsight, you can say Dempsey's duck of Greb was "even more serious than Wills" but only if you completely ignore all the various perceptions and statements and goings on of the time.

Are you being serious ?
I don't need to read other articles by you, you self-absorbed twat.

You've demonstrate your method in this thread.
You're quick to make judgments "that's bull****", "hosre****", "klompton said ...." :rofl

We both agree on those facts. So why do you keep going on about them ?
Seems like some sort of "justice crusade" to me.

Or maybe it's a form of Tourette's.

The facts that you seem determined to ignore are the facts that some writers said Greb was "too small" and lacked power, and at least one big promoter had misgivings about small challengers (Dempsey's challenge to Willard included) ....... and that these "knocks" on Greb may go some way explain why he could end up behind Brennan in a poll and get nowhere near the support Wills got.

These are the points I've made, and you've been attacking them for pages now, oddly enough. Bleating on about Dempsey's ducking of Greb, etc.

I don't ignore the fact that promoters tried to make the fight. You're making **** up again.

There are probably twenty fights and "offers" - at least ! - that you can easily find in Dempsey'd reign that never got made into actual fights.
Some of the opponents were easy.
This is being ignored, or at least somewhat overlooked, by people who are obssessed with the specific ducks.

I said a long time back that Greb was a worthy challenger.
He was ducked, we can assume. Because he was too good.

Absolutely. :good
I absolutely agree.

But what I've been trying to explain all along is that the clamour for the Greb fight wasn't at the pitch that you might assume in hindsight (based on Greb's superior credentials) ....... and very possibly the fact that he was a MIDDLEWEIGHT, who was small, and didn't even have a KO punch might have something to do with it.

The fight would have been big, but Greb seemed to be rated lower as a HW than he deserved by the public and much of the press, and at least one big promoter wouldn't have favoured him as a HW champion.


If that's such an outlandish theory or suggestion, (and it certainly seems to have bothered you) ....... I'd like to know why you think Greb could come in behind Brennan in a poll, be completely overlooked by Muldoon in his statements about contenders for Dempsey's crown, and generally get nowhere near the press space Wills got for his claim ?

Wrong again.
You simply don't follow the conversation. My original point was :

Harry Greb being "too small" or "not too small" was obviously a talking point at the time.
Dempsey called him "too small" after the 1922 Greb-Gibbons go, but he might have been using it as a euphemism for "too good" ! On the other hand, Dempsey's win over Carpentier was downgraded after the event by several press men ands fans who decided it was a mismatch because Carpentier was "just a middleweight".
It's probably a bit of both.
Interestingly, Harry Wills refused to fight Gene Tunney in 1926 with the excuse, "he's too small for me", although he'd been fighting men of Tunney's size and smaller for years.
I guess it was a stock excuse for heavyweights back then. You end up getting more credit for beating big guys anyway, I guess.

:deal

And, if you remember, I think it was my next post where I said, "a middleweight who won almsot exclusively by decision" .... size and power.

Yes, I know. You're getting slightly boring now.

No, I've never said that promoters couldn't make the fight.

Promoters "tried to" make dozens of fights with Dempsey defending his title.

 

Who am I, Step-in-Fetch-it ? :rofl

You've allocated me half an hour to read some of your recent articles, told me not to go "running of to google newspapers", now you've given me permission !
I feel honoured.

Again, it comes down because "klompton says ...... "

Go do your own research, McG.
Or wait in line.

 

Perfect summary of the Dempsey-Greb situation. :thumbsup The debate about this should end here. Personally, I´d pick Dempsey here.

Personally, I believe Dempsey when he said that he wanted Wills. From what I got Wills suited him better stylewise and a fight, this is my assumption, would have created a bigger buzz and more money. That it didn´t come of in seven years should make you think though.

@Klompton as well:
I think it has to do with the public perception that a hw challenger or any hw should have a big or at least dangerous punch to be a real threat.

How much was it Dempsey´s fault that the Greb and Wills fights didn´t come of? Especially the Wills one would be interesting. Thanks. :thumbsup

I clarified my voting in a later post. Went just down 4 from the top. 4 in German grades (they go from 1 (=very good) to 6 (=failed)) is sufficiently. So, you might say I f*cked up. The equivalent to sufficiently would be a C+ or B- here I think.

Please don´t. Use the search function instead. Thanks. :thumbsup

 

Rock, you expressed yourself with logic and clarity. Dempsey's braintrust did what was best for their fighter, and at the time [1920s] ,were not thinking of
what naysayers 80 years later,would think of Dempsey's "legacy".
I believe Dempsey himself feared no fighter could beat him in a shootout,so deadly was he at that time, but he did what the "doc",advised him to do in his
choosing his opponents in the ring. I don't fault him there as we all in business life attempt to make the most dough with the least amount of risk !
Nobility belongs to the bible, not the business world...
I have previously posted that other immortals as Joe Louis,followed the advice of his braintrust and never once matched up Joe with a Lee Q Murray,
Harry Bobo, Curtis Shepperd, Jimmy Bivens,all great black contenders of the Louis reign,whilst tackling much more inferior fighters in his career. I know, because I would hear fans of those days echoing these thoughts. Why do U not hear a whit of criticism of Louis's taking on many stiffs on his "tour",
while not giving more deadly hitting black opponents a shot at his title. I would also include Lem Franklin in the mix, that could BANG. But Louis's braintrust, chose as Dempsey's handlers did, to fight the opponents who provided the most box office money with the least amount of risk...
Why is Dempsey always demeaned by some posters ,whilst a Joe Louis,or a Ray Robinson, [avoided many members of the murderers club], get a pass..
In a fair world these things wouldn't happen, but as JFK exclaimed, "life is not fair ". I feel that the Manassa mauler is taking more punishment in his grave, than he took in the Ring...Cheers R.:hi:

 

Dempsey's manager and promoter viewed Dempsey as a commodity and while historians are correct to criticize his record as champion as a man Dempsey profited from it as great as any fighter that ever lived .... he was incredibly fortunate ...

as far as his reign goes, it had moments of high drama and extensive inactivity ... Dempsey had huge star appeal and was perhaps the best promoted fighter of the 20th Century ... this includes the extensive media coverage he received in an era when boxing was daily news ...

Actual fights ...

He defeated a sub-par Miske and looked terrific but what that means is open to question.

He struggled badly with Brennan but showed championship heart and late round one punch KO power ... still, how tough and good a fighter was Brennan ?

He blew away Carpentier, a light heavyweight and not a top ten one at that ..

He actually fought perhaps his best title bout against a very tricky Gibbons, a better James Toney of his day ... impressive after so long a layoff ..

He engaged in a wild brawl with Firpo, fighting the absolutely worst fight plan against a raw slugger but showed tremendous heart, courage and power .. however, fighting the same style I do not see him surviving the first round against Tyson, Liston, Foreman and several others if he exhibited the same style ...

His reign was fun, interesting and utterly inconclusive in assessing his all time ranking ..I have said many times his post title bouts against Sharkey and Tunney (Chicago) in many ways told us more about what type of fighter Dempsey might have been if he continued to fight and graduate post Willard ...

 

klompton actually said it was used as an excuse at the time, primarily by Kearns and Dempsey. I know it was discussed by the press, some of whom upheld it as a valid point, others dismissed it as a bad excuse.

I respect klompton's knowledge of Greb too, but he's fallible as the next man, and can be very selective with the truth or the way he presents things. (Something perhaps we are all guilty of).
Some of what he says I simply disagree with the conclusions he draws or implies, based on contemporary source material. But that's conclusions and opinions.

I have no problem with you, McG.
You're one of the better postors. You are incredibly patronizing, can get a bit tiresome ..... but I've known far far worse.

:good

 

Another great post, burt. :good

The way some of our boxing historians these days approach the past events of the professional boxing world demonstrates such a thorough lack of cynicism and that I have to admire them.
They talk about legacies and the like in such pure terms of sporting merit that I almost forget it's PROFESSIONAL BOXING that we are discussing !

It's a noble cause, no doubt. But alas, somewhat impossible.

But that's just in my (cynical old) opinion. :good

Great post.
good points. :good

 

I gave Dempsey a C+ for his reign in this poll.

An pretty bad reign due to the inactivity, but the opponents were decent on average.

 

Yes it became very much a game that Dempsey played, playing one challenger off the other, playing a shell game: Im going to fight this guy in May so I cant fight that guy and then suddenly the fights fall through, etc.

 

Why are you so focused on critics of Greb? There were at least as many vocal critics of Carpentier, Miske, and Gibbons as challengers yet those matches were made. There were also far more critical voices of fights like Carpentier 2, Gunboat Smith, and Willard 2 and regardless of these critics Dempsey and Kearns were actively involved in pushing for those fights (something they never did in regards to Greb or I would argue Wills as well despite the two bogus contract signings). They didnt care about criticism until it suited their agenda.

 

That's true. Obviously, Kearns and Dempsey were conveniently looking away from the toughest fights.

But, for example, how do explain how Greb can come behind Brennan in a poll of boxing fans to pick a challenger for Dempsey, and behind Gibbons in another, when he'd beat both ?
Or how come in several articles that name the contenders for Dempsey, Greb is often ommitted at the expense of men who has beat ?

Somewhere along the line, he was being a little bit overlooked by people other than Dempsey and Kearns, and I tend to think it's because he "belonged at middleweight" and wasn't considered an exception in the Fitz/Ketchel class as a puncher.

I don't think there should be any dispute that Greb's being overlooked or unfairly ommitted, he's being completely underrated by the press and public or ignored, even if he was considered ONE OF the contenders (and he surely was).
If you go strictly by his record, he should be up there with Wills or at least very close. He's beating all the guys Dempsey goes on to take on as challengers, and others besides.
Yet some writers are forgetting he's even a contender.

What do you feel the reasons for the relatively mild press campaigning for Greb's cahllenge are ?

Ironically, I think maybe Greb did a little too much fighting and not enough canvassing ! Or maybe he wasn't that bothered, he was always fighting and earning. Or perhaps him being a middleweight and not a Fitz-esque puncher lulled many in the press to often overlook his stellar HW contender credentials.

One of the greatest things about Greb was that he was chasing just about everyone, and taking on anyone who was willing.

 

Thanks for the kind words Burt, and I agree with you on all these points. :thumbsup

While it's disappointing the Greb and Wills fights didn't get made, or that Jack didn't defend often enough, I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way as far as how his career is viewed because of it. With the other fighters you've mentioned, people focus on the fights that were made and not so much the ones that should've been made, but weren't. With Dempsey, the opposite has become common and that's why I think he's generally underrated these days. Without completely re-directing the thread, it's amazing how guys are now ranked above Dempsey that no peers at the time placed over him.

I also have to wonder effect, if any, the outcome of Ketchel-Johnson had on the possibility of Dempsey-Greb. How much credit did Johnson get for it, as opposed to the flak he caught for Stanley flooring him? Today, it seems like Johnson gets minimal credit for the win and people routinely bring up that a middleweight (albeit one with ATG power) floored him. If the views were similar at the time, perhaps Dempsey or Kearns was aware of that in why they wanted nothing to do with a man still largely perceived as a middleweight (despite Greb's greatness at light heavyweight).