Who was Jack Dempsey's third most deserving title opponent who never got a title shot?

News paper decisions the lot of them. Nat Fleischer exposed the practice of managers sending their own version of events to be published in out of town papers. If you couldn't win a fight by knockout it seems to me theoretically all you needed in those days was a good publicist on board.

I get the impression decision "wins" in the "no decision" era did not make much impact. Circuits of guys fighting each other too often to do enough damage to keep them out of the ring for longer. No film.. How do we know they were not friendly sparring exhibitions? It just seems to me the crowds went where the real knockouts were and everything else was kind of small potatoes by comparison.

Firpo was getting 70,000 fans to his fights even before he fought Dempsey because he was knocking guys out.

 

And I provided him, Jack Renault!

 

And I provided him, Jack Renault!

No one has defended Johnson more staunchly on this site than me ,but I hope I can be objective about him.

Roper was not ,in any shape or form, a contender when Johnson beat him he had just 6 fights under his belt , winning 4, losing 1 by tko and drawing the other.His wins were over 4 debutees his draw was with a 6-8-6 fighter and he was stopped by an 8-5-4 guy. Cowler and Johnson fought just after Dempsey won the title.

Cowler, a Jim Corbett protégé had won just one of his last five fights when he was beaten by Johnson, to be fair the four losses were to Jeannette x2 and Miske x2. Lets put Jack as number 4.lol

 

Where is this evidence that Greb had him figured out more than anybody else? He was a featherdusting MW smaller than even Carpentier the public wasnt buying it. As far as a sparring session goes, you know or should know that means nada. So your claim that Greb had Dempsey figured out is solely based on a sparring session. Please, that fact is Dempsey didnt have to fight him, and apparently the public didnt want to see a MW vs Dempsey, no matter how many times he beat his HW challengers. As for the path of least resistance, again please, face facts there was more gold fighting Carpentier, as you know this is PROFESSIONAL boxing not amateur boxing. Is this your latest find "Carpentier was absolutely terrified of facing him"? Carp, went for the title shot vs Dempsey, vs a deadly punching machine as Dempsey was in those days, so to say Carpentier was absolutely terrified of facing greb is a gross exaggeration to me Carpentier made a wise business decision, money-wise.

 

Greb didn't fight Fulton or Firpo so he wasn't proven over them, and like Dempsey he never faced other contenders such as Godfrey , Wills ,Renault ,or Weinert so it wasn't a given he would beat any of them. I don't think there was a demand for a Dempsey v Greb fight ,certainly it would have been a no win situation for Dempsey to have got involved in. I don't put too much store in sparring, Loughran embarrassed Dempsey in camp ,over 15rds I think Dempsey would have clobbered him and Greb too.

 

This is a great post.

 

I'm not even sure "Beat" back in the days of "decision wins" during the "no decision era" meant that much. There isn't much evidence to disprove a notion that the bulk of most fighters recorded bouts could have been glorified sparring sessions. Certainly contenders with genuine knockout reputations were taken a lot more seriously and drew bigger crowds than guys with hundreds of no decision contests against regular opponents.

 

Greb didnt fight Firpo because Firpo ran in the other direction on two occasions when a bonafide offer was placed in front of him. Greb did in fact fight Weinert, knocking him down and giving him a brutal one sided beating in Madison Square Garden, and he also fought Jack Renault twice beating him easily both times. The second time he knocked him down and dominated him.

Im not sure why people even bring Godfrey up. He was a total non entity during Grebs life and Dempsey's reign. The only reason anyone mentions him is because his manager, who just happened to be one of Dempsey's closest friends. Tried to get some free publicity for him by challenging Wills. Godfrey didnt start doing anything in the division until 1925 when he beat Renault (2x Greb victim), Burke (2x Greb victim), Fred Fulton (totally shot), but then loses in 26 to Wiggins (multiple x Greb victim) and Jack Sharkey. So no, I wouldnt even come close to considering Godfrey a factor in Dempsey's reign.

The idea that there was no demand for a Dempsey-Greb bout has been done to death and proven false. The constant litany of excuses and waffling back and forth from one excuse to another when the last has been obliterated is enough for anyone to see the real reason why Dempsey avoided that bout and others.

The idea that ND were glorified exhibitions as Choklab seems to think is nonsense. Utter nonsense. Furthermore the idea that it was Nat Fleischer who exposed the practice of managers sending out false reports is even more ridiculous. Those reports were WIRE reports, which are unreliable in that era. They were NOT ringside accounts. This is why its important to track down a comprehensive picture of ringside accounts. And not simply pick up the New York Times, read a single paragraph on a fight that took place 1000 miles away, and think you finally understand something about it. They called those managers "the beat them to wire boys" and Fleischer was no better than a cub reporter when those guys were already well known for this practice. The idea that these guys went into the ring with each other under the understanding that they would just make it entertaining and not try to hurt each other is a joke. Greb fought constantly with broken bones, cuts, etc. He often put guys out of commission and was himself often injured in fights preventing him from going onto the next one. It was not only not uncommon but it was with monotonous regularity that you read about Greb's opponents coming away with broken noses, broken ribs, horribly cut eyes etc and often a combination of all of those. You want us to believe this is taking it easy on his opponents? You want us to believe that after he does this to his opponents with alarming regularity they are taking it easy on him? Really? GTFO. You can go down the list of greats, near greats, and never weres and you can easily find examples from ND fights where Greb and the opponent were trying to kill each other. He gave Rosenbloom a brutal one sided beating and dropped him in winning the ND, he suffered a broken rib against Flowers in winning the ND, he beat the daylights out of Dempsey's sparring partner Martin Burke cutting him badly, he was dropped by Norfolk and came back to batter the Kid cutting him badly, Soldier Jones dropped him hard only to be brutally beaten ending with cut lips, broken nose, and a badly slashed eye, he knocked out Len Rowlands after giving him a bad beating, he beat the hell out of Pal Reed dropping him in the process, he brutalized HOFer Jack Dillon so bad they called for Dillon to retire from the ring for good, he dropped Levinsky hard on his way to a ND win, his ND fights with Bob Roper and Chuck Wiggins are legendary for their brutality, he dropped Bartley Madden and gave him a brutal beating, I could go on and on but really its easy to illustrate these fights were fought on their merits, in fact Id love to see examples of Greb and his opponents taking it easy on each other. Any takers? If the supposition is that Greb's record is just smoke and mirrors due to ND bouts I would submit two points: 1. When he was fighting in his opponents home turf he still maintained his winning record both in ND and referees decisions. 2. His performances in decision bouts were still consistent with his performances in ND bouts. So that little theory just doesnt hold up. You can examine his record and see that: He won two and lost two against Tommy Gibbons. He lost one of those in Gibbons home town, one in his own home town, and won one in his own hometown. Those three fights were newspaper decisions. Their fourth fight was fought on decidedly neutral territory with the press in that town (New York) already anointing Gibbons as the winner. Greb won a one sided 15 round decision. His first fight against Jack Dillon was fought in Greb's hometown but the second was fought in Toledo which had no real ties to either fighter and where Greb won just as handily as the first time. His first fight with Mike Gibbons was in Philadelphia which had no real ties to either fighter and while Greb lost he was given a great deal of credit for making a good fight of it and managing to cut Gibbons nose. The rematch was held in Greb's hometown but an impartial referee was brought in from Chicago and picked Greb as the winner in addition to the majority of ringsiders. Greb fought Joe Borrell four times if memory serves. Twice in Philly, Borrells base of operations and twice in Pittsburgh, Grebs. He lost one philly, drew or lost one in Pittsburgh, won one in Pittsburgh, and knocked Borrell out in a Philly ND. Willie KO Brennan was an idol in Buffalo and they couldnt believe Greb beat him in Erie so they twice brought Greb in to Buffalo and he beat Brennan there both times as well. Greb won three ND bouts against Bill Brennan, only two of which came in Pittsburgh, before taking a 15 round decision against him in Tulsa, which also had no ties to either fighter. You can go down the list: Jeff Smith, George Chip, Tommy Loughran, Battling Levinsky, Gus Christie, Augie Ratner, Bob Moha, Al McCoy, Clay Turner, Chuck Wiggins, Leo Houck, Bob Roper, KO Brown, Larry Williams, Gene Tunney and on and on and on he fought them all numerous times turned in consistent performances whether it was for a decision or not, at home or not, in front of friendly reporters or not. So no, the idea that most of Greb's record is comprised of glorified sparring sessions is patently ridiculous.

The idea that somehow the knockout records in that era were more "legitimate" is deceptive as well because you had guys like Tommy Gibbons who even his own brother admitted had ridiculously padded his knockout record against bums and has beens in order to get more publicity, and you had guys like Firpo who was being protected and easily matched so that Rickard could cash in on him against Dempsey. I mean that wasnt even a secret. So to put Gibbons (who lost to Greb when the Chips were down, or Firpo (who refused to fight Greb) above Greb as somehow more legitimate because they were using the same selective matchmaking that overhyped fighters today use because Greb was fighting in an era where decisions werent legal in most states is patently ridiculous. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

That happens a lot in every era.

 

More nonsense. Carpentier had a massive offer from Tex Rickard in 1922 to face Greb for what would have been the second highest purse of his entire career. Instead he chose to not accept, spend the summer idle, then took a fight where he made 1/5 what Rickard had offered him, tried to have that fight fixed, and ended up getting beaten. That had nothing to do with Dempsey. The fact that he wouldnt even spar with Greb prior to the Dempsey fight and that he wouldnt even entertain offers to face him either in a real fight or an exhibition bout prior to Dempsey is neither here nor there. But that did happen as well. So when he has nothing better going on and makes that decision a year after losing to Dempsey was it a wise business decision? Maybe. He could have suffered a worse beating against Greb but then again he would have been five times richer. Why you constantly spout off about things you so obviously have no clue is beyond me.

 

I thought they were boxing exhibitions, that was their official legal status.

 

Does it happen to the regularity and degree that you can simply throw out an entire generation of fighters because thats what you THINK? Please. Thats essentially what Choklab is suggesting.

 

Its semantics as they knew then and most know now. When you show me a picture of Greb fighting Jack Dillon in pillow gloves and headgear for two minute rounds we can talk. Otherwise I can show you some pictures of those ND "exhibitions" where the opponents are caked in blood and/or died for that matter and we can agree that a different definition of the word exhibition was being applied specifically to that law in that era for a very specific reason. Do you really need me to break down the entire history and motivation of the ND era? Id be happy to if youll admit you have no idea what you are talking about. Or you can continue playing devils advocate and trying to look clever and we'll leave it at that.

 

No, I don't think anything should be thrown out.
But at the same time I understand that a "no decision" lacks an official positive result.

 

I understand, but it does raise the question about whether some exhibitions were/are REAL fights, not just confined to "the ND era".
For example, Joe Louis knocked some proper fighters out in what seemed to have been real fights, yet they don't appear on his record either.