Why is there no fight footage of Harry Greb?

[QueensburyRules]

This is merely semantics. You will find that while "boxing" was illegal in many states at this time it was still conducted and sanctioned in those states. And again, it wasnt because the sport itself was seen as illegitimate it was because progressives believed it drew unsavory elements and had an unsavory influence.



You are conflating several instances into one. The supposed $50,000 you mention was allegedly paid in late 1925. This wasnt the first time they were matched but the last. Wills denied ever being paid that money despite what the newspapers said. Regardless, he was already a property owner in NY by that time. Dempsey's business manager himself said the money was paid by Dempsey through his friend, promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons who had been enlisted to assist Dempsey get the NY State Athletic Commission off his back. The Commission had notified Dempsey in the summer of 1925 that if he did not honor Wills' challenge and sign to fight him he would be stripped. Doc Kearns, who was now estranged with Dempsey but still his manager of record signed Dempsey to fight Wills believing Dempsey would lose, as a form of revenge. Dempsey repudiated the contract but realized that being stripped of the title would hurt his ability to earn needed a way to keep the gravy train rolling. He enlisted his close friend Floyd Fitzsimmons who had promoted the Dempsey-Miske fight to begin negotiations for a promotion between Dempsey and Wills. The terms of the contract were set in such a way that they could not be met which would mean that Dempsey could walk away unscathed and say that he was trying his best to make the fight even though he was doing nothing of the sort. It was a near complete repeat of the situation in 1922 whereby Dempsey was forced to start negotiations with Wills by the NYSAC and had his buddy Tex Rickard draw up a "contract" which both signed. Problem was that the contract gave no date for the fight, no venue, nothing at all. It was merely a promise that if a promoter the parties deemed acceptable came up with an offer both parties deemed acceptable then the fight would be made. Of course this left open the option for Dempsey to simply claim every promoter and offer that came out of the woodwork was unacceptable, which he did.




Apples and oranges. This is the popular story that Dempsey put forth but its simply not true and ignores the fact that several countries outside of the United States wanted to host the bout as well. The only common denominator in Dempsey not fighting Wills is Dempsey. Furthermore, for such a supposedly racially charged topic Wills routinely came out FAR on top in newspaper and magazine polls as Dempseys top challenger in that era. How many poor blacks do you suppose were buying newspapers and magazines in that era? Thats a LOT of white people who supported Wills efforts to get a title shot. The myth that racism kept Wills from a title shot is just that. What actually kept him from a title shot was that he was far more dangerous than guys like Miske, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, and Firpo.



No but you are talking about an era literally three decades earlier. Furthermore, comparing boxing and horse racing or baseball is silly. The number of race tracks in the united states at any time in its history was/is miniscule compared to the number of fight clubs or venues which housed boxing. Likewise baseball. Furthermore, both baseball and horseracing have gone through reform movements in their history. ******** touched and effected all three sports differently but no less consequentially. It was you who said boxing was seen as illegitimate. Thats a blanket statement that simply doesnt hold water. Go back and compare the statistics of boxing matches held when you think it was supposedly illegal or illegitimate compared to professional horse races or baseball. I guarantee it wont even be close. In fact if you go back and look at the revenue brought to the State of New York, where both baseball and horse racing were huge, you will see that boxing brought in FAR more revenue in fees and taxes than either of those other two sports. But back to the original point you were trying to make: That because boxing was supposedly illegal and hence a match with Wills was problematic in the making because they couldnt find anywhere where there werent ND rules. This is, again, nonsense. You are aware, I hope, That Dempsey-Carpentier and Dempsey-Miske were held under ND rules. Dempsey had five successful title defenses in seven years and two of those were under ND rules. He had no problem defending his title under ND rules when the opponent was a no hoper.

- -Wow, I see you perfected the trademark Greb flurry of punches whilst fluttering about like a butterfly.

Gonna go in Big George mode to walk you back, first being marijoochi being illegal the whole of my life, yet being popular enough to land many in the pen, a felony lifetime in Texas for many decades. No baseball player of note ever got tossed in the clink like John L or JJ to mention a few.

Guns! Ever had a bunch loaded, ****ed with you as the target? That's what Fitz had to face down at least twice. JL,Fitz, and Corbett got into theater for their Money. Willard his own Wild West show and Dempsey in Hollywood.

Now Jack fights Tunney who beat Greb 4x, and in between KOs Sharkey who humiliated Wills, and need I say more?

And surely you know when the politics had changed, Rickard wanted to lure Jack back with a title eliminator, one being Tunney vs Wills, but Wills refused.

I like Harry a bunch as a higher order being, but like Dempsey he got screwed around in different way thanks to the surreptitious nature of boxing and politics that you seem to affirm without acknowledgement.

Rickard arranged Carpentier that was a blockbuster where Jack portrayed as a draft dodger in his own country whilst Georges portrayed as the hero. Were Kearns and Jack supposed to turn down YUUUGE $?

And Kearns and his previous fake mgr who was nothing more than a NY shyster put a severe crimp on Jacks career, the details well documented. It was Kearns who arranged that shady Shelby bankruptcy against Gibbons who also beat. Greb. Dempsey had no control over his career and scarcely reaping the magnificent sums he generated.

Now I could go on, but me thinks you doth protest far too much, so I bid you a pleasant adieu.

[travestyny]

Well well well. So a boxing historian came in and said the same exact thing that I've been telling some of you guys over and over.

It was kind of funny reading through the posts because it's obvious that Mr. Klompton has gained a lot of your respect, so when he got to Dempsey, some of you seemed reluctant to go into your usual rabid attack mode and were relegated to gingerly disagreeing instead

I've provided newspaper articles, quotations, court documents, etc. to show you guys that Dempsey wanted no part of Wills. What a few of you don't seem to understand is that just because it's your personal opinion that Dempsey would have beaten Wills, that doesn't change the facts here. Dempsey broke a valid contract, as revealed definitively by US courts EXPLICITLY, and made up a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo to try to justify this fight not happening, including stating that while he was champion, Wills will NEVER get a shot because he was tired of being dragged into courts by Wills trying to force the fight, and at the same time Demspey offering a bogus winner take all match instead that he knew would never ever take place. Even the money that he claimed to have gave to a third party for this winner take all fight (which according to Wills manager Dempsey should have known was illegal anyway) turned out to be a lie as the third party admit that he didn't have the money.

He simply didn't want it. The proof is in the pudding. When you sign a contract that states specifically when you are to receive the first payment, and you break the contract before the scheduled first payment, you've pulled out of the fight. The reasons Dempsey gave for pulling out not only make no sense to me or anyone else who is unbiased, but also made no sense to the court. If anyone needs the fine details again, I'm happy to provide them.

It was a duck. He ducked Wills and would have ducked him for an eternity. Mr. Klompton did a great job of explaining this.


It doesn't change what Dempsey has accomplished, but it's time for some of you to be real with yourselves about this.

[klompton]

What is your take on the abilities of Harry Wills? He looks crude on film and seems to clinch excessively (which in his defense might have been the norm for that era.)

Do you rank him highly as a fighter?

I dont think we see the best of Wills on film. The films we have of him date from 1924 and 1927. That puts him at a minimum of 32 (likely closer to 35 as there is some dispute over his age). That being said there are things we can glean from the films. Hes big, strong, and knows how to protect himself on the inside. Consider that Luis Firpo's chief asset was his strength and watch Firpo bull Dempsey around the ring. Wills handles Firpo easily in the clinches. He is clearly the stronger man despite Firpo's vaunted strength. Another thing to notice in the Firpo fight is that at one point Wills wobbles Firpo with a jab. He clinches a lot but Wills was known to both box and be very physical on the inside. He was excellent at body punching on the inside. Against Madden hes a fighting a guy who was known for his durability. Madden had never been stopped (Boxrec shows a stoppage loss early in his career but this was more on the order of NC or a DQ when the bout was stopped for lack of fighting). I know of only one time Madden was off his feet before this fight (Greb knocked him down) and only once after (Tunney knocked him out in a fight that was widely reported to have been fixed, Madden taking a huge bribe to go down and make Tunney look better than Wills). So Wills was facing a guy well known for his ability to stand punishment and he did what he had to do. He beat the hell out of the guy making his face unrecognizable. Both of Madden's eyes were grotesquely swollen and he was bleeding from numerous cuts. Some have said Wills looks unimpressive against those guys but I would ask: Did he lose a second of any of the footage in those two fights? I dont think so. I think he wins as he pleases relatively easily. He may not be exciting in those fights but not being exciting is different from not being effective. So my question would be: If Dempsey struggles with the strength of Firpo and is bothered greatly by the jabs and right hands of Bill Brennan is he going to just bowl over Wills who was clearly strong than Firpo and a better boxer and harder puncher than Brennan on the outside but more importantly the inside? I think Dempsey would have to get home his punch early and fast and hope it lands to effect which is no guarantee. I think more importantly Dempsey and his handlers knew this as well. Wills was no Willard, Brennan, Miske, Firpo, or Gibbons. He combined the best traits of all of those men to some degree and thats a nightmare for a guy like Dempsey who had relatively easy pickings for years.

[klompton]

I don't know where you get "misinformed" for one thing if you read my point it is that Wills got blown up as a fighter imo, and would not have been a great threat to Dempsey...That is what is known as an "opinion." At least where I come from...

Your exact words were that the idea that Dempsey had ducked Wills was misinformed. At least stand by your words.

Wills smashing someone, who troubled Dempsey ahh the old triangle theory...Ok. I can buy it under certain conditions...Yet Wills also lost to many questionable fighters, there were inconsistencies, etc. I will come back to this point later. By the way didn't firpo and Wills draw? the same Firpo who Dempsey beat?

Wills-Firpo didnt draw? Over 60,000 people witnessed that fight. A non championship between a black man and a foreigner. Thats not drawing?

Oh I see a Dempsey hater

No a Dempsey realist. Not a fantasist who imagines him as this rampaging destroyer who mowed down the division. That never happened and he never showed any inclination to do it.

Well I respectfully disagree doc and I will tell you why: there was a period in boxing when you had men who had been around, some even since JOhnson, all the way up to Tyson...Trainers, fighters, etc...and when they were asked who they thought the greatest heavyweight was, you know as an expert who they sited the most: Dempsey. These men were as much a historical circumstance as not having film of Greb. It just so happened we had some very old guys still sharp, who had seen and even trained some of the best, and they were unanimious in their praise of Jack.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jdempsey.html

You are aware of the fact, I hope, that given the technical limitations of that era we today have likely seen as much and know as much or more about Dempsey than those men of whom you speak. You do understand that I hope. These same men who pontificate about the great Carpentier and how much of a threat he was Dempsey had never even seen him fight. You get that right? Im supposed to give so much weight to a bunch of guys who when confronted with films of these old timers they waxed poetic about they couldnt even tell who they were? Please. For every Monte Cox knob slobbering over Dempsey there an equal amount of respected historians and contemporaries who thought he was overrated. Thats a fact but if you only look for sources that support your preconceived notion youll ignore all else. You can call me a Dempsey hater but Im actually the exact opposite. Im a guy whose favorite fighter used to be Dempsey. The difference is that the more I read and immersed myself in that era the more I came to realize he was gaming the system and that the truth is a lot harsher than his legend. Thats called keeping an open mind and being objective. You should try it once you actually do some real in depth research into this era.

I take their admonitions over any historian... including you doc. I hate to use the argument that is used by many of the haters, but you never saw Greb fight did you? Tunney who fought Greb and Jack thought they were the two toughest opponents he had ever faced.

I never saw Napoleon wage war either but Im sure with enough care and research I could faithfully reproduce accounts of his battles and strategies. Thats where you and I differ. I spent 12 years researching my book and this era. I didnt read a couple of websites and imagine I was suddenly an expert.

I don't pretend to know what Dempsey was dealing with in deciding who to fight when

Thats actually, literally what you did. You pretended to know. You stated that opinions contrary to your own were misinformed and yet now you are saying you dont pretend to know the circumstances...

I never stated that Dempsey always took the best fights, but sorry Wills was not the man killer he was described as either... He was a mecurial fighter who started relatively late with talent to spare. i think Dempsey would a muodered da bum!!!

Peace Doc

Comical. Wills began boxing in 1911. Dempsey began in 1914. A Year after turning pro he was fighting the heavyweight champions sparring partner, sparring with the hw champion, and calling out the champ. Before Dempsey ever turned pro Wills had already fought both Langford and Jeanette, two of the most feared fighters of the era and two guys Dempsey turned down fights with YEARS later when they were both past their prime. Dempsey never beat anyone with the size and talent of Wills. Did he muoder Brennan? No, he was behind on the cards in that fight, had been hurt badly early, and had been hit so hard at one point that it nearly tore his ear off requiring plastic surgery. Did he muoder Gibbons? No, he was taken the distance in a pedestrian fight refereed by his close friend and former roommate who let him kidney punch, rabbit punch, hit low, and wrestle throughout. Did he muoder Tunney? No. He lost every round of both fights including the round he dropped Tunney in minus the time Tunney was on the canvas. Did he muoder Sharkey? No. He lost every round of that fight before repeatedly fouling caused Sharkey to complain upon which Dempsey dropped Sharkey. Notice when Sharkey is on the canvas hes grabbing his groin, not his jaw. Sorry DOC but Dempsey wasnt the man killer you think he was.

[klompton]

Now Jack fights Tunney who beat Greb 4x, and in between KOs Sharkey who humiliated Wills, and need I say more?

Tunney never beat Greb four times. Greb dominated their first fight. The VAST majority of eye witness accounts for their second fight had Greb a clear winner. Some said he beat Tunney as badly in that fight as in their first. It was called one of the worst robberies in NY history. Tunney won their third in a closer fight than history remembers. Greb won their fourth and Tunney won the fifth. The idea that Tunney got the upper hand on Greb is simply fantasy.

And surely you know when the politics had changed, Rickard wanted to lure Jack back with a title eliminator, one being Tunney vs Wills, but Wills refused.

This is nonsense. Wills refused because he was already the top contender of record in New York. His forfeit had been posted and he had legal standing. He held the upper hand legally. He had fought in a half dozen eliminators already and had never gotten a shot at the title so he chose to rely on the NYSAC. They back Wills and thats why Dempsey-Tunney was not allowed in New York and had to be staged in Philadelphia. Furthermore Tunney's representative at the time Tim Mara stated under oath during trial that the challenge by Tunney of Wills was bogus. They had no intention of fighting Wills and that the challenge was merely to put Tunney on the same stature as Wills as a challenger in the public's mind.

I like Harry a bunch as a higher order being, but like Dempsey he got screwed around in different way thanks to the surreptitious nature of boxing and politics that you seem to affirm without acknowledgement.

Dempsey was all to happy to seize on whatever excuse or opportunity provided itself in order to avoid Wills.

Rickard arranged Carpentier that was a blockbuster where Jack portrayed as a draft dodger in his own country whilst Georges portrayed as the hero. Were Kearns and Jack supposed to turn down YUUUGE $?

First off, Jack and Georges didnt just "portray" those parts. Jack was a draft dodger. This has been well illustrated. Georges was a war hero. With that being said, no I dont expect Jack to turn down Carpentier. That fight was too big not to get made. But that doesnt excuse 7 years of fighting unworthy challengers. Furthermore, most experts were in agreement that Dempsey-Wills would have easily smashed revenue records. That fight sold itself. All of the hype around it. All of the support from the fans and press. All of the interest. The idea that it somehow took a back seat to other Dempsey bouts simply doesnt hold water. Kearns himself said at the time, not after he and Dempsey split, that it was the biggest fight in history. But their dilemma was: Do I get one big payday and risk upsetting the gravy train or do I just keep the revenue flowing for everybody? They chose the latter, a bird in the hand.

And Kearns and his previous fake mgr who was nothing more than a NY shyster put a severe crimp on Jacks career, the details well documented. It was Kearns who arranged that shady Shelby bankruptcy against Gibbons who also beat. Greb. Dempsey had no control over his career and scarcely reaping the magnificent sums he generated.

Again, this is nonsense. The supposed "Fake mgr" you refer to was John Reisler. He is often painted as this evil con man when he was nothing of the sort. Remember, it was Dempsey who came to NY looking to make it big. Dempsey signed with Reisler. Reisler got Dempsey fights. People always paint these fights as putting Dempsey through the ringer but its not like the guys he was fighting were world beaters. They sparring partner level opponents. Dempsey was the one who skipped town, ducking out on a fight and contract. Thats simply not how things are done. How Dempsey gets painted as the victim there is nothing more than more hero worship bull****. Its why Dempsey eventually had to pay Reisler off. He had no leg to stand on in court. Furthermore, painting Dempsey as this rube being led around by the nose ignores several points. The most salient of which is the fact that for 1925 and 1926 Dempsey was calling his own shots. And during that period he took a play out Kearns book and used his buddy Fitzsimmons to create a fake contract to fight Wills with terms written in a way that Dempsey could back out of and still save face. It was the same scheme he and Kearns cooked up with Rickard back in 1922. So you cant go blaming anyone else. That was 100% Dempsey. Nobody else. He also repudiated the contract Kearns signed for him in 1925 when Kearns was still his official manager but they were on the outs. Kearns signed for Dempsey to fight Wills in New York and Dempsey refused to honor it. That was all Dempsey. Furthermore, Dempsey was more than capable of agreeing or not to which fights he wanted. He was a grown man and capable of exerting his own influence. After all he was the lynch pin of the entire operation. He could have easily said: Im going to fight Wills or nobody else. Get me Wills. He had dozens of promoters trying to make that match across five countries (at least). If Dempsey demanded his handlers make it they wouldnt have had a choice. He was all too willing to go along with avoiding Wills. It was Dempsey who was the major force behind Miske as an opponent. So the idea that Dempsey was some clueless schmuck being led around by others is simply not fact.

[QueensburyRules]

Tunney never beat Greb four times. Greb dominated their first fight. The VAST majority of eye witness accounts for their second fight had Greb a clear winner. Some said he beat Tunney as badly in that fight as in their first. It was called one of the worst robberies in NY history. Tunney won their third in a closer fight than history remembers. Greb won their fourth and Tunney won the fifth. The idea that Tunney got the upper hand on Greb is simply fantasy.



This is nonsense. Wills refused because he was already the top contender of record in New York. His forfeit had been posted and he had legal standing. He held the upper hand legally. He had fought in a half dozen eliminators already and had never gotten a shot at the title so he chose to rely on the NYSAC. They back Wills and thats why Dempsey-Tunney was not allowed in New York and had to be staged in Philadelphia. Furthermore Tunney's representative at the time Tim Mara stated under oath during trial that the challenge by Tunney of Wills was bogus. They had no intention of fighting Wills and that the challenge was merely to put Tunney on the same stature as Wills as a challenger in the public's mind.



Dempsey was all to happy to seize on whatever excuse or opportunity provided itself in order to avoid Wills.



First off, Jack and Georges didnt just "portray" those parts. Jack was a draft dodger. This has been well illustrated. Georges was a war hero. With that being said, no I dont expect Jack to turn down Carpentier. That fight was too big not to get made. But that doesnt excuse 7 years of fighting unworthy challengers. Furthermore, most experts were in agreement that Dempsey-Wills would have easily smashed revenue records. That fight sold itself. All of the hype around it. All of the support from the fans and press. All of the interest. The idea that it somehow took a back seat to other Dempsey bouts simply doesnt hold water. Kearns himself said at the time, not after he and Dempsey split, that it was the biggest fight in history. But their dilemma was: Do I get one big payday and risk upsetting the gravy train or do I just keep the revenue flowing for everybody? They chose the latter, a bird in the hand.



Again, this is nonsense. The supposed "Fake mgr" you refer to was John Reisler. He is often painted as this evil con man when he was nothing of the sort. Remember, it was Dempsey who came to NY looking to make it big. Dempsey signed with Reisler. Reisler got Dempsey fights. People always paint these fights as putting Dempsey through the ringer but its not like the guys he was fighting were world beaters. They sparring partner level opponents. Dempsey was the one who skipped town, ducking out on a fight and contract. Thats simply not how things are done. How Dempsey gets painted as the victim there is nothing more than more hero worship bull****. Its why Dempsey eventually had to pay Reisler off. He had no leg to stand on in court. Furthermore, painting Dempsey as this rube being led around by the nose ignores several points. The most salient of which is the fact that for 1925 and 1926 Dempsey was calling his own shots. And during that period he took a play out Kearns book and used his buddy Fitzsimmons to create a fake contract to fight Wills with terms written in a way that Dempsey could back out of and still save face. It was the same scheme he and Kearns cooked up with Rickard back in 1922. So you cant go blaming anyone else. That was 100% Dempsey. Nobody else. He also repudiated the contract Kearns signed for him in 1925 when Kearns was still his official manager but they were on the outs. Kearns signed for Dempsey to fight Wills in New York and Dempsey refused to honor it. That was all Dempsey. Furthermore, Dempsey was more than capable of agreeing or not to which fights he wanted. He was a grown man and capable of exerting his own influence. After all he was the lynch pin of the entire operation. He could have easily said: Im going to fight Wills or nobody else. Get me Wills. He had dozens of promoters trying to make that match across five countries (at least). If Dempsey demanded his handlers make it they wouldnt have had a choice. He was all too willing to go along with avoiding Wills. It was Dempsey who was the major force behind Miske as an opponent. So the idea that Dempsey was some clueless schmuck being led around by others is simply not fact.

- -Ok, I see boxrec edit one of Grebs losses to a disputed draw, boxing being the most disputatious pro Sport for lack of credible officials, scoring system, and now drug testing. Makes Greb 1-3-1 against Tunney whom Jack fought twice.

Reisler a crook as Kearns also proved to be, but at least he brought Jack to the top of the mountain.

Still rate Greb as one of the Top P4Pers, so your vapid incipiency does not affect my opinion of he or Dempsey. So, in a he says/she says and now you say sport, I say I'm gonna close my end of this calling you out.

Jack was acquitted the sham of false draft dodging charges against him in that sham of American participation of WW1. All they did was a brief mop up to sacrifice poor conscripts and then beat their chests. Jack near 50 served with honor in Ww2 and ended up seeing action in the Pacific when he was exempt from that war.

My family was greatly affected by WW1 that I carry to this day, the details being unimportant to such a high and mighty hoist on his own petard as the French are fond of noting.

So good luck with yer new buddy, travesty, "****ing up the game." He's wanting reparations, so pay him what you owe!

Snickers...

[GhostofDempsey]

I own Klompton's Greb book. He did a great job researching the material. However, it was written from a very biased perspective (as most boxing bios are), and it is a lot easier to write a book that credits or discredits a fighter a century later. It's a great piece of boxing history and a lot of effort went into the book. I haven't finished reading yet, as I have several unread and half-read books to read my way through this summer.

From what I have read, Greb and Dempsey sparred a few times and Greb got the better of it, but there are no first person accounts to confirm this. There is an old Ring magazine that published Greb's quotes to reporters "In a regular fight, after a few rounds, Jack would kill me". Now whether or not Harry was just being a good sportsman, who knows? But honestly, what was the upside for Dempsey to fight a MW? He was already wealthy enough fighting men his own size. Lets not forget, Dempsey was not a fan favorite until he actually lost to Tunney in their first fight. Beating up a MW would not have won over any fans and probably wasn't any more lucrative.

As to the Dempsey/Wills fight, that has been argued ad nauseum here, and no one will ever change their perspective on this one, if you sided with Dempsey or Wills, you won't change sides because of arguments that cannot be substantiated 90 - 100 years later.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Well well well. So a boxing historian came in and said the same exact thing that I've been telling some of you guys over and over.

It was kind of funny reading through the posts because it's obvious that Mr. Klompton has gained a lot of your respect, so when he got to Dempsey, some of you seemed reluctant to go into your usual rabid attack mode and were relegated to gingerly disagreeing instead

I've provided newspaper articles, quotations, court documents, etc. to show you guys that Dempsey wanted no part of Wills. What a few of you don't seem to understand is that just because it's your personal opinion that Dempsey would have beaten Wills, that doesn't change the facts here. Dempsey broke a valid contract, as revealed definitively by US courts EXPLICITLY, and made up a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo to try to justify this fight not happening, including stating that while he was champion, Wills will NEVER get a shot because he was tired of being dragged into courts by Wills trying to force the fight, and at the same time Demspey offering a bogus winner take all match instead that he knew would never ever take place. Even the money that he claimed to have gave to a third party for this winner take all fight (which according to Wills manager Dempsey should have known was illegal anyway) turned out to be a lie as the third party admit that he didn't have the money.

He simply didn't want it. The proof is in the pudding. When you sign a contract that states specifically when you are to receive the first payment, and you break the contract before the scheduled first payment, you've pulled out of the fight. The reasons Dempsey gave for pulling out not only make no sense to me or anyone else who is unbiased, but also made no sense to the court. If anyone needs the fine details again, I'm happy to provide them.

It was a duck. He ducked Wills and would have ducked him for an eternity. Mr. Klompton did a great job of explaining this.


It doesn't change what Dempsey has accomplished, but it's time for some of you to be real with yourselves about this.

Maybe it's a wake up call for you to step up your game?

You can argue that Dempsey (and his team) behaved dubiously. But to make outright judgement that he "wanted no part of Wills" takes it too far. Especially when the footage shows Dempsey to be the much better fighter, and Wills' only advantages to be bigger and soberer. Dempsey didn't go out of the his way to fight Wills. It's a fight that could have/should have fought. But that's about it. History moves forward without us knowing Dempsey's true motivation; however unsatisfactory that may be.

George Foreman has stated that he dodged Jerry Quarry. That doesn't change that George Foreman of the early 70's was one of the finest Heavyweights we have ever seen, nor does it mean that (the horrifically underrated) Jerry Quarry is in that same league.

[billeau2]

Your exact words were that the idea that Dempsey had ducked Wills was misinformed. At least stand by your words.





Wills-Firpo didnt draw? Over 60,000 people witnessed that fight. A non championship between a black man and a foreigner. Thats not drawing?



No a Dempsey realist. Not a fantasist who imagines him as this rampaging destroyer who mowed down the division. That never happened and he never showed any inclination to do it.




You are aware of the fact, I hope, that given the technical limitations of that era we today have likely seen as much and know as much or more about Dempsey than those men of whom you speak. You do understand that I hope. These same men who pontificate about the great Carpentier and how much of a threat he was Dempsey had never even seen him fight. You get that right? Im supposed to give so much weight to a bunch of guys who when confronted with films of these old timers they waxed poetic about they couldnt even tell who they were? Please. For every Monte Cox knob slobbering over Dempsey there an equal amount of respected historians and contemporaries who thought he was overrated. Thats a fact but if you only look for sources that support your preconceived notion youll ignore all else. You can call me a Dempsey hater but Im actually the exact opposite. Im a guy whose favorite fighter used to be Dempsey. The difference is that the more I read and immersed myself in that era the more I came to realize he was gaming the system and that the truth is a lot harsher than his legend. Thats called keeping an open mind and being objective. You should try it once you actually do some real in depth research into this era.



I never saw Napoleon wage war either but Im sure with enough care and research I could faithfully reproduce accounts of his battles and strategies. Thats where you and I differ. I spent 12 years researching my book and this era. I didnt read a couple of websites and imagine I was suddenly an expert.



Thats actually, literally what you did. You pretended to know. You stated that opinions contrary to your own were misinformed and yet now you are saying you dont pretend to know the circumstances...




Comical. Wills began boxing in 1911. Dempsey began in 1914. A Year after turning pro he was fighting the heavyweight champions sparring partner, sparring with the hw champion, and calling out the champ. Before Dempsey ever turned pro Wills had already fought both Langford and Jeanette, two of the most feared fighters of the era and two guys Dempsey turned down fights with YEARS later when they were both past their prime. Dempsey never beat anyone with the size and talent of Wills. Did he muoder Brennan? No, he was behind on the cards in that fight, had been hurt badly early, and had been hit so hard at one point that it nearly tore his ear off requiring plastic surgery. Did he muoder Gibbons? No, he was taken the distance in a pedestrian fight refereed by his close friend and former roommate who let him kidney punch, rabbit punch, hit low, and wrestle throughout. Did he muoder Tunney? No. He lost every round of both fights including the round he dropped Tunney in minus the time Tunney was on the canvas. Did he muoder Sharkey? No. He lost every round of that fight before repeatedly fouling caused Sharkey to complain upon which Dempsey dropped Sharkey. Notice when Sharkey is on the canvas hes grabbing his groin, not his jaw. Sorry DOC but Dempsey wasnt the man killer you think he was.

Ducking someone is an opinion... It is not based in an objective understanding. And I do stand by my words, just not your confused extortations.

Who was talking about a draw? Second time you have attacked phantom points of view. I was remarking on the relative skill sets of the men who had a common opponent.

Yeah well... You again throw a different argument my way on two accounts: First, I never claimed Dempsey was perfect, I simply said that men who knew better, trainers who by a quirk in the matrix of history, had been around for several generations of great heavyweights THOUGHT DEMPSEY was the best... and I showed you one source for that opinion out of many.

don't you read the posts? I was quoting Cox because he cited the trainers Doc. And I stand by my assertion that trainers knew better than historians. The skill set of men who could do many more things in the ring than most fighters today is a reality whether you like it, or not.

Listen...my opinion could change about Dempsey, who said I was locked in to any opinion. Want to know what I see? I see a guy who wrote a brilliant treatise on punching...ahh never mind. You have made your mind up and I have no reason to defend my opinions about Dempsey. They are based on his technical ability, his understanding and what men who had seen many greats described as his attributes. And by the way HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT SOURCES I HAVE LOOKED AT? You can't even discern that I used Cox to make a point about what at least a few great trainers said and you know what source material I have looked at?

Wills started late as a professional that is my understanding, he was a shoo in at the last moment. If I am wrong, fine, but that is what I have read. Obviously this has nothing to do with when he started fighting, it has to do with his relative age and training prior to turning professional.

Finally, So you will now explain away every Dempsey victory...Tunney who fought him did not feel the way you do BTW and Gene was known to be honest, erudite a man's man. I really hate when someone resorts to this explanation for every victory it is bush league doc, BUSH league.... Its like the idiots who talk about Ward versus Dawson and never watched the tape and breakdown of that fight: Ward systematically used feints, pin point accuracy and diversion to get Dawson to lower his guard hand inches in order to secure that victory, it was very skillfully done yet all we hear is how Dwson ws weight drained.

Look you want to debate the finer points of Dempsey I am all ears. I am always open to opinions and facts... But so far what you have hit me with is lacking imo. You address points I never made, accuse me of not standing by them, and your retort only partially addresses the skills Dempsey showed in the ring, and the accolodes he received from his contemporaries...including fellow fighters and trainers who worked with many great heavy weights.

Finally, pulling rank huh? Well there are other authors who disgree with you doc. I also have written professionally and you could take your lego blocks out of the sandbox because you are mad....and faithfully reproduce, down to the most exsquisit detail, every aspect of Naopolean's campaigns and you still would NEVER be a general sir! There is a difference. You are essentially a critic, a commentator with strong opinions. And God bless you for a great book, as a critic...I have fought martial arts, wrote cover stories as a professional writer for the biggest martial arts mag in circulation, so I have a little understanding when I applaud your efforts, but don't get to big for your britches. And don't you dare use me as a pawn to attack Cox because you did not understand the reference... Wanna argue Dempsey? Open a thread and do so.

thank you Doc

Peace.

[billeau2]

Maybe it's a wake up call for you to step up your game?

You can argue that Dempsey (and his team) behaved dubiously. But to make outright judgement that he "wanted no part of Wills" takes it too far. Especially when the footage shows Dempsey to be the much better fighter, and Wills' only advantages to be bigger and soberer. Dempsey didn't go out of the his way to fight Wills. It's a fight that could have/should have fought. But that's about it. History moves forward without us knowing Dempsey's true motivation; however unsatisfactory that may be.

George Foreman has stated that he dodged Jerry Quarry. That doesn't change that George Foreman of the early 70's was one of the finest Heavyweights we have ever seen, nor does it mean that (the horrifically underrated) Jerry Quarry is in that same league.

Fantastic post. fantastic and great example with Quarry.