If he never beat any greats then why is he in turn a great? - The arguement against Calzaghe being considered one of the best of the generation. I've seen Dempsey as high as 3 on some lists.
Wasn't there a New York Times comic strip about this incident? The fight featured Quack Dempsey vs Harry Bills.
I'd like to see that one. Here is an other, in 1925 during Dempsey's 3 year winter sleep: This content is protected I think Keans says: "I'm sorry Jack, but i think you must pick one of them!". To which Dempsey says: "To be or not to be.. that's the question". Some in the public say: "We want to see Dempsey's blood!", "Go and do it Jack!", "Take Wills!". I'm not exactly sure what the bottom line means, i think it's something like "A champion's trouble or the publics voice/opinion."
Exactly! I would love anyone on esb to tell me why dempsey should be considered so great when a guy like tyson gets bashed. At least tyson beat spinks, holmes, ruddock, tucker, etc. At least he fought lennox and holy. All of dempseys top opponents were light heavyweights and a green jack sharkey. He is by far the most overrated boxing legend and i'm serious. A very thin resume for someone that gets called ATG.
I think Dempsey would have taken the fight if the money was there but it was not, Wills was stopped by Langford and returned the favor, Ketchel and Langford fought on even terms. The one fight I saw of Wills (he was Old) Uzcudun, I was not really impressed but I am sure he was better in his prime. I think $$$$$ was an issue and Dempsey had the 1st million dollar gate, we must remember the time and how much a dollar was worth. Look at Johnson who never fought a Black challenger, was he ducking them or was money an issue. Same with Dempsey who did at least as well as the Champions before him as for fighting the worthy challengers and it was not until Joe Louis did a dominant Champion fight all comers
And that leads us back to the true reason Dempsey never fought Harry Wills - Tex Rickard. "If a ****** wins the championship, then the championship isn't worth a nickel." Nobody ever came close to making Dempsey the kind of money Rickard did and Tex wasn't interested in a match against Wills. I know this might not be conspiratorial enough to satisfy some, but that's the straight dope.
I put the blame on Rickard as you said. Now if Dempsey would win is other story. I dont hold not fighting Wills against Dempsey. But what I WILL hold against him was he was not fighting ANYONE in this time frame. 3 years with out a fight. the 2 year break was bad after the first million $ gate. But than to take a other long break after the Firpo fight. :-( Dempsey was a great fighter, and he was to boxing at the time for what Babe Ruth was to baseball, and Hulk Hogan is to the WWF. Dempsey is a icon of the sport. The problem with the Wills fight, was other major fight ruin any chance of have it pull off on July 4th 1910. The Johnson Jeff fight was ungly. The outcome AFTER the fight was pretty bad with the roits across the USA. Tex did not want something like that to happen again. I cant blame Tex for feeling that way, because of the results of the 1910 contest.
I agree here, although Tyson hardly the yardstick in terms of great opponents. Who are the etc by the way? I mean, if they're worse than Tucker that doesn't bode well in terms of greatness.
The argument is inapropriate in both contexts. Dempsey beat pleanty of great fighters: Miske, Gibbons, Sharkey, Levinski, Smith, were all great fighters. It is far too early to judge that Joe Calzaghe has not yet beaten a great fighter. I personaly think that Chris Eubank might be seen as great in the light of history. Mikell Kessler will certainly go on to make some waves at super middleweight and quite possibly dominate. I have not written Jeff Lacey off either.
I am reminded of a famous exam answer here. Q: Did any good come of the second crusade? A: No Most of the answers given in this thread are in the same vein. Dempsey was always under pressure from Kearns and Rickard to steer clear of black oponents for political reasons. He did not have a problem with that as business practice. I get the idea that he did not regard Wills as a verry great threat to his title and it must be noted that he was verry verry frank in saying that hefeared Sam Langford early in his career. Early in his reign Dempsey did as he was told by Kearns and Rickard but later he became more independent taking fights that they did not want him to such as the Gibbons fight, and atempting to set up the Wills fight. It is a mistake to portray Dempsey as the Riddick Bowe of his era but it is also a mistake to portray him as the good champion who was thwarted by his evil promotors.
I'm sprry but tyson actually beat heavyweights that were relevant to the division, not a bunch of name light heavies that didnt do **** at heavyweight. Michael Spinks greater than all of those men and he would probably beat them all head to head, tony tucker and ruddock prolly would too.