Greb and the Heavyweights- Tommy Gibbons

That article surely proves beyond any doubt that Greb was being spoken of as a serious challenger, otherwise Dempsey wouldn't have bothered to write an article concerning a fight between them.

He mentions that Greb was very keen to face him, and his pledge to fight the winner of Greb-Gibbons. He asks whether any promoters out there were willing to stage the fight. Well, quite a few were actually, and none of these offers were taken up. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Dempsey and Kearns were preparing to go to Europe and refused to consider anything until their return. Greb also wasn't looking for a bout with Dempsey right away, he had hopes of meeting Carpentier first, if I recall correctly.

 

December 19, 1920 King Features Syndicate interview with Jack Dempsey:

Now that I'm champion I feel that I ought to fight even oftener than I did in the other days. I'll do it--if Jack Kearns can find matches for me. There's talk of my taking on Harry Greb and Tommy Gibbons right after the first of the year. Let 'em come, and admirers of Gene Tunney, Bob Martin, Fred Fulton and a half a dozen others now seem to think they can whip me. I'll give them the chance--if they really want it--and a promoter can be found who will put on the show.

 

Arcel stated that in his discussions with Dempsey he wanted fight fight often (to rest is to rust) but Kearns and Rickard preferred as past champions did in fact do...take the title on the road. So many exhibitions rather than many championship bouts.

 

Jack mentions Tunney here, that surprises me, I thought Tunney was just a novice in 1920

 

OK I see Tunney started in 1915 but by end of 1920 he was yet to fight a single fighter of high reputation.

 

So, first off, this is a great post with which I mostly agree, and am disappointed that I don't remember seeing it at the time.

Second, although I mostly agree with it, I think it's too strong. Saying "I was there; I know what things were really like" does, in my opinion, carry some genuine force when it's true. Historians try to get into the mindset of the times; they spend years learning all sorts of data to be able to put events in context. The people who lived through it lack a lot of advantages that hindsight brings, but conversely, they just know a lot of the context naturally; in most cases more than the historians themselves. The average Galilean peasant in the first century knew a lot more about all sorts of stuff related to first century Judea than a modern New Testament scholar could hope to do.

It's a balancing act. But sadly, since the past is gone, we stick to playing the game of history as the best approximation we've got.

Also, interesting thread, this...

 

If you want to get a ton of detail on the topic buy Pollack’s new Dempsey book. It gives a ton of great info.