Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

How about your own sad eyes?

 

The Republican. Regarding viewing the film of the bout.....
"To the majority it seemed that Dempseys landed three dangerously low punches to the body before connecting with a left hook to the jaw that toppled the ex sailor. These punches appeared to be low but NOT FOUL TO THE OPINION OF RICKARD AS WELL AS THE MOJORITY OF THE OBSERVERS."

 

Of course, the guy who wrote a book about Harry Greb thinks everyone who DIDN'T fight Greb WASN'T qualified to fight for the title ... and everyone who did fight Greb (even the guys beat Greb over and over again) were Greb "leftovers."

Greb was a Tunney "leftover."

You seem to have concocted this idea that if Greb beat guys Dempsey fought, then Greb should've fought Dempsey. Yet, at the same time, you say those guys who were "Greb leftovers" weren't deserving of title fights.

So, if they sucked, why did beating them make Greb a great challenge to Dempsey? It's ridiculous.

It's the same scenario as Chris Arreola and Eric Molina. Molina didn't deserve a shot ... so that doesn't qualify Arreola for a title shot. And fighting those undeserving guys didn't QUALIFY GREB for a title fight.

Yes, Dempsey picked some heavyweights who didn't deserve a shot instead of A MIDDLEWEIGHT WHO DIDN'T DESERVE A SHOT. Who cares?

There was no clamor for a Dempsey-Greb fight. Greb wasn't a heavyweight. People weren't demanding it year after year. They were clamoring for a Dempsey-Wills fight year after year.

You've concocted this "Greb was denied" scenario based on some random heavyweight wins he had over guys who got "gift" title shots with Dempsey, when Dempsey should've been fighting better heavyweights.

Dempsey should've faced Wills. Trying to "slide" Greb in there as a name that was just as deserving is ridiculous.

Greb wasn't deserving of anything at heavyweight. He wasn't a top heavyweight contender. He wasn't rated at heavyweight. He had no power. He had one eye. Dempsey would've wiped him out faster than he beat Carpentier. At least Carpentier could punch a little.

You're taking a win here and win there ... and trying to paint some picture of a guy "denied."

But people can do that with heavyweights from every era. Steffan Tangsted got an undeserved title fight with Michael Spinks. Jesse Ferguson got an undeserved title fight with Rid**** Bowe.

Anders Eklund beat both Tangsted and Ferguson. Why wasn't Anders picked?

Somebody should write a book about how Anders Eklund was one of the most-deserving guys who never got a shot at the title, because his "leftovers" did.

Give it a rest already.

 

Did he have a clearer,closer view than the referee?
Or is it just that you would prefer to believe him?:think

 

Your previous posts on Dempsey label you a hater .Some of the stuff you have typed concerning him ,allegations without any proof or provenance label you as such.

 

Accusations such as
*****master , White slaver ,Breaker in of Virgins, ad nauseum. I cant be bothered to trawl through the sewage that constitutes your posts on Dempsey I'm travelling to Cambridge in half an hour to go on a shoot. Hence the early posts.

Your come uppance ? If there was any justice you would have been sued for your libel.
As it is, I'll just remember how low you are capable of descending.And every so often ,I'll remind you.

 

One thing bothering me, is Leonard talking about a straight right hand landing low earlier in the fight cos I don't see a straight right hand in the final sequence before the end. Leonard, I believe would know a straight right hand from a right uppercut. Makes me wonder what he saw and when.

 

Yeah, I don't see the film as any clear proof either way. My general impression is that Dempsey was landing a few below the belt but probably not right in the *****.
Foul or not, I've seen fighters get away with a lot worse.

 

Yeah but some of the Dempsey critics have convinced themselves that Sharkey was knocked down and out by the low blow, so for them should be a DQ win for Sharkey (by the rules of the day.)

 

Please explain why a guy who beats heavyweight contenders (including men deemed good enough to fight for the title), is put in a title eliminator for a shot at the heavyweight champion, is talked up by the press as a potential challenger, and has promoters offering big money to stage a fight against the heavyweight champion, is not a legit heavyweight contender?

As to size, Billy Conn weighed barely more than Greb the night he fought Louis. Was he not a legit challenger either?