Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

You've made some good points here.

Looking at it that way, I'd say Fred Fulton and Jack Dempsey and Jack Sharkey were the only white fighters who actually DESERVED title shots in the whole period 1917 - 1927.

 

I mean, could you imagine today if Klitschko, Povetkin and those guys were simply ignored?

People would be looking forward to a future Wilder-Joshua fight like it was the next big heavyweight superfight. Instead, you have people on here saying Wilder's a paper champ and Wlad would kill him.

It skews everything.

I've got to go.

Peace.

 

:good

 

Yes,

Dubblechin made his case very strongly,

and his bottom line is accurate.

The color line distorted everything.

 

Great read, sound valid points. Now you opened a big can of worms. What if there was no color line, who would be champ in that era? Surely not Greb.

 

This is for any fan of Dempsey who think he should he highly rated.

Where would Wills and Greb rate as title opponents for Dempsey?

 

Wills deserved a title shot.

 

You keep saying these guys were deserving without actually explaining why they were deserving. It makes no difference that you deserved a title shot for ten years if the tenth year was years ago. Exactly what did McVea, Jeannette and Langford do while Dempsey was champion to deserve a title shot? Which top rated heavyweights did they beat? Who did they beat that deserved a title shot? Name them.

Archie Moore got his long overdue title shot because he still deserved one. He was still the #1 contender. He was still beating the great and the good of the division. He didn't get it based on what he was doing years earlier. That's not a valid comparison.

So Jeannette only had one loss while Dempsey was champion. Let's ignore that he only had three fights during Dempsey's reign and just one from 1920-26. He didn't beat anyone of importance in that time and he lost to Wills. The only other recognisable contender Jeannette faced in his last 18 months as an active fighter was Kid Norfolk, who he also lost to, twice. So you think Dempsey should have faced an almost 40 year old virtually retired Jeannette who had recently lost to two more deserving black challengers? And you think that would look good on his resume? To who exactly?

So McVea lost to Langford in 1920. He also lost to Pinky Lewis the same year. Did Pinky Lewis deserve a title shot? Langford lost to Lee Anderson and Jack Thompson in 1920. Did they deserve a title shot? Regardless of prior reputation, they couldn't go on losing and drawing indefinitely without it affecting their contender status, which is why it did affect it and why were out of contention by this point.

They weren't highly regarded any more and even beating them wasn't that significant. Otherwise Lee Anderson would have rocketed into contention based on his win over Langford. Look at their records against Wills. Langford's last win over Wills was in 1916. McVea's was in 1915 and Jeannette's last positive result was a draw in 1914.

There's simply no case for three old, shot relics of the previous generation being the best contenders of the 1920s, and there's no case for them being more deserving than Greb in this time frame. They were no longer top contenders. They were all old and they were all losing to better (and inferior) fighters. That they were given the shaft when they actually did deserve a shot YEARS EARLIER doesn't mean they were still deserving years later. Wills was also shafted and that one is on Dempsey. Not Langford, Jeannette and McVea.

Which promoters wanted to put on Dempsey-Jeannette or Dempsey-Langford in the 1920s? Was anyone anywhere calling for those fights? Plenty wanted were calling for Dempsey-Greb and Dempsey-Wills and numerous promoters were prepared to offer big money to stage them.

I already made the case for Greb. Your response was that everyone he beat was also undeserving (including Tunney, presumably). You then named as more deserving three men who were all pushing 40, weren't winning any important fights, were often getting beat by journeymen and two of whom were not even ACTIVE FIGHTERS for most of Dempsey's reign, which is utterly absurd. Never mind Greb's record against actual rated heavyweights in this period, his record against actual title challengers, winning an actual title eliminator, and having a sizeable number of people who were actually calling for the fight. No, a man who had exactly three fights after Dempsey won the title (winning one), a man who was going blind and regularly losing to journeymen and a man who had a record of 3-2-1-2 during Dempsey's reign were much more deserving. :roll:

 

What about Harry Wills ?
There were surely times during Dempsey's reign where Wills' performance and quality of opposition rendered him a very unconvincing "deserving" challenger, cast his "#1" status in serious doubt .. but generally we would say he had earned his shot and at merited it any time during the Dempsey reign.

This is well-trodden territory on this board.

 

Wills was the only deserving contender, I think that's the point.
He wasn't the consistent stand-out that some people sometimes make him out to be, but he was the man who deserved a shot.

People tend to regard "rankings" and "contenders" and a constant real thing, a pecking order of aspiring fighters in nice bunches of ranks sometimes, and talk about a "top 10" etc. A nice list of good solid challengers the champ can choose from and be judged for his choice.

But unfortunately it hasn't been like that at heavyweight often at all. Often there's just a load of other fighters making up the numbers, and champions filling time or trying to build up challengers. And then when someone truly deserving comes along, half the time the champion puts them on the shelf for a few years, hopes they get beat, or avoids altogether.
Dempsey's reign is just an obvious example of a normal trend. His biggest crime was the ridiculous length of the lay-offs. That's what really got people pulling for Wills.

 

Its beyond asinine to pretend that Langford, McVea, and Jeanette were even relevent much less that they deserved a title shot at Dempsey over Greb from 1919 on. Pretending that Godfrey was relevant before 1925 (when he became nothing more than a fringe contender) and deserved a title shot before Greb is equally ludicrous. I havent seen one worthwhile argument for that yet. Furthermore, nobody at the time considered any of those a better contender than Greb from 1919 to 1925. Had Dempsey defended against any of those guys people would still be denigrating him because he would have been picking on old, used up, non-entities. Non of those guys were any better than a sick Billy Miske. This was evidenced when Jeanette came out of retirement to help Carpentier spar and got knocked out when he had beaten Georges 7 years earlier when he was actually a relevant HW.

 

If that was "what really" got people pulling for Wills, and not Wills actual ability or accomplishments then they wouldnt have been pulling for Wills as a challenger before Dempsey ever had extended layoffs, which, you know, they were. I have yet to see someone show me another fighter that interrupted Wills consistent run as the overwhelming choice for Dempsey's top challenger. Pretending anything less is just a veiled attempt at discrediting Wills and lending support to Dempsey's shameful duck.

 

No.
I'm saying that Demspey's gross inactivity made his ducking of Wills even more unpalatable to the general public. Wills, in comparison, was active. Those things combined gave even more momentum to support for Wills.
We all know boxing fans will forgive an active champion more than an inactive one, especially if the champion engages in exciting fights, or even employs a bit of showmanship.
Not just fans, but the boxing commissions, publications and whatever other "authorities".
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious.

And there's no "veiled attempt to discredit" in saying that Wills did not constantly stand out. There were entire years where his annual output was unremarkable. That's just a fact.

 

I believe the underlined is true, but that does not mean that Wills was not the best contender during Dempsey's title years,equally Greb's resume is as good as the men that got title shots with Jack.

Neither Langford,Jeannette,or McVey were credible title contenders during Dempsey's reign.

4-7-1919 -----23- 9-1926.

WILLS WAS WITHOUT DOUBT THE MOST ENDURING STANDOUT CONTENDER.