Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

You don't think being terminally ill affects one's viability as a contender? Fair enough. Miske was winless in his last four fights prior to his retirement. He was then out of the ring for a year. If being terminally ill didn't remove him from contention then that surely did.

If the management are to get the blame for his matchmaking, doesn't it follow that they should also get the credit for steering him away from tricky opponents who may have beaten him and/or made him look bad? It's not as if he was being offered peanuts to fight Greb and Wills. He would have made a small fortune from both.

The fight was made because Carpentier happened to be hugely popular on both sides of the Atlantic, and was a war hero as well. His boxing record and worthiness as an opponent were almost secondary. Beforehand they wouldn't even let him spar with anyone who might reveal what a weak challenger he was. Greb wasn't allowed near him.

That's beside the point. The issue is whether he was more deserving than Greb. He wasn't, IMO.

Firpo was carefully built-up as a fearsome, exotic opponent for Dempsey, fed opponents designed to make him look good and give him some credibility whilst being steered away from anyone who might derail him. An old Jack Johnson was kicked out of Firpo's training camp because he was making him look bad.

Was he more deserving than Greb? Not for me.

They are criticised because they got title shots ahead of other more deserving and more accomplished challengers, like Greb and Wills. Firpo was carefully managed and more hype than substance. Gibbons was a good fighter, but it doesn't look good that he got his shot after losing a title eliminator to Greb. I can understand the Carpentier being made on the basis of his popularity, but let's not pretend it was anything other than a mismatch.

Do you believe any of the above were more deserving than Greb?

 

I totally agree, which is why I don't rate fighters such as Mayweather and SRL and highly as others. But that said, it really is up to management/promoters to decide who a fighter fights, a fighter may wish to maximize his legacy but at the end of the day, he may not get the final word on the subject.

 

You make it sound as if it only happened in Dempsey's era!

It happens in every era, and usually only gets passing examination.

What you are basically saying, is that promoters managed their fighters.

 

Miske ko'd Jack Moran a mere 3 months before he challenged Dempsey.
After the Dempsey fight ,Miske had a further 23 fights over 3 years, winning all but one of them, that a decision loss to Gibbons


After challenging Dempsey Miske beat the following leading heayweights
Roper x2
Brennanx2
Renault x2
Gibbons
Weinert
Fulton
His record against heavyweights during that timeline is better than Greb's!

Carpentier heavily protected?
At 17 he was fighting top class men like Papke and Klaus.
At 19 he was in with world ranked Jeff Smith
At 19 he was giving weight to the leading British heavyweight Billy Wells fighting for the European heavyweight title.
At 20 he was pitched in with Joe Jeannette and though out weighed many thought he won that fight.
At 21 Carpentier beat the best white heavyweight in the Wold Gun Boat Smith ,Carpentier was 170lbs for that fight.
What evidence have you to say the Levinsky fight was fixed?

 

in terms of who had the better results greb is waaay ahead of carpentier, but i understand janitors argument about the titles making carpentier an acceptable challenger.

 

I haven't read Moyle's book so cannot comment on it.I can comment on Miske's subsequent results however ,they are there for everyone to see. I questioned Berlenbach's slant on two issues, Miske being used up and Carpentier being," heavily protected".I never suggested Carpentier deserved a title shot ahead of Greb.As I pointed out previously when you disengenously referred to Carpentier as not doing much in that timescale he was in the French Air Force for 5 of those 7 years , that's not exactly hiding from other contenders is it?



I think I made my point.

 

Moran had a career record of 5-22-3, and was in the middle of a 14 fight losing streak...

What Miske did after Dempsey isn't really relevant. Before facing Dempsey he was known to be ill, had already retired once due to his poor health, and his only fight in the 12 months prior had been a KO over a guy who lost 70% of his fights! Even Dempsey said the title shot was just an act of charity.

As to Miske's record post-Dempsey, most of them were not leading heavyweights at that point. Miske's win over Gibbons was a questionable DQ in a fight he was losing. I also wonder how many of his opponents were really giving their best. If you fight a guy who you know to be seriously ill and is only fighting to raise money for his family, how motivated would you be to beat the cr ap out of him? Brennan's purse was withheld due to his perceived lack of effort against Miske. I believe Renault's purse was also withheld for similar reasons.

I was thinking more of having the cards stacked in his favour, opponents (such as Siki) being paid to lose or go easy, and various officiating gifts. His win over Willie Lewis was very controversial and it was Carpentier who should have been DQ'd in the Smith bout, as his manager entered the ring to remonstrate with the ref.

A number of ringsiders voiced their doubts and there were calls for an investigation.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=biEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3546,6408038&hl=en

 

What Moran's record was is irrelevant, you stated Miske had not fought for two years and you were wrong. Miske fought 9 times in the year previous to challenging Dempsey and a year prior to the title shot he was in with Levinsky.You overstated your case and the relevance of Miske's subsequent career and results is to prove that for a further 3 years he was a worthy contender. A number of ringsiders voice their doubts every time fight results do not come out as they expected that is not proof of a fake/dive /fix. That is just empty talk.

 

Exactly put the professional back into boxing, take it from somebody who is "in" the biz. Remember who write the checks. Also remember the fighter, the manager and of course the promoter, all want to get paid. Fighting a guy who can possibly beat or make you look bad fegetaboutit, makes no biz sense. You didn't see SRR, Jack Johnson or Joe Louis fight the toughest or most deserving fighters of their eras. It's biz boys, plain and simple. We have that today, look no further than Rigondeaux, a truly exceptional fighter, but boring. Who wants to fight him that means anything? I took him and got paid on the Chavez - Martinez card, cos to me and the fighter it was an opportunity, we had more to gain then to lose. But switch it around if my guy was the champion and Rigo was the challenger, no way Jose!

 

Maybe acceptable to the fan's and media but the titles had "nuthin' to do wit it". Mr Rickards and Kearns, were businessmen and saw there was more money in fighting the Frenchman.

 

totally agree