Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

According to you, the four best heavyweight contenders in Dempsey's reign pre-1924 included:

- A man who turned 40 the year Dempsey won the title and had one fight after 1919 (which he didn't win).
- A man who was 35 when Dempsey won the title, didn't fight at all that year and whose last win of any note was years earlier. He also died in 1921, which may also have hampered his title chances.
- A man who in 1919-24 was losing to such luminaries as Lee Anderson, Jack Thompson, Tut Jackson, Clem Johnson and Bearcat Wright, among many others.

You don't get a title shot because you deserved one ten years earlier. Perhaps you think Louis should have fought Harry Wills.

Saying Dempsey should have fought them before he won the title is a red herring, and irrelevant since we're talking about his title reign.

Ali is a relevant comparison, because it's exactly doing what you're doing, picking out a famous name from the previous generation without any context.

Like I said, you either don't know what you're talking about or you're just arguing for the sake of it. You've come up with one name who was legitimately more deserving than Greb.

 

Bit of a change of pace with this article, that Bert and some of the Dempsey fans might enjoy. Not sure how his hunting actions might sit with todays politically correct audience though.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/180253809?searchTerm=jack sharkey reminisce&searchLimits=

 

I don't give a good f*ck what you think!

Goldman pontificating about something that happened 33 years before he was even born and you lapping it up with a spoon because it suits your agenda.
I couldn't give a sh*t who Goldman had written for, The Ring has had more than its share of scribes propagating myths
Sugar for example and the stellar Johnny Ort, known as Johnny Bought after the US championship rating scandal.
And Lew Eskin was the editor of BI another I have been distinctly unimpressed with both as a writer and a referee.

I'm saying Goldman, like yourself ,produced zero evidence to support his claims.
I'm saying you are a hypocrite because, trying to justify your allegations you weaselly resorted to saying ,well I'm only repeating what some one else said.

I'm further saying you are a liar because you knew when you made those allegations there was not a shred of proof to back them up.

I'm also saying you are an a*se hole for smearing a dead man who cannot defend himself from your anonymous allegations ,all made from the cosy safety of your keyboard.


I'm saying I've had more than my fill of your verbal sewage and your spineless attempts to justify it.

Now for the third time of asking, can we get back to the thread?

 

Maybe Wills avoided him ?

 

Wait a second, earlier you were taking the position that research in the internet and digital information age puts "us" in a far better position than the "experts" of the past. You argued that point strongly when it suited you.

And it's actually a worthy point to say that many details within the few RING magazine Enclyopedias from the 1980s are actually flawed compared to research and more comprehensive and continually updated records available now, the ones discussed on these boards here.
The encylopedias are nice but obsolete.

More relevantly, I'd repeat that Goldman is far too young to have personal knowledge of Dempsey's life in 1917.

 

Just scanned an interview Goldman gave to a Katherine Dunne, which was published in April 2001 in the CBZ journal. He is an unashamed believer in modern day fighters being superior to their old time predecessors.

In it he describes Jones Jr as the most skillful fighter EVER, followed by Naseem Hamed, whom he doesn't see " any " Featherweight beating.

Furthermore he states he thinks Kostya Tszyu though very good, doesn't beat Zab Judah.

Not a very good year for the " historian " in terms of predictions when all is said and done.

 

Yeah, I've read that interview too. He deserves to be judged as an absolute buffoon of an an*alyst. The way he talks about Roy Jones and Naseem Hamed being a new breed of superior athlete, kind of silly. Especially Hamed, whose lack of orthodoxy/fundamentals (that Goldman takes as sign of superiority) were shown to be a real weakness as much as a strength, before this interview.
I'm sure Goldman was a good statistician in the days when record books were being published, and an admirable enthusiast for the sport, but his type of "expertise" is obsolete now.

 

I won a few quid when Hamed fought Barrera ,and very sweet it was too I can't stand the Yemeni pr*ck.

 

Both Jones and Hamed's lack of true boxing fundamentals eventually came home to roost big time.

 

Yes. The best evidence IS the film and none of the last three body punches were low. So said the ref who was in perfect position to see them. Punches landing on the trunks DO NOT make body blows low. Comments from those watching the film of the bout were that Sharkey wore his trunks high. Low blows are determined not by where they land on the trunks but where they land on the fighters body. A low blow is a punch that lands BELOW an imaginary line that joins the hip bones. With that definition in mind view the film again. None were in the *****. None were below the hip bones. Finally most on here believed that the crowd was throwing there hats and booing the proceedings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yankee stadium erupted in pandimonium over Dempseys come from behind victory.

 

"A low blow is a punch that lands BELOW an imaginary line that joins the hip bones."

"None were below the hip bones."

Are you mixing up the hip joint with the pelvic girdle? This is not an accurate definition. An imaginary line drawn between the hip joint would be about at the level of the groin. An imaginary line drawn from the top of the pelvic girdle is at about the navel.

Here are the definitions:

World Boxing Association--referee's handbook

"Low blow. Hitting below the belt----It is critical that the waistline is defined as the imaginary line through the navel to the top of the hips."

World Boxing Council--definition of fouls----"Low blows (being a line encircling the body at the level of the navel.")

*If we going way back, the Marquis of Queensbury rules followed the old London Prize Ring rules which said----"That a blow struck below the waistband shall be deemed foul."

Now, the Sharkey-Dempsey fight was under rules established by the NYSAC and I haven't got access to them, but I find it hard to believe they would be that wildly different from other sanctioning bodies.

"Sharkey wore his trunks high"

Not in this film. His navel is clearly visible ABOVE his beltline, so that leaves any blow to his trunks a low blow, but I would say not a flagrant foul to the groin. It is up to the referee to make this point clear.

"most on here believed that the crowd was throwing their hats and booing the proceedings."

Most? Most never mentioned the crowd, I think.

Certainly it was no big secret the crowd was wildly pro-Dempsey. I read his 1959 autobiography way back when, and he made that the point that the crowd was going nuts cheering for him. I remember he described with some amusement a gray-haired, no tooth in his head, old codger at ringside jumping up and down and yelling at him "that'll teach those young whippersnappers not to mess with us old guys."

Sharkey was not a popular fighter.

 

There is a HUGE difference between deserving a shot 10 years earlier and deserving a shot FOR 10 YEARS.

Archie Moore deserved a light heavyweight title shot FOR 10 YEARS. Kelly Pavlik deserved a middleweight title shot 10 years AGO.

Do you understand that? Or are you just being a jerk?

All those guys I mentioned "deserved" a title shot for a decade (not a decade earlier, FOR A DECADE) and didn't get it for one reason only ... because of their skin color.

That's it.

And how does getting pneumonia have anything to do with Sam McVea not being "deserving" of a title shot? If I came on here and said Greb didn't deserve a title shot in 1924 BECAUSE HE WAS DEAD TWO YEARS LATER FROM AN EYE OPERATION ... what the f*ck would that have to do with anything?

Wills, McVea, Jeanette, Langford ALL DESERVED title shots because they ALL beat guys who also deserved title shots. Greb didn't deserve a title shot because he didn't beat anyone who deserved one.

During Jack Dempsey's reign, Jeanette lost ONE fight - to Harry Wills for the Colored Heavyweight title. That's it. It doesn't matter if he was 39 when Dempsey won the title, he was still a top fighter and he DESERVED A SHOT FOR 10 YEARS.

During Jack Dempsey's reign, McVea lost a fight to Sam Langford. It didn't matter that he was 35 when Dempsey won the title, he DESERVED A TITLE SHOT FOR 10 YEARS.

Harry Wills was 30 years old when Jack Dempsey won the title. He was the number-one contender until Dempsey signed to fight Tunney. He DESERVED A TITLE SHOT FOR CLOSE TO 10 YEARS.

These weren't guys who just deserved a shot "10 years earlier."

Your snide comment about Joe Louis should've fought Harry Wills shows you would rather make sarcastic comments then discuss this rationally.

It's telling that nearly a century later, some of you guys - in a thread about the color line ... are advocating that a white middleweight with no power and one eye ... who never beat any heavyweight who "deserved" a title shot ... should've received a title shot over four guys who were actually heavyweights and actually deserved a title shot for a decade but didn't get one because they were black.

Why did Greb deserve a title shot over those guys? What heavyweights who deserved a world heavyweight title shot did he beat? He fought hundreds of people. NAME SOMEONE Greb beat who deserved a heavyweight title shot ... only Greb knocked them off?

Name someone or be quiet.

IF THERE WAS NO COLOR LINE ... Dempsey would've been villified for ducking those guys. Vilified.

I hate talking about race, because it stirs up idiots. But I will since it's a thread about the Color Line.

In many ways the arguments in this thread perpetuate the thinking behind the color line because you are ONLY looking at this situation as if those black fighters WERE NOT in the picture (and they were FOR A DECADE) ...

And you're arguing as if the undeserving guys Dempsey fought were deserving (when we know they weren't) ...

And you're viewing it as if Greb beating a couple of them was a bigger accomplishment than Wills and McVea and Langford beating the hell out of each other.

If black fighters receiving title shots was commonplace in Dempsey's era, no one would even be bringing up Greb's name in reference to Dempsey.

You remove all those deserving black fighters, and then watch Dempsey defend against some undeserving opponents, and see Greb edge them, and of course Greb looks better.

If you didn't let any of the black guys fight for the title in the 1970s, and pretended that Ali, Frazier, Norton and Foreman all beating each other up "over there somewhere" didn't count ... Jerry Quarry or Duane Bobick defending the heavyweight title against Carlos Monzon might've sounded reasonable to someone.

But a heavyweight champ fighting Monzon didn't sound reasonable in the 1970s with those other heavyweights around that you're ignoring.

Just like if you didn't allow Eastern Europeans to fight for the title today ... and simply pretended the fights of Wlad Klitschko, Alexander Povetkin, Ruslan Chagaev, Kubrat Pulev, etc. didn't count ... it changes everything.

In ANY era, if you simply dismissed an entire section of the TOP challengers for some biased reason, it's going to totally skew the remaining picture.

I think Dempsey probably would've beaten all those guys I mentioned. Although, Dempsey and Wills may have had to fight a few times to decide who was best. But Demspey should've fought them, because they were ALL deserving for a decade.

Greb didn't deserve a heavyweight title shot because he never knocked off a heavyweight who did.

 

I think the main point with Greb is not is Dempsey should have defended against him (although that position has some validity), but that Greb was better than the men Dempsey did defend against prior to Tunney,

with the possible exception of Firpo as Firpo did beat former champion Willard for what that was worth.