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

That's a nice balanced post, don't see many on this thread.

 

All that really needs to be said about the ridiculous idea that somehow Wills didnt deserve a title shot after dominating Firpo is that the Firpo fight was in late 1924. Dempsey won the title in 1919. What was his excuse for the other 5 years? And the following year when he decimated Weinert who Dempsey had shopped around as a possible defense?

 

I don't doubt he deserved a shot, the questions are who do you blame for it not happening, and who likely would have won? From what I understand it was mostly a promotional decision and to why they never fought, from what I can tell Dempsey himself would have been fine with fighting him.

As to who would have won had they met, I think it depends on when that was. Near the time Dempsey fought Tunney he was probably ripe for the taking.

 

Who likely would have won doesnt factor into the discussion because thats not how boxing matches are decided. Dempsey himself deserves a large chunk of the blame based on his own comments on the situation while he was actively involved in ducking Wills and his behavior after his separation from Kearns (who usually gets the blame for ducking Wills, forget Rickard because he was neither the only promoter in the world capable of promoting that fight nor the only promoter Dempsey fought for as champion).

 

Do you have even a rudimentary grasp of Bright's Disease and its progression? It tends to go into partial remissions and then recur with vigor. According to Moyle's book on Miske this was the case with Billy. Reports of Miske leading up to the fight with Dempsey were dire. He was in bad shape and not able to even fully train or spar.

 

Wills deserved a title shot no question, what he would have done with it is the point.

 

No Im not a Doctor, but I know that if a man is at death's door ,as is often claimed for Miske by Dempsey haters , he doesnt last another 3 years fighting 23 bouts against top opposition and losing only the last one.That is an insult to my intelligence.

Can you grasp the rudiments of that argument?

 

So was Wills. Dempsey fought Tunney in Sept 1926 Wills got beat up by Sharkey a month, later fouling out to save himself from a ko. Dempsey beat Sharkey in July 1927 ,and Wills was kod by Uzcudun the same month.

 

So back in 1950 they ask almost 400 sports writers to name the greatest fighter of the past 50 years... and not a single one picks Harry Greb! The man some posters here on Classic, many decades later, believe is the greatest... EVER!! Isnt this a bit strange?

 

To absolute majority of them greatness was a synonym of fame. Who cares who you have beaten, it's only important how much attention you received in the press. And top heavyweights received a whole lot more attention than any top fighter from lower weights. Jeffries-Johnson was receiving every day attention (write-ups) since at least early 1909 (1.5 year before the bout took place). Dempsey-Carpentier - every-day write-ups for several months leading to the bout. Etc. Biggest non-heavyweight stars were lucky if they received any attention from the press 1 month before their scheduled bouts, but even then it wasn't every-day attention.

 

Yes, I also found that strange, they had different criterias back then IMO, it seems that way. I think they generally thought as the greatest the one that looked better. The better fighter they ever saw without consider all the resume stuff like most do today.

 

Sorry to be condescending.

Did you read Moyle's book? He contends that Miske was very sick, that Dempsey and the writers knew and acknowledged this, and supplies quotes to back up these contentions. I can dig them up later for you, if you would like

Miske's health did rebound somewhat afterward, as is known to happen with the disease, but it is more a "two steps forward, three steps backward" type of remission...

 

Strange ? It's downright eery!

 

Once again all things lead back to it being Dempsey's fault according to you. Do you know with any degree of certainly what the fall out would have been if Dempsey fired his promoter to fight Wills, and since boxing always has been a business, why would he do something like that, especially since it was Rickard who promoted the Tunney fight?

It seems to be you start with an idea, spin facts the way you want, and discard any that don't seem to fit your agenda.

As mentioned I'm not questioning whether or not Will deserved a title fight, I'm merely questioning the way you choose to spin the facts to ensure there's only one guy to blame for that not occurring.

If anyone is to blame I'd point the finger at Tex Rickard, he certainly could have made this fight happen had he wanted to.

In fact, according to the link to the newspaper article posted on this thread, Wills himself never blamed Dempsey for the runaround which took place.

 

That's a pretty good point.