How good was Dempsey's title reign?

There was an 8 round no-decision offer.

What you said was that Greb only wanted to fight over 8 or 10 rounds.

That is a not true, and pretty typical of your posts in this thread.

It's also the case that the ten round distance that "Greb's management tried to make" (according to you) was Jack Dempsey's idea.

Which he then back out on when Greb actually signed articles.

 

If this is a serious question, hundreds of reasons.

The writer might be discussing fighters local to his area. The writer might be listing reasons why Dempsey should meet Wills rather than writing a contender-driven piece. The writer may not rate Greb. The writer may be writing in the light of a press release which states:"If Jack Dempsey fights this year it will not be against Harry Greb."

Fans may not have seen him box. They may not rate him. They may have a favourite they want to see box Dempsey.

"Commisions"(?) may be refusing to make the fight in 1918. They may not be interested in the fight because they are determined only Wills will box Dempsey. They may just have signed off on a fight between Greb and another top fighter, perhaps even a HW. They may not conisder him a HW.




Again: there was a lot of interest in the fight being made in the public domian. Greb wanted the fight. Promoters wanted the fight. Demspey didn't want the fight.

Now one of the reasons above was that they might not rate Greb. That's valid. It's also the case that his size/power may have been the issue that caused them to underate/not rate him. But that doesn't change any of the above.

 

It's astonishing to me that you have said this. I must have mentioned 55 times the promoters that wanted to make the fight. My point concerning Dempsey and Kearns is they are the reason the fight didn't happen. What other reasons do you think there were given that

a) Greb wanted the fight

b) money to make the fight happen was available, to the tune of a career's best payday for Demspey?

Relative to other fighters is a difficult thing to unpick, and I look forwards to reading your findings.

I think the crucial thing to note is that there was a huge amount of money apparently available for a willing Greb and an unwilling Dempsey. This, more than anything else, helps to frame Greb's "status", namely one that was locked into a fight with the champion from every angle but Dempsey's.

Of course, this is why i've looked so carefully. If you want to, you can see some bits and bobs in the thread from newspapers OF THE TIME describing Greb's status as a contender whom public and moneymen wanted to see in with the champion.

Any links or quotes?

 

What specifically? That Greb had certain limitations that made him easier to duck than he would have been without those limitations?

He was held in a certain regard. This was due to the overall package he brought to the table. He had shortcomings and these shortcomings meant that he was at no time the #1 contender.

But overall, as a pont, it's a little like saying "the sun will come up tomorrow." It is a thing that is true of all fighters.

I'm sure it would be very interesting to get a perfect percetpion of a given period in time. I'm not sure it's possible. What's seemingly inarguable is that the money was there, the public support was there, Greb was there, but the champion was never there. After that, my interest starts to dwindle. Was he 82% backed by southern white male but only 68% backed by first generation Irish immigrants? I don't care, really. Once I know the money and the will are there to make the fight, I know enough.