Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

No, I'm stuck on the idea Dempsey should've faced the best heavyweights instead of the best middleweight and blowing him out in a round. :roll:

That's where we differ.

Call me crazy. Gotta go.

:good

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
There is no possibility or probability needed! Dempsey went low, period, end of sentence, end of the paragraph, close the book!

By saying Possibly or probability, you leave it open that he did not.

It's also rather curious when he went low as Sharkey was pounding on him.

The film does not lie.

 

It isn't the film that lies.

 

By your standard then, as you keep on minimizing Greb's size, even image, with terms like "little", "one - eyed" etc, it doesn't say much for Dempsey's choice of challengers that a "MIDDLEWEIGHT" beat them easily! While Carp and Firpo refused to fight Greb. I repeat, by your standards. By the way Greb wasn't "little" - he was, at least average for a middle and taller than Langford, Burns and Walker. Don't be upset that Greb features so much on these posts, he along with Wills loom over Dempsey's title reign, a black cloud, that can never be blown away.

 

Yet you insist on not counting Greb as a heavyweight contender because he doesn't appear in those faulty ratings. You can't have it both ways. The reason Greb isn't on that list is because the Ring had this weird aversion to rating fighters in more than one division. Are you also going to tell me that Greb was never a light-heavy contender either?

Your argument, if I'm understanding correctly, is that Greb was undeserving because all the contenders he was beating were undeserving too, including several who got a title shot against Dempsey. At the very least it makes him less undeserving than them, no? You then put forward Jeannette, McVea and Langford as "deserving" contenders...

You forget to mention that Jeannette had one fight after 1919, at the age of 42, after three years of inactivity, against a journeyman, which he didn't even win, and never fought again.

McVea didn't have a single fight in 1919, came back in 1920 and lost to someone called Pinky Lewis (record 3-12-6), and didn't win another meaningful fight before dying in 1921.

Langford's last win against Wills was in 1916. By the time Dempsey won the title he was losing almost as often as he was winning. You don't give someone a title shot because they deserved one ten years earlier. Perhaps Joe Louis should have got a 48 year old Harry Wills out of retirement.

You're arguing that in 1922 a 42 year old who had had one fight in three years (which he didn't win), an almost blind and very out of shape 39 year old who was KO'd by Tut Jackson that year and a man who had been dead for a year were most deserving of title shots. Seriously?

To say Greb didn't deserve a title shot and then in the same post dredge up three ancient relics from Jack Johnson's generation, two of whom were not even ACTIVE FIGHTERS for most of Dempsey's reign, is beyond comprehension.

Furthermore, seeing as Tunney didn't fight Wills, Jeannette, McVea or Langford and two of his biggest scalps were "half blind middleweight" Greb and Gibbons who according to you didn't deserve a top ten rating either, does it follow that you think Tunney was undeserving as well?

It may not be your intention, but every post you make undermining Greb's claim to a title shot makes Dempsey look worse.

 

I think that your picture of the contemporary division is all over the place.

Langford and Jeanette were nowhere at the time!

 

At what point did I say I was here to make Dempsey look good?

I've been saying a hundred times that Dempsey should've fought Wills - his top contender - and the most deserving heavyweight contenders.

Most of the guys he fought didn't deserve a title shot.

Had Dempsey faced Wills, Langford, McVea, Carpentier, Firpo, Wills two or three times, and Tunney... for example ... NO ONE would be saying, "You know, Jack Dempsey should've fought Billy Miske. I know he was sick, and he didn't deserve it, but it would've been kind."

No one.

Had Dempsey faced Langford, McVea and Jeanette after beating Willard, even if they were long in the tooth, it would've greatly added to his legacy. They were the top heavyweights forever. They only reason they DIDN'T get a title shot - against Johnson, Willard and Dempsey - was because of THEIR COLOR.

It wasn't that they sucked. It wasn't that they weren't among the best. It was their color. Even in their old age, they were mixing it up with Harry Wills for the Colored Heavyweight Title.

If Dempsey beat them and then took on his number-one contender Wills, imagine what Dempsy's legacy would be like today (considering how big it is even though he didn't fight them)?

Had Dempsey faced them ... nobody misses the fact that Dempsey didn't fight Miske, Brennan or Gibbons ... because he probably should've have fought them to begin with.

And when you remove the guys Dempsey "shouldn't have fought" -- Brennan, Miske and Gibbons -- interestingly you tend to remove EVERY REASON you guys say Greb deserved a shot, too.

If Miske didn't get a shot, why would Greb deserve one again? If Gibbons didn't get a title shot, why would Greb deserve one again?

Oh right, he wouldn't.

The whole mystique around Greb when discussing Dempsey is Greb defeated guys Dempsey defended against.

If Andre Ward outpointed Eric Molina and Johan Duhaupas, for example, most people wouldn't say ANDRE WARD IS THE BEST HEAVYWEIGHT CONTENDER. They'd say, "Deontay Wilder shouldn't have fought those guys."

And while some Andre Ward fanboys might think Ward deserved a heavyweight title shot, most right-thinking fans would probably rather see Wilder fight Klitschko and Povetkin ... even if they're almost 40 ... and young guys like Joshua.

Same thing.

 

Point remains, Dempsey DID defend against the trio of Brennan, Miske and Gibbons and Greb beat them all. That is inescapable - "if" does not count.

 

And you're still going on about McVea, Langford and Jeannette. :roll:

They were not in the title picture when Dempsey was champion. They were old and shot, two of them barely even fought in the 1920s, and one was dead in 1921! If you continue to act like these guys were the top contenders in the 1920s, you're either being deliberately disingenuous just to have an argument, or you simply don't know what you're talking about.

It's like saying Tyson should have fought a 45 year old Ali, because just imagine what his legacy would be today if he'd beaten Ali. It's stupid.

Greb deserved a shot ahead of all of them. The only fighter you've come up with who was legitimately more deserving than Greb is Wills. That's one fighter in a seven year title reign. McVea, Langford and Jeannette? Jesus.

 

No it's notlike that at all. Langford, McVea and Jeanette were still in their 30s when Dempsey won the title. They weren't 45 and suffering from Parkinson's.

It's actually more like what Holyfield DID when he fought a 42-year-old Foreman and a 42-year-old Holmes. And Dempsey could've, too.

Also, McVea died of pneumonia at 37 because he was broke and it was winter. Hell, Jim Braddock was broke and could've died of pneumonia, too, before he ever won the heavyweight title. What does being broke have to do with anything when you're one of the best athletes in the world and you can't fight for the world title because of your skin color?:hi:

McVea was still an active fighter. And he was still fighting for the Colored title in 1920 against the number-one contender Harry Wills - a year before his untimely death.

And what on earth makes you think they weren't in the title picture? Because you can't find a RING before 1925?

They were all in their primes and fighting at or near their best when Johnson lost to Willard in 1915. In the four years Willard held the title and refused to fight them, they didn't all suddenly SUCK. They kept fighting one another. The only change was Harry Wills emerged and became the best of them all by the time Dempsey lifted the belt from Willard.

Dempsey could've faced any of them while he was coming up and he during the first THREE YEARS of his reign (1920, 21 and 22) they were all still there. He certainly SHOULD'VE faced Wills as well.

But if you think Dempsey fighting a 30-something Langford or a 30-something McVea is like Tyson fighting blinking, dottering 45-year-old Parkinson's Ali ... you're the one who doesn't have a clue what the hell he's talking about.

I can't believe, in a thread on DEMPSEY AND THE COLOR LINE ... you guys are saying, "Dempsey shouldn't have faced the top heavyweights who had been there for a decade ... and deserved shots for a decade ... but didn't get one because of their color ... instead he should've faced the one-eyed middleweight who never beat any of them instead."

It boggles my mind. When Holyfield signed to fight Foreman in 1991, were you standing up demanding Holyfield fight Michael Nunn?

Give me a break.:hi:

 

You're correct, he did.

But four wrongs don't make a right. Greb didn't deserve a shot any more than the other three did. Beating guys who didn't deserve a title shot doesn't qualify you for a title shot.

Beating guys WHO DID deserve a title shot qualifies you.

Harry Wills was there as the top challenger and the Colored Champ. Langford, McVea and Jeanette were the top guys going back to when Johnson had the belt and were still waiting for a shot.

When did Greb beat anyone who "deserved" a heavyweight title shot?

If Greb beat Miske, and Miske didn't deserve a shot, so what?

 

Jeez guys after 1005 replies we still haven't gotten closer to anybody agreeing with anyone else on what shoulda happened but didn't. For Greb and Wills that ship sailed long ago so why not leave it there. G & W, most would agree, might have deserved the shot but didn't get it, endless rehashing and spinning it wont change the fact that they just didn't fight. Are we now gonna form, fantasy boxing?

 

amen...

 

Is there a comprehensive Greb book out there someone can recommend?

I would ask for a source that is agreed by the experts in here to be best. . . but give me break.