Adam Pollack's Dempsey Book?

I dont agree with this. If a guy is fighting weak opposition strictly for the purpose of pumping up his KO ratio then why laud him?

I would doubt Wiggins and Turner would be in the top ten. Wiggins had a long string of losses at the time to the best competition he had faced. In the year previous to getting stopped by Gibbons he had 8 fights going 4-3-1 in them and the only guys he managed to beat were ham and eggers. Stopping him was impressive but Wiggins came into the fight with torn cartilage in his rib. Still an impressive stoppage because Wiggins was as tough as an old pine knot but they had fought twice before without Gibbons being able to turn the trick when Wiggins was healthy. Turner was totally shot when Gibbons stopped him. He was coming off a string of 7 straight losses, the previous two were a KO and TKO loss. He had only won 2 of his last 12 fights and would only fight once more, being stopped by Jeff Smith in his next fight. He didnt stop Miske. Jamieson was at the end of the line and was never much. He had one more fight before Gibbons stopped him. Likewise with Norfolk, in fact its a well recorded fact that Gibbons ducked Norfolk for years before he finally fought him. This is how the Norfolk who fought Gibbons was described by one writer: "But of late the Kid, whose fighting career has enabled him to be quite a factor in the Harlem apartment house business has gone back more than a little. A lot of his old speed and a great deal of his punching ability has departed and besides he has that malady to which boxers who stay in the game long enough seem easy prey -an eye almost blinded by cataract." Thats why Gibbons was made a heavy favorite in the bout and on the eve of the fight was signed by Rickard to face Dempsey the following July. Norfolk lost his next bout by a one round KO to Bob Lawson. Jack Burke? Why do you think stopping him was impressive? Everybody stopped him. He was sparring partner level guy. Look Im not saying Gibbons never beat anyone. He clearly did. My point is that his KO record was very deceptive and was by design. It was.

Greb did not lose to Gibbons two months before their last fight. Their last fight was in 1922. Greb hadnt lost to Gibbons since the early summer of 1920. Greb avenged that loss two months later and then won their last fight. Their last fight was a 15 round match to a decision with Gibbons not having to make weight. He always wanted that, he got it, and he lost decisively. Your argument about him possibly coming in over confident could just as easily be made of Greb in their second bout, which is actually what happened. Fair play to Gibbons for taking advantage but thems the breaks. I think if they fought a fifth time anyone who saw the fourth fight would have instilled Greb as a favorite considering he was pretty dominant unless they thought it was some kind of a fluke but considering Greb won their previous bout as well Id find that hard to swallow. I actually have correspondence from Greb to George Engel written in late 1920 or early 1921 in which he was trying to get yet another fight with Gibbons but wanted to make sure Gibbons made weight as he had broken their terms in their previous two fights and came in over weight. In 1918 Gibbons came to Pittsburgh and stayed for a while trying to make a name for himself. He made some noise by claiming Greb was afraid to fight him as soon as Greb agreed to terms Gibbons backed down and moved on. The same thing happened in Denver in early 1920 and Gibbons and priced himself out of the fight. Greb was always open to more matches with Gibbons and the fact that he tried immediately after losing to Gibbons in 1920 to get a rematch illustrates that he thought he was the better fighter. In fact they would have fought their rematch much earlier than when they did if it were up to Greb but Gibbons traveled to Europe to scout potential fights and visit his family in Ireland which delayed the rematch.

I absolutely rate Mike higher than Tommy. Tommy rated Mike higher than Tommy. Mike always said Tommy had more potential than him but wasnt able to realize it. Mike was better both head to head and in terms of his record. Tommy lived in Mikes shadow for years and years and I dont think anyone who really knew those guys ever rated Tommy better. Tommy managed to beat Greb twice, conclusively in fact, but I dont think he was a better fighter than Greb and I dont think he was anywhere near as accomplished as Greb. That may seem like an odd comment given the results when they fought each other but I think if you take both men on their best day, regardless of weight etc, and drop them in a ring together Greb wins. I could elaborate further but Im sure people would just think Im biased so Ill leave it at that.
I love the Gibbons brothers. They are two of my favorite fighters and the style that Mike pioneered and Tommy adopted is one of the best and most influential styles of boxing IMO. I have a great deal of respect for both men and I love reading about them. Ive studied them both more than any other fighters of the era barring Greb and I always come away with the impression that Mike was head and shoulders above Tommy in terms of skill, accomplishment, and influence.

 

Yes, i have always seen Mike as clearly ahead of Tommy but I too would not deminish Tommy's ability or body of work. He failed to stop Bartley Madden but so did most people. His stoppage, in that ko run, of Willie Meehan merits a mention, Meehan was past his best but he too was rarely stopped. Not many good heavyweights on his record but then there were not too many good heavyweights around at that time. I rate him somewhere close to Tommy Loughran. He just missed been born in Ireland(damn!) several of his siblings were born there if I recall correctly.

 

The Gibbons brothers question is a good one.

I think it is fairly settled that Mike was the better fighter in a pound for pound sense. But, he was also the smaller fighter. Like Tommy, Mike (from recollection) is also a legitimate 2-2 against Greb. In the context of a heavyweight (no weight limit) fight, if the Gibbons brothers needed to pick someone to stop the Greb juggernaut, who would be the best candidate prime for Prime. The bigger hitting Tommy or the classier Mike?

One final question for Klompton, and i do think this is something to consider when questioning the validity of challengers. What role do you think the no Decision era had on Grebs Marketability at the time. Not his ATG statues with hindsight, but his ability to be sold to the majority of the public as a legitimate challenger. Surely when the ring announcer reads out Tommy Gibbons has 30 fights with 28 knockouts vs Harry Greb with 30 fights and 5 knockouts 5 points win wins and 20 No Decisions, most of the public are going to be considering Gibbons as the bigger threat and reading Grebs win as an upset. Even when Greb wins the last fight on points only, i would have thought it does more to harm Tommys reputation than to help Grebs.

By the way, i just did a quick comparison of Harry Wills opponents at this time. Is it also the consensus that he was the standout challenger of this period? So far as activity goes, i cannot think of a time where the very top contenders for the heavyweight title were any more active than right now. In fact with Wills, Gibbons and Greb, in a pound for pound sense at least i cant think of a time where there were three better fighters as clear top contenders. How ironic is it that the period is generally attitude seems to lament the lack of quality around. if nothing else it certainly proves that the Dempsey media aura was one of the greatest of all time, if not the greatest.

 

When you say stop the Greb juggernaut do you mean actually knock him out or just defeat him? Id say prime for prime Mike has the better shot of outpointing Greb. He was faster, had better footwork, and better timing which would have been important against a speedster like Greb. Mike was smaller than Tommy weight wise but as late as 1919 they were about the same size physically. Tommy maybe had a couple inches on Mike. Tommy was not really a big guy. He could still make the middleweight limit as late as mid 1920 (if he tried) and we have several different clips of sparring footage between Mike and Tommy and Mike is well in control.

I think it kind of depends on where the market is. You have to remember that the majority of people at the time took the press reports of the ND fights as being legitimate. The idea put forth by some that these were glorified exhibitions is ludicrous. These guys were really fighting to prove who was the best and leave no question. They broke bones, suffered career ending injuries, and died in no decision fights. This is why fighters carried around their huge scrapbooks. They would come into town off a train, head to the local newspaper office, plop down their scrapbook showing all of their newspaper decisions and this gave the writers in this new town something to go on as far as quality. Of course fighters finagled this as well. Ive given the example before of how when Greb defeated Tommy in 1920 every paper in Pittsburgh except one gave Greb the victory. One thought Tommy won. When I got Tommy's scrapbook which account of that fight do you think was in Tommy's scrapbook? Only one, the one that said Tommy won. But Greb was pretty highly thought of regardless of the ND rule or not. He was well known for always giving his best and putting on a good show. He didnt ask for a fortune to fight and usually didnt ask who his opponent was. He just wanted his fee, two train tickets, and match him with whoever. However, I think if decisions had been in effect across the board it would have helped his case. He was so dominant that he would benefit from it whereas guys like Al McCoy and Mike McTigue who really made a career out of surviving to hear the final bell benefited from the ND rules and the lack of a solid national press where they could just travel from town to town claiming they actually won a fight they lost every round of and nobody was really the wiser.

Wills was the standout. No question. There several national polls taken throughout Dempsey's reign and Wills always won handily. Some members of the press would periodically pop up with another flavor of the month (always white) but this was more of a smokescreen than anything. Wills was ever present in the background. In fact cartoons used to depict him as a black cloud looming over Dempsey, trailing him with Dempsey unable to get out from under it. Ive said before that while Greb defeated many of Dempsey's challengers and scared off others it was Wills, not Greb, who had the claim to Dempsey above and beyond anyone else. And there is no doubt that Dempsey's aura, generated largely by the press at the time, was incredible. Greater even than Tyson's. At that time Dempsey was marketed like no other fighter before. Nobody had seen anything like it. Some of his contemporary detractors noted it as well and felt he was being carried on a wave of hype. If you can separate what Dempsey accomplished in the ring from the mythos that surrounds him today its not really that big of a deal. The interest he generated was immense in the same way people came to see Babe Ruth hit home runs. But like the complaint from baseball enthusiasts who say that home run crazy mentality ruined the game the craving for big knockouts meant guys like Dempsey and Gibbons could get a lot of press and move up very quickly by bowling over retreads in fights that otherwise didnt merit much attention and certainly werent competitive on paper.

 

Good stuff in here today.
Waiting on the arrival of Pollack's Jeffries book....bought earlier this week.

 

I think you will get a few surprises when you read it!

 

Excellent book!

 

I've just read Rex Lardners book "The Legendary Champions", about the HW's from pre-Sullivan to Tunney. All the info he gives on
Jeffries agrees with my thinking. Clumsy, easy to hit, but immensely strong and able to take tremendous punishment just to get in a lucky punch, as he did against Corbett the first time, who was making him look silly for over 20 rounds!

But let's see what Adam has to say. I'll come back here for a compare and contrast thread once I'm finished with his book, which won't arrive for a couple weeks.

 

I think that you will revise your view substantially.

 

When i said stop the juggernaut, i just meant beat. Both Gibbons are capable of Stopping Greb (just like Greb is capable of stopping both brothers) but i think there is no chance this is a likely scenario. I guess the point i was exploring and thinking about was whether the extra size and weight of Tommy is overlooked when considering these two, on an open basis not a pound for pound basis.

I think i would agree with you. Although i am a little biased because i always consider skills more important than weight (more so than most people).

This is very interesting, thanks for the reply. Pretty much exactly how i see things working. though my point , as you seem to be agreeing with in a roundabout way is that the KO record of Gibbons makes him a more marketable opponent. More deserving no, but likely more marketable. So, when we look today, we see Greb as winning his last fight with Gibbons, on a long undefeated streak and being (perhaps rightly) the greatest pound for pound fighter ever. Back then, Gibbons team likely convinced Dempseys handlers that His KO streak meant no matter what happens, Dempsey Gibbons is going to be an action packed KO fest, like Dempsey Firpo and all of Dempseys fights were marketed at. The title could only change hands by KO (actually this would be a real thing wouldnt it. Any world title change would have needed to be by KO at the time wouldnt it? The loss to Greb was a fluke. And Gibbons simply represents the Low Risk High Reward option that makes the most money.

This was definitely the time Wills should have got the shot. Ironically, i cant see Wills beating Dempsey, but he needed the shot here. It is a bit of a shame Wills didnt fight Greb or Gibbons. I think he probably beats both but it still would have been nice to have the guage on how those two fights went down at the time.

 

I think the KO record for Gibbons wasnt so much about the KOs being a more legitimate result than a ND win but about hype that was being generated by the KO string. Personally I dont care much for long strings of KOs against retreads but fans then and now are/were very susceptible to hype and thus its easy for them to get on the bandwagon. But frankly I dont think Gibbons was any bigger a draw than Greb and if he had more support for a title shot in 1922/23 than Greb (outside of Kearns mind) it was marginal. Dempsey was the draw at that point, after the Carpentier fight and after sitting on the shelf for two years. Had he been matched with most other top rated contenders (and there werent many) the gate result would have been similar up to the point Kearns ruined the chances of the Gibbons fight making money at the 11th hour barring a fight with Wills which would have been a monster gate even if it was held in Antarctica.

 

If prime versions of Wills and Greb had fought the prime version of Dempsey ,what do you think the outcomes would have been?

 

I think Wills would beat Dempsey. Id give a slight edge to Dempsey over Greb.

 

I don't think he will.