I have never read a written report for the fight. Ive only watched the film, my copy of which is complete, and Gibbons won 3 of the first five rounds at the very least. He shut down after that and it would be hard to find rounds to give him despite him causing Dempsey stylistic problems but to characterize the fight as a shutout it wasnt.
What is incredible is how often it pops up in print where Dempsey's people (And i don't want to get into "how responsible" he was for this with people, i'm just saying) said they weren't talking to Wills but they wanted to fight with Greb...then, later, you might read that they are not talking to Wills but they are exploring possibilities with Greb. It was clever, because clearly Dempsey, in his own words, didn't fancy the unique problems that Greb would set him (just did what I said i wasn't going to do) whether or not he thought he would win - and for different reasons they didn't want the problem that was Wills. You actually do see it now and again these days. Mayweather's played that game a bit. The difference is, Mayweather hasn't had to wait any longer than the guys he talked out getting beat by someone else. Dempsey had years and years and years because Wills didn't lose and finally Greb lost to Tunney. At which point, I think i'm right in saying, the Dempsey-Greb fight came closest as it was to being made?
Hey, in boxing, reasonable minds can differ. That's why I'm glad it was a 15-round fight and not a 5-round fight. But I just copied my notes on the fight films, of which I too have seen the most complete version, and this is what I wrote: The films show that through the first 4 rounds, Dempsey was the aggressor, and completely outworked Gibbons. Gibbons was a pretty good inside defensive fighter, seeming comfortable attempting to tie Jack up or crowding him. Nevertheless, Dempsey was still able to maintain a good work rate, especially landing good hooks to the body. Dempsey slowed his attack in the 5th round, enabling Gibbons to box on the outside a bit more, landing some good snapping jabs. Dempsey reasserted himself from the 6th round on, being the aggressor, essentially fighting most of the fight on the inside, doing all of the work. However, he was unable to hurt Gibbons, who was fairly effective at neutralizing him in the clinches. The problem was that Gibbons fought to survive, being more interested in defense than in punching. Because he did not fight to win, throwing very few punches, he did not wear himself out, and left no openings. He instead focused mostly on clinching, smothering, spinning on the inside, or moving about a bit on the outside. Gibbons was defensively clever, and Dempsey was probably not at his sharpest after a two year layoff, so the bout was not very exciting. Dempsey won the 15 round decision.
Exactly, it was all smoke and mirrors. Kearns, Rickard, and Dempsey all played fighters off of one another. Just when one guy would emerge as a leading contender and threat they would start talking about fighting someone else at a venue across the country. They were just kicking the can down the road to buy more time to cash in on the title.
I gave Gibbons 3 of the first five rounds. The papers gave him at least 2 more rounds after round five. Dempsey came away with two black eyes and a cut above one eye and below the other. Most of that damage was done in those early rounds before Gibbons either tired, was over awed, or hurt (depending on which version of the story you believe). Jimmy Dougherty, Dempsey's handpicked referee who let him get away with a plethora of elbows, low blows, and rabbit punches causing the crowd to boo and hiss Dempsey, stated that had he been forced to a render a decision after 8 rounds the worst he could have given Gibbons was a draw (I dont agree with this but thats Dempsey's own guy). I maintain again that it was not a shutout but we can agree to disagree.
If Dempsey was following the path of least resistance, you're basically saying Greb was either following or pre-emptively leading down the same path. Which suggests there were tougher fighters out there. As far as I'm aware, Fred Fulton and Harry Wills were the top contenders in 1918, clearly, and Dempsey knocked Fulton out in 1 round. Wills got sidelined. Where does Greb fight in ? Dempsey was pretty much secured a shot against Willard. Wills and Fulton fought an eliminator in 1920. Who's Greb beating ? You're being melodramatic. I'm not nut hugging Dempsey. I'm questioning the exaggerated claims about Greb's heavyweight credentials. I'm saying Greb wasn't cleaning out the HW division. You might like to throw in "hero worship" and "nut hugging" to make your point but it doesn't really help. Well, I'm not sure he "almost lost", he knocked Brennan out (in the 12th of a scheduled 15). Something he'd done before. And something he'd done before Harry Greb had even stepped in a ring with Bill Brennan, if I remember rightly. Yes, it was a tougher than expected fight, and, yes, Brennan wasn't qualified to challenge Dempsey. You know this. Dempsey's wins over Brennan were pretty convincing. I think the rematch his performance was far below expectations - for the simple reason that Dempsey had battered him far more convincingly before, and Brennan was a second-rater - but he knocked Brennan out. It might not matter to you, but I'm sure it mattered to Brennan. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of spinning. Dempsey's reign was one of soft-touch challengers and mostly inactivity - but then again I guess some of those guys were dangerous. None of that leads me to believe that Harry Greb was standing out as a heavyweight challenger comparable to Harry Wills though. Greb never established himself like that. Fred Fulton, Harry Wills, Jack Sharkey (Dempsey ducked Wills, and fought the other two when they were #1 contender) But was Tunney a top ranked heavyweight when Greb beat him? Was Gibbons a top ranked heavyweight before he went 15 rounds with Dempsey?
This version is pretty substantial, and folks can judge for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUJM2BDSxF4
In February of 1922 there was an article published outlining Dempsey's top contenders and their relative merits. The fighters were: Tommy Gibbons Bill Brennan Captain Bob Roper Harry Wills Bob Martin Now keep in mind that in less than a month after the publication of this article Greb defeated Gibbons in a title eliminator. He had also won their previous bout. Greb had defeated Bill Brennan four times handily. He had defeated Bob Roper 3 times and would go on to do so another 3 times. In 1921, just a few months before this article was published promoters tried to match Bob Martin with Harry Greb and Jimmy Bronson, Martin's manager stated that Martin was not ready for Greb yet. Martin instead fought Greb's old punching bag Fay Kaiser who proceeded to give Martin the beating of his life. 3 months later Greb beat Kaiser. Do you still want to contend that Greb wasnt doing what it took to establish himself as a leading white contender for Dempsey and by extension THE leading contender for Dempsey seeing as how Dempsey wouldnt fight a black man?
Well, if we're making arguments "relative to the era" then that opens up to excusing Dempsey's long lay-offs and avoidance of a black fighter. Something I will not do. Harry Greb easily beats Brennan twice, there's really no need for a 3rd and 4th fight, it proves nothing, unless there's some very strong evidence Brennan was improving in the meantime, and there is not. It's the same for any era. Well then, I agree. :good Maybe I do hold Dempsey's challengers in even lower regard than you do. On the other hand, I credit Dempsey for annihilating Fulton and Willard over the course of his best year or so, and I also credit him with beating Sharkey (whatever the objections to his "dirty" tactics), and for knocking guys out that no one else had or did.
I'm sure we can all find polls and opinion articles from the era saying one thing or another. For a start, I'd question Cpt. Bob Roper's claim to be in the top 5 as of February 1922 ... I'd question the reasoning and the knowledge of the author. ... just as some would question the polls that have Jack Dempsey among the greatest fighters of all-time.
Greb was following the path that was established. There were no national rankings at the time so the best a fighter could do was either fight the guys who were being promoted as future contenders or fight the guys the champion had already fought. Greb did this and excelled at it. How want to use Dempsey's shitty reign as a means of tearing Greb down is beyond me considering Greb was established at the time in three divisions and wasnt ducking anyone regardless of color or size and was handling Dempsey's prospective opponents as easily as Dempsey himself. The only case you are making here is that Dempsey blatantly ducked his number one contender. Is that supposed to be help your argument? If you want to argue that Dempsey avoided Wills because he was black then you have to accept that the next best white challenger should have gotten the shot, that wasnt Miske, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, or Firpo. Greb was clearly better, and more of a threat than any of those guys yet Dempsey ducked him. Moving the time frame from 1923 (when Dempsey fought Gibbons) to 1922 (when Greb beat Gibbons) to 1918-1920 doesnt help your argument any more. Its already been established that in August 1918 Greb fought Levinsky in Philly for the right to face Dempsey who had established himself as a leading contender by beating Fulton. Prior to that nobody cared about Dempsey. Greb beat Levinsky and Dempsey fought Levinsky. In 1919 Dempsey won the championship and then promptly sat on the shelf. The day that Dempsey beat Willard Greb defeated Brennan over 15 rounds, it was his third of four defeats of Brennan, yet Brennan got a title shot without ever facing much less defeating a top level fighter in the interim. Miske had been given first crack at Dempsey, Greb defeated Miske in 1919 after which Miske went 2-2-2 and then retired before returning to the ring a year later desperate for money upon which he was given a title shot. Carpentier gets a title shot in 1921, how? By beating Levinsky. Nuff said. in 1922 Gibbons is called Dempsey's top white challenger. In March of that year he loses a title elimination to Greb yet gets a title shot. I will repeat: In 1920 Dempsey was trying to get both Gunboat Smith and Bartley Madden approval as defences. Greb beat them both. In 1921 Kid Norfolk was chasing a fight with Dempsey, Dempsey was advised to steer clear of him because of his quality, Greb fought him and won the majority of opinions in that fight. Jack Renault was talked of as a contender, Greb beat him. Bob Roper was talked of as a contender, Greb beat him. Charlie Weinert was talked of as a contender, Greb beat him. So yeah, to denigrate Greb's HW resume and ask who he was fighting and then completely ignore that he was fighting the guys that Dempsey was defending against or trying to defend against is beyond disingenuous. Exaggerated my ass he won a ****ing title eliminator promoted by the biggest promoter of the era and who every Dempsey nuthuggery (and yes there is a lot of nuthuggery going on here) claims had Dempsey in his hip pocket. If Gibbons was considered the #1 WHITE contender and Dempsey only fights WHITE fighters and Greb dominates Gibbons then it stands to reason that Greb has established himself. You dont get thrown into title eliminators for no reason to begin with. Obviously Greb had established himself at HW at that point. I have entire fight. Brennan was leading up to the twelfth, had rocked Dempsey to his heels in the second, and in the tenth or eleventh had clipped Dempsey with a hard punch on the ear that tore his ear nearly off his head and sent blood cascading down his shoulder. If you want to characterize that "I'm not sure he 'almost lost's'" then we can agree to disagree. I guess you think Dempsey was toying with him in an effort to make it look like a valiant struggle and his ear having to be reattached by a surgeon was just really good special effects for movies... :-( Actually Brennan was unconvinced and immediately called for a rematch. The fight itself, while convincing for you, caused a lot of questions to arise about Dempsey from the validity of his power, his level of skill, and so on. What you characterize as a convincing win was at the time one of the more troubling question marks of his career. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of spinning. Dempsey's reign was one of soft-touch challengers and mostly inactivity - but then again I guess some of those guys were dangerous. None of that leads me to believe that Harry Greb was standing out as a heavyweight challenger comparable to Harry Wills though. Greb never established himself like that. Its important to note that he didnt fight either of those when he was a champion. Not one. Thats significant. Nevermind that Sharkey was handing Dempsey his ass when Dempsey fouled his way to that win. So you can pretend Dempsey fought a number one contender but thats semantics, he never defended against a number contender level fighter during his reign. Thats why fights, like the fight in question against Gibbons, are important because they illustrate that Dempsey was actively avoiding his #1's regardless of how you wish to spin and spin is exactly what you are failing at miserably but attempting nonetheless. Gibbons was absolutely a top ranked HW before Greb beat him. As for Tunney I would ask what exactly he did to become a top ranked HW when Dempsey defended against him. He certainly didnt do anything more special than what he was doing in 1922, 23, and 24 when Greb beat him. He essentially got his shot at Dempsey by beating the faded and overrated Carpentier (who Gibbons had just dominated) and Gibbons (who Greb had beat in title eliminator 3 years earlier and was still waiting on that chance). So if you are going to say that Tunney actually deserved the shot more in 1926 than Greb did 1922 I will have to ask exactly what your argument is based on.
That's the point though isn't it? We can excuse racism and inactivity based upon this argument, but we can't excuse Greb based upon this argument. We have to find other excuses/reasons. In the end it starts to feel like very hard work. Not really. Langford continued to fight Wills after he was sliding and had become a bit of a mark for the bigger man. Gans beat McFadden five times (from memory). But even if there weren't examples, I think Greb just wasn't the type of dude that said no very often. Brennan said "I want to fight you" Greb said, "what's it pay", Brennan said a number and Dempsey said "i'll fight." It's only as cynical as all boxing is cynical, and personally I think it's commendable to provide rematches to an opponent who thinks he can do better. I don't think it's commendable to sit on the title for years or avoid opponents due to their colour (if that's what happened as you suggest above), and that's where I think your "blame it on the era" notion becomes questionable. Sure, and all that's fair, but in the end if you really view the Dempsey challengers that Greb thrashed in the light that you are describing it's a real kick in the teeth for Dempsey's legacy I think. I also don't think it's particularly reasonable. They were really good fighters. I think Miske, especially, gets underrated.
Spoken like a true child of the digital age where anything can be seen with the click of a button. Things didnt work like that back then. Information traveled slower, these fights were not broadcast on TV, and the wire reports were often unreliable. So people wanted to see these things for themselves, not simply be satisfied reading a one paragraph or even one sentence recap. Never mind the fact that when you have a fighter like Greb who fought 300 times in an era where the fighters were fighting more often it stands to reason that a guys dance card was going to fill up quick and in order to make money he was going to be fighting the same guys multiple times. In such a situation the odds actually increase for a guy like Brennan figuring Greb out and being able to nick one of those decisions (after all he almost did it with Dempsey). Its to Greb's credit that he didnt let that happen and never had the issues with Brennan that Dempsey did.
On the contrary, I'm not using Dempsey's shitty reign to tear down Greb. I'm questioning why you're using it to build up Greb. Yes, you've said all this already. But you've also pointed out that Dempsey did a lot of talking about fighting a lot of different guys. He also talked about fighting Fulton, Wills, Willard ... who Greb didn't fight, and happened to be genuine heavyweights. Lots of fights get promoted as title eliminators. Firpo won an eliminator against Willard, for example. So what ? Obviously, Greb would have been a more credible challenger than Gibbons. Don't be so silly. At no point was the fight on the verge of being stopped. At no point was Dempsey about to quit. And no point was he down with the referee counting over him. Dempsey was victor with over 10 minutes left. And he had no lost every round at all. So, there's was no case for him having "almost lost". Yes, boxing is a tough hard business, especially in 1920. That's all you're saying. Yes, as I said, because expectations were so high. You can find similar examples for every fighter who had that level of hype and status. Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson etc. On the contrary, I've been arguing exactly that his reign was shitty and I've acknowledge time and again that he failed to meet his top contender while he was champion. You seem to be confusing yourself. If I'm "failing miserably" at "spinning" perhaps it's because I'm not spinning at all, and certainly not making the arguments you seem to want me to make.:good I'm not the first person to notice that you like to argue against imaginary opponents. Knocking out Gibbons was Tunney's main selling point, I believe.