Billy Miske deserved a title shot

[dmt]

i saw someone claim that Miske was an undeserving challenger because he was sick and had a few losses coming into the fight. Here's why Miske deserved a shot: even after losing to Dempsey he did so much.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

after losing the title fight vs Dempsey Miske went on to win something like 22 fights including wins over:

Charlie Weniert (who went on to beat Jack Sharkey and Fripo, pretty decent contender)

Jack Renault ( beat guys like Godfrey and Fulton)

Bill Brennan, Fulton and Gibbons

[ChrisPontius]

Those classic fighters sure were lucky to have the benefit that back then you could receive a title shot based on what you were gonna do after that titleshot, so that your current losing streak doesn't really matter.

[JohnThomas1]

Didn't he have just one single win in five previous fights? That being over a guy that averaged one win to 5 losses or draws! How in the hell does that earn a shot.

[janitor]

Those classic fighters sure were lucky to have the benefit that back then you could receive a title shot based on what you were gonna do after that titleshot, so that your current losing streak doesn't really matter.

Again you are failing to look through the fog and see what was hapening on the ground at the time.

While Dempsey had already beaten Miske twice both the fights had been close with Dempsey narrowly taking a newspaper decision. In the eyes of the public he owed Miske a title shot more than he owed Harry Wills one.

Now in a hundred years time people will look at wlad Klitschkos recent win over Lamon Brewster and say-

"What was the point"?

On the ground at the time we knew exactly what the point was.

In a hundred years time people might look at boxrec and ask why Lennox Lewis fought Michael Grant when there were more deserving contenders out there like Chris Byrd and John Ruiz. They will not see the climate that lead to those fights taking place or not taking place.

[JohnThomas1]

Again you are failing to look through the fog and see what was hapening on the ground at the time.

While Dempsey had already beaten Miske twice both the fights had been close with Dempsey narrowly taking a newspaper decision. In the eyes of the public he owed Miske a title shot more than he owed Harry Wills one.

Now in a hundred years time people will look at wlad Klitschkos recent win over Lamon Brewster and say-

"What was the point"?

On the ground at the time we knew exactly what the point was.

In a hundred years time people might look at boxrec and ask why Lennox Lewis fought Michael Grant when there were more deserving contenders out there like Chris Byrd and John Ruiz. They will not see the climate that lead to those fights taking place or not taking place.

Brewster had lost just one of his previous ten, in a title defense where he forced the challenger to take the canvas. It's hardly akin to having just one win in your previous five over a guy walked over as often as a doormat.

When Grant fought Lewis he was 31-0 with more ko's than one can poke a stick at. He'd also beat Goltoa the fight before and was very hyped. Again, massive differences.

[ChrisPontius]

Brewster had lost just one of his previous ten, in a title defense where he forced the challenger to take the canvas. It's hardly akin to having just one win in your previous five over a guy walked over as often as a doormat.

When Grant fought Lewis he was 31-0 with more ko's than one can poke a stick at. He'd also beat Goltoa the fight before and was very hyped. Again, massive differences.

In addition to that, Brewster knocked out Klitschko while being dominated. Those are the kind of fights you want to see rematches to.

I do think Janitor has a point, but avenging a win when the fighter in question at that time has a mediocre record is not the best thing you can do. I don't think it's unforgiveable at all, for instance Ali had some soft touches on his record as well as Joe Louis, but at least they were active and fighting the best. Dempsey was neither of those. That is when these kind of fights start making you look bad.

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1]Brewster had lost just one of his previous ten, in a title defense where he forced the challenger to take the canvas. It's hardly akin to having just one win in your previous five over a guy walked over as often as a doormat.


Again we have the good old boxrec analysis.

A fighter can loose a few fights in a row against tough competitors and still be regarded as a significant oponent, especialy today.

When Grant fought Lewis he was 31-0 with more ko's than one can poke a stick at. He'd also beat Goltoa the fight before and was very hyped. Again, massive differences.

We know that but our boxrec warrior in a hundred years time will look over his record and say-

"He was a bum. He had one significant win and apart from that did nothing. He was a soft touch in an era where there were far more deserving contenders".

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]


Again we have the good old boxrec analysis.

A fighter can loose a few fights in a row against tough competitors and still be regarded as a significant oponent, especialy today.


Ok, so tell me what fighters today have lost a few in a row yet were still regarded as significant opponents? Even more so, who today has lost a few in a row and been considered a worthy challenger for the world title?? Even with the numerous titles about you will be severely tested here.

We know that but our boxrec warrior in a hundred years time will look over his record and say-

"He was a bum. He had one significant win and apart from that did nothing. He was a soft touch in an era where there were far more deserving contenders".

Our boxrec warrior will see 31 wins and no losses, with many many early ko's. He will see a hammering of Golota right before fighting Lewis. He will see the only people Goltoa had ever lost to where Bowe and Lewis.

Our boxrec warrior will see Miske's utterly terrible record leading into the Dempsey fight and just scratch their head. No comparison sorry.

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1][quote=janitor]

Ok, so tell me what fighters today have lost a few in a row yet were still regarded as significant opponents?


How do you establish that he lost a few in a row?

His last three fights were a win and two draws. In that period a draw was often issued if a fight went the distence automaticaly.

I would add that the two losses preceeding that are newspaper decisions that some papers might have scored the other way.

Our boxrec warrior will see 31 wins and no losses, with many many early ko's.

All over men he has never heard of. Therfore they are all crap.


He will see a hammering of Golota right before fighting Lewis. He will see the only people Goltoa had ever lost to where Bowe and Lewis.


One fluke win in an otherwise mediocre career.

Who is Golotta anyway?

Iis he the Charlie Weinert of his era or something.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]
[quote=JohnThomas1]

How do you establish that he lost a few in a row?


:patsch:patsch:patsch:patsch:patsch

This is what YOU said

A fighter can loose a few fights in a row against tough competitors and still be regarded as a significant oponent, especialy today.

I responded! I asked you to back up your statement, and said nothing whatsoever about Miske losing a few in a row.

All over men he has never heard of. Therfore they are all crap.

Well at least he was beating them, Miske wasn't even doing that!!!!

One fluke win in an otherwise mediocre career.

Who is Golotta anyway?

Iis he the Charlie Weinert of his era or something.

Grant come back from two kd's in the first to win via stoppage. That you deem it a fluke says it all. He also has some middle class wins. I'd hardly call his 31-0 and world title shot a mediocre career, especially when compared to habitual losers like Miske. At one stage he must have wondered where in the hell his next win was ever going to come from. Of course he solved that by taking on the pitiful Moran, 3-13-2. He'd lost 5 in a row before Miske took him on, overall career record of 3-21-2. No doubt he'd have won a strap in the modern era tho

:roll:

[ChrisPontius]

Who is Golotta anyway?

Iis he the Charlie Weinert of his era or something.

No, he's the George Godfrey of his era, but then, Dempsey avoided him as well.


One fluke win in an otherwise mediocre career.


No, it is a legit win over a top guy who had only lost to an all time great (Lennox Lewis) and beat the living shit out of Bowe twice, who at that point was among the best heavyweights in the world.

And apart from that he beat a lot of nobodies. That didn't stop you from ranking Fulton or Gibbons high.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]No, he's the George Godfrey of his era, but then, Dempsey avoided him as well.


How exactly do you avoid sombody who is ranked at #8?


No, it is a legit win over a top guy who had only lost to an all time great (Lennox Lewis) and beat the living shit out of Bowe twice, who at that point was among the best heavyweights in the world.


I have been looking at Golottas record on boxrec and it says nothing about him beating the living sh1t out of Bowe. It says that he lost to him twice, (presumably he fouled out because he was loosing).

It seems that Golotta was an OK fighter who lost every time he steped up in competition but nothing special.

What is his biggest win?

And apart from that he beat a lot of nobodies. That didn't stop you from ranking Fulton or Gibbons high.

They beat name fighters of their era.

Golotta did not.

Therfore boxrec says that he is a nobody.

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1]
Well at least he was beating them, Miske wasn't even doing that!!!!


Highly debatable.

I know that some newspapers scored at leat one of those fights for Miske.

Grant come back from two kd's in the first to win via stoppage. That you deem it a fluke says it all. He also has some middle class wins.

Dempsey has some middle class wins over people that you have never heard of.

I'd hardly call his 31-0 and world title shot a mediocre career,

Looking back on boxrec 100 years later who did he beat?

Where is there a name that a boxing fan like yourself 100 years from now would recognise?

They would all be losses.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]


Highly debatable.

I know that some newspapers scored at leat one of those fights for Miske.


Still does nothing toward deserving a title shot. Looking a bit deeper here has really opened up my eyes to the devious doings of the era. Miske should not have been in that ring, and Dempsey freezing the title for 3 years is an utter disgrace.

Dempsey has some middle class wins over people that you have never heard of.

And Grant over people you have obviously not head of. Where Dempsey lacks is in top class wins. As has now been shown.

Looking back on boxrec 100 years later who did he beat?

Where is there a name that a boxing fan like yourself 100 years from now would recognise?

They would all be losses.

That attitude is sad. You think the warriors will know the mugs from Miske's record? They are wins for Grant, Miske is the one that has the losses leading into a title shot. It's right there in black and white. At least the boxrec warriors can see that Grant was a very winning fighter, which is more than one can say for that Miske character. Talk about a free shot, and guys like Wills were denied. Jesus Christ :patsch

[Woddy]

i saw someone claim that Miske was an undeserving challenger because he was sick and had a few losses coming into the fight. Here's why Miske deserved a shot: even after losing to Dempsey he did so much.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

after losing the title fight vs Dempsey Miske went on to win something like 22 fights including wins over:

Charlie Weniert (who went on to beat Jack Sharkey and Fripo, pretty decent contender)

Jack Renault ( beat guys like Godfrey and Fulton)

Bill Brennan, Fulton and Gibbons

I can only assume that this thread was started so you could try and gain some support for the despute on the other thread. It doesn't seem to be working.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Miske possibly did deserve a shot, but Dempsey's team had pencilled in a fight with Fred Fulton 'if he were to beat Harry Wills' for the autumn of 1920. Shortly before this it was reported that Dempsey had agreed to drop his 'drawing of the colour line'. But then Wills iced Fulton, Banana Sam iced him and, of course, the best laid plans of mice and er...mice had gone awry.

[ChrisPontius]

How exactly do you avoid sombody who is ranked at #8?



He was ranked #4 in 1925 and was ranked in the top10 for 3 consecutive years.



I have been looking at Golottas record on boxrec and it says nothing about him beating the living sh1t out of Bowe. It says that he lost to him twice, (presumably he fouled out because he was loosing).


Next time take a better look at Boxrec, because it says this:

Bowe-Golota I:
Bowe came into this fight as a reknowned champ; Golota as a relative unknown "Great White Hope." What unfolded was a night of high drama as Bowe was taught a boxing lesson with Golota punching him round the ring as if it were Bowe who was the novice. Unfortunately Golota was penalised for repeated low blows. It seemed a little unfair as Bowe too was guilty of dirty fighting. Golota was very good at acting dumb and his nonchalant reaction to having points deducted by the referee either displayed a belief that he would either win by KO, or that he held Bowe in supreme contempt. Or both. Whichever, it made for pulsating viewing. The referee had enough by Round Seven as Bowe was sent crashing to the canvas yet again with a big uppercut to the balls and disqualified Golota. If that wasn't sensational enough, Golota was then attacked by one of Bowe's corner men as he walked back to the corner, being smashed on the head with a mobile cellphone which seemed to shatter on the Pole's crown. Golota's reaction was to instantly swing round and smash the much lighter man in the face, instigating a free for all in the ring. Within seconds the ring was packed like sardines with various bodies throwing punches and Lou Duva ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Golota's promoter, was seen lying in the ring, the victim of a heart attack. It was all too much for the crowd who then turned on each other with large numbers of fight fans attacking each other with whatever they could get their hands on, including the auditorium chairs. It seemed to be racially fueled as the predominantly white following of Golota clashed with the mainly black Bowe supporters. The event was poorly policed and thousands of pounds worth of damage was caused. This incident was named The Ring ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) magazine Event of the Year ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) for 1996.

Bowe-Golota II:



Weights: Bowe 235, Golota 239
Bowe down in 2nd and 5th; Golota down in 4th.
Golota, while clearly winning the fight, was again disqualified for repeated low blows. Golota had 3 points deducted.
Referee: Eddie Cotton
Judge: Steve Weisfeld 71-75 | Judge: Shafeeq Rashada 73-75 | Judge: Al DeVito 72-74
After this bout Bowe was inactive from 1997-2003.

It seems that Golotta was an OK fighter who lost every time he steped up in competition but nothing special.

What is his biggest win?


On film you can see how talented and fluid Golota is. He doesn't really have a good win but as said before, he beat the shit out of Bowe twice and a more merciful corner/referee would've stopped the second fight anywhere past the 5th, i seriously thought Bowe might die in there, especially with the quick weight loss.


They beat name fighters of their era.

Golotta did not.

Therfore boxrec says that he is a nobody.

Yeah, well we have additional information so no need to be a hard head. Nothing suggests that Miske was like Golota.

[janitor]

[quote=JohnThomas1][quote=janitor]
Still does nothing toward deserving a title shot.


I think it was a viable choice given the unfinished business angle. Also consider that Dempseys team might not have known about Miskes condition. He probably did not advertise it for obvious reasons.


Looking a bit deeper here has really opened up my eyes to the devious doings of the era. Miske should not have been in that ring, and Dempsey freezing the title for 3 years is an utter disgrace.


I tend to agree on both points.


And Grant over people you have obviously not head of. Where Dempsey lacks is in top class wins. As has now been shown.


Personaly I think Grant is under rated. Putting my personal view aside I expect Lewis to be piloried for this title defense in 100 years.

That attitude is sad. You think the warriors will know the mugs from Miske's record? They are wins for Grant, Miske is the one that has the losses leading into a title shot. It's right there in black and white. At least the boxrec warriors can see that Grant was a very winning fighter, which is more than one can say for that Miske character. Talk about a free shot,

What Miske will have over Grant and for that matter many modern contenders is a number of wins over the guys recognised as the best heavyweights of his era.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]He was ranked #4 in 1925 and was ranked in the top10 for 3 consecutive years.


No case to answer

1925

Jack Dempsey ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
Harry Wills ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy Gibbons ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Charley Weinert ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Quintin Romero Rojas ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Renault ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Luis Angel Firpo ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Godfrey ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jim Maloney ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Erminio Spalla ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


Next time take a better look at Boxrec, because it says this:

Bowe-Golota I:
Bowe came into this fight as a reknowned champ; Golota as a relative unknown "Great White Hope." What unfolded was a night of high drama as Bowe was taught a boxing lesson with Golota punching him round the ring as if it were Bowe who was the novice. Unfortunately Golota was penalised for repeated low blows. It seemed a little unfair as Bowe too was guilty of dirty fighting. Golota was very good at acting dumb and his nonchalant reaction to having points deducted by the referee either displayed a belief that he would either win by KO, or that he held Bowe in supreme contempt. Or both. Whichever, it made for pulsating viewing. The referee had enough by Round Seven as Bowe was sent crashing to the canvas yet again with a big uppercut to the balls and disqualified Golota. If that wasn't sensational enough, Golota was then attacked by one of Bowe's corner men as he walked back to the corner, being smashed on the head with a mobile cellphone which seemed to shatter on the Pole's crown. Golota's reaction was to instantly swing round and smash the much lighter man in the face, instigating a free for all in the ring. Within seconds the ring was packed like sardines with various bodies throwing punches and Lou Duva ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Golota's promoter, was seen lying in the ring, the victim of a heart attack. It was all too much for the crowd who then turned on each other with large numbers of fight fans attacking each other with whatever they could get their hands on, including the auditorium chairs. It seemed to be racially fueled as the predominantly white following of Golota clashed with the mainly black Bowe supporters. The event was poorly policed and thousands of pounds worth of damage was caused. This incident was named The Ring ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) magazine Event of the Year ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) for 1996.

Bowe-Golota II:

Weights: Bowe 235, Golota 239
Bowe down in 2nd and 5th; Golota down in 4th.
Golota, while clearly winning the fight, was again disqualified for repeated low blows. Golota had 3 points deducted.
Referee: Eddie Cotton
Judge: Steve Weisfeld 71-75 | Judge: Shafeeq Rashada 73-75 | Judge: Al DeVito 72-74
After this bout Bowe was inactive from 1997-2003.On film you can see how talented and fluid Golota is. He doesn't really have a good win but as said before, he beat the shit out of Bowe twice and a more merciful corner/referee would've stopped the second fight anywhere past the 5th, i seriously thought Bowe might die in there, especially with the quick weight loss.


Me too.

While boxrec has in fact done a good job of covering these fights you can see my point.

What if it just said Bowe win DQ by both fights?

There are a lot of fights like that on boxrec from Dempseys era.

Yeah, well we have additional information so no need to be a hard head. Nothing suggests that Miske was like Golota.

Again it is not my personal view that Golotta is a nobody.

I am just arguing that he could come to be perceived that way in 100 years.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote]
[quote=JohnThomas1]

I think it was a viable choice given the unfinished business angle.
I can see the point.

I tend to agree on both points.
:good

Personaly I think Grant is under rated. Putting my personal view aside I expect Lewis to be piloried for this title defense in 100 years.
Agreed on the first, but guaranteed Lewis won't be criticised.

What Miske will have over Grant and for that matter many modern contenders is a number of wins over the guys recognised as the best heavyweights of his era.
They're already mostly forgotten, let alone in decades to come. Lewis has Tyson and Holyfield on his record. He can't go wrong.

[OLD FOGEY]

Again you are failing to look through the fog and see what was hapening on the ground at the time.

While Dempsey had already beaten Miske twice both the fights had been close with Dempsey narrowly taking a newspaper decision. In the eyes of the public he owed Miske a title shot more than he owed Harry Wills one.

Now in a hundred years time people will look at wlad Klitschkos recent win over Lamon Brewster and say-

"What was the point"?

On the ground at the time we knew exactly what the point was.

In a hundred years time people might look at boxrec and ask why Lennox Lewis fought Michael Grant when there were more deserving contenders out there like Chris Byrd and John Ruiz. They will not see the climate that lead to those fights taking place or not taking place.

Dempsey hadn't beaten Miske twice. Both were no decision bouts. The first went ten rounds and was generally judged a draw. Dempsey had a slight edge in the second, a six round affair.

Many old-timers up in St Paul when I was a kid claimed that Miske had the edge in the 10 round fight. I would say that Miske was unfinished business for Dempsey.

[dmt]

Dempsey did not avoid Godfrey, he was a sparring partner for Dempsey for some time and never considered as significant contender as either Wills or Tunney. That's why Dempsey agreed for a fight with Wills but it never happened and then he fought Tunney.

[Woddy]

Dempsey did not avoid Godfrey, he was a sparring partner for Dempsey for some time and never considered as significant contender as either Wills or Tunney.

One of whom he avoided, while losing to the other.

[dmt]

One of whom he avoided, while losing to the other.u r so biased. Yes Wills did not get a shot but he was not necessarily "avoided". And i must have said it a thousand times that he was well past his prime when he fought Tunney

[janitor]

One of whom he avoided, while losing to the other.

For the last time.

Godfrey was ranked at #8 when Dempsey champion. Acusing Dempsey of ducking Godfrey is more than a stretch.

Did he avoid charlie Chaplin as well?

I mean he was around tha the time.

[Woddy]

u r so biased.

I beg your pardon?

You're the one who for the past week has gotten his undies in a bundle over this issue no matter how many times and how many posters have refuted your arguments. Perhaps if you were a little less "biased", then maybe you'd start to develop a more balanced view instead of holding your course on a futile mission to make Dempsey look better than he really was.

[Woddy]

For the last time.

Godfrey was ranked at #8 when Dempsey champion. Acusing Dempsey of ducking Godfrey is more than a stretch.

Did he avoid charlie Chaplin as well?

I mean he was around tha the time.

Read the previous post that I responded to, rather than constantly planning your next attack. I was referring to Wills and Tunney, not Godfrey.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote]


No case to answer

1925

Jack Dempsey ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
Harry Wills ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy Gibbons ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Charley Weinert ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Quintin Romero Rojas ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Renault ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Luis Angel Firpo ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Godfrey ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jim Maloney ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Erminio Spalla ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Me too.

While boxrec has in fact done a good job of covering these fights you can see my point.

What if it just said Bowe win DQ by both fights?

There are a lot of fights like that on boxrec from Dempseys era.



Again it is not my personal view that Golotta is a nobody.

I am just arguing that he could come to be perceived that way in 100 years.

You printed the 1924 ratings as the 1925 ratings.
These are the 1925 ratings:
1-champion--Jack Dempsey
2. Harry Wills
3. Gene Tunney
4. Jack Renault
5. Bud Gorman
6. George Godfrey
7. Jack Sharkey
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Paulino Uzcudun
10. Jim Maloney

With the champion taking the number one position in those days, Renault is actually the #3 contender.

Renault lost twice each to Greb and Miske in the early twenties, but went on a tear after being stopped by Miske in 13 in Jan of 1922. In 1923 he knocked out George Godfrey, Fred Fulton, and Floyd Johnson, and certainly established himself as a worthy contender. Frankly, I wonder why he wasn't given a shot. He seems a better contender than Brennan, for example.
Renault probably dropped quite a bit in the ratings because of his upset loss to Romero-Rojas in Dec of 1924, his first loss since Miske.

[janitor]

[quote=OLD FOGEY][quote=janitor]
You printed the 1924 ratings as the 1925 ratings.


Obviously so

Even having said that Renault only got into the top 5 in Dempseys last year as champion and was clearly behind both Gene Tunney and Harry Wills in the que.

He might have got a shot if Dempsey had beaten Tunney.

[Langford]

Miske deserved a title shot, sure. Should he have been one of the only ones, probably not. But he was a good fighter and there was history there.

[Cojimar 1945]

Miske had beaten Brennan, Meehan and Cowler prior to fighting Dempsey. His losses were to top guys.

[Cojimar 1945]

The guys Miske lost to such as Dempsey, Greb and Gibbons were among the best in the world at that time. Miske was a better fighter relative to his contemporaries than Michael Grant by a good margin.

[Cojimar 1945]

Godfrey was not rated very high during the years Dempsey was actively defending the title.