Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

M, to explain why Greb did better than Dempsey did against some common opponents is akin to asking why a Rocky Graziano slaughterd Marty Servo,
who gave Robinson two disputed decision fights, and then Robinson flattened Graziano in their bout ? Yes Greb whipped Brennan four times, defeated Tunney once or more, whilst Dempsey half the fighter he was
after 3 years out of the ring, lost to a peak Tunney in 1926 and in 1927 Dempsey lost the infamous "long count bout",after Tunney was on the canvas 14 or more seconds,allowing Tunney extra time to clear his noggin, arise and backpedal to safety...Dempsey beat another Greb opponent
Tommy Gibbons in Shelby 1923. Both Dempsey and Greb beat Billy Miske
so on the whole both of these two greats beat many common opponents,
But more credit is RIGHTFULLY given to Harry Greb, because he was a MW
fighting much bigger men and very probably the most remarkable fighter who ever lived as his record suggests...
P.S. The ONLY common opponent that Greb beat,and Dempsey lost to, was the roly poly 4 round SPECIALIST fat Willie Meehan before Dempsey
hit his stride and become champion...Boxing as we know is about styles
and certain inferior fighters can nulliufy superior fighters time and again and then lose to some tomato cans. Go figure it out .Cheers.

 

The Dempsey run was March 1917 to July 1919. During this time period, (leaving aside, who was or wasnt fought, who would everyone consider the top contenders to be.

Obviously Willard was No 1, as he was seen as a dominant champion who was too big to be beaten (sounds familiar) and would never lose another fight. Fulton stands out clearly as no 2. From memory he just destroyed Langford, and i even think i read somewhere that he beat or drew with Willard in a four rounder. But after that, who would fill the next spots. Greb seems to have been put up as the no 3 fighter (not sure if i could agree with this as he was a middleweight and seemed to fight the best middleweights more than heavys, but an analysis of his opponents might just say otherwise). Who were the other (consensus) fighters in the mix?

 

Langford apparently had a bad cut over one of his eyes from training but took the fight against Fulton anyway, who (much taller and larger than Langford) targeted the cut, reopened it early and beat on a near blind (and past prime) Langford for a few rounds until his seconds threw in the towel.

A good win of course. But just saying...

 

The simplicity of the matter is that Greb (160-170lbs) fared slightly better against a certain set of opponents than Dempsey (185-195lbs).

Just makes you wonder.

 

Yeah but clearly this win established Fulton as the no 1. I guess the question is did it eliminate Langford. Given the injuries i would have thought so, but i havent studied his record right at the moment to make a definitive call. Do you think Langford was a legitimate top 10 fighter after this loss?

 

It was a Philadelphia paper who scored the fight for Levinsky, so they would almost certainly have had a boxing correspondant at the fight.

Like I say, I lean towards Greb deserving the decision, but this has two implications.

A. Dempsey might have been equaly justified to pick either opponent.
B. Dempsey clearly defeated Levinsky in a far more conclusive manner.

 

The thing is though, why bother with trying to justify it. Obviously the Greb fight would have been better. Hell we can say that at any point in Dempsey's carrer other than arguably Willard, Fulton or Firpo (all of whom were either 1 or 2 when beaten by Jack)

 

Yeah I would say so, but only just. Langford seemed to enter a gatekeeper phase of his career thereafter, and accumulated losses more often against fighters he'd before have beaten, or already had beaten.

Around this time it seems Langford was routinely boxing larger opponents with little recovery time in between. About once a month averaged out.

 

I am amazed by the way people expect fighters to pick their opponents with the benefit of hindsight.

A fighter can only see the portion of boxrec before a fiught takes place and everything beyond that is a mystery.

Levinsky probably had been viewed as a possible heavyweight challenger for longer than Greb at this point.

 

no this isn't hindisght it's common sense.

The two men fought, Greb won, Jack went on to fight the loser.

Was it a great victory? of course it was, he destroyed a HOF opponent, would it have been as good a victory as Greb, not even close.

 

But that is just my point.

If you thought that Levinsky beat Greb, as some people did, then Dempsey would have been right to fight Levinsky instead.

If you thought that Greb nicked it, then Dempseys win over Levinsky was clearly far more impresive.

A win over Greb would be better in hindsight, but a win over Levinsky might have done more to improve his credentials as a title challenger at the time.

 

no, mate I don't think I can disagree with you any more right now.

Greb won, the vast majority felt this, Dempsey fought the loser of the fight. In no way, shape or form is that more beneficial than fighting Greb.

 

Put it this way.

Levinsky had been talked about as a possible heavyweight challenger for years. He made the transition to heavyweight earlier, and was seen as a player in that division earlier. A controvertial points loss would not necisarily catapult Geb above him.

Was this fight even at heavyweight (I have not been able to find out)?

 

a 6 round fight means nothing to me. However in 1917 Greb battered him despite giving away 25 pounds. After then Levinsky split a series with Brennan 1-1-2.

There just is no argument that supports the theory Levinsky was a better fight. This isn't a one off, Dempsey routinely fought guys who Greb bettered.

 

I don't think Levinsky was abetter fighter, but I am saying that the issue might not have been as black and white as you think at the time.

It is not enough just to look at boxrec. You have to look at how certain fights were perceived at the time, and it is oftne not as you would expect.