Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

This makes Dempsey an ATG businessman.

It doesn't make him an ATG fighter.

For that you have to take on and defeat the best possible opposition. If you don't, there is a big hole in your resume.

 

B, One more time......
J A C K D E M P S E Y and H A R R Y W I L L S did S I G N
for A B O U T which was C A N C E L E D due to no fault
of their own.
But of course this fact doesn't fit your narrative...
Harry Wills, a fine gentleman deserved a title shot no doubt.
But those long ago days social forces were in play in America
helped along by the riots following the Johnson/Jeffries fight and many deaths ensued right after the bout that
made it difficult to match a black heavyweight to get a title shot.
Promoters furthermore were reluctant to bear the responsibility
of matching a mixed HWT title bout fearing if riots and deaths did occur after the fight they would be tarred and feathered for
putting money gains in place of public safety...And who can blame them ? Yes B, we for the most part are products of our time...Harry Wills to his credit NEVER blamed Jack Dempsey for the ills of society those days. Why can't you 90 years later ?

 

Ignore the nitpicker's brigade, it's like arguing about religion, they shut their minds to the facts so "let the few", on with their beliefs that Dempsey was terrified of Wills, and that he was a out and out racist. They are "the
few". "The many" can enjoy countless articles and many books on Jack Dempsey's life and times, let the few enjoy the few articles and whatever book on Wills. I for one would like to read more about the great career and major accomplishments of Wills, take about 2 or 3 pages, IDK if there is a book on Wills career, but Wills is probably mentioned in a few books. File this thread under, who gives a sit

 

The prosecution has a point.

Be that as it may, they need to be careful how they tread.

I would advise them not to make a specific assertion, unless they think themselves to be on secure ground.

The defence will find any holes in their argument.

 

Ed.....we can debate many things. However there is no debate that Dempsey is an ATG. Again this is known and understood boxing history.

 

Im curious what exactly makes Dempsey an all time great? What win or wins? Some on here just seem to take that as a given in spite of everything thats been discussed above. Even those nuthuggers who admit that Wills and Greb were better opponents than anyone he defended against seem to take it as a given that he was an ATG despite what amounts to a largely padded and pointless championship reign. Was it his win over glass jawed mus**** seed hearted Fulton? His win over 38 year old fat out of shape minimally trained 3 year layoff Willard? The ailing Billy Miske who had been out of the ring for over a year and hadnt defeated a fighter of note in longer? His life and death bout with Bill Brennan who lost to all of the best fighters he faced? His defeat of fragile LHW Carpentier who was also beaten by the best fighters he faced from MW on up? His tepid defeat of LHW Tommy Gibbons who only got his title shot by losing his title eliminator? His nip tuck defeat of the crude, unskilled, overhyped fraud Firpo? His one sided losses to Tunney? Or his win over Sharkey which only came after a blatant foul and a one sided beating? I just dont get it. You either have to buy into the whole Dempsey myth hook line and sinker or not at all because his resume is weak. He didnt do anything extraordinary. He has no big name all time great marquee fighters, he doesnt have the great quantity you typically see of a dominant champion in a weak era, and he avoided his top two contenders. What Dempsey has is that he was fortunate enough to have been charismatic and come along at a time when sports and leisure in America were booming like they never had before. Those two things make for great events, great stories, and great myths, but there is no substance there. Its not entirely unlike what we see with Carpentier who for years was considered a top ten LHW yet his resume is weak, the high points are largely controversial, his ability is well represented in film to be studied over across many phases of his career, and his losses are glaring. Yet he had a magnetism and came along at a time when the sport was exploding in Europe. Both mens status is more about the cult of personality than them actually having the accomplishments to list them as all time great fighters. At least Carpentier, who Ive been hard on, actually fought some serious threats in every division he was in, he lost but he fought them. Dempsey didnt really do that, certainly not consistently. Can even one of you fanboys explain to me exactly what makes Dempsey an ATG FIGHTER, not a legend because I concede he is that and I also concede he was an important figure in the sports history. But what exactly makes him such a great fighter? To me a fighter is someone who goes out and strives for the toughest fights to prove he is top dog. Dempsey never did this. You can pretend that fighters dont make the fights and act like Dempsey was just an employee but Greb never seemed to have this issue. Several times during his career he actively participated in making fights happen to prove he was the best. He would ride his managers ass to get this fight or that. He isnt the only fighter who did that. Thats just one example. So if you submit that Dempsey missed out on his two best challengers for whatever lame reason or excuse you want subscribe to then how do you call the guy who never proved it a great fighter? Fighters are forged in the ring where fights happened and the guys Dempsey was fighting were all exposed before he ever got to them. Miske had been beaten twice already by Dempsey and was known to be sick and had lost all of his recent important battles. Brennan had already been stopped by Dempsey and likewise had failed to win any of his recent important battles. Carpentier was a LHW who even the nuthuggers here admit hadnt done jack **** in 7 years. SEVEN FREAKING YEARS! (it absolutely blows my mind that anyone could argue with a straight face that Carpentier's meager accomplishments of 1914 somehow qualify him for a title shot in 1921). LHW Gibbons had been exposed in one sided fashion by Greb. Firpo was the only fighter of the bunch who wasnt exposed and thats because he was so protected. Even then he himself admitted he wasnt ready for Dempsey and that Wills deserved first shot. What does that say when you publicly admit that you arent ready for the challenge thats been hand delivered on silver platter??

 

Again, broken record, Its easy to sign a piece of paper you know isnt worth a nickel. Dempsey admitted this in his own biography but god knows it doesnt fit YOUR narrative so youd rather pick and choose those quotes and events that fit your hero worship, even if they come from the horses mouth.

 

Krapton has no idea what he is talking about.

What makes an ATG fighter?

The ability to punch hard. Dempsey is undisputed as one of boxing hardest punchers.
The ability to avoid punishment via cleverness. Dempsey was described by the grea boxer Tunney as the perfect meld of great puncher and great boxer.
The ability to withstand tremendous punishment and not quit. The ability to come back and win bouts where a fighter is losing is a hallmark of an ATG. Brennan and Sharkey as well as climbing back after being knocked out of the ring by Firpo to win are examples.

The idea that Dempsey is an ATG is not debatable as it's completely agreed upon by virtually all historians the past 70 years. It's a known and accepted fact. only salesman who live in cheap homes that think they are a historian choose to debate known facts.

Finally none of the three right uppercuts Dempsey landed on Sharkeys body prior to the KO blow were low. Watch the film it's as clear as the big nose on your face. Furthermore a week after he koed Sharkey you find headlines "Film of fight shows body blows were legal". That's a headline from 1927. So again just like the Wills issue the Sharkey being hit by low blows idea was proven wrong nearly 90 years ago. You know this but you ignore it. You are a huge liar unfit to be called a salesman...I mean a historian.

 

Here is how noted historians both from Dempseys time and modern rated/rates Jack Dempsey all time:

Nat Fleischer no4 . 1971
Sam Langford no1
Nat Loubet no2 .1975
Charley Rose no3
Monte Cox no5 .1991
Bert Sugar no 1. 1991
Gene Tunney no 1.
Ray Arcel joint no1. with Louis and Ali
ESPN Readers Poll no1. 2007
Nigel Collins 1997.no9
Boxing Insider. no8
John Durant. no3 1976
Bill Brennan WBA President no3. 1978
Big Book Of Boxing Readers Poll no 4.1978
Arthur Harris.Boxing Scene no3.1992
Gilbert Odd no5.1985
Steve Farhood no6.1997
Herb Goldman no7 .1997
BBC Sports no5.2004
IBRO no5.2004
Richard O Brien Senior Editor of SI no6 .2009
Max Schmeling no 1.

 

A plethora of verbiage doesn't the truth make K...Either all the
thousands of fighters, trainers, hard nosed boxing writers who saw Dempsey in the ring were somehow duped by their own eyes
by rating him as being in the pantheon of all-time heavyweights,
or his reputation as one of the toughest and greatest punchers in history was founded on invalid grounds ? It is one or the other and
I believe the multitudes of boxing experts who saw Dempsey and his successors FIGHT more than I do a handful of his detractors
on ESB...Common sense dictates that...
P.S. A Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Nat Fleischer, Hype igoe, Damon Runyon, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, Ray Arcel, and the vast number of pollsters who in 1950 overwhelmingly voted the prime Manassa Mauler as the greatest heavyweight that they had ever seen K, and that
trumps the very few naysayers on ESB, NINETY darn years later.

 

Um, World War I began in 1914. Carpentier fought in World War I, which is why he was inactive for the better part of five years. When the war began, he was the European heavyweight champion.

He returned to the ring in 1919 a the European Heavyweight Champion and knocked out Battling Levinsky in 1920 (which only Dempsey had done) to set up his million-dollar gate against Dempsey.

The situation isn't exactly mind blowing. The same thing happened again after World War II, when many guys who were in line when the war began (and didn't die in the war) got title shots when the war was over.

After winning the European heavyweight title and then beating Gunboat Smith, who was arguably the number-one heavyweight contender, in 1914, Carpentier was a leading heavyweight contender and a very popular fighter when World War I began.

And it wasn't like he hadn't done "jack sh*t" as you put it. Everyone in France was kind of up to their necks in sh*t during that period. The Western Front was IN France. A trench was literally dug in France and much of the war was primarily fought right there. Sixteen million people died in the war. It was kind of a big deal.

And, after the war, clearly, everyone wanted to see Dempsey-Carpentier. It was a global event and the first million-dollar gate.

Maybe your mind wouldn't be so "blown" in this thread if you took into consideration things like GLOBAL WARS in Europe and centuries of racism in the U.S. when it comes to why certain fights took place when they did and why others didn't take place at all.

Those types of things have always impacted the sport, primarily the heavyweight division. For example, the rise of the Nazis impacted the sport. World War II impacted the sport. The Vietnam War impacted the sport. Communism impacted the sport. Apartheid impacted the sport. Hell, the Orange Revolution impacted it ... because it's a global sport.

 

Dempsey "proved" he was the top dog when he destroyed the heavyweight champion of the world to become heavyweight champion himself.

Maybe Greb always felt like he had to prove himself because he was smaller than most and he couldn't knock anyone out and had to wait until the newspapers came out to find out if he won a fight or not, and even then they didn't always agree. Who knows.

Dempsey wasn't any more inactive than most champs at the time. Jack Johnson, Jess Willard, Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Max Baer, Jim Braddock ... they all averaged about one title defense a year as champ.

When you became the heavyweight champion of the world back then, you had achieved the top rung. You didn't have to "prove" anything else. You proved it by winning the title.

You made it.

Harry Greb was never going to be heavyweight champion of the world. He was too small to beat Willard. Dempsey would've blown him out like Tyson destroyed Spinks. And by the time Tunney won the crown, he had Greb's number and was the superior fighter.

Greb was like James Toney a decade ago. You can look at all the heavyweights James Toney beat in the 2000s, but Toney never had a realistic chance of beating a Lennox Lewis or a Vitali or Wladimir Klitschko. He was too small. He didn't hit hard enough. Everyone could see they would've been mismatches. And that's why no one clamored too loudly for Toney-Klischko or Toney-Lewis, just like no one clamored too loudly for a Greb-Dempsey fight.

Dempsey should've fought Wills. But a Greb fight would've been just another mismatch. And Dempsey had enough of those.

 

i didn't say i particularly blamed dempsey, but i can see a bad argument from either side and saying something isn't in debate because 50% of people say so is just bad. i don't think only on esb will perry get called for trying to pretend 50% is conclusive, nobody anywhere will take that.

 

Burt, Dempsey himself admitted that one of those contracts he signed was deliberately worded by Kearns to enable to them get out of the fight, which they then did. How much credit can you really give him for that?

Furthermore, it has been claimed on here that it was absolutely impossible for the fight to be held in America, due to opposition, fear of race riots etc. So why then would Dempsey sign a contract to face Wills in America? At best it would be insincere and in bad faith.

No Wills didn't blame Dempsey for society's ills. He did however intimate that Dempsey was afraid to face him on several occasions. Sam Langford was of the same view...

The clincher for me is Greb. He was a product of the same society as Dempsey. He had no more reason to give a title shot to a black man than Dempsey did. I don't buy this idea that only the heavyweight title was sacrosanct to racist whites (who were never universally supported anyway). He could have avoided it and had he done so doubtless some would be claiming 90 years later that it was society's fault, that Rickard would never have promoted it, that the authorities would never have allowed it, the commission would have banned it, and so on.

But he did, because he was confident he could win regardless, and because he was a great champion prepared to risk his title against his top challenger irrespective of ethnicity.