Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Erik Morales beat the hell out of Manny Pacquiao the first time they met, too. Within two years, Morales couldn't make it out of the third round against him. Micky Ward beat up Arturo Gatti in their first fight. After their second and third fights, it was clear Gatti was the better of the two.

When Tunney was a heavyweight, he fought Greb for the final time and by the third round Greb just went into survival mode. Greb was hopelessly outclassed. Tunney was superior to Greb.

I don't know why this is so insanely difficult for some of you to grasp.

The discussion is about Dempsey, Willis, the heavyweight championship and the color line. Not Greb. Greb didn't fight Willis. Greb didn't fight Langford. Greb didn't fight Joe Jeanette or Sam McVea. Greb didn't fight Godfrey. Greb didn't fight Luis Firpo. Greb didn't fight Willard. Greb didn't fight Sharkey. Greb didn't fight Carpentier. Greb didn't fight Dempsey. By the time Tunney had grown into a heavyweight, he owned Greb. Greb wasn't the heavyweight champion. Greb didn't fight for the championship. Greb wasn't even considered a challenger for the heavyweight title.

Dempsey should've faced his top contender Wills and a handful of other top heavyweights who toiled for years and never received title shots, even if they were nearing the end of their own careers.

If Dempsey had defended against Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Harry Wills and George Godfrey ... along with Firpo and Carpentier and Tunney ... Dempsey would probably be rated among the three best heavyweight champions ever behind Ali and Louis. And nobody would be raising a hand saying he should've fought that one-eyed, light-punching middleweight Greb, too.

Adding a defense against Greb of all people would've made Dempsey's reign even worse. I could just hear it now: "Why did he blow out a half-blind middleweight who couldn't punch a hole in a wet paper sack instead of Harry Wills?"

Enough of the Greb talk.

 

You dont know what youre talking about. Greb went into their last fight with a broken rib. He only did so because he had already beaten Tunney once with it and figured he could do it again but Tunney nailed the broken rib with a blow in the third round and after that Greb couldnt do much. It took three years and five fights for Tunney to log a clear victory over a 31 year old Greb with nearly 300 fights under his belt, blind in one eye, and suffering a broken rib. Tunney didnt just lose their first fight and come back to dominate Greb, he lost their first fight, second fight, and fourth fight. Greb even had his share of supporters after the third althought that should be notched as a win for Tunney. The second went to Tunney but was one of the worst robberies in history. You can pretend that Tunney was always better but thats just pure fantasy. Tunney didnt come close to earning a shot at Dempsey until 1925 when he beat Greb and Gibbons. You mentioned his fight with Carp. How sad is it that you think Tunney was a better fit for Dempsey because he beat Carpentier (who had been ducking Greb for 5 years), Gibbons (who had been beaten in an eliminator by Greb in dominant fashion three years earlier), and finally Greb, a full 6 years into Dempsey's reign. If you want argue that Tunney was a better fit after early/mid 1925 then so be it but before that Tunney hadnt done jack **** to be considered a Dempsey opponent and he knew that above anyone else.

To say Greb wasnt considered a HW challenger is asinine. Go back and read the newspapers sonny. Greb was definately considered a HW challenger. That point isnt even disputeable.

You mentioned that Greb didnt fight all of these black fighters. Ive already asked what those guys did to be considered stepping stones for Dempsey from 1919 on. Every name you listed was either faded or in Godfrey's case hadnt done **** except lose to guys Greb beat easily. Same with Sharkey. Firpo and Carpentier ducked Greb like the plague, as Ive already pointed out. You repeating things that you either know to be untrue or simply dont know doesnt make them right.

I just wish you would address the reality of the timeline for guys like Jeanette, McVey, Langford, and Godfrey instead of pretending those guys were anything at all during Dempsey's career.

 

Good post.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Lol

 

What? I stated a timeline the other day and you poo-pooed it. Now you want me to name the years he should've fought those guys?

Well, he could've fought Harry Wills anytime between winning the title and the year he lost it to Tunney. Hell, he could've fought Harry Wills two or three times during that period. He was the top contender the entire time. Is that outrageous to say? :roll:

You can leave Firpo, Carpentier and Tunney where they were. They were all classic meetings. Is that okay, too?

And I know McVea, Jeanette and Langford weren't in their primes by any means, but they were staples in the division for a decade. Sam McVea only lost to three people (two of them being Harry Wills, the top contender, and Sam Langford) ... and Joe Jeannette only lost to Harry Wills (the number one contender) from the time Dempsey won the title until the two of them (McVea and Jeanette) retired.

And a Dempsey-Langford fight would've sold out at any time, whether Sam was up or down.

Aging vets like Zora Folley got long-deserved title shots. Holyfield defended against Foreman and Holmes because they were names. And young guys with a handful of fights, like Bonecrusher Smith against Holmes, got title fights, too.

So replace Miske, Brennan and Gibbons ... with Wills, McVea, Jeanette, Langford and a younger Godfrey as a tuneup before the Tunney fight.

Let's say Dempsey fights:

1919: Willard
1920: Jeanette & Langford
1921: Carpentier & McVea
1922: Wills 1
1923: Firpo
1924: Wills 2
1925: Off (or a third fight with Wills)
1926: Godfrey (tuneup) & Tunney 1
1927: Sharkey & Tunney 2

Those additions would've added to his legacy far more than the actual fights we removed from the list.

And you wouldn't have to "whine" about the undeserving Miskes and Brennans who got title shots over Greb ... who didn't deserve one, either.

 

You continue to miss the point entirely.

You're still stuck on the ... Dempsey's opponents sucked ... therefore he should've fought a MIDDLEWEIGHT who beat them ... instead of the more appropriate "Dempsey should've fought more deserving HEAVYWEIGHTS ... starting with his top contender Wills."

It's not that difficult a concept.

Those guys you think Dempsey shouldn't have fought, I don't think he should've fought them either. But I don't think he should've fought Greb, either. He didn't deserve a title shot either compared to HEAVYWEIGHTS WHO DID.

 

Here's the Ring's heavyweight top 10 for 1924:

1. Jack Dempsey, Champion
2. Harry Wills
3. Tommy Gibbons
4. Charley Weinert
5. Quintin Romero Rojas
6. Jack Renault
7. Luis Angel Firpo
8. George Godfrey
9. Jim Maloney
10. Erminio Spalla

Which of those heavyweights deserved a title shot more than Greb? Greb had already beaten #3. #4 and #6, and the following year he beat #5. And you're telling me he wasn't a heavyweight contender? Get outta here. He beat more men on that list than Dempsey or Wills had. Yeah, he was just a middleweight and never a contender. Him beating 40% of the top ten was just an accident that no one took seriously. :roll:

 

I read that bullsh*t a while back, like you Goldman never produced an ounce of proof to back up his story.
Here is the full article including the bit about Dempsey successfully suing for damages after being accused of loading his hands with plaster of paris by Kearns. Dempsey was 19years old when he met Cates.
http://thecruelestsport.com/2015/06...stery-of-the-jack-dempsey-jess-willard-fight/

Now let's have the title of the thread addressed instead of more lies being spewed out from the haters..

 

well done mcvey :good

 

Herbert Goldman was born in 1950.

Clearly Dempsey did come from that sort of background. But Goldman wasn't there. He doesn't know why some man's wife left him back in 1917. He's talking sh!t.

 

"He beat more men on that list than Dempsey or Wills had."

than Dempsey AND Wills had (or ever did)!

"beating 40% of the top ten"

80% of the top five contenders (Dempsey being champion)

 

And you are still stuck on the idea that Dempsey should have defended his title against a bunch of black hws who were old men by the time dempsey got the title and had done nothing to deserve it or worse a black hw who didnt even start a winning record until 1925 and was never more than a fringe contender at best. Sorry but back then divisions meant less than who you beat and Greb was beating more top hws than anyone with the possible exception of Wills and its debateable that wills even surpassed him. Pretending like Dempseys reign started in 1925 when Greb was fading fast and spending more time fighting mws because he was champ there doesnt change the fact that he had done more than almost anyone and certainly more than the black dynamite guys to earn a shot.

 

HARRY WILLS. HARRY WILLS. HARRY WILLS and HARRY WILLS was more deserving than Greb.

Tommy Gibbons IS ONLY RATED that high because he went 15 rounds with a Dempsey who hadn't fought in years in a boring, uneventful fight that was a financial disaster of historic preportions. A fight where GIbbons didn't even get paid.

The guys PRE-1924 who were MORE DESERVING OF A HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE SHOT were HARRY WILLS, JOE JEANETTE, SAM LANGFORD, and SAM McVEA.

And if Greb was a heavyweight contender, WHERE IS HE ON THE LIST?

Where is he on ANY heavyweight list? Jesus Christ, you showed me a list where he's NOT included.

Those guys he defeated arguably shouldn't have been there, either, but there are a lot of guys on every top 10 list in history who don't deserve to be there. Again, you're showing guys who shouldn't be on a list and saying if "those undeserving guys are there" so should Greb.

Joe Jeanette only lost to Harry Wills during Dempsey's reign. Up through 1922, he deserves to be rated higher than everyone but Wills. The guy was a top rated heavyweight going back to the Jack Johson era ... you want to rate a half-blind middleweight above him because the middleweight won two of four against Tommy Gibbons (who shouldn't have been there, either.)

When did Gibbons beat Harry Wills, Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, etc.?

They just threw him on there because he went 15 with Dempsey. That's it. Another example of Ring Magazine's faulty ratings.