Is it weird that I don't see anything special in Jack Dempsey?

That is a major factor, heavy bias to fighters who either fought in NY or were from NY. Also a bias towards the heavyweight division in general.

Dempsey was special though, he certaintly galvanized the sport. He was the biggest star and attraction for a decade. A golden decade for boxing in general.

 

agreed. ... and understood.

Not as many as Greb and not in prime. Greb rarely went more than a year or two from recollection undefeated. I know their are excuses, including quality and quantity of opposition. But if you are going to be as close to unbeatable as anyone, you really need to be able to say that no one, or at least hardly

Agreed, if i hinted otherwise, i was wrong, it certainly wasnt what i meant.

Two fighters fight fighters 1,2,3 and 4. Fighter A scores first round KOs against each of them. Fighter B goes the distance with all of them and wins 4 close fights. Which fighter is the more unbeatable?

If you leave it up to the judges you are taking a bigger risk than if you win by KO. Whether that is bad decision making or just simply a case of the other guy doing much better than the guy.

I never said Greb wasnt great. I said he wasnt as close to unbeatable as some others because he was actually beaten. And quite a bit (by all time great standards only).

I think your reasonable poundage is a fair point. Although, Greb did campain as a heavy (despite his weight), i think we both agree that he wasnt unbeatable as a heavyweight even if ironically he might night have ever lost a fight as a heavyweight (havent checked so i am happy to be proven wrong here).

I am not sure of your point here. What does having advantages over a fighter have to do with whether or not you are unbeatable. No one came close to beating a prime Sullivan. That is the definition of unbeatable against the opponents he faced. Greb was beaten by several opponents (some you say unfairly). I would say that Sullivan showed he was more unbeatable than Greb against his contemporaries. If you want to look at some type of comparisons of their qualities or other subjective means then fair enough.

I really dont see how splitting a series with these two guys is a domination of them as you suggest. I think that both have a good argument to be considered on the same level as Greb, possibly even better. I am sure that there wouldnt have been a time when each wouldnt have fancied their chances of beating Greb. whether or not this would actually happen, no one knows. We do no that both were capable of beating Greb (pre prime or not). We also know that tunney was capable of beating Greb and who at any point of time would nearly always take him the distance, do plenty of damage and generally be in with a fighting chance on at least some score cards. Can you say exactly the same thing about a prime Dempsey or Joe Louis for example.

I must say i am a little disappointed in your reply. I openly stated i went solely off wikipedia or boxrec or wherever when i made the last reply. I am well aware of controversies regarding the Tunney fights and know there are others among Greb's losses which i hoped someone might grab to jump to his defences. I guess the question (and it is not loaded) is this. Which years was Greb close to unbeatable and would you consider him the best fighter in teh world?

I would have to say that not winning a series with a fighter is not asserting dominance over that fighter.

 

I say again, its silly to pretend that a fighter who scores knockouts is more unbeatable than a fighter who dominates on points. Indeed, you cant knock everyone out. Its just a fact. So the argument could be flipped on its head and said that the fighter who scores knockouts is at just as much of a disadvantage when the fight goes to the cards as the one who doesnt, maybe moreso because KO fighters usually load up and throw less punches meaning they score less points. Its a stylistic difference which has no bearing on how dominant people are. I say again, its a sport not a streetfight.

I would say that from 1918 until 1921 when Greb was blinded in one eye by Norfolk he was prime and as unbeatable as it gets. He only lost one clear decision (Tommy Gibbons) when he showed up out of shape due to an arm injury that prevented him from training well. He avenged that defeat and from that point until February 1923 when he lost to Tunney in one of the worst decisions of all time he didnt lose another fight despite being blind in one eye for much of that time and often fighting larger men. If thats not dominance I dont know what is. If we are throwing out performances when a fighter is not in his prime then its safe to say that for a good five years Greb was as unbeatable as Sullivan ever was. When you take into account that Greb was often doing it at a weight and size deficit, something Sullivan VERY RARELY had to deal with I think Greb gets more brownie points than John L.

The Gibbons brothers are tricky and often latched onto by those trying to find fault with Greb's record. I dont see them as being that problematic. When Greb faced the brothers the first two times he was green, especially against Tommy. People will say Tommy was green but he really wasnt, even by his own admission. His record is deceptive because while he didnt have many fights at that point he was the chief sparring partner of and tutored by the greatest P4P fighter in the world and had gained a ton of experience from him. When they fought in Tommy's hometown in 1915 it was Greb's first bout outside of the Pennsvylvania/Ohio area and his lack of class showed. Against Tommy in 1920 he had the aforementioned injury which prevented quality training. I dont want to make excuses for this loss because its a great win by Tommy. When Greb was able to train he clearly beat Tommy in the rematch and then in 1922 when Tommy was riding his highest crest Greb dominated him and Greb was already past his prime. Yes Tommy was older but at that point most would have pinpointed that as Tommy's ultimate prime. He was bigger, stronger, and harder hitting than he had been in the past, possessed all of the same skill, was considered the white frontrunner for Dempsey, and was riding a winning streak that included stopping 20 of his last 21 opponents with only one of those making it to the halfway point. Against Mike its a bit different: Greb was still slightly green when he fought Mike in February 1917. Greb lost that fight but made it a hit with his aggressive tactics and even gave Gibbons a couple of reminders of the bout to take home with him. Against Gibbons in 1919 it was Gibbons who was past his prime in losing so we never really saw how a fight between these two would play out prime for prime. BUT thats not the question. Theres no doubt in my mind that Tommy wasnt as good as Greb. Mike is another story but again when Mike was prime Greb wasnt and vice versa so I dont think the question affects whether Greb was a dominant fighter. Its not his fault that his prime coincided with Mike's decline.

In regards to Leonard: So Leonard wasnt a dominant fighter either then?

 

It seems logical to me to realize that Harry Greb for the MOST part of his career fought
more OFTEN and more WEIGHT handicapped , beating a list of great HOFamers than
any other fighter in history. What fighter can anyone name, constantly took on such a list of great fighters and whipping many, many of his larger opponents time and again
spotting some foes 10-30 pounds, with very little rest in between bouts ? None that I can think of...His one year record of fighting, I believe 45 BOUTS with out one defeat is
unparalleled in boxing history and must put him highest in the boxing pantheon, along
with his unmatched record of fighting everyone, every weight , and everywhere...
Was he unbeatable on every night, against everyone, every time ? Possibly not. But no
fighter in history could match his record against great and heavier fighters with such
success and frequency. Period. Give the man his due, I say...

 

One of the things that makes his run from late 1918 to 1923 so impressive is that this is a guy who very early on, like maybe around 1916 or 1917 was predicted to burn out quickly because of his high energy style. Nobody thought he could keep up his pace and that he would basically wear himself down to a nub very quickly fighting like he did. And its true, guys like that usually have a short prime and then flame out. But even past his prime Greb remained one of the top fighters in the world up to his death. When you consider that the guy was basically shot when he fought Flowers in 1926 and still managed to make those fights close its pretty impressive when you consider that Flowers had lost only one official decision in his entire career and that was the loss to McTigue that was universally panned as a horrible robbery.

 

Do you mean walker?

 

No, at the point that Flowers fought Greb for the title he had lost only one official decision during his entire career. That was to Mike McTigue on the holiday show in New York. The decision was universally panned as being a bad one with every source Ive read agreeing that Flowers won fairly easily.

 

Ah. Misunderstood.

 

I really appreciate all the information about Greb here, he was astoninshing.

I can see an argument that during his prime he was possibly as IMPRESSIVE as any other fighter in his prime, in part due to volume, of course success, & fighting guys in bigger weight classes.

Yet how could he be as close to unbeatable as anyone IF he was fighting HWs? He could have fought Dempsey, whose prime was very close to the same.

Maybe he was as close to unbeatable as anyone under 175, but since he chose to mix it up w/HWs too, though they were smaller then, I do not see this case made.

 

The fight between Greb and Dempsey was actually called out by the contemporary press. But after Dempsey's sparring sessions with Greb in Benton Harbor he wanted nothing to do with him.

Merely examine Dempsey's title defenses… Brennan, Miske, Gibbons, Tunney, Darcy… they all have one thing in common. Beaten by Greb earlier… multiple times for most of them.

 

The Darcy fight was not a title defense. Its become vogue to say it was but it wasnt. I'll leave it at that.

The other two Dempsey title defenses (Carpentier and Firpo) turned down offers to face Greb. Carpentier in particular wouldnt even spar with Greb and turned down what would have been the second highest payday of his career to face him.

 

Wasn't it of the NY State title?

 

This is a post I made on Boxrec some time back:


It was billed as an exhibition, it was fought with big exhibition gloves, Darcy was a middleweight, Dempsey's stablemate and sparring partner. I mean what more does one need to offer to get this bout recognized as what it was?

The Buffalo Evening News stated Dempsey buffetted Jimmy Darcy around with BIG GLOVES for four rounds. It goes on to state that while the NYSAC commission sent word that they did not recognize exhibition bouts (ridiculous, exhibitions were fought all over New York) the News goes on to state that the bout "...went on for the whole four rounds, "to a decision" (their quotes, not mine, obviously intended to show how ridiculous the situation was) though nobody heard the official verdict. While at the business of preventing an "exhibition" the commission forgot to bar the pillow gloves, so Dempsey buffetted his man about the ring skillfully."

This was all part of an exhibition tour Dempsey was doing which saw him in an exhibition on August 2 in Scranton against Darcy again, and also Larry Williams.

In August the News, once again clearly poking fun at the situation, added: "JACK DEMPSEY is to box a 'suitable opponent" at Braves Field, Boston tonight. He is probably to he selected from a group consisting of Jimmy Darcy or Larry Williams. Wonder if the Massachusetts Boxing commission will step in make another "real fight" for the heavyweight championship of the world, as the New York State commish did when Dempsey put on the pillows with Darey here?"

The Buffalo Courier stated: "Jack Dempsey defeated Jimmy Darcy four round exhibition, judges decision" In the accompanying article it refers to the bout several times as an exhibition. Dempsey was dressed for an exhibition, wearing long blue tights, not trunks."

The Buffalo Morning Express, which was responsible for the hyberbole sorrounding the bout, referred to it stating it "practically was of championship order." This implies that it was NOT a championship at least.


On July 7, just two weeks before this exhibition, Dempsey appeared in a four round exhibition just over in Syracuse, New York against Jimmy Darcy and, surprise, nobody called that a championship.

Finally, not that I think it matters, but I can find no mention in the Walker Law (which governed boxing in New York at the time) and no amendments which specify that New York does not recognize exhibition bouts. Indeed I can name several that took place during this time frame, many of which were highly publicized.

In fact, here is a rule that actually does appear in the Walker Law: In the state of New York there can be no fight between two participants where there is a difference of weight of more than 18 pounds unless the participants are light heavyweights or heavyweights. Jimmy Darcy was a middleweight who the month before this bout weighed 161 and the month after weighed 165. You want to argue that there was not a difference of 18 pounds? I would need to go back and check but I also believe the Walker Law set championship fights at 15 rounds and dictated the size of the gloves. So no, I dont think its a stretch to suggest there was something very fishy (possibly a last minute promotional ploy to boost the gate) about the NYSAC suddenly taking a stand on this ONE exhibition bout and calling all the way from New York City to Buffalo (which had a fantastic history of self governing) to make sure Dempsey abided by a rule that didnt exist.

Exhibitions were fought in New York on a regular basis, including by champions. Harry Greb fought as middleweight champion in an exhibition bout in Olean, New York on June 6, 1924 and nobody made that a title defense. Nobody made the few exhibitions Tunney fought in New York as champion title defenses. Benny Leonard fought exhibitions in New York and nobody made those title defenses. All of those were fought under the Walker Law as well.

 

Yeah, now I notice that Boxrec has take the bout off Dempsey's ledger. Good work.

 

Well since we're on the subject of Dempsey... did he really knockout legendary multi sport athlete Lionel Conacher In an exhibition.