Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

I agree. That was the point I was making.
I only mentioned Wills "not consistently stand out" in the sense of what Berlenbach was debating with Dubblechin.
I think Dubblechin's timeline is off but his point in general still stands. If you have earned the shot ("deserve" it) and stayed undefeated that carries a lot of weight.
Such fighters are allowed to have poor fights, even bad years.

 

You fell for that Tex Rickard publicity stunt but you're too smart to think Foreman actually KO'd Moorer.
:good

 

You can say that again. Though I doubt my young friend Loudon would agree, regarding Jones Jr.

I tend to agree with your sentiments about Hamed after that car smash in which he only gave a toss about his own miserable skin, and nothing for the victim, plus not much more for his brother who he tried to persuade to take the rap for it.

 

Back in Dempseys day a low blow was defined as a punch below an imaginary line running from hip bone to hip bone. This definition is still used today in European rules.

"Dr Walker NY state boxing commission doctor ..."punches on the beltline are fair as the rules clearly state there should be no blows below the Belt line. But what is the belt line exactly? It's an imaginary line from hip bone to hip bone". The New York sun. February 7 1935 page 33 column 4

If you read the various accounts I posted the MAJORITY of sportswriters watching the film of the bout in the days after it occurred felt Sharkey was wearing his trunks high and this was partly the reason for the confusion concerning those three body punches.

The ref stated emphatically that none of those three final body blows were low. Guess what? Add up the above and what do you get. The ref said no foul, the sportswriters felt Sharkey had his trunks high on his waist and the definition of a low blow was such and is such today (in some places)that blows on the trunks can be fully legal. It's not the trunks.... It's where the punches land on the body that defines a low blow.

 

"Back in Dempsey's day a low blow was defined as an imaginary line running from the hip bone to the hip bone."

Still is, actually.

WBA--"It is critical to know that the waistline is defined as the imaginary line through the navel to the top of the hips."

The top of the hips (or hip bones) is the top of the pelvic girdle. Look at any skeleton, or check your own body. The top of the hip bone is about at the level of the navel.

The physician certainly by hip bones did not men the hip joints, or a blow to the groin might be viewed as legal.

"the ref was quoted"

as telling Dempsey to keep them up just as the final left hook landed.

On any definition, the second right was below the top of the hip bones. The third we can't even see on the film. And Sharkey is not wearing his trunks high. This is on film.

"Majority"

If there were no film, that might be worthwhile evidence, if in fact these ringside reporters did enough research to know what the majority thought, rather than the "majority" they cared to ask.

*Just an aside, if you asked me if I "knew" a flagrant foul was committed, I would come down on the no side and so might be among your majority, but I think on balance low blows were struck.

 

I'm not saying ALL those guys were credible through his ENTIRE reign. And I'm not saying ONLY BLACK CONTENDERS should've received title shots.

I laid this out in an earlier post when Klompton asked for specific years.

In the first two or three years of Dempsey’s reign, you had Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette ... the last three deserved shots for a decade and were still viable (Wills was more than viable, he was the top contender).

They weren't bypassed because they were old. That wasn't the excuse given. They were bypassed because they were black.

They were simply never given a title shot by every guy who held the crown when they were fighting because they were black.

That is the reason. That was the Color Line. It wasn't because one guy was short. Or one guy was pushing 40. It wasn't because Dempsey could look at BOXREC and decide how much longer some guys were going to fight or who was going to die after catching pneumonia.

Those top black heavyweights were all viable contenders. They were all fighting for the Colored championship.

They simply weren't considered for the WORLD title because they were black!

And people can say "well, they weren't ALL around until 1926" ... but they were still there FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS. Not a week. Not a month. A few YEARS. 1920. 1921. 1922. (And, in Wills' case, Dempsey's entire reign.)

In the second half of Dempsey's reign, say 1923 to 1926, you still had Harry Wills (who had beaten everyone and still hadn't received a shot), Luis Firpo (who beat Willard in a fight that also generated a huge gate), the emergence of Gene Tunney and, at the end of Dempsey's reign, and the year he campaigned as a challenger, came Jack Sharkey as well as the European champ Paulino Uzcudan.

During the first half of Dempsey's reign, you also had Jess Willard (the former heavyweight champion and conqueror of Jack Johnson) who, if you could beat them, like Firpo did against Willard, you were worthy.

There was also Georges Carpentier, who was the European heavyweight champ and the World light heavyweight champ. I wouldn’t necessarily say he “deserved” a shot at Dempsey, either, although fans at the time clearly wanted to see it. But Carpentier failed miserably. And Greb was a division BELOW Carpentier.

Looking back, one could argue that Dempsey faced ALL the most dangerous non-black heavyweights out there during his run -- in Willard, Firpo, Tunney, Sharkey -- and didn't fight ANY of the most dangerous black heavyweight challengers -- Wills, McVea, Jeanette, Langford -- who were on top of the division far longer and never got ANY shot.

There were heavyweights in there who "flashed" for a year or so, white and black, every decade has them. People can argue the merits of Godfrey. Whatever.

My point is simply that it's not that difficult to name 10 guys or so who were legit "heavyweight" challengers before you ever got to Harry Greb. But if you dismiss half of the contenders because of their race, of course the picture is hopelessly skewed.

The argument in Greb's favor ISN'T that he beat those top heavyweights who'd been in the title picture for a decade.

It's not that Greb beat Harry Wills to become the top contender.

The whole argument "in favor of Greb" always goes back to how well Greb did against guys who people DIDN'T deserve a title shot.

And that shouldn't qualify someone. And, thankfully, it didn't qualify him.

Greb wasn't selected. And he wasn't overlooked for his color. Or because he punched too hard. Or because he was too big or because he was a lefty. Or because he had a magical formula to beat Dempsey.

He wasn't chosen because he was considered a long-shot at best to even be competitive. Forget winning.

After Jack Johnson punched Stanley Ketchel's teeth out after carrying him for a half hour, there's a reason why we didn't see Dempsey-Greb, Joe Louis vs. Tony Zale, Rocky Marciano vs. Bobo Olson, Muhammad Ali vs **** Tiger, George Foreman vs. Carlos Monzon, Larry Holmes vs. Marvin Hagler ... and why nobody's holding their breath for Wlad Klitschko to sign to fight Miguel Cotto.

But if you dismiss half the contenders over a naked bias, guys who normally wouldn't qualify (see Greb) get elevated.

It is true now and it's true then.

 

Again you are wrong. You need to pull newspaper accounts and read them. The ref did not warn Dempsey regarding the last three punches. This is a complete falacy which was posted to deceive. He warned Dempsey regarding the prior exchange when a right hand slide off Sharkeys arm onto his leg. Over and above the fact it's there in black and white there was no time to warn anyone during that four punch sequence. It was over in seconds. The ref stated he warned BOTH men twice during the bout for low blows.

With the definition "an imaginary line joining the hip bones" those blows were not low. Add to it Sharkeys trunks were worn high.

The navel is not the hip bones. No mention of navel in the definition I posted.

The final decision proves the case however. The ref stated the last three body blows were not low and Dempsey was declared the winner. An investigation did not reverse this decision.

 

This Greb argument reminds me of the quote from Fran Lebowitz in the documentary Public Speaking. Here's a link, if you're interested.

It starts at the 19:25 minute mark and goes about two minutes where she's talking about all the artists and critics who died (almost overnight) of AIDS and how, after they died, the second-tier and third-tier people suddenly rose to the top. And how it skewed everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwPPmqbzA78

Can you imagine sitting down with Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette and Sam Langford and telling them why Harry Greb deserved a heavyweight title shot more than they did, because he beat one undeserving challenger here and one there?

They couldn't get a shot for 10 years because of their skin color. But Greb, who wasn't a heavyweight, was deserving because he edged guys who didn't deserve a title shot and never would've gotten a shot if there was no color line.

The argument that Greb was more deserving ... or, as some are suggesting, THE MOST DESERVING - when you look at the whole picture - is embarrassing.

That's the last I'm going to say about this. I'm done.

 

Sam Langford, Sam McVea and Joe Jeannette were going downhill after 1915. By 1919, all three were absolute shells of their former selves. Meanwhile, Harry Wills had become a top fighter by the middle 1910s and remained one until he lost a bout to Jack Sharkey on a foul during 1926. Can anybody say with a straight face that Wills wouldn't have received a richly deserved world heavyweight title shot if he was a Caucasian boxer? More to the point, would Jack Dempsey be put in such an exalted position by boxing pundits and fans if he avoided giving a title shot to a Caucasian boxer with Wills' credentials?

- Chuck Johnston

 

Dempsey cannot be held responsible for the racism that pervaded society at that time. The powers that be held onto the tradition of not letting a black man get the chance to win the hwt championship. It occurred only once before and in the white mans mind disaster enveloped the nation with the reign of Jack Johnson. The powers that be did not want any chance of that happening again and guess what the fight did not happen. So says history so said Wills himself.

 

If you really want to understand the color line as it existed before and after Jack Johnson, including during Dempsey's reign, you should read my books on Jack Johnson. Those books will provide you with ample context for what happened for the next couple of decades after him.

 

Greb was not on the publics radar prior to beating Gibbons. Sure sportswriters were writing about it here and there but that's what they are paid to do. The lay public was not buying a Dempsey-Greb bout prior to early 1922 when he beat Gobbons. Question then becomes how much they were buying it after he beat Gibbons.

 

Exactly. Given the subject of this thread, it's ironic to see three old shot fighters being touted as viable challengers in Dempsey's era because they were black and they deserved a title shot a long time before. Based on their recent ring accomplishments, they weren't anywhere near deserving.

Imagine telling Greb in 1922 that the retired 43 year old Joe Jeannette was a worthier challenger.

 

"The ref stated the last three body blows were not low and Dempsey was declared the winner."

This is true. And I pointed out in an earlier post that the time line weighs on this quote referring to an earlier punch.

"The navel is not the hip bones"

No, but the top of the hip bones, or pelvic girdle, is up about at the level of the navel, hence the WBA definition,

"It is critical that the waistline is defined as the imaginary line through the navel to the top of the hips."

The hip bones go way down, but I am certain Dr. Walker did not intend to imply blows to the lower abdomen or bladder area are not fouls.

As you have a different definition of a low blow than I do, I think it best we agree to disagree.

Anyway, the bottom line is that no foul was called and Dempsey won.

And all your "evidence" doesn't really matter to me as I can see that the second right was somewhat low, and the final right is blocked by Dempsey's body, with the referee appearing on the film to be in a poor position to see it.

The breaks of the game. Dempsey won fairly when Sharkey blew his cool.

Anyway, it has been a pleasure discussing this with you, which is what this board is for.