Which was the worse duck?

[JAB5239]

Who's duck was worse, Jack Johnson ducking Sam Langford or Jack Dempsey ducking Harry Greb?

Johnson had already beaten Langford, but Sam had grown into a far better fighter later in his career becoming the top challenger for Johnson while continually being snubbed for his chance at the heavyweight championship.

Greb chased Dempsey for years to no avail as Jack feasted on Harry's leftovers time and again instead of fighting Greb himself.

So he deserved their shot more, Greb or Langford? I lean towards Langford, but both were highly deserving while being ducked. Your opinions?

[rightsideup]

pro boxing is a business and both both jacks had really no financial incentive to fight harry and sam. johnson held the world title and in those times there was no economic advantage to fight Sam. it was a time off the white hope and fighting those opponents is where the money was. Dempsey held the heavy title and the earning power that entailed I sure he was advised not to risk it against a middleweight that frustrated him in sparring.

[JAB5239]

pro boxing is a business and both both jacks had really no financial incentive to fight harry and sam. johnson held the world title and in those times there was no economic advantage to fight Sam. it was a time off the white hope and fighting those opponents is where the money was. Dempsey held the heavy title and the earning power that entailed I sure he was advised not to risk it against a middleweight that frustrated him in sparring.

I respectfully disagree. Johnson was offered very good money to fight Langford in Australia and France. As far as Dempsey goes, I'm thinking he could have made far more money fighting Greb than guys Greb had already beaten soundly. Boxing is a business, I agree. But it doesn't seem business was the main concern here unless protecting your future earnings is what we're talking about. If that is the case than these are both clear ducks in my opinion.

[rightsideup]

I respectfully disagree. Johnson was offered very good money to fight Langford in Australia and France. As far as Dempsey goes, I'm thinking he could have made far more money fighting Greb than guys Greb had already beaten soundly. Boxing is a business, I agree. But it doesn't seem business was the main concern here unless protecting your future earnings is what we're talking about. If that is the case than these are both clear ducks in my opinion.

you hit the nail on the head they were protecting there future earnings

[WalkerSmithJnr]

pro boxing is a business and both both jacks had really no financial incentive to fight harry and sam.

If you look back fighters were far more active chasing the title than when they were title holders. As title holders they were happier fighting exhibitions. Looking from Johnson up to Schmeling you get on average less than 1 title fight a year.

[billeau2]

If someone asks me which whore i like better at the mustache ranch....and I reply "well prostitution is illegal in Guam" it doesnt really address the question. The fact that "boxing is a business" does not address directly the question of which situation was a duck, or was a greater duck. Certainly business decisions factor into avoiding a fighter...

Regarding the financial factor, Johnson made a lot of money fighting...i doubt it was near what Dempsey made. Dempsey along with Babe Ruth created the archetype for the superstar athlete. jeffries became the first fighter to make boxing a gate office enterprise...i think when he fought Killian (someone might want to recheck his opponent), but the roaring 20's was when athletes became larger than life....financially. With this in mind, Dempsey may well have had social and financial considerations that Johnson did not.

Dempsey as an individual, by all accounts was not a rascist, however being in the public eye at that time he did not fight black fighters. he ducked the Black panther Harry Wills, who was a legitmate threat to him, and in so doing denied Wills a chance, in his prime to fight for the championship. To Dempsey being in the public eye probably meant not ruffling feathers.

I think with Johnson he may have had what I call "Spike lee disease"...I.e. when young black film makers started doing similar films to him, Lee reacted with hostility....Like "don't imitate my style!" Johnson had fought most contemporary Black fighters multiple times in his career... It was a big step up for him to fight and not be ignored by the establishment that loved to hate him. This is probably why he didn't want that fight.

With Dempsey, Grebb was like fighting five Margarito's...all at once....for seven hundred rounds.....with cement wraps..... and one hand tied behind your back...yes I'm exxagerating! There was really no benefit in this fight.

Now Jab regarding "leftovers" Greb did beat Tunney (Tunney returned the favor) but these were bruising fights....they were not a case where Grebb walked through Tunney and said "ok champ lightwork is done, its you and I." Grebb would have been a tough fight for sure...Like James Toney, or Archie Moore for example, Grebb has a chin that could stand up to punchers at heavyweight...So the fight had some legitimate basis.

In the end there were reasons. Financial reasons were probably more so in Dempsey's time though. Little Arthur did not want to be identified as a "Black champion" so much as "the champion." With Grebb, nobody fought Grebb unless they had to...If Dempsey wins, he beats a smaller man, if he loses, he loses to a smaller man. Dempsey was a superstar and picked his opposition according to public opinion, this unfortunately includes prevailing rascist attitudes at the time...Its probably why babe ruth didn't pitch in baseball...he was perhaps a better pitcher than hitter and today would have been a pitcher (I think...I could be exxagerating) but...like Barry Bonds, homeruns are exciting! they bring the fans in!! and with superstar athletes the court of public opinion is final...So we have Ruth the home run caller, the man who hit the ball so far it had to upgrade its status to first class mid flight!

[billeau2]

If you look back fighters were far more active chasing the title than when they were title holders. As title holders they were happier fighting exhibitions. Looking from Johnson up to Schmeling you get on average less than 1 title fight a year.

Thats a good insight....human nature at its finest! The older fighters were tough, not ******, when on top of the hill one does not fight everyone climbing up, they wait until one climber arrives. Both opponents in this case were guys that were a very tough fight.

[rightsideup]

If you look back fighters were far more active chasing the title than when they were title holders. As title holders they were happier fighting exhibitions. Looking from Johnson up to Schmeling you get on average less than 1 title fight a year.

Yes they made a fortune as celebrities even back then. Jack Dempsey was a terrible actor.

[billeau2]

Yes they made a fortune as celebrities even back then. Jack Dempsey was a terrible actor.

But a great writer!

[rightsideup]

But a great writer!

I need to check some of his stuff out