Weinert had already been beaten by Miske twice in1917 . Greb beat Madden in1920 and1921 Miske had already done so in 1918. Can you provide a source for Renault having his purse stopped against Miske ? Also the same for the Brennan fight, and which one are you referring to ? They fought twice and Miske won both of them. After being beaten by Wills, Fulton went 17 fights without defeat then Miske ko'd him. It works both ways!
What does it matter who beat Weinert years earlier? Two months prior to losing to Miske in 1922 he'd taken a bad shellacking from Greb and likely shouldn't have even been back in the ring so soon. A few on Brennan. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=oNgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4020,5371624&hl=en http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,717027,00.html https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=U5gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4124,1691910&hl=en I'll have to look for one on Renault. 17 fights without defeat against who? Homer Smith who'd just been KO'd by Greb of all people, Roughouse Ware (10-13-3), Jack Heinen (0-7), Gabe Gulart (1-6), Battling Jim McCreary (8-4-1), perennial also ran Bob Roper who knocked Fulton down twice one fight before Miske KO'd him.... Besides, Fulton wasn't *really* unbeaten in light of what was widely regarded as a robbery draw against Madden, himself never more than a trial horse.
Reading through this thread, I think two separate issues are raised 1--the question of Jack Dempsey not defending against Harry Wills and Harry Greb in terms of "boxing morality"--the obligation of a champion to defend against his best contenders, and especially in Wills' case, put in the context of the racial situation in the USA in the 1920's. 2--the non-moral but factual matter of did Dempsey prove himself against the best available opposition? The second is the one which is hard on Dempsey, as he did not fight Wills and Greb, and lost to Tunney, and it is a very hard sell that those three weren't the best out there and better than the men Dempsey defeated in championship fights.
And here we may be closing in on the crux of the matter. People, who knew the business, thought that Greb would make a better challenger for the champion, but Carpintier was a bigger draw. Perhaps Carpintier had a better media profile as well. As with the general forum today, there would have been a diversity of opinion, and the centre of opinion would have been fairly dynamic. Fighters would have built up momentum as contenders, sometimes for good reasons, and sometimes for bad reasons.
Carpentier was created to be a bigger draw. That was Rickard using the media to create a narrative (war hero v slacker) to create sales. So, Dempsey & Co. get credit for good soap operas but they still avoided the two greatest challengers to the boxing throne.
Correct. And Carpentier was just one fight. Dempsey had plenty of time to fight Greb. He opted not to, despite the fact that Greb was rated as high as #2, and had beaten many of Jack's previous opponents.
A question to Janitor, Suppose Dempsey fought Greb and Wills. Where would you place them on a list next to the title opponents the Mauler actually fought. 1st? 2nd? 3rd? 4th? Miske, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons ,and Firpo.
Obviously I have an advantage over everybody at the time, because I know the final records of these fighters, and the final records of everybody they fought. That being the case, I would be very confident putting Harry Wills in the #1 position. Greb would be harder to place. It would depend when the fight took place, and what weighting you put on fights at light heavyweight. Jack Sharkey might rate higher than all of them, but that is beside the point.
I would have no problem rating them ahead of anyone Dempsey successfully defended against at any time up until the late summer/early fall of 1926.
The sad thing is... if he beats both (and he would have had a good chance to do so), he rockets up the all time list.