Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Bright's disease isnt even an actual disease but an antiquated term which was used to describe several little known and little understood kidney ailments of the time. It is unknown exactly what kind of Kidney disease Miske suffered from but it did apparently have periods of either remission or decreased symptoms. However, there is no dispute that Miske was suffering from his ailment at least as early as mid 1919 when he retired on the advice of his doctors. He went into business as an automobile dealer but his business failed and he got into trouble with creditors. The only way he could make money to get his family out debt was to fight. When he knocked out the completely hapless Jack Moran in June of 1920 it was the first victory he had in five fights in over a year. His next fight was with Dempsey. Now, if that isnt a soft touch I dont know what is. Aside from whether he was deserving or not there were vocal critics who stated that Miske should not be allowed to face Dempsey because of his health and they also made note of his skin color being a sickly grey despite the outside training which had bronzed everyone else in the two camps. Dempsey himself has admitted that he knew Miske was sick and that they were doing it as a favor to Miske. Which is great as a human being but pretty shitty as a professional (especially when you consider that he was absolutely wrecking Miske with bodyshots). What Miske accomplished after Dempsey is neither here nor there and more to the point has been blown up as something more than it was. Billy Shade, Jack Renault, Charley Weinert, etc etc were all "also rans" its impressive that a dying man did what he did to those guys but nobody claims Greb's greatness for beating those guys. They are simply good names, on his resume, not great. Even the Fulton win needs to be kept in its proper perspective considering Fulton was washed up at this point and no longer a top contender. Of the only two DECENT names Fulton met between getting stopped by Wills and Miske (Roper and Madden) he got a gift draw against human punching bag Madden after being beaten up for 12 rounds, and it took him three tries to show any kind of superiority over Roper, and these are really lower tier contenders. Brennan is the next best name on Miske's post Dempsey resume and Brennan came into the ring fat and out of shape in what would be his last fight and theres some evidence that he actually threw the fight. I would also question that if it was known in 1920 that Miske was gravely ill and Dempsey was willing to face him in order to help him out, how many other fighters might have done the same thing. Furthermore, if you are a fighter and you are fighting a guy you know is ill, maybe even dying, are you really going to be giving 100 percent? Do you wanna be the guy who killed him in the ring? I dont know, Im just not as impressed with Miske's post Dempsey resume as some and thats even if everything was on the up and up and everyone was giving 110 percent. Those names are still guys who were losing regular at that point in their careers anyway. Put it this way, if you see guys like Roper, Meehan, Fulton, Renault, etc. losing to someone around this time are you going to be shocked? i wouldnt, because they were and losing to guys who werent supposed to be as good as Miske is sometimes believed to be at this point.

 

So what we are left with is that Gibbons was the best fighter Dempsey defended succesfullly against?

Perhaps he was even the best Dempsey beat next to Sharkey?

 

I must apologize McGrain

I have produced two detailed responses that my f*****g computer has lost.

I am sure that they would at least have amused you!

 

Yeah, we disagree about whether beating an old and inactive champion is what it takes to prove superiorty for 7 years. So you think that Johnson proved being the best until 1915 by beating Jeffries, that Charles proved being the best by beating Louis, that Holmes proved being the best by beating Ali? I disagree.

They were all greater champions than Willard, two of them were younger, two had been inactive for shorter periods and they were all decisively beaten. But its' not wins than anyone here puts that much stock in.

I don't either. And I can't even see how you can logically think anything else than that you prove to the best by consistently beating the best. No one says that Woods is the best golfer because of what he did years ago, or that Federer is the best tennis player etc, etc.

In every other sport we take for granted you have to stay active and win against the best competition to be seen as nr. 1. Or do you still think Fed is the best based on what he did 5-7 years ago? You think he could just sit on his laurels after winning three Grand Slams a couple of year ago and still be considered the best? If you don't, you only do it in this case because it suits your ends.