Grebb, Langford, Dempsey and today's boxers

Dempsey said he feared Langford himself even doubting if he could take him prime for prime. He always claimed admiration for Langford so Sam might be very well returning the kindness. Tunney obviously had every reason in the world to say Dempsey was the greatest (specially considering how good Tunney was in self promotion). Arcel also said the same about Benny Leonard, so generational bias comes to mind. Bunch of historians echolocate through boxing history like drunken bats so you'd have to be more specific (Mike Casey is one. Don't get me wrong, I love his writing, but he relies a lot in echoes and secondary sources.)

 

OK. My post persists. Who were them and why this mysterious record has failed to emerge after a century? Dempsey always been a juicy subject. Not a single name of this sacred relic of a book has emerged to help Dempsey's case despite the constant bashing he's submitted to.

 

Just to be clear: we're not kicking you for defending Dempsey. It's just that this debate's been going on for ages around here so if some of us sound borderline hostile somehow is because these arguments has been repeated to exhaustion. There was a time the number of Dempsey related threads and their length was downright hilarious.

 

the main reason people here aren't generally so big on dempsey is him never fighting wills, and to a much lesser extent greb, while langford and greb fought anyone who'd go.

he also looks less than fantastic on the film we have, not terrible, but wild and open defensivley.

 

They were ahead of their time for the era's and they all excelled. The base product of their physical being and their talent was outstanding for their respective time. There had been No one like Dempsey before him. Greb's resume speaks volumes for his greatness and Langford was a freak with tremendous strength and power for a short, small man. They would all do damage today if we had a time machine

 

Rickard made Dempsey greater than he was (and the media at the time too, which is something that even Jack used to admit, right? )

 

Why do you assume no turn of the century experts called Greb great? What does the fact that no films have survived of Greb have to do with Greb's greatness? Do you realize that by far more films from that era have been lost than exist currently?

 

greb is like genghis khan. what they did is amazing, how exactly they did it? I don't truly know, but they are at the top of their fields for a reason.

dempsey is more of an alexander the great, still was damn good, but with much better backing, and with miles of writings by those who came shortly after talking up their amazingness.

 

Sam Langford and Harry Greb's reputations have stood the test of time better than Jack Dempsey's, because objectively there are some significant problems with his resume. He fail to meet some key opponents, and he did waste some of his prime years due to inactivity.

In head to head terms, I personally rate him very highly, and think he would have done well in any era. Even if I did not think this, the myriad of titles and weight classes around today, would have allowed pretty much any great fighter of the past to enjoy success.

 

greb was filmed quite a few times, just bad luck for us it never survived.