Harry Greb Confident He Can Beat Dempsey

D, I agree with your assertions how some posters on ESB have an agenda to degrade and besmirch the prowess of the prime Jack Dempsey...So much so that their dislike of Dempsey borders on paranoia and revisionism...I have been seeing and reading about boxing history since the early 1940s. I had collected and read old Ring Mags and other boxing magazines dating from the late 1920s. And in all those old mags I can't recall a demand that there was a public DEMAND, for Jack Dempsey to fight a middleweight Harry Greb for the heavyweight title...Yes I had read so many years ago that Greb
{my alltime favorite fighter] outsped Dempsey in 2 sessions of sparring and Harry was dismissed from Dempseys training camp.
But to imply that in a real championship fight JackDempsey "FEARED"
Harry Greb is utter rubbish...How many many times have I seen at Stillman's gym top main event fighters getting smacked around by journeyman fighters in sparring sessions ??? Meaningless in a real match...I do not blame the Dempsey braintrust for not matching their meal ticket Dempsey with the MW Harry Greb. If perchance Greb somehow avoided the lethal punches of Dempsey and lost by points, well there goes their million dollar meal ticket...If as I strongly believe Dempsey's overpowering strength and weightier punching power crushes Greb for a KO, the public would shout to Dempsey " why the hell don't you pick on someone your own size "?. A NO WIN SITUATION for sure...Akin to matching a Joe Louis with a Tony Zale or Jake LaMotta... Stupid business...
P.S. I quoted once before an article I read in an old Ring Mag from the late 1920s where a famous boxing writer whose name escapes me today wrote that "Harry Greb told me after his retirement that after about 5 or 6 rounds Dempsey would have killed me "...
Whatever, Dempsey was one of the greatest heavyweights EVER whether the revisionists on mainly ESB like it or not. Keep the FAITH...

 

You can find plenty of other examples of the same way of thinking at the time. But you prefer to ignore all that for the sake of rare, singular examples of full, unconditional support of Dempsey's stance.

You called Vila poor judge of boxing talent, while you didn't even know much about him, thinking him primarily baseball writer. That's pure bias and very derogatory comment, in my opinion.

If you want to debate McGovern-Gans or McGovern-Erne, I will have to know how much have you researched those bouts, before I agree to do that, so that not to waste my time. Overall, it is common knowledge among boxing historians that rumors about fixed fights were circulated regarding a LOT of big and not so big fights at ALL times.

Negating view is hardly an opposing view per se. You are simply dismissing anything that doesn't suit your view, instead of proving it wrong or coming up with a reasoned, substantiated alternative view that doesn't have as many weaknesses as the one you are argueing against. I'm not saying I'm fully supporting the opposite view to yours, but at least they are debating in a much more proper and convincing manner from a historian's point of view.

If you want to prove them wrong, you have to come up with multiple contemporary/primary sources by different writers proving them wrong or proving you right. That's the only way to argue properly and objectively. Just dismissing them, calling them offensive to Dempsey and therefore wrong is not a proper way to debate history.

Nobody likes them, but you can either argue against a person or against his point of view on the subject, it is your choice. If somebody provides a strong argument that contradicts my view, it shouldn't really matter if he's calling me names and otherwise offending me, I may react to his name calling by ignoring him, but I would be forced to react to his argument too, if it is seriously weakening my view on the subject.

 

I didn't say whether Wills was or wasn't a dirty fighter (though he was certainly no dirtier than Dempsey), I asked for evidence that he was known to "dog it" in tough fights. You said it, now back it up.

There were also a lot of people at ringside who thought it was a foul, including Benny Leonard, Sam Taub, Grantland Rice and one of the judges.

 

When you are heavily criticized for your performances after pretty much every fight, and that's coming not just from one, two, three journalists, but from the majority of them, there probably is something to consider on the matter.

Huh?

You can find PLENTY of sporting journalists with a name who didn't have the same way of thinking as you do, and thought that it did hurt Dempsey's reputation.

You should start by providing exact quotes of those offers, so we know when, where and by whom they were offered. Then we can debate each case.

NYSAC and multiple journalists didn't think that was right. From a fan's viewpoint it's not right either, as you can see with many modern champions, who, in their view, are avoiding strong opponents. They may have legal ways to avoid them, but that won't stop the fans from expressing their disapproval of such "business approach".

 

Nothing has and nothing will ever change.

Dempsey would have been a big favourite during his tenure over both Wills and Greb.

Dempsey faced less deserving opposition than both Wills and Greb.

Someone made a point about no one caring because only hardcore fans even know these two names in link with Dempsey. When I began following the sport I was amazed at the polarity in views about someone I knew in my head as a boxing legend. The further you look into history the more you see the two points I raised at the start of the post.

There is no defence for it, Dempsey did not fight the best when he could do. Sometimes he did, but not always.

Fulton, Willard, Firpo, Sharkey. These were the best people he could face when he could face them. But in the 7 years between the first and last he never found time to face his two most outstanding challengers.

 

But for heaven's sake, the REFEREE is in charge and it is his word that is law. PERIOD. Otherwise we would have CHAOS in every bout that some fans feel disgruntled. How cannot an intelligent boxing fan deny
the obvious ? How long could pro boxing survive if some fan or fans
overruled the referee's decision because "they" deemed otherwise ???
You know the answer B ? We would have anarchy...By your thinking Dempsey would have recaptured his title when in the second bout with Tunney, the referee gave an extra 5-7 seconds for Tunney to get off the canvas when Dempsey forgot to go to a neutral corner, giving Tunney ample time to clear the fog out of his head, get up and back peddle until the round ended..Thousands of boxing people thought Dempsey got robbed, but the referee deemed otherwise...Dempsey
at 32 KO'd the prime young Jack Sharkey in 1927, PERIOD. Time to get over it...

 

Referees aren't infallible. Just because a referee makes a decision it doesn't mean it's necessarily the right one and it certainly doesn't mean no one is allowed to question it. A number of ringsiders thought it was a foul, irrespective of how the referee called it. I never said the decision should have been overruled.

 

The footage we have is not conclusive.

For what it's worth, it looks like a legit body combo to me.

Some are right on the level and the difference between ko and dq is millimetres.

Khan v Judah springs to mind.

 

Ref was right there within a few feet of the fighters. Last time I checked the ref has the final judgement. He said they were NOT LOW and emphatically so. Are you so hell bent to use revisionism at every turn that you want to overthrow the final official decision of a referee of a bout held 90 years ago? A bout you can only see on grainy silient film? If you read ALL the newspaper headlines not the cherry picked variety you will see that many stated that the viewing of the fight film showed blows were legal. In fact you will find many headlines that state "film of fight shows body blows were legal". In any controversial bout one LOOKS TO THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE BOUT TO RENDER HIS VERDICT. That refs verdict was that the body blows WERE NOT LOW. CASE COMPLETELY CLOSED.