You said it yourself in other threads, man. Risk/Reward. If he could draw a million dollars by fighting a LHW, why would he stick his chin out to a possibly genuine threat to his crown that could or could not draw a bigger or even similar amount? The guy was an ex-hobo who became one of the most famous athletes of his day and maybe the most popular boxer of all times (in his own time that is). He was already on the top of the world. Stuff like legacy probably looked distant under those circumstances specially to a guy who knew exactly what it meant to be broke in those days.
L, first of all to accuse me of not "respecting " my idol whose name i first heard when i was about 8 years old from my dad who saw Greb batter Gene tunney in 1922, and revered Greb ,and instilled in me his greatness ,shows disrespect for me...I feel in my heart of hearts Harry Greb was the greatest P4p fighter ever, however the truth is and WAS that Greb was a MW, going against a lithe and powerful rough and tough much bigger man as a prime Dempsey was...And as I have read and posted prior Harry Greb was quoted as saying to a famous boxing writer of the time that "after 5-6 rounds Dempsey would kill me "...I believe that and most of the boxing gurus of that day would have agreed also...did Greb want that match ? Of course he did for Harry Greb would have made a fortune in one bout, and Greb was fearless... For you to once again bring up Wills without addressing my former post about them signing for a bout that was canceled, is repeating ad nauseum the Wills mantra without addressing the true facts...Now that i mentioned the fact that Dempsey's reign was about 1920-23, when truly Sam McVea, Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette were close to 40 years of age and were not viable gate attractions for Dempsey, to butress your case you now bring up the name of the LH Kid Norfolk, who was not a threat to a Jack Dempsey, and was kod by Tommy Gibbons who was older than Norfolk... where does it end for Dempsey's detractors , Peter Jackson, Joe Gans, Joe Walcott ?. This forum is becoming a whipping post for Jack Dempsey, who was a coward, a racist, a scoundrel etc...Well I believe the words of my dad and members of his generation who treated Jack Dempsey with RESPECT and admiration who was a product of his time, above the opinions of today's revisionists on ESB...A human being Luf just as GOOD as YOU or ME... Finito :hi::hi::hi:
Luf before I hit the sack, yes I have ANGST against the likes of you telling me to" read up" on Harry Greb ...You picked on the wrong chap...I have been reading about Greb for over 70 years, and i somehow suspect it is you who should do more reading about Mr Greb...Good day...
As I said, if you think he was just a middleweight you should read up on him more. He defeated many top ranked heavyweights, heavyweights who would go onto secure a fight with Jack himself. I'm not sure why you mention all them names, maybe you misread my post. I'll say it again once more short and sweet: Jack could have greatly improved his legacy had he spent his hollywood years beating greb, wills and norfolk.
And continues to be for the old guard, dudes like Sares, Cox and Casey are horrified by his standing currently.
I suppose he was the second greatest hw in history, but he had chance to overtake johnson by staying active and cleaning out his division. For me his current standing is definitely one of being overrated. The more one looks into him and his peers, the more one must conclude that a good number of heavyweights surpassed him.
I think that it's fair to say that a new generation of "historians" (Whatever that means) don't rank him as highly as the last. That could change up again, but i'm of the opinion that the internet age and the revelation of primary data to those interested enough to look at it is going to define a lot of these fighters pretty hard. Relative to the drip feed people were previously kept on, I mean.
He was almost unanimously rated as 'one of' the greats at around the time he retired. Twenty or thirty years later he was widely (though not unanimously) considered the greatest of the heavyweight champions. I'm not sure how much "elevation" you could argue he missed out on. He was/is in the top tier. Or thereabouts. Even most of his "low" ratings currently have him in a second tier. And that's often among people who say "only Ali and Louis" are top tier.
Looking across the internet, Jack Dempsey still tends to be rated highly and mentioned a lot. It will differ from one site to the next, one writer to another. I don't know about 'generations' of 'historians'. I suspect a lot of the people bigging up Dempsey are quite young. My own experience has been that I grew up reading boxing books and magazines through the 1980s and 1990s, and didn't rate Jack Dempsey very highly until about 2003 or 2004 when I got on the internet. The primary data and the abundance of information available, and the existence of this forum, have persuaded me that Dempsey should be rated a lot higher than I had him before. For example, in the mid-1990s I would have debated whether Dempsey should go above or below Charles and Walcott, I'm now quite satisfied that he was greater.
The guys I mention feel that Dempsey is disrespected and lowballed now. That's basically what I mean.
I think age is significant in that those growing up with stories of the great jack dempsey will be more liable to rate him higher. For me I think it's, in reality, down to the choice people make me rating. Those who rate highly on how good someone looks on film and who beats who and historical context will always find room for him in a top 5. Those who rate on across the board achievement and resume will struggle justifying him that high. To highlight what I mean there, based on achievement and resume I see no way to rank him above wlad. Based on historical context, the eye test and individual preference on who beats who, the opposite is true.
Do you agree that his legacy would better stand up to scrutiny had had he beaten greb, wills and norfolk instead of going to hollywood.
