Even if you love Dempsey, it is time for a generation to accept -

[McGrain]

- Wills has the better resume

- Wills "would fight Jack on any street corner".

- Wills fought at the top for longer.

- Wills would have been champion were he white.

- Wills is the greater HW, title credentials aside.

- WILLS IS THE GREATER HEAVYWEIGHT



Harry Wills is rated below Jack Dempsey on modern HW lists specifically because of race. It is not that people who rate him below Dempsey are racist - at all - it is that people are bound by politics of a previous generation.


What possible reason exsists for ranking Dempsey above Wills?

[mr. magoo]

I think there are some people who rate Wills higher believe it or not, and for those who don't, its probably because Jack had a sort of charisma that Wills didn't. Sometimes things work out that way.

[McGrain]

I agree Magoo, but it's time for a generation to lob that off. The only reason to rate Dempsey above Wills is his "greatness", supported by the racially dominant society. No other reasoning exsists.

Tim to shrug that off.

[Sardu]

Wills was made to order for Dempsey. Society was viciously racist at the time and boxing is a business. Either Tex Richard or Doc Kearns (I always mix those two up) pulled the plug because they feared the fight would tank money wise. It is not Dempsey's fault although like many whites at the time he might have had a tinge of racism in his makeup - who knows? Dempsey's manager decided against a fight with Lanford in 1918 and a fight with Wills in 1924. It is a shame for Dempsey's current legacy cause' I think He would beat em' both inside the distance.

[rekcutnevets]

I have no argument with you, McGrain. I won't rate Wills in my top 10, because he never defeated Dempsey. You won't find Jack in there either. I've never really done a top 20, but I doubt either of them make my top 15. Had one defeated the other, the winner would most definitely make my top 12.

I blame Dempsey more than Wills for the fight never materializing, but I can't reward either fighter for a fight that was never won.

[McGrain]

Wills was made to order for Dempsey. .


So?

Tyson is made for Holyfield.

Read the original post again.

Which of it is not true because of the opinions you hold?

[McGrain]

What possible reason exists for Wills being ranked below Dempsey aside from a title, for which Wills was not alllowed to fight for primarily due to his race?

[Sardu]

I don't see Wills beating Dempsey or Tunney but I am no boxing savant either. You guys are way more knowledgable about the various resume's of these fighters. I know Wills fought those excellent black heavyweights like Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette, Langford, etc. I just think his style would be made to order for someone like the Manassa Mauler. Wills is probably lucky too that he never fought Dempsey on a street corner. That would have been suicidal.

[JimmyShimmy]

Jack Dempsey is rated above Harry Wills because he ripped through a fresh crop of good fighters - Wills beat on dead horses.

[McGrain]

I don't see Wills beating Dempsey or Tunney but I am no boxing savant either.


I entirely agree with you as far as Dempsey goes (not Tunney).

But my point is that when has this been a reason to keep one fighter rated below the other?

Wills has better wins. More longevity. Was ducked by the champion.

Dempsey has: a title reign. some h2h speculation.

Consistant rating of Dempsey above Wills is based upon a racist notion of title for which Wills was not allowed to fight. I am not blaming Dempsey. Perhaps he was the better fighter. If he was, he did not prove it, aside frome embracing a racist institution.

Tme to let it go.

Wills should rate higher universally.

[Sardu]

You are WAY more knowlegable about boxing than I. However, take the common opponent Jack Sharkey. Both were past their primes when each fought him. Wills was getting handily beaten perhaps even on his way to being stopped when he fouled out. Dempsey was also being shellacked and pulled it out with a one punch kayo.

[Maxmomer]

3-10 of my heavyweight list are separated by very little, Wills is in there, right along with Dempsey. I rate Dempsey higher head to head and pound for pound based on how good of a fighter I think he was, and I also think his resume is underrated.

- Wills has the better resume
Certainly, but not by a shit-load.

- Wills "would fight Jack on any street corner".
I can't be sure, but I think Wills was a pretty level-headed dude, so I doubt he'd be getting into street-fights willy-nilly. Also, if he beat Dempsey in a street-fight there would be very little to gain, not a title. Not an official one at least. Also, some street-corners may have been more suited to an unofficial heavyweight non title street fight than others, Wills might have a specific street-corner in mind. One with a working street-light for high visibility and with a low amount of wino traffic for example.

- Wills fought at the top for longer.
Yeah, like Ali and Lewis and Holmes he stayed near the top of the game for a while, and fought good opposition when past his best.

- Wills would have been champion were he white.
Would Johnson have given him a shot? Would he have won if he had gotten a shot? Who knows, my guess is maybe for the first question and maybe for the second question. Would Willard have given him a shot? I doubt it. Willard ducked Fulton, only defended his title twice and only fought Dempsey because he was so much smaller. Would he have beaten Dempsey when/if Dempsey became champion? Maybe. So...he could have been, the odds would have been better.

- Wills is the greater HW, title credentials aside.
Based on resume, longevity and consistency - yes.

- WILLS IS THE GREATER HEAVYWEIGHT
See above.

[JimmyShimmy]

Wills does not have a better resume; I'll happily break anyone down on that one.

[SuzieQ49]

JimmyShimmy,

there is no avoiding it. Wills defintley has the better resume. He beat 3 guys Sam Langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea who were clearly better than anyone dempsey beat outside of Jack Sharkey. The top white fighters Fred Fulton and Luis Firpo, Harry Wills had his way with them too. Not to mention He blasted out Kid Norfolk, another top man Dempsey should have fought, but didn't.



Mcgrain, I think what hurts Wills is film. Dempsey looks great on film. How do we know Wills doesnt look great on film? I know there is film of him vs bartley madden 1924 out there( hadvnt seen it)....Wills might look phenominal. then where do we rate him? Wills very well may have knocked jack out early, we really dont know how good harry is. He sure did a number on dempseys crop though. Firpo didnt win one round, and fulton got utterly destroyed.

[Maxmomer]

there is no avoiding it. Wills defintley has the better resume. He beat 3 guys Sam Langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea who were clearly better than anyone dempsey beat outside of Jack Sharkey. The top white fighters Fred Fulton and Luis Firpo, Harry Wills had his way with them too. Not to mention He blasted out Kid Norfolk, another top man Dempsey should have fought, but didn't.

I disagree with you. I think Miske and Gibbons are nearly as good of wins as Jeannette and McVey. They both fought as LHW's for a lot of their career so I don't rate either as high at HW but there wasn't much seperating them at their best weights, and I probably rate both higher P4P. I would actually pretty confidintely pick Miske to beat McVey. Also, Dempsey defeated Firpo and Fulton in more exciting and devestating fashion.

[Hank]

Wills is so overated. What did he do when he got chance? He lost by ko to Sharkey and Uzcudum! He wasn't old, he had no excuses (but his supporters do) and there is almost or no film of him.

[SuzieQ49]

Naw..Miske was not even as good as Kid Norfolk, who Harry blasted away in 2. Gibbons beat a blind version of Norfolk, so that hardly gives a real idea of what a fight would have been like prime for prime, but i favor norfolk in that one. I think Jeanette was on a level above those two, jeanette gave jack johnson some tough goes and we all know johnson had 10x the talent of miske and gibbons. and Mcvea at 215lb would have been a very dangerous puncher for the smallish gibbons and miske. Miske might beat mcvea due to a styles matchup, but quite possibly he might not. Mcvea beat some good fighters, while miske did well against white heavyweights. miske never separated himself from the rest of the white crop, and none of the white crop of that time outside of dempsey could compete with the top black dynamite In my honest opinion.


Also, Dempsey defeated Firpo and Fulton in more exciting and devestating fashion.

well he caught Fulton pretty early but harry left permanant damage to fulton with the beating he gave him in 3 ...but Firpo floored Jack 3 times(yes 3, not 2) and damm near knocked him out....Wills beat firpo in one sided fashion knocking him down twice...I think harry did the better job

[Maxmomer]

Wills is so overated. What did he do when he got chance? He lost by ko to Sharkey and Uzcudum! He wasn't old, he had no excuses (but his supporters do) and there is almost or no film of him.

Wills was certainly past his best when he lost to Sharkey (not by KO, though he probably would have been KO'd had he not been DQ'd) and Uzcudun. Even Sharkey agrees with me. Or he would, if he wasn't dead now. He did agree with me but at that time I didn't subscribe to this belief because I didn't know who he was. So there was nothing for him to agree with. Point is, Sharkey said Wills was past his best when he beat him, and Wills record supports this.

[SuzieQ49]

Watch Wills on film vs Uzcuden....He still possesses a nice turtle shell defense, but even in the few seconds of clip you can see hes balding and his reflexes are shot..he has nothing left. Hell, Wills by that time was so washed up he wasnt capable of beating any top 10 fighters anymore.

[Maxmomer]

Naw..Miske was not even as good as Kid Norfolk, who Harry blasted away in 2. Gibbons beat a blind version of Norfolk, so that hardly gives a real idea of what a fight would have been like prime for prime, but i favor norfolk in that one. I think Jeanette was on a level above those two, jeanette gave jack johnson some tough goes and we all know johnson had 10x the talent of miske and gibbons. and Mcvea at 215lb would have been a very dangerous puncher for the smallish gibbons and miske. Miske might beat mcvea due to a styles matchup, but quite possibly he might not. Mcvea beat some good fighters, while miske did well against white heavyweights. miske never separated himself from the rest of the white crop, and none of the white crop of that time outside of dempsey could compete with the top black dynamite In my honest opinion.




well he caught Fulton pretty early but harry left permanant damage to fulton with the beating he gave him in 3 ...but Firpo floored Jack 3 times(yes 3, not 2) and damm near knocked him out....Wills beat firpo in one sided fashion knocking him down twice...I think harry did the better job

Miske lost twice to Norfolk, indeed, though I've read the first loss was close and the second loss was during a period Miske was operating at less than 100% due to brights disease. Miske has an excellent resume, he was one of the top fighters of the era at HW or LHW, black or white. He lost to the very best and a couple of these losses came when he was not operating at his own best. I wouldn't argue that Miske and Gibbons should be rated higher at HW, just that they're not far worse than Jeannette and McVey head to head, if at all. In the same tier, in my opinion. Dempsey did better against Fulton, that's inarguable. KO'd him with a two or three punch combination, and not pretty early - 18 seconds. Fulton didn't land a punch. There is a valid argument that Wills beat Firpo more decisively than Dempsey, I suppose, but was he more exciting or more devastating? Charlie Weinert also won a shutout decision over Firpo, who else knocked him down 10 times or KO'd him anywhere near his prime?

[My2Sense]

Wills does not have a better resume; I'll happily break anyone down on that one.

Agreed.

Dempsey beat Sharkey, who was not only arguably better than anyone Wills beat, but had also just beaten the piss out of Wills himself. That alone makes the claim that Wills has the better resume very questionable, to say the least.

[My2Sense]

there is no avoiding it. Wills defintley has the better resume. He beat 3 guys Sam Langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea who were clearly better than anyone dempsey beat outside of Jack Sharkey.

That's a very questionable statement.

For starters, guys like Miske, Gibbons, etc. were rated about as highly when Dempsey beat them as those guys were when Wills beat them. Willard was the top heavyweight in the world and undisputed champion when Dempsey toppled him - that has to be taken into consideration when comparing opposition.

Moreover, Wills didn't start to beat most of these guys until after they were considered jaded and possibly on the decline.

Many people thought Jeanette should've lost to Carpentier, who was still only a blown up middleweight at the time, before Wills ever had his first win over him.

Also, you appear to be acknowledging here that the best guys Wills beat aren't as good as the best guy Dempsey beat (Sharkey), which would mean between the two, Dempsey at least has the single best quality win.

At best, their resumes are comparable, but there's very little basis for saying Wills' is outright better.


He blasted out Kid Norfolk, another top man Dempsey should have fought, but didn't.


But you could also name top men that Dempsey blasted out but which Wills didn't either - ie: Miske, Brennan, etc. Heck, Wills was even offered a fight with Tunney but turned it down.

[Maxmomer]

Wills does not have a better resume; I'll happily break anyone down on that one.

Please do.

[turpinr]

Please do.

is it ok for me to say that dempsey is vastly overated now Maxmomer.

[Maxmomer]

is it ok for me to say that dempsey is vastly overated now Maxmomer.

Certainly is. That's pretty much what this thread is for.

[KCD]

And alot of people overate the black heavyweights as though they would have been a definate certain for the crown.

[JohnThomas1]

Your topics of late have been excellent Mac.

[mcvey]

- Wills has the better resume

- Wills "would fight Jack on any street corner".

- Wills fought at the top for longer.

- Wills would have been champion were he white.

- Wills is the greater HW, title credentials aside.

- WILLS IS THE GREATER HEAVYWEIGHT



Harry Wills is rated below Jack Dempsey on modern HW lists specifically because of race. It is not that people who rate him below Dempsey are racist - at all - it is that people are bound by politics of a previous generation.


What possible reason exsists for ranking Dempsey above Wills?
MY reason is ,I THINK DEMPSEY KNOCKS WILLS SPARK OUT. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK .Little Sam Langford did it, and Dempsey would crucify the Brown Panther too imo.


How do you know Wills would have been Champion?
How do you know Wills would have beaten Dempsey?
How do you know Wills would have beaten Tunney ?[ A fight he was offered]
Which other Champ should have fought Wills?
You can rate Wills above Dempsey if you want ,but you cannot say he would have been Champ , only that he should have gotten an opportunity to become one.

What we can say is that Dempsey did not fight Wills.
Wills refused a fight with Tunney ,the winner to meet Dempsey.
Wills was beaten by Sharkey.
Wills against common opponents did not appear better than Dempsey.

[McGrain]

3Would Johnson have given him a shot? Would he have won if he had gotten a shot? Who knows, my guess is maybe for the first question and maybe for the second question. Would Willard have given him a shot? I doubt it. Willard ducked Fulton, only defended his title twice and only fought Dempsey because he was so much smaller. Would he have beaten Dempsey when/if Dempsey became champion? Maybe. So...he could have been, the odds would have been better.


I hear what you are saying, but Wills was absoltutely outstanding, not Fred Fulton. I think Willard's hand would have been forced. Johnson's too.

Interestingly, Wills's greatness is dented if he comes to the title IMO. Dempsey probably would have taken it from him! As it stands, Wills fought and beat the best of a generation, Dempsey put his feet up for three years then lost his title a man he waxes if he is busy (for me).

I hear you about small differences. I am the same. I have Wills at 10 and Dempsey at 14. That's 3 slots on a tight board. But the point is Will's superiority in almost every department. They shared a generation. One dominated it. One held the title during it. Therefore the first should always be ranked above the second.

[McGrain]

Mcgrain, I think what hurts Wills is film. Dempsey looks great on film. How do we know Wills doesnt look great on film? I know there is film of him vs bartley madden 1924 out there( hadvnt seen it)....Wills might look phenominal. then where do we rate him? Wills very well may have knocked jack out early, we really dont know how good harry is. He sure did a number on dempseys crop though. Firpo didnt win one round, and fulton got utterly destroyed.


Totally agree with all of this.

And let me say that I don't have a problem with Dempsey being above Wills on a head to head list, or a skillset list (Though that might be a little unfair).

Would love to see the Madden film.

[McGrain]

I disagree with you. I think Miske and Gibbons are nearly as good of wins as Jeannette and McVey. They both fought as LHW's for a lot of their career so I don't rate either as high at HW.


All of this is fair, but Jeanette and Mcvey both creep into my top 30 HW's (29 and 30 respectively), wheras, as you say, Miske and Gibbons aren't rated that highly at hw. Not sure where they would land actually - but a good dunt further down, that's for sure.

[McGrain]

Dempsey beat Sharkey, who was not only arguably better than anyone Wills beat, but had also just beaten the piss out of Wills himself. That alone makes the claim that Wills has the better resume very questionable, to say the least.

How on earth does their respective efforts against ONE common opponent make even the slightest dent in Wills's resume superiority?? Wills has MULTIPLE WINS over top 40 heavyweights - guys who are locked into that list - Dempsey doesn't even come close resume wise. In fact, Ali aside, i'd say Wills has the best resume in HW history. It's absolutely stacked.

His losing his sixth to last of over 100 fights doesn't render anything questionable.

[McGrain]

Your topics of late have been excellent Mac.


Cheers chap.

[McGrain]

How do you know Wills would have been Champion?
How do you know Wills would have beaten Dempsey?
How do you know Wills would have beaten Tunney ?[ A fight he was offered]
Which other Champ should have fought Wills?.

Of course, I don't know any of these things - what I do know is that Dempsey was involved in fights with fewer greats than Wills, beat fewer greats than Wills.

Reasoning for rating Dempsey above Wills -

He probably would have won a fight with Harry.

He was champion.

He does better in mythical head to head match-ups.

Not enough.

[mcvey]

Of course, I don't know any of these things - what I do know is that Dempsey was involved in fights with fewer greats than Wills, beat fewer greats than Wills.

Reasoning for rating Dempsey above Wills -

He probably would have won a fight with Harry.

He was champion.

He does better in mythical head to head match-ups.

Not enough.

I took issue with you because you stated
"Wills would have been champion if he were white"
"Wills was the greater heavyweight"
Both those statements are personal opinion ,not proven facts.

[ChrisPontius]

How Wills and Dempsey are rated is a great example of how popularity (skin color), charisma, an exciting style and good promotion can make the difference even among "boxing historians" when resume-wise there barely is any.


For all intents and purposes, Dempsey could just as well be called half-champion of the world. Because black guys were excluded from competing, even when he was coming up in the ranks. His last fight with a colored man was a 10 round, rib breaking draw in 1916 against Lester Johnson which no doubt didn't make him too happy about boxing the better black contenders; and he never did.

[JimmyShimmy]

Right you are.

The first problem we have is that Dempsey's opposition is unfairly slated because Jack never fought his outstanding challenger, so this creates something of an agenda against his resume already.

Langford & co are notorious for not getting a shot 'cause they were too good so they naturally get the sympathy vote.

These first two ingredients are perfect for a full blown trail of Dempsey without neutral consideration.

Every time someone has said something poorly of Dempsey on here they have always been poor judges and I've been here since 02'.

Wills possess' some great victories over Langford, Jeannette and McVea early in his career, but they would soon grow old and Wills would begin to beat on the shells of his colleagues.

Another point is I'd have to say Langford's real prime was before 1914, more like 1910-11, so although Wills beat a damn good version he cannot get full credit.

I except that Langford is the exception in terms of quality of opposition, but I also realise that he was on the slide when they locked horns and that Wills certainly was not his master. This is important to note - Gunboat Smith owns a legitimate victory over Langford in 1913 - does that make him greater than Dempsey?

Wills would begin to tame Sam as he crept into his 30's with his sight and natural vigour flaking away.

How good were Joe Jeanette and Sam McVey and how do they compare to Tommy Gibbons and Jack Sharkey for instance? They get a special badge of honour for hanging out with Langford, but I doubt they were genuinely better than the said guys.

At the time Dempsey beat Sharkey he was an excellent fighter and Gibbons had always been first rate.

Dempsey owns the more impressive performances by a big margin, which is part of your resume - how well you cope with your opponents. Levinsky (people forget that one), Brennan, Fulton, Willard, Carpentier, and Firpo were all taken out convincingly. Sure a few hiccups in there, but Dempsey always ended matters.

Fulton is the measure to use with Dempsey getting in there and ending matters quickly whereas Wills had to search a bit and do some scrapping before he overpowered his opponent.

Miske was a tip top fighter also and Dempsey has been credited with getting the better of him before he fell ill.

Unsurprisingly, people have now begun to realise that men like Miske, Gibbons and Carpentier are underrated. The 1924 fight between Wills and Firpo displays that Firpo was not a complete joke as many would have you believe. The guy could fight.

It is my will schooled opinion that Dempsey has a deeper resume; between crunching Brennan and upsetting Sharkey there is just more going on in there. Wills has his good victories and then he has his own little recession with a lack of fighters either in prime or noteworthy.

Without Langford, Wills' resume falls apart and no supposedly great resume should have to rest on the laurels of one man. Dempsey took care of business in better fashion and fought a wider range of styles.

[he grant]

The argments by those discounting Wills here are simply innacurate. When he lost to Jack Sharkey he was 37 years old. When he lost to Uz he was 38. To use this as any argument against him is pathetic.

Heres the bottom line. Jack Dempsey, great legend that he was, is the only champion I know even considered an all time great who did not fight the far and away # 1 contender for his entire championship run. He has a major asterik next to his legacy , period. It is inexcusable. Rickard and Kearns clearly knew Wills might flatten him and that is why they used every angle imaginable to avoid their meal ticket taking the fight.

AS John L. himself said many years earlier, ironically enough, "Whenever a white man draws the color line, there is a black fighter he is afraid of ." Dempsey was not afraid but to fight Wills but he allowed his management to allow him to aviod him and to me it seriously hurts his legacy as Wills was a far more dangerous challenger than anyone Dempsey ever fought.

Imagine Floyd Patterson simply never fighting Liston ...

[ChrisPontius]

The first problem we have is that Dempsey's opposition is unfairly slated because Jack never fought his outstanding challenger, so this creates something of an agenda against his resume already.


How is this an "agenda"? Is not ranking Bowe highly because he ducked Lewis having an agenda against Bowe, or perhaps just facing reality?



Wills possess' some great victories over Langford, Jeannette and McVea early in his career, but they would soon grow old and Wills would begin to beat on the shells of his colleagues.


Which:

A) Takes nothing away from when he beat them when they were still good
B) Is still more than Dempsey did



I except that Langford is the exception in terms of quality of opposition, but I also realise that he was on the slide when they locked horns and that Wills certainly was not his master. This is important to note - Gunboat Smith owns a legitimate victory over Langford in 1913 - does that make him greater than Dempsey?


This is a silly strawman argument. Needless to say, those who are making the argument that Wills is greater are doing so because of his entire resume, not a singular win.



Wills would begin to tame Sam as he crept into his 30's with his sight and natural vigour flaking away.

How good were Joe Jeanette and Sam McVey and how do they compare to Tommy Gibbons and Jack Sharkey for instance? They get a special badge of honour for hanging out with Langford, but I doubt they were genuinely better than the said guys.

At the time Dempsey beat Sharkey he was an excellent fighter and Gibbons had always been first rate.


Sharkey was an excellent fighter and Dempsey's best win, but at the same time, he was ahead on all cards and Dempsey beat him with a foul, low blow, for which it appears Sharkey tried to get a DQ win, but failed.


As for Gibbons, he had been a first rate... lightheavyweight. Going into the Dempsey fight, his record against Miske and Greb (another man Dempsey ducked, but couldn't hide behind the color line) is 1-1-1. There is no excuse for him not fighting Wills or Greb instead of Gibbons, after a full 3 year layoff while being champ.



Dempsey owns the more impressive performances by a big margin, which is part of your resume - how well you cope with your opponents. Levinsky (people forget that one), Brennan, Fulton, Willard, Carpentier, and Firpo were all taken out convincingly. Sure a few hiccups in there, but Dempsey always ended matters.


Dempsey was knocked down three times in two rounds by Firpo, and may well have lost by DQ, while Wills dominated him and knocked him down twice to a decision win. Dempsey was more spectacular, but we both know which performance is more assuring of how good a fighter did.

Willard was 37 years old, as good as inactive for 3 years and overweight. Dempsey won tons of fans by that spectacular performance, but Wills would've dominated him as well, just that he wasn't given the chance because he was born with a different skin pigment. Dempsey beat Carpentier, but Wills beat Norfolk.

Dempsey did beat Brennan and Miske whom Wills never fought, but then again, no way those are impressive wins than Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey. Especially given that Dempsey's superiority over Miske isn't that clear to me. When Miske was still healthy, he fought Dempsey to a 10 round draw and later lost a 6 round decision, but a 6 round fight is a joke. Then when he's so sick that he's a 10-1 underdog, he knocks him out in 3, well big deal.


By the way, any idea why Carpentier took a full 5 year layoff between '14 and '19? Was he serving in WWI?




Fulton is the measure to use with Dempsey getting in there and ending matters quickly whereas Wills had to search a bit and do some scrapping before he overpowered his opponent.


So? If you go by this argument, then Ali, Holmes, Young and Johnson would end up very low in the rankings because they weren't that agressive nor big punchers like Dempsey. What matters is how convingingly you beat a man.



Miske was a tip top fighter also and Dempsey has been credited with getting the better of him before he fell ill.


Yeah, over a 6 round fight, which is a joke. You can say that Langford was past his best, but the circumstances surrounding the Miske fights are much less flattering by comparison.



Unsurprisingly, people have now begun to realise that men like Miske, Gibbons and Carpentier are underrated. The 1924 fight between Wills and Firpo displays that Firpo was not a complete joke as many would have you believe. The guy could fight.


Firpo is a complete joke and anyone who watches him on film can see this for himself. In any gym he'd be laughed at with those skills, amateurs or pros. His size and strength (for the time) compensated somewhat for it, but he was pretty horrible.

And i must have missed those people who think Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske are underrated. The only ones who think so are Dempsey fans. Carpentier and Gibbons don't break anyone's top10 LHW list. Maybe you think that's a high standard, but plenty of other great HW's have wins over really great LHW's, like Spinks, Moore, Foster, Charles, Lewis, etc.

Miske was a heavyweight, but like i said, Dempsey didn't really prove to be that that superior to him.



Without Langford, Wills' resume falls apart and no supposedly great resume should have to rest on the laurels of one man. Dempsey took care of business in better fashion and fought a wider range of styles.

And how the heck does this matter? Without the Ali win, Frazier's resume isn't all that either, does that mean we should exclude him from the top10? The REALITY is that he DID beat Langford, a man who Dempsey wanted no part of (but according to you he was fading?).

You're making it out asif Wills' entire resume rests on Langford, which it just as much as Dempsey's does on the Sharkey win. There are plenty of good wins on Wills is resume, like Jeanette (another man Dempsey avoided), Mcvea, Norfolk, Smith, Weinert and then there's the guys that Dempsey also beat, i.e. Firpo (without nearly losing like Jack), Fulton, etc.

[JohnThomas1]

The first problem we have is that Dempsey's opposition is unfairly slated because Jack never fought his outstanding challenger, so this creates something of an agenda against his resume already.


An agenda against a guy that never fought his greatest challenger? That's rich Jimbo :hey

[mcvey]

How is this an "agenda"? Is not ranking Bowe highly because he ducked Lewis having an agenda against Bowe, or perhaps just facing reality?




Which:

A) Takes nothing away from when he beat them when they were still good
B) Is still more than Dempsey did




This is a silly strawman argument. Needless to say, those who are making the argument that Wills is greater are doing so because of his entire resume, not a singular win.




Sharkey was an excellent fighter and Dempsey's best win, but at the same time, he was ahead on all cards and Dempsey beat him with a foul, low blow, for which it appears Sharkey tried to get a DQ win, but failed.


As for Gibbons, he had been a first rate... lightheavyweight. Going into the Dempsey fight, his record against Miske and Greb (another man Dempsey ducked, but couldn't hide behind the color line) is 1-1-1. There is no excuse for him not fighting Wills or Greb instead of Gibbons, after a full 3 year layoff while being champ.




Dempsey was knocked down three times in two rounds by Firpo, and may well have lost by DQ, while Wills dominated him and knocked him down twice to a decision win. Dempsey was more spectacular, but we both know which performance is more assuring of how good a fighter did.

Willard was 37 years old, as good as inactive for 3 years and overweight. Dempsey won tons of fans by that spectacular performance, but Wills would've dominated him as well, just that he wasn't given the chance because he was born with a different skin pigment. Dempsey beat Carpentier, but Wills beat Norfolk.

Dempsey did beat Brennan and Miske whom Wills never fought, but then again, no way those are impressive wins than Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey. Especially given that Dempsey's superiority over Miske isn't that clear to me. When Miske was still healthy, he fought Dempsey to a 10 round draw and later lost a 6 round decision, but a 6 round fight is a joke. Then when he's so sick that he's a 10-1 underdog, he knocks him out in 3, well big deal.


By the way, any idea why Carpentier took a full 5 year layoff between '14 and '19? Was he serving in WWI?





So? If you go by this argument, then Ali, Holmes, Young and Johnson would end up very low in the rankings because they weren't that agressive nor big punchers like Dempsey. What matters is how convingingly you beat a man.




Yeah, over a 6 round fight, which is a joke. You can say that Langford was past his best, but the circumstances surrounding the Miske fights are much less flattering by comparison.




Firpo is a complete joke and anyone who watches him on film can see this for himself. In any gym he'd be laughed at with those skills, amateurs or pros. His size and strength (for the time) compensated somewhat for it, but he was pretty horrible.

And i must have missed those people who think Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske are underrated. The only ones who think so are Dempsey fans. Carpentier and Gibbons don't break anyone's top10 LHW list. Maybe you think that's a high standard, but plenty of other great HW's have wins over really great LHW's, like Spinks, Moore, Foster, Charles, Lewis, etc.

Miske was a heavyweight, but like i said, Dempsey didn't really prove to be that that superior to him.




And how the heck does this matter? Without the Ali win, Frazier's resume isn't all that either, does that mean we should exclude him from the top10? The REALITY is that he DID beat Langford, a man who Dempsey wanted no part of (but according to you he was fading?).

You're making it out asif Wills' entire resume rests on Langford, which it just as much as Dempsey's does on the Sharkey win. There are plenty of good wins on Wills is resume, like Jeanette (another man Dempsey avoided), Mcvea, Norfolk, Smith, Weinert and then there's the guys that Dempsey also beat, i.e. Firpo (without nearly losing like Jack), Fulton, etc.

Maybe you should think about dropping Frazier from your top ten?:lol:

[guilalah]

Darn, Wills was a damn good heavyweight for a long time, 1913-1925 more or less. I don't much care what his exact age was when he slid, if you've put up the record he did for a dozen years, it's no disgrace to then loose to the likes of J Sharkey and Uzchudun.

[DocDevil]

Think Wills deserved at shot,but I don't think he beats Dempsey.Wills takes Willard,but not a prime Dempsey.Like one poster already stated,Dempsey koed Sharkey.From what i heard Wills didn't foul Sharkey,he didn't fight Sharkey.The referee was red with rage when he pulled Harry off Sharkey for the last time,and DQed him for not fighting.Wills case is no different from guys like Machen,Williams and Folley during the fifties early sixties.They didn' get a title shot,while in their primes.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain;3706123]- Wills has the better resume


Deeper resume.

Not necisarily the same thing as better resume, or better resume over the period where their careers run paralel.


- Wills "would fight Jack on any street corner".


Sure he would but would he have been so eager to take the fight if he had been the champion and Dempsey had been the challenger?

Ass it was Wills had nothing to loose by fighting Dempsey. The least he would have got is the biggest payday of his career.


- Wills fought at the top for longer.


Grated.


- Wills would have been champion were he white.


If Wills had been white he would likley have been the defending champion while a young and hungry Dempsey was coming up through the ranks.

In this scenario will he take the fight in Toledo and can he win it?


- Wills is the greater HW, title credentials aside.

- WILLS IS THE GREATER HEAVYWEIGHT


This is certainly a reasonable viewpoint but it is not a clear cut one.


Harry Wills is rated below Jack Dempsey on modern HW lists specifically because of race. It is not that people who rate him below Dempsey are racist - at all - it is that people are bound by politics of a previous generation.


It has to be noted that a lot of observers from that generation didnt think that Wills was in Dempseys class.

Not all of it was racialy motivated. Wills had an ugly unapealing style and often won fights largley by holding his oponents for most ot the fight.

Wills would maul a guy to a points win in a hug fest while Dempsey had blown him away. People rated Dempsey higher than Wills for many of the same rasons that Tyson was rated higher than Holmes early in his career.

[mcvey]

- Wills has the better resume

- Wills "would fight Jack on any street corner".

- Wills fought at the top for longer.

- Wills would have been champion were he white.

- Wills is the greater HW, title credentials aside.

- WILLS IS THE GREATER HEAVYWEIGHT



Harry Wills is rated below Jack Dempsey on modern HW lists specifically because of race. It is not that people who rate him below Dempsey are racist - at all - it is that people are bound by politics of a previous generation.


What possible reason exsists for ranking Dempsey above Wills?
Sam Langford.
Wills beat Langford for the first time when Langford was 32, in their next fight he was kod, Langford was 32.he beat Langford next fight Sam was 33, next one Langford kod him,Sam was 34.After this Wills starts to dominate as Langford fades.
Sam Mcvey. Mcvey beats Wills first fight Sam is 30 . Sam beats him again when he is 31 . Wills beats Sam when Sam is 31 , again when Sam is 34 and their last fight is a No Contest ,when both are thrown out for not trying.
Joe Jeanette.
First fight is a draw Jeanette is 34. Next fight Wills wins, Jeanette is 35 . Wills again beats Jeanette, Jeanette is 40.
So against the trio Wills generally loses the early fights ,then begins to win consistantly as the others deterioate,through age.
KId Norfolk .
Wills beat Norfolk but Norfolk is 36lbs the lighter man.
Jeff Clark .
Wills beats Clark whose only heavyweight scalps of note are two wins over a 33 and 35 year old Langford and he has lost to Langford 4 times.
Denver Ed Martin .
Wills beats a 40 year old Martin in Martin's last fight.
Mexican Pete Everett.

Wills beats a 39 year old Everett who hadn't fought in 3 years ,and had lost 3 of his last 4 fights,kod in 3 of them .

Fred Fulton .
Wills stops Fulton in 3 rds.but Dempsey had kod him in 1 rd 2 years earlier.
Luis Firpo.
Wills comfortably beats Firpo by dec, Dempsey kos Firpo in 2 rds.
So Wills best wins are over the Black fighters who are slightly past their sell by date. IMO.
Does that make his resume better than Dempsey's?

Wills was stopped 5 times , Dempsey once.

[OLD FOGEY]

Miske lost twice to Norfolk, indeed, though I've read the first loss was close and the second loss was during a period Miske was operating at less than 100% due to brights disease. Miske has an excellent resume, he was one of the top fighters of the era at HW or LHW, black or white. He lost to the very best and a couple of these losses came when he was not operating at his own best. I wouldn't argue that Miske and Gibbons should be rated higher at HW, just that they're not far worse than Jeannette and McVey head to head, if at all. In the same tier, in my opinion. Dempsey did better against Fulton, that's inarguable. KO'd him with a two or three punch combination, and not pretty early - 18 seconds. Fulton didn't land a punch. There is a valid argument that Wills beat Firpo more decisively than Dempsey, I suppose, but was he more exciting or more devastating? Charlie Weinert also won a shutout decision over Firpo, who else knocked him down 10 times or KO'd him anywhere near his prime?

However you spin Miske, he lost twice to Norfolk. In his next fight after losing the second fight to Norfolk, he fought a draw with Gibbons. It is pretty arbitrary to try to drag his disease in as an excuse. Between the two losses to Norfolk, Miske fought a 10 round newspaper draw with Dempsey. Norfolk was certainly at least as good as Miske.

Interestingly, the supposedly totally over-the-hill Langford ko'd Norfolk between the two Miske bouts, and Wills later also knocked out Norfolk in two.

[he grant]

Chris' last post was excellent. My only difference is slight over Firpo ... he was wild but in a Fullmer/Bonavena type of way. He had some decent wins other than the Dempsey fight ... Dempsey basically fought him the dumbest way possible and while won in spectacular fashion he easily could have lost that fight ... legends also require some luck ... Ali had a ton and Dempsey had his share as proven in the Firpo fight ...

We will never know who wins Dempsey/Wills for sure since Dempsey refused to fight him. While Wills was denied a title shot, Dempsey is forever tarnished to me. He is a legend but not a proven commodity against the best of his time ... While I have been tough on Marciano, I will say that he ducked no one!

[Maxmomer]

However you spin Miske, he lost twice to Norfolk. In his next fight after losing the second fight to Norfolk, he fought a draw with Gibbons. It is pretty arbitrary to try to drag his disease in as an excuse. Between the two losses to Norfolk, Miske fought a 10 round newspaper draw with Dempsey. Norfolk was certainly at least as good as Miske.

Interestingly, the supposedly totally over-the-hill Langford ko'd Norfolk between the two Miske bouts, and Wills later also knocked out Miske in two.

Miske lost to Norfolk, went on a string of draws (two of which to fighters he had beaten more often than not in the past) then got KO'd by Dempsey. Everyone's quick to not give Dempsey any credit for his win over Miske during that period.

[ChrisPontius]

Miske lost to Norfolk, went on a string of draws (two of which to fighters he had beaten more often than not in the past) then got KO'd by Dempsey. Everyone's quick to not give Dempsey any credit for his win over Miske during that period.

Miske was a 10-1 underdog.

10-1!!! That's huge. Hopkins, who no one gave a chance against Pavlik, was 4-1 with him. Pacquiao, who was given little chance was 3-1 against De La Hoya. They were favorites compared to how much the underdog Miske was, despite the fact that Miske pretty much went even with him a few years earlier. Doesn't that tell you something?

[OLD FOGEY]

Miske lost to Norfolk, went on a string of draws (two of which to fighters he had beaten more often than not in the past) then got KO'd by Dempsey. Everyone's quick to not give Dempsey any credit for his win over Miske during that period.

I mistyped up there, saying Wills knocked out Miske. I meant to say Wills knocked out Norfolk.

Yes, Miske fought draws in 1919 with Gibbons, Brennan, and Levinsky after losing to Norfolk. There is then a 14 month gap leading to the fight with Dempsey with Miske's only effort a fight with nonentity Jack Moran. Dempsey dwelled on Miske being sick with Bright's Disease when he fought him in his autobiography.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;3711298]Miske was a 10-1 underdog.

10-1!!! That's huge.


That was like being a 3-1 underdog today.

The bookmakers back then were less cavalier with the odds, because they didnt have as much capital behind them.

You would not have got a 42-1 underdog against Dempsey with two arms.

[JimmyShimmy]

How is this an "agenda"? Is not ranking Bowe highly because he ducked Lewis having an agenda against Bowe, or perhaps just facing reality?

Which:

A) Takes nothing away from when he beat them when they were still good
B) Is still more than Dempsey did

This is a silly strawman argument. Needless to say, those who are making the argument that Wills is greater are doing so because of his entire resume, not a singular win.

Sharkey was an excellent fighter and Dempsey's best win, but at the same time, he was ahead on all cards and Dempsey beat him with a foul, low blow, for which it appears Sharkey tried to get a DQ win, but failed.

As for Gibbons, he had been a first rate... lightheavyweight. Going into the Dempsey fight, his record against Miske and Greb (another man Dempsey ducked, but couldn't hide behind the color line) is 1-1-1. There is no excuse for him not fighting Wills or Greb instead of Gibbons, after a full 3 year layoff while being champ.

Dempsey was knocked down three times in two rounds by Firpo, and may well have lost by DQ, while Wills dominated him and knocked him down twice to a decision win. Dempsey was more spectacular, but we both know which performance is more assuring of how good a fighter did.

Willard was 37 years old, as good as inactive for 3 years and overweight. Dempsey won tons of fans by that spectacular performance, but Wills would've dominated him as well, just that he wasn't given the chance because he was born with a different skin pigment. Dempsey beat Carpentier, but Wills beat Norfolk.

Dempsey did beat Brennan and Miske whom Wills never fought, but then again, no way those are impressive wins than Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey. Especially given that Dempsey's superiority over Miske isn't that clear to me. When Miske was still healthy, he fought Dempsey to a 10 round draw and later lost a 6 round decision, but a 6 round fight is a joke. Then when he's so sick that he's a 10-1 underdog, he knocks him out in 3, well big deal.

By the way, any idea why Carpentier took a full 5 year layoff between '14 and '19? Was he serving in WWI?

So? If you go by this argument, then Ali, Holmes, Young and Johnson would end up very low in the rankings because they weren't that agressive nor big punchers like Dempsey. What matters is how convingingly you beat a man.

Yeah, over a 6 round fight, which is a joke. You can say that Langford was past his best, but the circumstances surrounding the Miske fights are much less flattering by comparison.

Firpo is a complete joke and anyone who watches him on film can see this for himself. In any gym he'd be laughed at with those skills, amateurs or pros. His size and strength (for the time) compensated somewhat for it, but he was pretty horrible.

And i must have missed those people who think Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske are underrated. The only ones who think so are Dempsey fans. Carpentier and Gibbons don't break anyone's top10 LHW list. Maybe you think that's a high standard, but plenty of other great HW's have wins over really great LHW's, like Spinks, Moore, Foster, Charles, Lewis, etc.

Miske was a heavyweight, but like i said, Dempsey didn't really prove to be that that superior to him.

And how the heck does this matter? Without the Ali win, Frazier's resume isn't all that either, does that mean we should exclude him from the top10? The REALITY is that he DID beat Langford, a man who Dempsey wanted no part of (but according to you he was fading?).

You're making it out asif Wills' entire resume rests on Langford, which it just as much as Dempsey's does on the Sharkey win. There are plenty of good wins on Wills is resume, like Jeanette (another man Dempsey avoided), Mcvea, Norfolk, Smith, Weinert and then there's the guys that Dempsey also beat, i.e. Firpo (without nearly losing like Jack), Fulton, etc.

It’s important to bring up because many consider the 1920’s as a ‘weak’ heavyweight era. Many consider Bowe to still have a solid resume despite ducking Lewis.

That’s no straw man argument, that’s somebody whose is in tune with ones career flow and is telling you what’s cooking. Langford was beginning to simmer when Wills came along. That is a simple fact.

This is not ammo for you to tell me in retort that ‘Miske was ill’ or ‘Firpo sent him flying’, but for you to digest and re-evaluate.

Correct, Sharkey was an excellent fighter and Dempsey beat him. Better still, many believe this was Sharkey’s best performance, and he lost.

Gibbons was quality and Dempsey shut him out. This is where Dempsey’s own spectacular nature hampered the significance of this win.

6 rounds is not a joke when Miske was said to do well for surviving, and the win over him in 1920 was not a farce but a genuine shoot-out.

Really how ill was he, at that point, ‘cause he looks ripped and was said to be ‘throwing dynamite’.

Carpentier was serving between 1914-1919, yes.

And point is that Dempsey beat Fulton more convincingly than Wills.

Dempsey does not rely on his victories over Miske, the same cannot be said of Wills relationship with Langford.

Firpo is not a joke he had a nice awkward style that would be knocking over many of the big dudes today.

Without Ali, Frazier still has a nice resume and would have smoked some more to deepen his reign before Foreman came, or hell, maybe he could have got to Foreman early enough to see it through.

Without Langford, Wills resume just suffers big time as he had nowhere to go.

Wills got in the mix with the black dynamites a little later on and automatically gets credit for fighting better men than Dempsey did, I don’t buy it.

I beg to differ that every other good heavyweight would have got the better of Willard on that day – the man was still fighting back in the third after taking everything and Dempsey was winded.

With Wills more hold n’ slug style he would have had a much rougher ride with the resilient Willard.

Miske, Willard, Brennan, Gibbons, and Sharkey shape up nicely to Wills best. Resume is also about performance and Dempsey’s were generally better.

[JimmyShimmy]

Oh yeah, and Langford was basically out of shape during his stint with Wills.

As he neared his thirties he often came in around 200lbs and sported an unnatural round figure.

And to think those of you who always slated Willards weight against Dempsey- he'd look slim compared to Langford back then.

[Maxmomer]

Correct, Sharkey was an excellent fighter and Dempsey beat him. Better still, many believe this was Sharkey’s best performance, and he lost.

Gibbons was quality and Dempsey shut him out. This is where Dempsey’s own spectacular nature hampered the significance of this win.

Firpo is not a joke he had a nice awkward style that would be knocking over many of the big dudes today.

Some thoughts on these three comments -

Dempsey was also past his best when he beat Sharkey, it was close on the cards and not the judges or the ref thought low-blows made any physical difference in the KO. Sharkey was also fouling in the fight. He just lost his shit and ate a bitchin left hook as a result.

Dempsey did shut out Gibbons, or at least won probably 12 out of 15 of the rounds. And also coming off of a two year vacation.

I have an article quoting Jeff Clarke, who served as a sparring partner for Firpo, in which he states that Firpo was "So bad he's good." He says that Firpo was basically so awkward and unpredictable that he was effective. I just thought that was an interesting statement.

[JimmyShimmy]

Gibbons won the 6th and 11th on film. He definitely shows sparks of success, but Dempsey is dominant.

Sounds like me and Jeff Clarke thought alike. Firpo was very hard to measure and he was sneaky.

[Mendoza]

Gibbons won the 6th and 11th on film. He definitely shows sparks of success, but Dempsey is dominant.

Sounds like me and Jeff Clarke thought alike. Firpo was very hard to measure and he was sneaky.

Welcome back Jimmy Shimmy.

[SuzieQ49]

Sam Langford.
Wills beat Langford for the first time when Langford was 32, in their next fight he was kod, Langford was 32.he beat Langford next fight Sam was 33, next one Langford kod him,Sam was 34.After this Wills starts to dominate as Langford fades.
Sam Mcvey. Mcvey beats Wills first fight Sam is 30 . Sam beats him again when he is 31 . Wills beats Sam when Sam is 31 , again when Sam is 34 and their last fight is a No Contest ,when both are thrown out for not trying.

I think a good case can me made that Wills was very green and inexperienced when he faced these guys pre 1916, and once wills developed more experienced and matured, he dominated them easily. But his wins over a 31 year old sam langford, 31 year old sam mcvea, and joe jeanette in 1913 are all world class wins

[SuzieQ49]

I am not very impressed by Luis Angel Firpo. He appears to me like a crude version of Rex Layne, which is not saying much. Firpo defintley packed power in his right hand though.

[JimmyShimmy]

Oh yeah, and Langford was basically out of shape during his stint with Wills.

As he neared his thirties he often came in around 200lbs and sported an unnatural round figure.

And to think those of you who always slated Willards weight against Dempsey- he'd look slim compared to Langford back then.

Thanks, Mendoza. I never went away.

[JimmyShimmy]

Welcome back Jimmy Shimmy.

Thanks, Mendoza. I never went away.

[My2Sense]

How on earth does their respective efforts against ONE common opponent make even the slightest dent in Wills's resume superiority??

Because that opponent is probably the best quality fighter either one has ever beaten. Winning against a higher level of opposition is probably the biggest dent you could make into someone else's claim of "resume superiority."

Wills has MULTIPLE WINS over top 40 heavyweights - guys who are locked into that list

No he doesn't. There's only a handful of fighters "locked" into that list, and way too many fighters over the whole course of heavyweight history that could claim a spot on it.

Dempsey doesn't even come close resume wise.

Sharkey has as good (if not better) a case for the top 40 as anyone Wills beat.

In fact, Ali aside, i'd say Wills has the best resume in HW history. It's absolutely stacked.

That's almost absurd. JACK JOHNSON had already beaten the same guys Wills did - why should Wills' resume be considered better than his? Furthermore, what makes Wills' resume better than a host of other heavyweights that have strong resumes, ie: Joe Louis?

Here's a comparison between Dempsey's and Wills' resumes:

Wills:
Langford (HOFer)
Jeanette (HOFer)
McVey (HOFer)
Norfolk
Ed Martin

Who else would you add on here? Tut Jackson perhaps? Jeff Clark?

Dempsey:
Willard (HOFer, reigning undisputed champion at the time)
Sharkey (HOFer, probably best heavyweight on either list)
Gibbons (HOFer)
Carpentier (HOFer)
Levinsky (HOFer)
Miske
Brennan

...and of course, there's the guys that they both beat, like Fulton, Firpo, and Gunboat Smith - though in each case there I think it's worth noting that Dempsey beat them first and when they were generally more highly regarded.

What are you looking at here that makes the top list standout as "clearly better" than the bottom one?

His losing his sixth to last of over 100 fights doesn't render anything questionable.

It does if he never beat anyone better than that opponent, and if the guy we're comparing him to(Dempsey) was able to beat that same guy at a comparable stage in his career.

[My2Sense]

The argments by those discounting Wills here are simply innacurate. When he lost to Jack Sharkey he was 37 years old. When he lost to Uz he was 38. To use this as any argument against him is pathetic.


Not really, as Wills was considered to have reached his peak at the age of around 30, and was performing consistently and impressively right up until being shockingly whupped by an up-and-coming Sharkey - all the while he had been considered the most highly rated and regarded contender in the division, right up until then. I agree Wills wasn't still at his absolute peak when he fought Sharkey, but he was still considered a very live top fighter, nowhere near washed up or anything like that.

By contrast, far more people felt that Dempsey had looked much more faded from his top form against Tunney, perhaps even washed up - and he KO'd Sharkey right after that.

Whatever their respective ages, Wills and Dempsey both reached their peaks at around the same time and declined at the same time. Their careers very closely paralleled each other, ironically enough. Wills was no more past his prime than Dempsey was when they both fought Sharkey, or than guys like Langford, Jeanette, etc. were when he started beating them.

Heres the bottom line. Jack Dempsey, great legend that he was, is the only champion I know even considered an all time great who did not fight the far and away # 1 contender for his entire championship run. He has a major asterik next to his legacy , period. It is inexcusable.

I agree 100%.

However, that's a separate issue from who has the better resume, or even who was the better actual fighter.

[Maxmomer]

I am not very impressed by Luis Angel Firpo. He appears to me like a crude version of Rex Layne, which is not saying much. Firpo defintley packed power in his right hand though.

Bill Brennan had to go to the hospital to get his brain checked after he fought Firpo. Another of Firpo's opponents was out for 10 minutes after he ate one of his right hands. I'm just saying things because I've been reading a lot of NY Times articles lately.

[dmt]

If wills is better then dempsey based on resume, then how come he isnt better then Johnson or jeffries for that matter?

[Maxmomer]

If wills is better then dempsey based on resume, then how come he isnt better then Johnson or jeffries for that matter?

I rate Wills several spots higher than Jeffries. I don't think much of Jeffries.

[turpinr]

I rate Wills several spots higher than Jeffries. I don't think much of Jeffries.

i don't rate him either.

[OLD FOGEY]

Not really, as Wills was considered to have reached his peak at the age of around 30, and was performing consistently and impressively right up until being shockingly whupped by an up-and-coming Sharkey - all the while he had been considered the most highly rated and regarded contender in the division, right up until then. I agree Wills wasn't still at his absolute peak when he fought Sharkey, but he was still considered a very live top fighter, nowhere near washed up or anything like that.

By contrast, far more people felt that Dempsey had looked much more faded from his top form against Tunney, perhaps even washed up - and he KO'd Sharkey right after that.

Whatever their respective ages, Wills and Dempsey both reached their peaks at around the same time and declined at the same time. Their careers very closely paralleled each other, ironically enough. Wills was no more past his prime than Dempsey was when they both fought Sharkey, or than guys like Langford, Jeanette, etc. were when he started beating them.



I agree 100%.

However, that's a separate issue from who has the better resume, or even who was the better actual fighter.

"By contrast, far more people felt that Dempsey had looked far more faded from his top form against Tunney"

What is your evidence about what "far more people" thought?

[ChrisPontius]

If wills is better then dempsey based on resume, then how come he isnt better then Johnson or jeffries for that matter?

Because unlike Jeffries he didn't have the luxury of being white, and unlike Johnson, he didn't get a shot at the title but was the victim of the most blatant duck job in the history of boxing for any weight division. Plus, he didn't have his best fights on film.

[My2Sense]

"By contrast, far more people felt that Dempsey had looked far more faded from his top form against Tunney"

What is your evidence about what "far more people" thought?

What those people from that time wrote and recorded.

[OLD FOGEY]

What those people from that time wrote and recorded.

I have never come across one observer who thought Wills looked anything but awful against Sharkey, or for that matter Uzcudun. That doesn't mean they might not exist, but I haven't seen them. Do you have examples?

The general drift of most comments I have read on this fight is it indicates that Dempsey might have fought the wrong man, Tunney, instead of the aging Wills.

[McGrain]

I took issue with you because you stated
"Wills would have been champion if he were white"
"Wills was the greater heavyweight"
Both those statements are personal opinion ,not proven facts.

I find it odd that you would "take issue" with my offering opinions on Wills when your quite clear that your reason for rating Dempsey above Wills is that in your opinion Dempsey would beat him.

This is fair enough if you are rating fighters on a head to head basis, but it's just not right if you're running a more traditional, composite list.

[McGrain]

How Wills and Dempsey are rated is a great example of how popularity (skin color), charisma, an exciting style and good promotion can make the difference even among "boxing historians" when resume-wise there barely is any.

That's exactly my point; exactly.

Dempsey was canonised, lionised, in part due to his exciting, flamboyant style, the way he went about his business in the ring - that's fair enough. But if Dempsey were a black fighter there is little chance that he would have recieved the same accolades.

Wills, on the other hand, fought and beat the best available to him, for the most part. Because he was a black fighter, he recieved nothing like the aclaim that Dempsey did. He hardly appears on film, which tells it's own story.

Those were different times, no point in getting to excited about it. But we have facts available to us now and more importantly, our judgement needn't be clouded by racism.

[McGrain]

Right you are.

The first problem we have is that Dempsey's opposition is unfairly slated because Jack never fought his outstanding challenger, so this creates something of an agenda against his resume already.

:huh

[McGrain]

If Wills had been white he would likley have been the defending champion while a young and hungry Dempsey was coming up through the ranks.

In this scenario will he take the fight in Toledo and can he win it?

Ironically, if Will wins the title, his standing is probably hurt - as you say he probably would have lost to Dempsey, and his stint in the movies would have hurt him not end!



It has to be noted that a lot of observers from that generation didnt think that Wills was in Dempseys class.

Not all of it was racialy motivated. Wills had an ugly unapealing style and often won fights largley by holding his oponents for most ot the fight.


I think that ugly style plus racism is going to twist that vision to a degree. Not in Dempsey's class? I'm dismissing that almost out of hand. I think that Wills proved what he was. But I do accept that there is a chance that Demspey was very slightly better at boxing. That is my position.

That aside - who beat better fighter? Who took more chances? Who did the better work in the ring during their career? Surely Wills outscores Dempsey in ever section aside from head to head, which is a matter of opinion and degrees anyway (Dempsey may be better, but not by much).

[McGrain]

Wills was stopped 5 times , Dempsey once.


Wills lost more, too.

Of course he fought more and fought at a higher level. That's what happens. The chances of Dempsey losing in 1924 or 1925 are pretty low, for example.

[McGrain]

It’s important to bring up because many consider the 1920’s as a ‘weak’ heavyweight era. Many consider Bowe to still have a solid resume despite ducking Lewis.

But it is unheard of to hear of someone ranking Bowe ABOVE Lewis, which is your equivilant opinion.

[McGrain]

Because that opponent is probably the best quality fighter either one has ever beaten. Winning against a higher level of opposition is probably the biggest dent you could make into someone else's claim of "resume superiority."

First of all, I would dispute this. I think Will beat a small handful of better fighters.

Secondly, you are using a fight that came near the end of an insanely difficult career for Harry Wills, during which he met great HW's on multiple occasions winning more than he lost. It's sort of like using Holmes's loss to Tyson to judge his resume, though not exactly the same because Holmes had come out of retirement.

But still, I think the significance you are attatching to ths fight is strange.

My claims of a superior resume for Wills as opposed to Dempsey is to do with the great and near-great fighters he beat on multiple occasions, as opposed to Dempsey, who beat Sharkey.



No he doesn't. There's only a handful of fighters "locked" into that list, and way too many fighters over the whole course of heavyweight history that could claim a spot on it.

I disagree. I think that the listen starts to "soften" at around 20, but i wouldn't see a forty without Langford or Jeanette, for sure.



Sharkey has as good (if not better) a case for the top 40 as anyone Wills beat.

I have him below Langford, McVey, Jeanette, but I agree he has a case for the 40, he makes mine.



That's almost absurd. JACK JOHNSON had already beaten the same guys Wills did - why should Wills' resume be considered better than his? Furthermore, what makes Wills' resume better than a host of other heavyweights that have strong resumes, ie: Joe Louis?

Here's a comparison between Dempsey's and Wills' resumes:

Wills:
Langford (HOFer)
Jeanette (HOFer)
McVey (HOFer)
Norfolk
Ed Martin

Who else would you add on here? Tut Jackson perhaps? Jeff Clark?

Dempsey:
Willard (HOFer, reigning undisputed champion at the time)
Sharkey (HOFer, probably best heavyweight on either list)
Gibbons (HOFer)
Carpentier (HOFer)
Levinsky (HOFer)
Miske
Brennan

The mistake you are making is counting each man only once. Do you feel beatining Langford nine times is as diffiult as beating Gibbons once? If Louis beat Walcott 7 times, you would stop providing credit after two? Of course, if you write a list of the NAMES on each man's Boxrec record things are going to look different. The fact is Wills had to turn up and fight great fighters on far more occasions than you have listed above, far more occasions than Jack Johnson and far more times than Joe Louis. That is entirely factual.


It does if he never beat anyone better than that opponent, and if the guy we're comparing him to(Dempsey) was able to beat that same guy at a comparable stage in his career.

You're dismissing styles, Dempsey's relative pass in terms of career intenstiy, the fact that Wills was the older of the two, and the fact that you seem 100% convinced that Sharkey is better than Langford, McVey, Jeannete, seems really strange to me.

[mcvey]

I find it odd that you would "take issue" with my offering opinions on Wills when your quite clear that your reason for rating Dempsey above Wills is that in your opinion Dempsey would beat him.

This is fair enough if you are rating fighters on a head to head basis, but it's just not right if you're running a more traditional, composite list.

What I replied to was your categoric, statements that.
"Wills would have been champ if he was white"
"He was the greater heavyweight"
If you had said" I think that " I would not have replied,after all your opinion is as valid as mine.[ well, nearly]:lol:
My contention is that Wills rep rests on his wins over three Black men who were past their best ,very much so in Jeanette's case.Noticeably so according to reports in Langford's case ,[ I am thinking of his eye troubles].And significantly in Mcvey's case ,as he won their first two encounters.If wins over these puts Wills high ,where does it put Johnson
who,when both were still maturing beat Langford ,flooring him , beat a prime Jeanette multiple times, and beat Mcvey , once koing him.?
Johnson ,by the way had Wills as a young sparring partner, he recounts in his auto biography that he had to let Wills go as he proved unable to stand up to the punishent. Which is probably jealous bullshit. on Johnson's part,as when the book was written wills was the more famous of the two.

The reason I mentioned how many times Wills was stopped [5] to Dempsey's [1] was to put the case that perhaps Wills was not as durable as Dempsey.Dempsey's stoppage by Flynn,[Jacks brother Bernie threw in the towel] might have been a fix ,but I'm inclined to think it was on the level

[Maxmomer]

I don't think beating Sam Langford 19 times is a huge accomplishment since most of those wins came when Langford was way past his prime. What's important are the early wins Wills has over Langford. Also, it should be noted that Wills had a huge size advantage and possibly a stylistic advantage against Langford. I think Will's early wins against Langford are the best thing he did in the ring, but he lost to Langford also. He never proved himself clearly superior until Langford was way down-hill. Prime for prime I see them as about even. So aside from those early wins over a still slightly past his best Langford, I don't put any stock in Will's dozen plus victories over Sam. Wills best win is over a slightly past-prime Sam Langford when Wills himself was a bit green. Dempsey's best win is against a prime Jack Sharkey when he was past his own prime. Maybe the whole reason we don't see eye to eye on Wills resume is because I don't really care that he beat up Langford's corpse 10 times. And I also rate Sharkey over Jeannette and McVey. I'm sure there are a lot of factual errors in this post, I'm really just trying to get a general point across. It's 3am and I took one to many ativans. I'm going to call it a night. Plus Jack Dempsey would totally pwn Wills if they ever fought in the past times.

[McGrain]

What I replied to was your categoric, statements that.
"Wills would have been champ if he was white"
"He was the greater heavyweight"
If you had said" I think that " I would not have replied,after all your opinion is as valid as mine.[ well, nearly]:lol:
My contention is that Wills rep rests on his wins over three Black men who were past their best ,very much so in Jeanette's case.Noticeably so according to reports in Langford's case ,[ I am thinking of his eye troubles].And significantly in Mcvey's case ,as he won their first two encounters.If wins over these puts Wills high ,where does it put Johnson
who,when both were still maturing beat Langford ,flooring him , beat a prime Jeanette multiple times, and beat Mcvey , once koing him.?
Johnson ,by the way had Wills as a young sparring partner, he recounts in his auto biography that he had to let Wills go as he proved unable to stand up to the punishent. Which is probably jealous bullshit. on Johnson's part,as when the book was written wills was the more famous of the two.

The reason I mentioned how many times Wills was stopped [5] to Dempsey's [1] was to put the case that perhaps Wills was not as durable as Dempsey.Dempsey's stoppage by Flynn,[Jacks brother Bernie threw in the towel] might have been a fix ,but I'm inclined to think it was on the level


Wills proved his durability to as great or a great degree than Demspey for me, by fighting consistantly at a higher class.

As to where Johnson lies - above both Wills and Dempsey on my list, for sure.

[McGrain]

I don't think beating Sam Langford 19 times is a huge accomplishment since most of those wins came when Langford was way past his prime. What's important are the early wins Wills has over Langford.

I agree with this.

There's a sense of diminishing returns in terms of value to resume. But i'd still argue that beating a past--peak Sam Langford is a result of note. Even if we take Wills' last victory over Sam, Langford beat guys like Bearcat Wright, Flynn, Tate, and has that last KO win over an ATG in the smaller Tiger Flowers. I mean there's no question that he wasn't what he was by the very end, and he was losing fights too by then but look - look at who he beat, this is really ok. A man that can beat these guys is still a name for your resume. And Wills was beating the guy over 20 rounds 10 years earlier.

[JimmyShimmy]

[/font][/size]

But it is unheard of to hear of someone ranking Bowe ABOVE Lewis, which is your equivilant opinion.

It would be had Wills gone onto dominate till the very end like Lewis did. They have different career flows.

[JimmyShimmy]

The mistake you are making is counting each man only once. Do you feel beatining Langford nine times is as diffiult as beating Gibbons once? If Louis beat Walcott 7 times, you would stop providing credit after two? Of course, if you write a list of the NAMES on each man's Boxrec record things are going to look different. The fact is Wills had to turn up and fight great fighters on far more occasions than you have listed above, far more occasions than Jack Johnson and far more times than Joe Louis. That is entirely factual.


But the actual significance of the wins lessens as the years roll on. There is a small time period when the wins have some real merit and then winning losses its purpose, having already bested a superior version of Langford.

This is where performances come in; Dempsey convincingly contained Gibbons, no need for multiple fights. Wills should have stopped fighting Langford when it hit 1917.

Dempsey gets little credit universally for beating Gibbons anyway, had he bested him numerous times he probably would have been slated.

[mcvey]

I agree with this.

There's a sense of diminishing returns in terms of value to resume. But i'd still argue that beating a past--peak Sam Langford is a result of note. Even if we take Wills' last victory over Sam, Langford beat guys like Bearcat Wright, Flynn, Tate, and has that last KO win over an ATG in the smaller Tiger Flowers. I mean there's no question that he wasn't what he was by the very end, and he was losing fights too by then but look - look at who he beat, this is really ok. A man that can beat these guys is still a name for your resume. And Wills was beating the guy over 20 rounds 10 years earlier.

Flynn was 44 years old and had won only one of his last 7 fights a retirement of Flowers a middleweight ,who had broken his hand.
Bearcat Wright ,when he lost to Langford was
1-10
5-4-1
5-4-2-
Like Tate he was only a glorified sparring partner.
It shows how much Langford was slipping that a year after besting Wright he was kod in 9rds by him,,this is the time of some of Wills victories over Sam ,[around 1922]

[DocDevil]

Beating fighters multiple times isn't a reason for greatnees.Wills and Dempsey both were outstanding fighters.If Dempsey slaughtered Willard nine more times,I wouldn't rate him any higher than I do now.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think a couple of points people are making are simply not true:

1. Sharkey was the best heavyweight either man fought--I don't think I have seen one poll or rating which puts Sharkey above Langford as a heavyweight. Certainly the major ones don't. Langford was #9 on the heavyweight end of the century poll by the AP. Sharkey was not listed. Langford is #17 on the IBRO poll. Sharkey is not listed. Wills did have some victories over an over-the-hill Langford, but the Langford of 1914 would probably be judged better than the Sharkey of 1927 by most.

The RING Magazine ratings of 1998 had Langford 17th and Sharkey 28th, with Joe Jeannette 25th and Sam McVey 30th.

Wills defeated three men usually ranked in the top 30 or 40, Langford, Jeannette, McVey. Sharkey is the only Dempsey victim that generally squeaks into such rankings.

2. Dempsey did better against common opponents--Sharkey, Fulton, and Firpo were not the only common opponents. There were also Charley Miller and Homer Smith. More significantly, there were John Lester Johnson and Willie Meehan. Wills did better against both of them than Dempsey did.

3. Wills being criticized for fighting Langford and other black fighters over and over--What is he supposed to do? Not fight at all and starve. Top white fighters generally ducked the top black fighters like the plague.

[mcvey]

First of all, I would dispute this. I think Will beat a small handful of better fighters.

Secondly, you are using a fight that came near the end of an insanely difficult career for Harry Wills, during which he met great HW's on multiple occasions winning more than he lost. It's sort of like using Holmes's loss to Tyson to judge his resume, though not exactly the same because Holmes had come out of retirement.

But still, I think the significance you are attatching to ths fight is strange.

My claims of a superior resume for Wills as opposed to Dempsey is to do with the great and near-great fighters he beat on multiple occasions, as opposed to Dempsey, who beat Sharkey.




I disagree. I think that the listen starts to "soften" at around 20, but i wouldn't see a forty without Langford or Jeanette, for sure.





I have him below Langford, McVey, Jeanette, but I agree he has a case for the 40, he makes mine.





The mistake you are making is counting each man only once. Do you feel beatining Langford nine times is as diffiult as beating Gibbons once? If Louis beat Walcott 7 times, you would stop providing credit after two? Of course, if you write a list of the NAMES on each man's Boxrec record things are going to look different. The fact is Wills had to turn up and fight great fighters on far more occasions than you have listed above, far more occasions than Jack Johnson and far more times than Joe Louis. That is entirely factual.




You're dismissing styles, Dempsey's relative pass in terms of career intenstiy, the fact that Wills was the older of the two, and the fact that you seem 100% convinced that Sharkey is better than Langford, McVey, Jeannete, seems really strange to me.

Of course when you count Wills wins over Langford yuo also hqv eto factor in his two ko defeats to him.
Jeff Clark was badly on the slide by the time Wills got to him as his record shows.

[SuzieQ49]

one thing thats not being mentioned is jack dempseys win over sharkey is controversial. sharkey hurt jack badly in the first round and IMO came close to knocking him out...then the next 5 rounds sharkey outboxed dempsey, and dempsey got frustrated so he hit him low two flush shots in the balls before hitting him with the left hook. you can argue sharkey should have been granted 5 min recovery from those low blows and maybe even a DQ against jack.........sharkey was clearly lying on the canvas in pain grabbing his balls.

[prime]

It is certainly time for a generation, once and for all, to release Wills along with fellow early black greats Langford, Jeannette, Jackson and McVey from the limbo of their uncertain status over the decades. They must be rated as fairly as possible, so I personally welcome this debate.

a) I personally believe Dempsey would take Wills, though it would be excitingly competitive. Dempsey hit harder and could also box, in addition to having a chin and stamina. Too many tools.

b) Dempsey not taking on Wills can never be compared to the flagrant yellow behavior of Bowe vis-á-vis Lewis. The racial prejudice of a time robbed Wills. Bowe trashed a belt rather than face the Lion.

c) The Sharkey win for Dempsey proves his durability, heart and overall greatness. Over the hill, he never wilted in the face of a talented, game opponent who was besting him. In fact, I personally believe Dempsey's consistency simply made Sharkey decide to quit, using a routine low blow as an excuse for some over-the-top playacting. The final Dempsey left to the face was just what the Boston Gob needed to take a dive.

d) With his size advantage over Langford, it would seem to me Wills should have had enough to keep him successfully at bay, yet was toppled more than once.

e) Wills makes my top 20 head-to-head heavyweight list. Dempsey is in my top 5.

[janitor]

I don't think beating Sam Langford 19 times is a huge accomplishment since most of those wins came when Langford was way past his prime. What's important are the early wins Wills has over Langford. Also, it should be noted that Wills had a huge size advantage and possibly a stylistic advantage against Langford. I think Will's early wins against Langford are the best thing he did in the ring, but he lost to Langford also. He never proved himself clearly superior until Langford was way down-hill. Prime for prime I see them as about even. So aside from those early wins over a still slightly past his best Langford, I don't put any stock in Will's dozen plus victories over Sam. Wills best win is over a slightly past-prime Sam Langford when Wills himself was a bit green.

The contemporary view of some of Wills later wins over Langford.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mcvey]

[/font][/size]

But it is unheard of to hear of someone ranking Bowe ABOVE Lewis, which is your equivilant opinion.
I think Bowe had the potential to be as good as Lewis, but he remains a what might have been for me.

[ChrisPontius]

It’s important to bring up because many consider the 1920’s as a ‘weak’ heavyweight era.


And for good reason. Half of the top heavyweights were lightheavies and the black fighters were banned from the top.




Gibbons was quality and Dempsey shut him out. This is where Dempsey’s own spectacular nature hampered the significance of this win.


A good win, but Gibbons as a heavyweight is nothing special.



6 rounds is not a joke when Miske was said to do well for surviving, and the win over him in 1920 was not a farce but a genuine shoot-out.


It IS a joke. Tell me how many important fights are over 6 rounds? And this probably is one of Dempsey's best wins.


Really how ill was he, at that point, ‘cause he looks ripped and was said to be ‘throwing dynamite’.


Well he was a 10-1 underdog, which as i have mentioned earlier, is a HUGE underdog, especially if you consider that he basically went even with Dempsey a few years earlier. Can you show me another fighter who went even with another, but a few years later suddenly became a huge underdog with odds that basically had him chanceless?





And point is that Dempsey beat Fulton more convincingly than Wills.


More convincingly? :lol:

Wills beat him by crushing 3rd round knockout! Are you seriously gonna tell me that beating someone by first or third round knockout is a significant difference?

The winner was promised a shot at Dempsey's title, but of course when Wills won, a sick Miske was quickly pulled in.



Dempsey does not rely on his victories over Miske, the same cannot be said of Wills relationship with Langford.


Yes, but then again, Wills beat Langford something like 9 times while Dempsey went even with him over 10 and beat him over 6 rounds and another time when he was terminally ill, plus Langford is MUCH greater than Miske.


Firpo is not a joke he had a nice awkward style that would be knocking over many of the big dudes today.


The only reason he was at top level is because back then heavyweights were so small. If you think he'd be anything today (when he'd be small himself), then you must be kidding yourself.



Without Langford, Wills resume just suffers big time as he had nowhere to go.


Again, what is the relevance of this? The reality is that Wills beat Langford a shitload of times, and unlike Dempsey didn't duck him.



I beg to differ that every other good heavyweight would have got the better of Willard on that day – the man was still fighting back in the third after taking everything and Dempsey was winded.


Please, Willard was awful. He had no idea how to box, tie his man up, was old, inactive and never much to begin with. The only reason he got a shot at Johnson is because he was white, and the only reason he won is because Johnson was 37 years of partying old and the fight was over 40 rounds, which allowed him to win a marathon run. Under 15 round rules, Willard would've been a journeyman.

Even his best attribute, durability, is highly exxagerated. He was stopped by the two best and only punchers he faced and while he was old, he never showed to be able to survive a good hitter, either.



Miske, Willard, Brennan, Gibbons, and Sharkey shape up nicely to Wills best. Resume is also about performance and Dempsey’s were generally better.

Wills performed better against Firpo, Meehan, Johnson and the Fulton fight were easy KO wins for both men. Dempsey did better against Sharkey, but struggled badly as well and had to win on a foul. So i don't really see how the "Dempsey performed better against them" argument works.

Also, Dempsey loses a lot of points for proudly producing the most blatant ducking job in the history of boxing before or after in any weight class, as well as avoiding Greb, who beat most of his lightheavyweight opponents.

[mcvey]

And for good reason. Half of the top heavyweights were lightheavies and the black fighters were banned from the top.





A good win, but Gibbons as a heavyweight is nothing special.




It IS a joke. Tell me how many important fights are over 6 rounds? And this probably is one of Dempsey's best wins.



Well he was a 10-1 underdog, which as i have mentioned earlier, is a HUGE underdog, especially if you consider that he basically went even with Dempsey a few years earlier. Can you show me another fighter who went even with another, but a few years later suddenly became a huge underdog with odds that basically had him chanceless?






More convincingly? :lol:

Wills beat him by crushing 3rd round knockout! Are you seriously gonna tell me that beating someone by first or third round knockout is a significant difference?

The winner was promised a shot at Dempsey's title, but of course when Wills won, a sick Miske was quickly pulled in.




Yes, but then again, Wills beat Langford something like 9 times while Dempsey went even with him over 10 and beat him over 6 rounds and another time when he was terminally ill, plus Langford is MUCH greater than Miske.



The only reason he was at top level is because back then heavyweights were so small. If you think he'd be anything today (when he'd be small himself), then you must be kidding yourself.




Again, what is the relevance of this? The reality is that Wills beat Langford a shitload of times, and unlike Dempsey didn't duck him.




Please, Willard was awful. He had no idea how to box, tie his man up, was old, inactive and never much to begin with. The only reason he got a shot at Johnson is because he was white, and the only reason he won is because Johnson was 37 years of partying old and the fight was over 40 rounds, which allowed him to win a marathon run. Under 15 round rules, Willard would've been a journeyman.

Even his best attribute, durability, is highly exxagerated. He was stopped by the two best and only punchers he faced and while he was old, he never showed to be able to survive a good hitter, either.




Wills performed better against Firpo, Meehan, Johnson and the Fulton fight were easy KO wins for both men. Dempsey did better against Sharkey, but struggled badly as well and had to win on a foul. So i don't really see how the "Dempsey performed better against them" argument works.

Also, Dempsey loses a lot of points for proudly producing the most blatant ducking job in the history of boxing before or after in any weight class, as well as avoiding Greb, who beat most of his lightheavyweight opponents.

I think the difference between Dempsey's stoppage of Fulton and Will's is that Dempsey knocked Fulton unconscious in 23 seconds with three punches ,and Fulton had to be dragged back to his corner. I beleive you will find Wills stopped Fulton with a body shot ,and he was conscious at the time of the stoppage.

[ChrisPontius]

I think the difference between Dempsey's stoppage of Fulton and Will's is that Dempsey knocked Fulton unconscious in 23 seconds with three punches ,and Fulton had to be dragged back to his corner. I beleive you will find Wills stopped Fulton with a body shot ,and he was conscious at the time of the stoppage.

Yeah, so what? Both beat him effortlessly. If Fulton had knocked Wills down and dragged him into a war to win a Foreman-Lyle like fight, then i would've agreed. But as far as i've read, it was an easy knockout win. Asif the difference between an extremely easy knockout win or an easy knockout win is significant.

[SuzieQ49]

didnt wills break fultons ribs??

[janitor]

Yeah, so what? Both beat him effortlessly. If Fulton had knocked Wills down and dragged him into a war to win a Foreman-Lyle like fight, then i would've agreed. But as far as i've read, it was an easy knockout win. Asif the difference between an extremely easy knockout win or an easy knockout win is significant.

I imagine it could be significant for your purpouses if the positions were reversed.

[SuzieQ49]

jack johnson was still fighting pretty good at an advanced age, did he ever challenge jack dempsey from 1917-1920??? that would have been a good name to have on dempseys resume

[mcvey]

didnt wills break fultons ribs??

Yes.Dempsey didnt ,he ran out of time:lol:

[mcvey]

I imagine it could be significant for your purpouses if the positions were reversed.
You might very well say that , I couldnt possibly comment.:D

[Maxmomer]

I imagine it could be significant for your purpouses if the positions were reversed.

Most certainly.

[ChrisPontius]

I imagine it could be significant for your purpouses if the positions were reversed.

Well you think Langford has a chance of beating Lennox Lewis so you can imagine a lot of things.

[janitor]

Well you think Langford has a chance of beating Lennox Lewis so you can imagine a lot of things.

I think it is a far more absurd position to say that any world class fighter has litteraly no chance of beating another world class fighter than vice versa.

[mcvey]

And for good reason. Half of the top heavyweights were lightheavies and the black fighters were banned from the top.





A good win, but Gibbons as a heavyweight is nothing special.




It IS a joke. Tell me how many important fights are over 6 rounds? And this probably is one of Dempsey's best wins.



Well he was a 10-1 underdog, which as i have mentioned earlier, is a HUGE underdog, especially if you consider that he basically went even with Dempsey a few years earlier. Can you show me another fighter who went even with another, but a few years later suddenly became a huge underdog with odds that basically had him chanceless?






More convincingly? :lol:

Wills beat him by crushing 3rd round knockout! Are you seriously gonna tell me that beating someone by first or third round knockout is a significant difference?

The winner was promised a shot at Dempsey's title, but of course when Wills won, a sick Miske was quickly pulled in.




Yes, but then again, Wills beat Langford something like 9 times while Dempsey went even with him over 10 and beat him over 6 rounds and another time when he was terminally ill, plus Langford is MUCH greater than Miske.



The only reason he was at top level is because back then heavyweights were so small. If you think he'd be anything today (when he'd be small himself), then you must be kidding yourself.




Again, what is the relevance of this? The reality is that Wills beat Langford a shitload of times, and unlike Dempsey didn't duck him.




Please, Willard was awful. He had no idea how to box, tie his man up, was old, inactive and never much to begin with. The only reason he got a shot at Johnson is because he was white, and the only reason he won is because Johnson was 37 years of partying old and the fight was over 40 rounds, which allowed him to win a marathon run. Under 15 round rules, Willard would've been a journeyman.

Even his best attribute, durability, is highly exxagerated. He was stopped by the two best and only punchers he faced and while he was old, he never showed to be able to survive a good hitter, either.




Wills performed better against Firpo, Meehan, Johnson and the Fulton fight were easy KO wins for both men. Dempsey did better against Sharkey, but struggled badly as well and had to win on a foul. So i don't really see how the "Dempsey performed better against them" argument works.

Also, Dempsey loses a lot of points for proudly producing the most blatant ducking job in the history of boxing before or after in any weight class, as well as avoiding Greb, who beat most of his lightheavyweight opponents.

Willard made a comeback at 40 and was outpointing Firpo until his legs gave out ,he wasnt quite the oaf you make him out to be.

[janitor]

Willard made a comeback at 40 and was outpointing Firpo until his legs gave out ,he wasnt quite the oaf you make him out to be.

He also went on to beat Floyd Johnson who was a significant win at the time.

If you look at Willard in film that is time corected he dosnt look too bad. No worse than Vitally Klitschko really.

[ChrisPontius]

Willard made a comeback at 40 and was outpointing Firpo until his legs gave out ,he wasnt quite the oaf you make him out to be.

Which brings me back to my point how horrible Firpo was.


He also went on to beat Floyd Johnson who was a significant win at the time.

If you look at Willard in film that is time corected he dosnt look too bad. No worse than Vitally Klitschko really.

It does look bad. He's a farmboy with boxing gloves who was giving an opportunity because of the color of his skin and could capitalize on it because boxing back then was closer to a marathon run than something that requires skill or technique.

[McGrain]

Flynn was 44 years old and had won only one of his last 7 fights a retirement of Flowers a middleweight ,who had broken his hand.
Bearcat Wright ,when he lost to Langford was
1-10
5-4-1
5-4-2-
Like Tate he was only a glorified sparring partner.
It shows how much Langford was slipping that a year after besting Wright he was kod in 9rds by him,,this is the time of some of Wills victories over Sam ,[around 1922]


And there's no question that Langford wasn't what he once was by the end, i'm also clear that there are diminishing returns. A lot has been said about only providing credit for "a few" win over Langford, arguably the greatest fighter of all time, top 25 HW on my list. Let's look.

In May of 1914 Wills beat a Langford who is between wins over Jim Johnson and recently beat Joe Jeanette, recently unbeaten. Wills beat Langford again at the end of 1915. Langford was still beating the best having recently beaten Jim Johnson again, and drawn with McVey. He would soon beat Wills in a revenge match, but not before Wills has again beaten Sam Langford. Do you give full credit for all of these wins? Or not? He is still beating the best in the division, and Wills is beating him. The following year, Wills would beat Langford again, a Langford who was beating men of the calibre of Jeff Clark, who had just fought Johnson to a draw and beaten Norfolk (but lost to McVey).

I think some posters are trying to downgrade Wills' achievment in dominating Langford at this time by suggesting that the man was past his prime and there to be taken. Results do not reflect this, at all. Langford is still very active, still beating (and losing to) the best men in the division, but being beaten over and over again by a peaking Wills.

I think full credit should be provided for no less than six, and arguably more, wins over Sam Langford, who I personally rate higher at HW than any fighter Dempsey ever faced, never mind beat. Having said that, I don't think it is unreasonable to rate Sharkey over Langford, but it's not my position - and i don't think my position is unreasnoable.

Even if we only consider Wills' wins over Langford in comparison to Dempsey's best wins, Wills' best wins are superior In my opinion.

Now let's look at McVey. When McVey was beaten by Langford had been beaten by nobody aside from Sam Langford since 1909. That's a period of five years, including a draw with Sam, victories over Jim Johnson. He would pick himself up after the Wills loss and go on a run including victories over Johnson and Langford, fighting a draw with Jeanette and then defeating Wills in a rematch. He would then lose to Wills in a rubber match. In short, he was in his prime, and Wills beat him twice. He would fight and lose to Wills one or two more times, but this was a more washed up version.

So add two Mcvey Wins to however many Langford wins you are giving credit for.

Jeannette. The first time Wills beat Jeannette he was a few months removed from a win over a lighter Carpantier, a draw and a loss against Langford. He had victories over Lanford and Jim Johnson in his immediate future as well as a two year unbeaten run ended by Sam. In short, Jeanette was at or near his prime. Wills beat him again when Jeanette was winding down.


So let's say 8-11 wins over fighters that make my top 30 list, which is far from infallable, i'm sure, but I am confident is not unreasonable. They are three of the best fighters of Wills' generation.


Before we even get into the second tier of Wills' competition he has swamped Dempsey's resume. Surley this is nearly inarguable?

[McGrain]

I think a couple of points people are making are simply not true:

1. Sharkey was the best heavyweight either man fought--I don't think I have seen one poll or rating which puts Sharkey above Langford as a heavyweight. Certainly the major ones don't. Langford was #9 on the heavyweight end of the century poll by the AP. Sharkey was not listed. Langford is #17 on the IBRO poll. Sharkey is not listed. Wills did have some victories over an over-the-hill Langford, but the Langford of 1914 would probably be judged better than the Sharkey of 1927 by most.

Thank you I was beginning to think I was alone in this world.

[McGrain]

Of course when you count Wills wins over Langford yuo also hqv eto factor in his two ko defeats to him.


Very fair and true. All I can say is that Dempsey himself would probably answer that he would truthfully and honestly expect to lose a couple to Sam if he mixed with the man as many times as Wills did. But your point stands.

[McGrain]

bd) With his size advantage over Langford, it would seem to me Wills should have had enough to keep him successfully at bay, yet was toppled more than once.

I think this is invalid. Langford proved himself a slayer of bigger men throughout, I would suggest that only the very, very best big men would be matched 15 times with Sam and not expect to be toppled more than once. I think Sam proved what he could do at HW.

e) Wills makes my top 20 head-to-head heavyweight list. Dempsey is in my top 5.


This is interesting though. I hate to misdirect what has been a pretty decent, concentrated and mostly civil discussion, but where do guys think Wills lies head to head? It's interesting to be because I think he has one of the best resumes at HW AND there is no film of the man at his best in popular circulation - what sort of area do you put Wills in this area?

[mcvey]

And there's no question that Langford wasn't what he once was by the end, i'm also clear that there are diminishing returns. A lot has been said about only providing credit for "a few" win over Langford, arguably the greatest HW of all time, top 25 HW on my list. Let's look.

In May of 1914 Wills beat a Langford who is between wins over Jim Johnson and recently beat Joe Jeanette, recently unbeaten. Wills beat Langford again at the end of 1915. Langford was still beating the best having recently beaten Jim Johnson again, and drawn with McVey. He would soon beat Wills in a revenge match, but not before Wills has again beaten Sam Langford. Do you give full credit for all of these wins? Or not? He is still beating the best in the division, and Wills is beating him. The following year, Wills would beat Langford again, a Langford who was beating men of the calibre of Jeff Clark, who had just fought Johnson to a draw and beaten Norfolk (but lost to McVey).

I think some posters are trying to downgrade Wills' achievment in dominating Langford at this time by suggesting that the man was past his prime and there to be taken. Results do not reflect this, at all. Langford is still very active, still beating (and losing to) the best men in the division, but being beaten over and over again by a peaking Wills.

I think full credit should be provided for no less than six, and arguably more, wins over Sam Langford, who I personally rate higher at HW than any fighter Dempsey ever faced, never mind beat. Having said that, I don't think it is unreasonable to rate Sharkey over Langford, but it's not my position - and i don't think my position is unreasnoable.

Even if we only consider Wills' wins over Langford in comparison to Dempsey's best wins, Wills' best wins are superior In my opinion.

Now let's look at McVey. When McVey was beaten by Langford had been beaten by nobody aside from Sam Langford since 1909. That's a period of five years, including a draw with Sam, victories over Jim Johnson. He would pick himself up after the Wills loss and go on a run including victories over Johnson and Langford, fighting a draw with Jeanette and then defeating Wills in a rematch. He would then lose to Wills in a rubber match. In short, he was in his prime, and Wills beat him twice. He would fight and lose to Wills one or two more times, but this was a more washed up version.

So add two Mcvey Wins to however many Langford wins you are giving credit for.

Jeannette. The first time Wills beat Jeannette he was a few months removed from a win over a lighter Carpantier, a draw and a loss against Langford. He had victories over Lanford and Jim Johnson in his immediate future as well as a two year unbeaten run ended by Sam. In short, Jeanette was at or near his prime. Wills beat him again when Jeanette was winding down.


So let's say 8-11 wins over fighters that make my top 30 list, which is far from infallable, i'm sure, but I am confident is not unreasonable. They are three of the best fighters of Wills' generation.


Before we even get into the second tier of Wills' competition he has swamped Dempsey's resume. Surley this is nearly inarguable?

I think you have been even handed and objective and I respect that .
Jeanette was not in his prime he was 35 and his win over a much smaller Carpentier, who was a teenager, was highly debatable, the last time Wills beat Jeanette, Joe was 40years old that is not winding down for a fighter of those times that is ancient .
We might have a better idea how much credit to give Wills for his victories over Langford if we knew what Sam weighed in some of those fights ,he was known to blow up at times ,and even at his best was never that consistant, and let us remember that Langford was under 5 7in to Will's 6 3in that is stylistically a big handicap .
There has been a lot of supposition over the years about the black aces fighting each other multiple times , it is assumed that in some contests they did not go all out ,but contented themselves with what amounted to hard sparring sessions,and on occasion their fights were declared no contests because of it.Wills and Mcvey had one of these I beleive.Langford certainly came into the ring in less than top shape on occasion.At other times they fought bitterly to a finish ,so for me it is difficult to get a line on some of the results. My feeling is that Langford was better than Sharkey, and if the best version of both turned up Sam would probably ko Jack.I beleive Langford ,was a better fighter than Wills and Mcvey was possibly nearly a par with Harry ,and that Jeanette was his equal too.I think the trio of the two Sam's and Jeanette would ,with the exception of Tunney have been superior to anyone Dempsey met .Prime for prime I think Tunney beats Wills . Prime for prime I think Dempsey beats them both.

[McGrain]

I think you have been even handed and objective and I respect that .
Jeanette was not in his prime he was 35 and his win over a much smaller.

Fair enough chum.

About the Jeanette thing, he was getting on, but look what he did AFTER Wills beat him.

Green W TKO3
Johnson W10
Bill W KO9
Johnson ND
Tate W KO6
John Johnson W10
Tate KO2
Williams KO5
Hawkins W10
Pelkey W KO8
Langford W12
Brooks W KO4
McVey D
Johnson ND
Cotton W KO2

And finally Langford beat him, the first man to do it in two busy years. It's not bad.

[pugilist_boyd]

i rate dempsey higher because he would have or could have beaten wills on the street or in the ring by brutal ko end of my resoning on the subject

[Hank]

Wills was certainly past his best when he lost to Sharkey (not by KO, though he probably would have been KO'd had he not been DQ'd) and Uzcudun. Even Sharkey agrees with me. Or he would, if he wasn't dead now. He did agree with me but at that time I didn't subscribe to this belief because I didn't know who he was. So there was nothing for him to agree with. Point is, Sharkey said Wills was past his best when he beat him, and Wills record supports this.



c'mon, he stepped up and lost, twice, over the hill was no excuse. H ewas going to fight Dempsey in 1926, if they fought and Dempsey ko's him, Wills is over hill. If he gets ko'sd by Dempsey any earlier year, he threw fight, or he was overated.

[Maxmomer]

c'mon, he stepped up and lost, twice, over the hill was no excuse. H ewas going to fight Dempsey in 1926, if they fought and Dempsey ko's him, Wills is over hill. If he gets ko'sd by Dempsey any earlier year, he threw fight, or he was overated.

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. He was 37 when he fought Sharkey and even though he aged well for a HW and was still near the top pf the division he was far from his prime. Against Uzcudun he was damn near shot.

[ChrisPontius]

It's interesting that nearly everyone who sticks up for Dempsey gives as main reason that Dempsey "would've have beaten Wills" without hesitation.

I find this remarkable because:

-Dempsey never beat a man nearly as good as Wills; his best win, Sharkey, was a life and death struggle ended by a foul.
-It shows that his resume does not stack up well when you have to resort to speculation.
-It is rather laughable to say without much doubt that Wills would've been beaten considering there is absolutely no film on the man during his prime.
-Dempsey avoided him for a reason.

[Maxmomer]

It's interesting that nearly everyone who sticks up for Dempsey gives as main reason that Dempsey "would've have beaten Wills" without hesitation.

I find this remarkable because:

-Dempsey never beat a man nearly as good as Wills; his best win, Sharkey, was a life and death struggle ended by a foul.
-It shows that his resume does not stack up well when you have to resort to speculation.
-It is rather laughable to say without much doubt that Wills would've been beaten considering there is absolutely no film on the man during his prime.
-Dempsey avoided him for a reason.

The Sharkey fight was ended by a left hook to the jaw. It's there to be seen on film. It was a close, hard-fought battle when Dempsey was past his best. Not the judges or the referee thought there was any reason to bring the low blows into the picture when Sharkey was clearly KO'd by a left-hook. Sharkey was also fouling. And team Dempsey also avoided Greb, though I find the idea that Greb beats a prime Dempsey laughable.

[ChrisPontius]

The Sharkey fight was ended by three right uppercuts with small gloves to the balls with no cup protector, followed by a left hook to the jaw with Sharkey having his hands between his legs in pain on the floor.

Corrected.

[Maxmomer]

Corrected.

Was Sharkey going down after the low blows? No. He was right as rain until the left hook separated him from his senses. You can't watch that film and then suggest that anything but the left hook was the cause of the KO. The people that were there didn't seem to think low blows had any part in the KO, other than giving Sharkey something to bitch about. Sharkey lost his shit and paid the price. Dempsey never complained about any fouls, even though Sharkey was also fouling during the fight, and he sure as shit didn't drop his hand and turn to the ref with his opponenet standing right next to him and the fight still on. Sharkey did. Dempsey won that fight on toughness, endurance and KO power. Sharkey lost it because he couldn't keep Dempsey off of him or keep his head together when things got too uncomfortable.

[McGrain]

It's interesting that nearly everyone who sticks up for Dempsey gives as main reason that Dempsey "would've have beaten Wills" without hesitation.

I find this remarkable because:

-Dempsey never beat a man nearly as good as Wills; his best win, Sharkey, was a life and death struggle ended by a foul.
-It shows that his resume does not stack up well when you have to resort to speculation.
-It is rather laughable to say without much doubt that Wills would've been beaten considering there is absolutely no film on the man during his prime.
-Dempsey avoided him for a reason.

I tend to agree with the Dempsey pick.

The point is, it's a bit of a desperate fall-back position for those wishing to rank Dempsey above Wills - and agenda position, if you like. I can see using head to head and skillset to seperate two fighters who are really close in terms of resume. But those who are claiming that Dempsey and Wills are close in this regard are not absorbing the reality, in my opinion.

[mcvey]

Corrected.

Sharkey was wearing a protector and had no intentions of going to the floor ,after the "low punch",he turned his head to complain to the referee and Dempsey kod him with a left hook

"I wasnt looking" Sharkey "Well ,what the hell ,why aint you looking" Dempsey.

Dempsey never met a fighter as good as Wills till after he was past his prime ,Tunney,and he nearly pulled that off in their second fight. Whether Wills is better than Sharkey is also debatable.

[McGrain]

"I wasnt looking" Sharkey "Well ,what the hell ,why aint you looking" Dempsey.

:lol:

I've always agreed with this. I don't feel that Dempsey's victory over Sharkey is particularly controversial. Dempsey was going to the body, Sharkey didn't like it - Dempsey was in his shit via this strategy - Dempsey strayed, and Sharkey did the dumbest thing you can do in the ring. Dempsey gets the win.

I don't see any argument to be had about who was better out of Wills and Sarkey though.

[Mendoza]

Dempsey never met a fighter as good as Wills till after he was past his prime ,Tunney,and he nearly pulled that off in their second fight. Whether Wills is better than Sharkey is also debatable.

At first thought I wasn't sure about this statement. Maybe it is debatable.

I do think Dempsey fought the best verison of Sharkey, who coming into the had won 11 matches in a row including wins over Risko, Godfrey, Wills, and McTigue.

[Dempsey1238]

c'mon, he stepped up and lost, twice, over the hill was no excuse. H ewas going to fight Dempsey in 1926, if they fought and Dempsey ko's him, Wills is over hill. If he gets ko'sd by Dempsey any earlier year, he threw fight, or he was overated.


Wills should have gotting that title shot, 7 years ago. He was number 1 for Dempsey's entire rein. Just because Wills "Finally" lost should not exuse the fight from not happing.

Even if Wills did beat Sharkey, Wills would not have goting the shot. He was promise samething in 1923, Wills won the fight, and it was Tommy Gibbions and Firpo that got title shots.

[trampie]

I would love to respond to this thread, but i got banned last night {for nothing, absolutely no idea what i done wrong ?} so i am walking on egg shells on this site at the moment, if i say anything about any American boxers i fear i could be banned again, portraying this sites home boxers in a bad light is the only reason I can think of that caused the ban, I only made out that perhaps some current American boxers have question marks about their greatness and I get banned :roll:, no swearing no rudeness, no links to other sites, nothing and i got banned :-(}

[My2Sense]

Secondly, you are using a fight that came near the end of an insanely difficult career for Harry Wills, during which he met great HW's on multiple occasions winning more than he lost.

I wouldn't say his career on the whole was "insanely difficult." Frustrating, yes, but that's not the same thing. He did have a rough time in his earlier years, when he was fighting more experienced fighters like Langford and that ilk, but after that he spent much of his career blowing out has-beens and second- and third-raters, interspersed with wins over higher tier contenders. By today's standards he'd be criticized for tomato picking.

It's sort of like using Holmes's loss to Tyson to judge his resume, though not exactly the same because Holmes had come out of retirement.

Holmes coming out of retirement makes that comparison completely incomparable. The period from around 1920/1921 to 1926 (when he lost to Sharkey) is when Wills was distinguishing himself as the outstanding contender and when a fight between him and Dempsey was on the table. This is the time frame in which Dempsey is being criticized for not fighting him. It's the time when Wills was considered at his most impressive and the most highly regarded by his contemporaries, and that's where the bulk of the attention should focus on him.

My claims of a superior resume for Wills as opposed to Dempsey is to do with the great and near-great fighters he beat on multiple occasions, as opposed to Dempsey, who beat Sharkey.

Gibbons or Carpentier aren't considered great or near-great?

Gibbons certainly was one of the most respected fighters of his day and is often mentioned as one of the best never to win a title, alongside the likes of Langford.

I disagree. I think that the listen starts to "soften" at around 20, but i wouldn't see a forty without Langford or Jeanette, for sure.

I have him below Langford, McVey, Jeanette, but I agree he has a case for the 40, he makes mine.

What is the basis for rating McVey and Jeanette so highly? They fought most of their careers within the same exclusive circle of fighters, and rarely (if ever) saw their talents tested/proven outside of that circle. They came off as clear second bests in their rivalries with Johnson, Langford, and Wills. Their legacies are based as much on their reputations and who supposedly "ducked" them as anything they actually did and proved in the ring.

One of the few times that either of them fought outside their circle, when Jeanette fought Carpentier, he only won by close, disputed decision, despite having a roughly 20 pound weight advantage. Compare that to the way other HOFers like Billy Papke and Frank Klaus had already whupped Carpentier just before that, or how decisively others like Dempsey, Tunney, and Gibbons beat him afterward - with only Dempsey having a weight advantage similar to Jeanette's.

The mistake you are making is counting each man only once. Do you feel beatining Langford nine times is as diffiult as beating Gibbons once?

I don't know, but I wouldn't give Dempsey any more credit for beating Gibbons another 8 times after the way he dominated him the first time. Nor do I sense many people would give him additional credit either (especially given that most people don't even give him credit in the first place).

Of course, if you write a list of the NAMES on each man's Boxrec record things are going to look different.

But that's exactly what a RESUME is, the names on a record.

The number of different names on a record is what makes a resume, more than the number of times you fight what names are on there.

Dempsey proved himself against a broader range of quality opponents, including HOF-quality opponents.

The fact is Wills had to turn up and fight great fighters on far more occasions than you have listed above, far more occasions than Jack Johnson and far more times than Joe Louis. That is entirely factual.

Actually, it isn't "factual" because technically, whether or not a fighter is great is an opinion.

However (and more to the point) many times that Wills was fighting one of the fighters listed above, he was not considered to have a great fighter in the ring with him by any standards.

For example, Fred Fulton twice beat Sam Langford at around the same time when Wills was only just beginning to distinguish himself from him. When Fulton fought Langford a second time (following his KO loss to Dempsey), the fight was generally considered a set up for him and dismissed as a joke. Yet this was the same Langford that Wills was fighting another 10 times or so in around this time and through years afterward. Beating Langord all those additional times didn't do anything for his standing in the division. When Wills beat Fulton in 1920, it was considered his biggest win up to that time and against his highest rated opponent thus far - not any of the wins he had scored prior to that. Beating Fulton is what made Wills a standout top contender, not any of his wins over Langford and that ilk.

You're dismissing styles, Dempsey's relative pass in terms of career intenstiy, the fact that Wills was the older of the two, and the fact that you seem 100% convinced that Sharkey is better than Langford, McVey, Jeannete, seems really strange to me.

What about their respective "styles" am I dismissing? If anything, Dempsey was at a much bigger stylistic disadvantage than Wills was vs. Sharkey, as Dempsey had just been outboxed clearly by Tunney, and had previously struggled with a boxer like Brennan even back at his peak. Conversely, from what I understand, Wills' style forced Sharkey to be uncharacteristically aggressive and take it to him much more. That Dempsey won and Wills didn't does not alter what the stylistic match-ups were in those fights, it's merely an argument for Dempsey being the better fighter regardless of styles.

[McGrain]

I wouldn't say his career on the whole was "insanely difficult."

It was a career littered with contests against aggressive, punching heavyweights, including the multiple contests with Langford. Like I said, "insanely difficult", by any standards. There are few that are tougher at the weight.



Gibbons or Carpentier aren't considered great or near-great?

Neither is a great heavyweight, no.


What is the basis for rating McVey and Jeanette so highly? They fought most of their careers within the same exclusive circle of fighters, and rarely (if ever) saw their talents tested/proven outside of that circle. They came off as clear second bests in their rivalries with Johnson, Langford, and Wills. Their legacies are based as much on their reputations and who supposedly "ducked" them as anything they actually did and proved in the ring.

McVey and Jeanette tended only to lose to one another, Langford and Wills. McVey, for example, lost only to Wills, Jeannette or Langford between 1906 and 1916. This classes them as a level above, obviously. What lifts them higher, for the most part, is the admiration of peers. Langford was seen as one of the best of the era, Dempsey seems to have regarded him as such. Johnson describes McVey as the best he ever fought.

You take what these men did and offer - "their legacies are based as much on their reputations and who supposedly "ducked" them as anything else". This claim is entirely fascile and you need to take a long, hard look at what these men accomplished before you offer an opinion again.

One of the few times that either of them fought outside their circle, when Jeanette fought Carpentier, he only won by close, disputed decision, despite having a roughly 20 pound weight advantage.

I think it's interesting, and vaguely pitiful, that the best you can do is a close win for one of the men under discussion coming up against a guy you've claimed was "great or borderline great" in this post. Doesn't it tell you something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't give Dempsey any more credit for beating Gibbons another 8 times after the way he dominated him the first time.

Neither would I!! But that's the entire point, mastering a fighter like Langford over a vast series is a little different to beating Gibbons. Don't you know that?


But that's exactly what a RESUME is, the names on a record.

The number of different names on a record is what makes a resume, more than the number of times you fight what names are on there.

:lol:

Ok, knock yourself out with semantics, but to be clear i'm not going to discuss them with you. The facts are that Wills turned up many, many, many more times with a true great in the opposite corner and left a winner. That is a stone cold fact that is entirely inarguable even with strange slanders about earning reputations through being ducked and wordplay.


For example, Fred Fulton twice beat Sam Langford at around the same time when Wills was only just beginning to distinguish himself from him. When Fulton fought Langford a second time (following his KO loss to Dempsey), the fight was generally considered a set up for him and dismissed as a joke. Yet this was the same Langford that Wills was fighting another 10 times or so in around this time and through years afterward. Beating Langord all those additional times didn't do anything for his standing in the division. When Wills beat Fulton in 1920, it was considered his biggest win up to that time and against his highest rated opponent thus far - not any of the wins he had scored prior to that. Beating Fulton is what made Wills a standout top contender, not any of his wins over Langford and that ilk.

I'm not going to go through all of this again. You can check out post 106 if you like. But i've never claimed at ANY time that Wills is fighting a great every time he fights Langford. But he did it enough times to swamp Dempsey's resume on these wins alone for me. If you don't like that he added three more wins against fighters who are deemed great by most (though not, apparently, by you).

[My2Sense]

Wills proved his durability to as great or a great degree than Demspey for me, by fighting consistantly at a higher class.


This isn't accurate at all.

The only time Wills was fighting at a higher class was around 1914-1917, which were Dempsey's first few years as a pro.

In 1918, the consensus top contender was Fred Fulton, not any of the guys Wills was fighting. Dempsey blew through him in about 20 seconds. Dempsey also beat a few other guys that were rated at least on par with, if not better than Wills' opponents, like Miske, Brennan, Carl Morris, etc. He also KO'd the "unknockoutable" Battling Levinsky, who had the distinction of being the universally recognized light-heavy champ.

In 1919, the undisputed, universally recognized champion of the world was Jess Willard, and Dempsey toppled him that year.

In 1920, Dempsey defended his title against a well-regarded leading contender in Miske, and lesser regarded but still rated Brennan. That same year, Wills scored what was considered his biggest win up to that time against Fulton, which was probably on par with either of Dempsey's wins that year - but Dempsey had already crossed that bridge two years earlier.

In 1921, Dempsey beats the highly regarded Carpentier, considered the reigning light-heavy champ and a legitimate HW contender, in one of the biggest fights in history up to that time. Meanwhile, Wills spends the year beating on dead horses like Gunboat Smith and Ed Martin.

After that, Dempsey beats Gibbons and Firpo who are both considered legitimately rated contenders. In around that same time, Wills also beats Firpo (after Dempsey already had) and Charlie Weinert (who had only just broken into the ratings), but Gibbons was generally the most highly regarded of any of the fighters either one fought in that time - as evidenced by the fact that The Ring had him rated the highest contender in the division outside of Wills, when it first debuted its rankings around that time.

Tunney then enters into the picture by beating Gibbons, and then tries to make a match with Wills. Wills nixes the fight, and instead chooses to fight a lower rated fighter in Sharkey while Dempsey defends against Tunney. After each man loses, Dempsey fights Sharkey (now one of the highest rated contenders in the division) and then goes after Tunney (the undisputed world champion). Meanwhile, Wills fights Uzcudun, just a rising prospect at best.

[McGrain]

This isn't accurate at all.

The only time Wills was fighting at a higher class was around 1914-1917, which were Dempsey's first few years as a pro.

In 1918, the consensus top contender was Fred Fulton, not any of the guys Wills was fighting. Dempsey blew through him in about 20 seconds. Dempsey also beat a few other guys that were rated at least on par with, if not better than Wills' opponents, like Miske, Brennan, Carl Morris, etc. He also KO'd the "unknockoutable" Battling Levinsky, who had the distinction of being the universally recognized light-heavy champ.

In 1919, the undisputed, universally recognized champion of the world was Jess Willard, and Dempsey toppled him that year.

In 1920, Dempsey defended his title against a well-regarded leading contender in Miske, and lesser regarded but still rated Brennan. That same year, Wills scored what was considered his biggest win up to that time against Fulton, which was probably on par with either of Dempsey's wins that year - but Dempsey had already crossed that bridge two years earlier.

In 1921, Dempsey beats the highly regarded Carpentier, considered the reigning light-heavy champ and a legitimate HW contender, in one of the biggest fights in history up to that time. Meanwhile, Wills spends the year beating on dead horses like Gunboat Smith and Ed Martin.

After that, Dempsey beats Gibbons and Firpo who are both considered legitimately rated contenders. In around that same time, Wills also beats Firpo (after Dempsey already had) and Charlie Weinert (who had only just broken into the ratings), but Gibbons was generally the most highly regarded of any of the fighters either one fought in that time - as evidenced by the fact that The Ring had him rated the highest contender in the division outside of Wills, when it first debuted its rankings around that time.

Tunney then enters into the picture by beating Gibbons, and then tries to make a match with Wills. Wills nixes the fight, and instead chooses to fight a lower rated fighter in Sharkey while Dempsey defends against Tunney. After each man loses, Dempsey fights Sharkey (now one of the highest rated contenders in the division) and then goes after Tunney (the undisputed world champion). Meanwhile, Wills fights Uzcudun, just a rising prospect at best.


Why are you so determined to compare these guys in disengenuos ways?? First you are using their respective results against Sharkey to decide resume superiority based upon the fac that he is the "best either has beaten" which is a ridiculous basis for deciding the issue and a rare opinion to base it on - at best.

Then you are trying to compare ONLY the names on each mans resume, rather than provide credit for indivual wins.

Now you are restricting resume comparisons to a timeline comparisons...why?!?! What possible reason is there for doing so? Wills matched better fighters thorughout his career than Dempsey. You are fishing around for reasons to elivate Dempsey's competition - Gibbons and Carpantier seem to have become "Great or borderline great" heavies, whilst McVey and Jeanette have "reputations based upon who ducked them"?

Are you for real?

[SuzieQ49]

At first thought I wasn't sure about this statement. Maybe it is debatable.

I do think Dempsey fought the best verison of Sharkey, who coming into the had won 11 matches in a row including wins over Risko, Godfrey, Wills, and McTigue.


But his win over sharkey was controversial since he hit him in the balls twice in a row with hard left hooks reminiscint of bowe-golota

[SuzieQ49]

The only reason tunney's camp challenged Wills in 1925 was because they were petrified of George Godfrey and wanted no part of him, so they went after a poor 37 year old Harry Wills instead. Kevin Smith author of unforgiveable blackness said it was also a decoy and tunney had no plans of fighting Wills either.

[My2Sense]

Now you are restricting resume comparisons to a timeline comparisons...why?!?! What possible reason is there for doing so?

Because it directly addresses and disproves your claim that Wills fought at the higher level of comp. throughout their careers.

What "angle" did you look at to arrive at that conclusion?

[McGrain]

Because it directly addresses and disproves your claim that Wills fought at the higher level of comp. throughout their careers.

What "angle" did you look at to arrive at that conclusion?


I used the bizzare and freakish angle of looking at their careers as a whole, objectiely judging the value of their respctive wins agianst top opposition, and coming to the conclusion that, through having faced superior HW's, more often, Wills had fought the better competition througout his career.

This eliminates one of box-offs v Sharkey for the whole argument, as well as allowing us to analyse the two men's careers as a whole rather than just the part where Dempsey may have been doing better. Which is good, I think.

[heehoo]

"there is no avoiding it. Wills defintley has the better resume. He beat 3 guys Sam Langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea who were clearly better than anyone dempsey beat outside of Jack Sharkey. The top white fighters Fred Fulton and Luis Firpo, Harry Wills had his way with them too. Not to mention He blasted out Kid Norfolk, another top man Dempsey should have fought, but didn't."

These facts, more than anything, prove that The Brown Panther does indeed have a better resume than the Mauler. You beat these guys, you were the best - period. No arguments whatsoever.

Dempsey said he was eager to fight Wills "Because it would have been an easy fight. He was slow, I was fast, it would have been over quickly." I tend to disagree with this... Wills would have given him a TOUGH fight.

[mcvey]

But his win over sharkey was controversial since he hit him in the balls twice in a row with hard left hooks reminiscint of bowe-golota
The left hook that kod Sharkey landed on his chin.

[mcvey]

The only reason tunney's camp challenged Wills in 1925 was because they were petrified of George Godfrey and wanted no part of him, so they went after a poor 37 year old Harry Wills instead. Kevin Smith author of unforgiveable blackness said it was also a decoy and tunney had no plans of fighting Wills either.

Billy Gibson,Tunney's manager said we will fight Wills ,and the winner meets Dempsey,Wills declined.If Kevin Smith said otherwise he is wrong,and he did not write "Unforgiveable Blackness",it was written by Geoffrey C Ward. The film was directed by Ken Burns ,with a hell of a lot of input from Randy Roberts author of" Papa Jack"

[turpinr]

The left hook that kod Sharkey landed on his chin.

a ballchinion then ??

[mcvey]

a ballchinion then ??
Sharkey was not going down from the low punches he looked at the ref and Dempsey hooked him and kod him,end of story

[turpinr]

defend yourself at all times

[mcvey]

defend yourself at all times

Especially if the guy in there with you is Jack Dempsey!

[JimmyShimmy]

So Basically, McGrain is wrong.

Several people disagree and have posted numerous counter-arguments with objective reasoning.

[McGrain]

So Basically, McGrain is wrong.

Several people disagree and have posted numerous counter-arguments with objective reasoning.


The three main people that have presented counter-arguments are yourself, My2Sense and McVey.

McVey is clear that his pick is based primarily upon head to head and altough he is interested in exploring some of the other issues, this is his primary reason for disagreeing. That's fine with me.

There is nothing 'objective' about My2Sense's reasoning, nothing at all.

That leaves your good self.

Also, if you're trying to declare a winner based upon numbers of serious contributers who agree or disagree, it's a pretty even split, with Wills maybe coming of slightly better. Not bad considering the strangleholed Dempsey has upon Wills in terms of rankings, world over.

[janitor]

Also, if you're trying to declare a winner based upon numbers of serious contributers who agree or disagree, it's a pretty even split, with Wills maybe coming of slightly better. Not bad considering the strangleholed Dempsey has upon Wills in terms of rankings, world over.

It is probably fair to say that Wills is the most consistently under rated heavyweight of the gloved era. Probably the first second and third most under rated.

In recent years a long overdue reaction to this has set in led by historianmd such as Kevin Smith which is to be aplauded.

However I get the idea that some of the most zealous Wills revisionists might have over corrected more than a little.

[JimmyShimmy]

The theme is that Wills resume is far deeper, which is an overstatement.

Ali compared against Terrell is far deeper.

The truth of the matter is this:

-The jewel in Wills crown is tainted for the fact not only was Langford past his best, but his condition was far from stellar, often coming in around 200lbs at that stage and being described as out of shape. Langford's best weight was very probably in the 170's.

-Fans always go on about Willards shape against Dempsey when Langford wasn't the best either.

-Dempsey owns more good wins. It's important that he fought guys like Miske, Brennan, Levinsky and Carpentier, and his victory over Sharkey is arguably better than any one of Wills when you consider that many thought that was Sharkey at his peak.

There really is much that can be said of Dempsey in his defence when you're with the program like me.

[janitor]

Interesting point.

How would their best oponents stack up?

Faded Langford vs prime Sharkey or prime Miske

Faded McVea vs prime Gibbons

Jeff Clark vs Georges Carpintier

It is not clear that Wills has a qualatative as oposed to quantatative edge.

[McGrain]

The theme is that Wills resume is far deeper, which is an overstatement.

I'd say that Wills has a better resume than most of the guys on my top 15 list.

I'd say that Dempsey has one of the worst.


-The jewel in Wills crown is tainted for the fact not only was Langford past his best, but his condition was far from stellar, often coming in around 200lbs at that stage and being described as out of shape. Langford's best weight was very probably in the 170's.

Firstly, Langford is a proven heavyweight.

Second, Wills was a busy black fighter in a racist era dealing with the same issue that Langford did.

Third, i've been through all of this with McVey. Check out post 108. These constant attempts to smear Wills dominance of Langford are unfortunate. Langford was a genuine threat doing great work in the HW division when Wills was beating, and i feel that's shown in the post. McVey, Dempsey's staunchest defender on the forum agreed with me, he said it was objetive analysis and he respected it.

Maybe it is not the case with you, but far to many guys who want to defend Dempsey do so by first attacking Wills. It's a red light on this forum, and what it means is, "i know you are right and i am running interferance".

-Fans always go on about Willards shape against Dempsey when Langford wasn't the best either.

If you have intelligence that indicates that Langford was in terrible shape every time Wills beat him in spite of the work Langford was doing elsewhere around the time Wills was beating him, post it.

-Dempsey owns more good wins. It's important that he fought guys like Miske, Brennan, Levinsky and Carpentier, and his victory over Sharkey is arguably better than any one of Wills when you consider that many thought that was Sharkey at his peak.

I'm not going to go through all these guys, but i'll take Wills' wins over Langford over these guys, stand alone frankly. Add McVey and Jeanette and things look wide to me. NONE of the guys you've mentioned come anywhere hear qualifying for my top 30 at HW. Carpantier? It was important to fight Caprantier? Is that a joke? That Dempsey matched Carpantier, a smaller white fighter, but found reasons NOT to match Greb is a joke.

And this constant harping about Sharkey. My2Sense has tried to boil the argument down to their respective performances against him for goodness sake.

Yes, Sharkey is a good scalp. I'd rate Langford and McVey as more impressive scalps when Wills beat them and I think that's self evident personally, I would also tend to add Jeanette when Wills beat him, although that is not as obvious.

[dmt]

i think Langford was going blind after his fight with fulton in 1917. I could be wrong but this is how i remember reading about it

[McGrain]

i think Langford was going blind after his fight with fulton in 1917. I could be wrong but this is how i remember reading about it


I have his serious troubles beginning after that fight too. He still has stoppage wins over great fighter though. Unreal.

[fists of fury]

Been an excellent thread this. Man, I've missed this place.

[McGrain]

Where you been FOF?

[janitor]

I have his serious troubles beginning after that fight too. He still has stoppage wins over great fighter though. Unreal.

Most sources suggest that Langford sustained his detatched retina in the Fulton fight but these things are hard to prove and sources can conflict.

[fists of fury]

Working mate. :tired

[McGrain]

Well good to see you back.

[SuzieQ49]

Billy Gibson,Tunney's manager said we will fight Wills ,and the winner meets Dempsey,Wills declined.If Kevin Smith said otherwise he is wrong,and he did not write "Unforgiveable Blackness",it was written by Geoffrey C Ward. The film was directed by Ken Burns ,with a hell of a lot of input from Randy Roberts author of" Papa Jack"


why should a 37 year old harry wills fight tunney when he has already been the # 1 contender for 7 straight years? wills shouldnt need to fight an unproven fighter like tunney to grant him a title shot, wills already well earned his title shot, wills should be cut some slack......which brings me to my last point...tunney wanted no part of godfrey.

[SuzieQ49]

-The jewel in Wills crown is tainted for the fact not only was Langford past his best, but his condition was far from stellar, often coming in around 200lbs at that stage and being described as out of shape. Langford's best weight was very probably in the 170's.


Jimmyshimmy,

when wills beat langford for the first time. Langford was only 187lb.

[mcvey]

why should a 37 year old harry wills fight tunney when he has already been the # 1 contender for 7 straight years? wills shouldnt need to fight an unproven fighter like tunney to grant him a title shot, wills already well earned his title shot, wills should be cut some slack......which brings me to my last point...tunney wanted no part of godfrey.
Suzie ,I quite agree Wills had earned his shot without meeting Tunney.My point was Tunney was ready to meet him.

[Bummy Davis]

Wills should have been given a shot at the title...but on film (not much) Dempsey looks more explosive even the Firpo fight Dempsey impressed me more but styles make fights and you never know...Its a shame Wills did not get shot

[mcvey]

The three main people that have presented counter-arguments are yourself, My2Sense and McVey.

McVey is clear that his pick is based primarily upon head to head and altough he is interested in exploring some of the other issues, this is his primary reason for disagreeing. That's fine with me.

There is nothing 'objective' about My2Sense's reasoning, nothing at all.

That leaves your good self.

Also, if you're trying to declare a winner based upon numbers of serious contributers who agree or disagree, it's a pretty even split, with Wills maybe coming of slightly better. Not bad considering the strangleholed Dempsey has upon Wills in terms of rankings, world over.
Though you havent changed my mind,I think you have mounted an excellent argument to prove your case ,it has been even handed and objective.My respects to you.

[McGrain]

Though you havent changed my mind,I think you have mounted an excellent argument to prove your case ,it has been even handed and objective.My respects to you.


Well likewise, and I haven't a problem with rating JD pretty high head to head - it's a position I hold myself. I'd pick Dempsey to beat Wills and i'd pick Dempsey to do better against the field.

I think Wills might do better with Jack Johnson though, what do you think?

[SuzieQ49]

My point was Tunney was ready to meet him.


Yes since Wills was 37. but he was not willing to meet the 6'3 225lb 27 year old George Godfrey, and he never gave sharkey a shot. No way heeney was better than those two.

[SuzieQ49]

I'd pick Dempsey to beat Wills

but why? what film have you seen of wills to draw this conclusion? for all we know wills may have been sonny liston in disguise. we dont know. no film.

[McGrain]

but why? what film have you seen of wills to draw this conclusion? for all we know wills may have been sonny liston in disguise. we dont know. no film.


The same sort of thing that let's us pick Marciano to beat Greb or Williams to beat Pavlik, an educated guess based upon what I know.

Dempsey could lose to Wills for sure, but it's not my pick.

[janitor]

Another way to look at it.

If you had been Dempseys manager knowing what you know now would you match him with Wills or Tunney?

My guess is that the inactive Dempsey would have had more chance against a declining and relativley stationary Wills than against a prime and mobile Tunney.

If Dempsey had got past Wills he could probably have fobbed Tunney off for a couple of years and made him go through sombody like George Godfrey.

[McGrain]

Well sure, obviously I would match him with a sherman tank rather than a guy I know for an absolute fact would beat him twice (maybe Jack could outflank it) - what's the bottom line with this though? That Dempsey was unlucky for ducking Wills for all these years?

[janitor]

Well sure, obviously I would match him with a sherman tank rather than a guy I know for an absolute fact would beat him twice (maybe Jack could outflank it) - what's the bottom line with this though? That Dempsey was unlucky for ducking Wills for all these years?

My point is that somtimes these champions who drew the colour line shot themselves in the foot.

Adam Pollack speculates that John L Sullivan would have had more chance of beating Peter Jackson than Jim Corbett because Corbett was more mobile.

Jeffries could have fought Johnson while he was actualy in his prime rather than when he was an empty shell.

By the same toke Dempsey even in his dilapidated state would have had a good chance against Wills who father time was also catching up with. A win over Wills would have put off the need to take on Tunney for a couple of years.

A lot of these guys avoided the main challenger only to be steered into them at a less oportune time or into something worse.

[OLD FOGEY]

Another way to look at it.

If you had been Dempseys manager knowing what you know now would you match him with Wills or Tunney?

My guess is that the inactive Dempsey would have had more chance against a declining and relativley stationary Wills than against a prime and mobile Tunney.

If Dempsey had got past Wills he could probably have fobbed Tunney off for a couple of years and made him go through sombody like George Godfrey.

I read a article quoting Jack Kearns back in the sixties in which Kearns said he would have fought Wills and ducked Tunney. If I remember, Kearns said he would then have matched Dempsey with Uzcudun after which he would have had him retire undefeated.

[McGrain]

Valid point given the forum and the subject at hand, but it does kind of lift my paint and cough up the words "fuck em". Make a rod for your own back, suffer for it.

But a fair point. I think you know enough about to me to know that I don't hate, or want to harm Dempsey. I would welcome another ripple of muscle to his resume. Plus, if he'd fought Wills a good deal sooner we'd have a peaked or just past peak Wills on film!

[mcvey]

Yes since Wills was 37. but he was not willing to meet the 6'3 225lb 27 year old George Godfrey, and he never gave sharkey a shot. No way heeney was better than those two.
I agree that a prime Sharkey would give Tunney a good fight ,but that's not the point .
In 1927 Sharkey was in an eliminator with Dempsey , the winner to Challenge Tunney,Dempsey's conqueror. Dempsey kod Sharkey and met Tunney. Meanwhile ,Sharkey met Heeney and could only draw with him1928.Sharkey ,in his next fight lost to Risko 1928 . Heeney had allready beaten Risko,and so had Tunney.Sharkey eliminated himself,so Tunney met Heeney, then retired.

[SuzieQ49]

McVea, that tournament was horribly rigged. Heeney never even beat sharkey or godfrey to win the elimantor, all he had to do was beat johnny risko. In fact, They kept top contender George Godfrey out of the tournament due to fear of a black man winning the eliminator. They were going to match up godfrey with knute hanson as long as they thought hanson was a gauranteed win. but when hansons manager said they had no chance against godfrey, they removed godfrey from the tourney. Heeney was a joke and never beat sharkey or godfrey to earn his shot.

If dempsey doesnt hit sharkey in the balls, sharkey most likely wins the fight on points and faces tunney next. I thought sharkey outboxing dempsey in that fight was more than enough to qualify him as a future tunney opponent, especially with his wins over wills and godfrey too.

[mcvey]

McVea, that tournament was horribly rigged. Heeney never even beat sharkey or godfrey to win the elimantor, all he had to do was beat johnny risko. In fact, They kept top contender George Godfrey out of the tournament due to fear of a black man winning the eliminator. They were going to match up godfrey with knute hanson as long as they thought hanson was a gauranteed win. but when hansons manager said they had no chance against godfrey, they removed godfrey from the tourney. Heeney was a joke and never beat sharkey or godfrey to earn his shot.

If dempsey doesnt hit sharkey in the balls, sharkey most likely wins the fight on points and faces tunney next. I thought sharkey outboxing dempsey in that fight was more than enough to qualify him as a future tunney opponent, especially with his wins over wills and godfrey too.

The entries to the tournament may well have been rigged ,but the results of those taking part went along on logical grounds. Sharkey lost to Dempsey,drew with Heeney, then lost to Risko.If Sharkey desrves a shot after 3 fights without a win where does that leave Risko? Risko had beaten Uzcudon ,and Scott ,and Godfrey and Sharkey, so thats 4 fights, 4 wins over contenders, surely he deserves a shot more than either Sharkey or Godfrey ,both of whom he has beaten? Trouble is Tunney had allready beaten him. Godfrey was out of the picture ,because he had been beaten by Sharkey and Risko.All this might have been very fortuitous for Tunney but he could justifiably claim that he took on the logical contender, since the only other stand out was Risko ,whom he had allready beaten.
Personally I think Tunney would do to Godfrey what Sharkey did, and I rate Tunney slightly better as a boxer than Sharkey ,with a better chin and more speed so I think he beats Sharkey too,but of the contenders around then an in form Sharkey would be the man I would most fear if I was Tunney.Trouble with Sharkey was ,you never knew if he would be in form ,and neither did he!

[SuzieQ49]

I see your point McVey. I dont know about risk-sharkey but the risko-godfrey fight was extremley fishy...


Boxing Historian Chuck Hasson claimed about godfrey-risko fight "It was widely understood in Philly that Godfrey agreed to "carry" Risko". His loss to Risko was a case in point as some fair eyewitness scribes have noted that Godfrey easily handled Risko for the first eight rounds at Ebbetts Field then Risko made a courageous stand in the last two rounds and they awarded him the decision"

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

New York Times had it 6-4 for Godfrey AP had it 5-3-2 for Godfrey


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Here is a photo of Godfrey and Dempsey. In Siki's book, he claims godfrey knocked dempsey out for 10 count while dempsey was sparring for Firpo.



People don't realize that one leading black challenger Harry Wills was tolerated because of his "good name" with the New York commission but two top black challengers were frowned on. Godfrey and his management (Dougherty) tried to alleviate the situation by attempting to lure Wills into the ring by any means, but of course Wills and Paddy Mullins were not about to risk their position that they earned by taking on young, and very dangerous opponent like Godfrey.

[McGrain]

What a great picture that is.

How do you think the ageing Wills would have gone with Godfrey Q? Anyone else?

[SuzieQ49]

Godfrey knocks out Harry Wills by 1925 defintley..wills reflexes had slowed down too much for a superheavyweight with punching skills of godfrey in his prime..Prime for Prime? difficult, I would probably side with Wills there, though boxing historian Kevin Smith who has authored books on Black Dynamite fighters of the past told me once prime for prime he believes Godfrey would win.


Interestingly enough, Godfrey was trained by jack blackburn. it was blackburn that developed him into such a devastating puncher. Godfrey scored 82 knockouts out of 99 wins I believe. Might have been more if he wasnt forced to fight with the Cuffs on vs White fighters.

[McGrain]

Nice info. I've got some gaps in my knowledge for sure, and Godfrey is a great big one. You think it's fair to say he belongs in Wills class as a heavyweight? High praise indeed.

[SuzieQ49]

Some historians believe so. I tend to rate wills near my top 10, while godfey is usually around 25-30th....both very underated fighters. I swear if godfey got his shot against tunney without the cuffs on, one of those guys legends would be alot different. we would know the truth. it would have been very interesting indeed to see the outcome.

[Maxmomer]

Interesting point.

How would their best oponents stack up?

Faded Langford vs prime Sharkey or prime Miske

Faded McVea vs prime Gibbons

Jeff Clark vs Georges Carpintier

It is not clear that Wills has a qualatative as oposed to quantatative edge.

Well put. I agree.

[McGrain]

Well put. I agree.

Sure, it's agreeable, but why match a faded Langford? Why not use the 1914 version that had so many great wins in front of him?

[mcvey]

I see your point McVey. I dont know about risk-sharkey but the risko-godfrey fight was extremley fishy...


Boxing Historian Chuck Hasson claimed about godfrey-risko fight "It was widely understood in Philly that Godfrey agreed to "carry" Risko". His loss to Risko was a case in point as some fair eyewitness scribes have noted that Godfrey easily handled Risko for the first eight rounds at Ebbetts Field then Risko made a courageous stand in the last two rounds and they awarded him the decision"

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

New York Times had it 6-4 for Godfrey AP had it 5-3-2 for Godfrey


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Here is a photo of Godfrey and Dempsey. In Siki's book, he claims godfrey knocked dempsey out for 10 count while dempsey was sparring for Firpo.



People don't realize that one leading black challenger Harry Wills was tolerated because of his "good name" with the New York commission but two top black challengers were frowned on. Godfrey and his management (Dougherty) tried to alleviate the situation by attempting to lure Wills into the ring by any means, but of course Wills and Paddy Mullins were not about to risk their position that they earned by taking on young, and very dangerous opponent like Godfrey.
Larry Gains in his great Autobiography "The Impossible Dream " said that Godfrey was built like a mountain,and gave off an aura of machismo.We will probably never know how many of Godfrey's fights were straight,and how many were carry jobs, from what I have read , he may have deliberatedly fouled out to Carnera, for example .

[McGrain]

Larry Gains in his great Autobiography "The Impossible Dream " said that Godfrey was built like a mountain,and gave off an aura of machismo.

Dempsey does look the less impressive of the two men. Though that would have been the case before in fights he won. I can see where Gains is coming from though.

[JimmyShimmy]

Firstly, Langford is a proven heavyweight.

Second, Wills was a busy black fighter in a racist era dealing with the same issue that Langford did.

Third, i've been through all of this with McVey. Check out post 108. These constant attempts to smear Wills dominance of Langford are unfortunate. Langford was a genuine threat doing great work in the HW division when Wills was beating, and i feel that's shown in the post. McVey, Dempsey's staunchest defender on the forum agreed with me, he said it was objetive analysis and he respected it.

Maybe it is not the case with you, but far to many guys who want to defend Dempsey do so by first attacking Wills. It's a red light on this forum, and what it means is, "i know you are right and i am running interferance".I'm the most staunch Dempsey defender.

Fair's fair, you nit pick at Dempsey, I'll nit pick at Wills.

If you have intelligence that indicates that Langford was in terrible shape every time Wills beat him in spite of the work Langford was doing elsewhere around the time Wills was beating him, post it.I'm sure that's not the case, but lets not lose sight of the fact that this Langford is not a 100% Tar Baby.

This is the point, how good a wins were they? How many levels had Langford fizzled down?

Winning was often with Langford, but there was a time when he smashed all his prey. Catch me drift?

I'm not going to go through all these guys, but i'll take Wills' wins over Langford over these guys, stand alone frankly. Add McVey and Jeanette and things look wide to me. NONE of the guys you've mentioned come anywhere hear qualifying for my top 30 at HW. Carpantier? It was important to fight Caprantier? Is that a joke? That Dempsey matched Carpantier, a smaller white fighter, but found reasons NOT to match Greb is a joke.

And this constant harping about Sharkey. My2Sense has tried to boil the argument down to their respective performances against him for goodness sake.

Yes, Sharkey is a good scalp. I'd rate Langford and McVey as more impressive scalps when Wills beat them and I think that's self evident personally, I would also tend to add Jeanette when Wills beat him, although that is not as obvious.You won't?! It's not like we're going anywhere.

Ok, so you give me your best and then I'll show you whose got the deeper record.

It's harping for good reason.

There was a time when Sharkey was shit hot, which is no exaggeration.

He could dig, box and brawl with lovely fluidity.

Tattooing Dempsey, Sparking Loughran, Battering Schmeling before the DQ and schooling Carnera were no small feats. Actually, outside of Joe Louis it was the best work done at heavyweight for that era.

Suggesting Wills beating McVey is better than Dempsey beating Sharkey when he did is a good one. That Sharkey may have done a number on the ailing Black Dynamites.

[janitor]

I've got some gaps in my knowledge for sure, and Godfrey is a great big one.

Unfortunately this is true of everybody.

Godfrey is just an enigma.

[My2Sense]

I used the bizzare and freakish angle of looking at their careers as a whole, objectiely judging the value of their respctive wins agianst top opposition, and coming to the conclusion that, through having faced superior HW's, more often, Wills had fought the better competition througout his career.

You have NOT been judging their wins "objectively." As you yourself have acknowledged several times, you've been judging them incorporating your own pre-conceived notions of who is a great HW, who is not great, who is in your own top 40, who is better than who, etc., etc.

For example, do you give Dempsey more credit for beating Fulton than to Wills for beating Langford, given that Fulton completely crushed and outclassed Langford when they fought around that same time? Or do you give Wills more credit based purely on Langford being "arguably the greatest HW of all time" in your opinion? Unless I've misunderstood you (in which case I apologize), you seem to be giving Wills more credit for beating Langford than to Dempsey for anyone he beat, correct?

[My2Sense]

There is nothing 'objective' about My2Sense's reasoning, nothing at all.



LOL, and yours is??

Look at how many times you've used your own opinions and pre-conceived notions as the basis for your judgements...

Wills has MULTIPLE WINS over top 40 heavyweights - guys who are locked into that list

The fact is Wills had to turn up and fight great fighters on far more occasions than you have listed above, far more occasions than Jack Johnson and far more times than Joe Louis. That is entirely factual.



Neither is a great heavyweight, no.

But that's the entire point, mastering a fighter like Langford over a vast series is a little different to beating Gibbons. Don't you know that?

The facts are that Wills turned up many, many, many more times with a true great in the opposite corner and left a winner. That is a stone cold fact that is entirely inarguable

This isn't being "objective" at all, this is the total OPPOSITE of being objective.

[My2Sense]

The only reason tunney's camp challenged Wills in 1925 was because they were petrified of George Godfrey and wanted no part of him, so they went after a poor 37 year old Harry Wills instead. Kevin Smith author of unforgiveable blackness said it was also a decoy and tunney had no plans of fighting Wills either.

That's a very bizarre and puzzling story. :huh I've never in my life heard of a guy being criticized for going after two higher rated contenders (Gibbons and Wills) in place of a lower rated one. Why does Kevin Smith (who didn't write Unforgivable Blackness BTW) single out Godfrey among all the other top 10 contenders as the guy Tunney "should've" fought? What sources did he derive this perspective from?

[My2Sense]

Yes since Wills was 37. but he was not willing to meet the 6'3 225lb 27 year old George Godfrey, and he never gave sharkey a shot. No way heeney was better than those two.

And yet Heeney was ranked higher than either of them at the time, and had held the Sharkey who had whupped Godfrey to a standstill, after which Heeney had another important win over Jack Delaney while Sharkey blew a fight to Risko.

You can't just say a guy deserves a shot more just because he's supposed to be "better." The guy who MAKES himself better is the one who deserves it. In 1928, when Tunney fought Heeney, neither Sharkey or Godfrey had made themselves any more deserving of a fight than Heeney, regardless of what happened in anyone's career before or after that.

The fact is, Wills, Gibbons, Dempsey, and Heeney were all rated higher than Godfrey at the time Tunney pursued fights with them. You can't criticize him for going after those guys because someone ranked beneath them at the time looke like he "might've" been better in retrospect.

[markedwardscott]

Dempsey's fight with Firpo was such an incredible performance, along with his other great fights, that he gets the nod for high-action quality over the perhaps better resume of Wills, IMO. Firpo hit Dempsey hard enough to floor an ox.

[SuzieQ49]

Jimmyshimmy,

I don't know if you saw but Langford weighed only 187lb when wills beat langford the first time.


2ndly, you keep bringing the sharkey win up like its some memorable victory. It was a controversial win IMO, marred by cheap shots to the balls. Dempsey won, but sharkey gave him a boxing lesson for 6 rounds and was ahead on points, without the ball shots dempsey doesnt win.

[SuzieQ49]

For example, do you give Dempsey more credit for beating Fulton than to Wills for beating Langford, given that Fulton completely crushed and outclassed Langford when they fought around that same time?


Wills beat Langford in 1914. Fulton never beat the 1914 version of langford. He beat sam over 3 years later. langford of 1914 was a different animal.

[Maxmomer]

Jimmyshimmy,

I don't know if you saw but Langford weighed only 187lb when wills beat langford the first time.


2ndly, you keep bringing the sharkey win up like its some memorable victory. It was a controversial win IMO, marred by cheap shots to the balls. Dempsey won, but sharkey gave him a boxing lesson for 6 rounds and was ahead on points, without the ball shots dempsey doesnt win.

Gave him a boxing lesson? The cards were close, Sharkey was barely up, the KO was clearly scored by a legit punch and both fighters were fouling up to the KO throughout a lot of the fight.

[SuzieQ49]

Sharkey was clearly outboxing dempsey. hurt him badly and came close to knocking him out in the first round, he was defintley up pretty big on my card after 6, dempsey maybe won one round.


the KO was clearly scored by a legit punch

right after two left hooks to the balls. sharkey was on his way to a points win

[SuzieQ49]

Sharkey who had whupped Godfrey to a standstill

Tunney should have fought sharkey. no argueing that. sharkey was a great fighter, just as good as tunney. Also, the sharkey fight godfrey may have been on the cuffs. but tom heeney? no way over sharkey, godfrey and schmeling.



The fact is, Wills, Gibbons, Dempsey, and Heeney were all rated higher than Godfrey at the time Tunney pursued fights with them. You can't criticize him for going after those guys because someone ranked beneath them at the time looke like he "might've" been better in retrospect.

George Godfrey was the # 2 rated contender by Ring Magazine in 1928, Heeney was all the way back to # 9.


Here it is

1928 Ring Magazine


1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcudun
4. Jack Sharkey
5. Knute Hansen
6. Jim Maloney
7. Johnny Risko
8. Phil Scott
9. Tom Heeney
10. Otto von Porat


here is 1929 Ring Magazine heavyweight rankings


1. Jack Sharkey
2. Max Schmeling
3. George Godfrey
4. Tuffy Griffith
5. Phil Scott
6. Otto von Porat
7. Young Stribling
8. Johnny Risko
9. Primo Carnera
10. Vittorio Campolo

Wow look at that. After facing a pathetic tom heeney, tunney retired with 3 prime hall of fame heavyweights 1, 2, and 3 in the rankings. WOW JUST WOW. he couldnt give one of them a shot?






I posted this a while back Mysense,


Larry Gains once said "Godfrey was the best of them all. I've sparred with Dempsey and fought just about every good heavyweight out there and I will tell you, George Godfrey was the best. I was afraid of only two men in my life, My Father and George Godfrey."





TUNNEY SPURNS GODFREY MATCH



"plans for a battle between geney tunney, former american lightheavyweight champion, and george godfrey, negro heavyweight, as the feature attraction on the annuel christmas boxing carnival in madison square garden on dec 18, today were abandoned. it was announced by the officials of the fund. billy gibson manager of gene tunney declinded the prooffered match. according the the fund officials, gibson asserted harry wills is the only negro heavyweight tunney will box." - los angeles times nov. 4 1925





EASTERN SNAPSHOTS by W. Rollo Wilson



Nov.12, 1925-The Baron of Leiperville is home again with wonderous tales of the mighty deeds of the "Shadow" along the gilded slope. The "Shadow" is just another way of denoting Gorger George Godfrey, Jimmy's (Dougherty) outsize white elephant. For white elephant George seems now to be. Nobody wants to fight him for love or money. Mr. Wills unostentatiously draws the color line. Mr. Tunney is more blatant in his announcement to the same effect. "I'll fight Harry Wills," broadcasts James Joseph, "but I draw the color line on George Godfrey."



Two things may be on the mind of the Apollo of Greenwich Village, Perhaps he thinks that one "shot" with Wills would give him enough of the filthy lucre for his future earthly needs. Win or lose he would be "in." Fighting Ole Black Lightning [Godfrey] would be a case of all to lose and nothing to gain, he probably thinks. At this time Billy Gibson and Tunney are saying that the Big Three of Boxing are Dempsey, Wills, and the modest Gene. Godfrey would fain make it a foursome, but you can be jolly well sure that the triumvira will continue to say him nay.



One of the first acts of [Dougherty] on his arrival was to release another challenge in the general direction of the above-mentioned Big Three. His latest offer is this:

All any promoter has to do is get Harry, Gene or Jack to sign the papers and pay them whatever they want. Godfrey will come in without asking for a dollar. The aftermath will provide the Dougherty clan with all they will want, because they feel that George can take any of the three.



As is well known Dougherty and Dempsey are the best of friends. Last summer a year ago (1924) Dempsey visited the baronial halls (Leiperville). While here the subject of a bout with George was broached. Jack declared that if he fought at all he would fight Wills, but not Godfrey. Jimmy pressed him for the reason and he said : "Godfrey is a big strong fellow and is young, Wills is getting older and I think he will be the easier man of the two. That is the reason I prefer to fight him, if I fight." - ROLLO WILSON was often referred to as "the dean of the Black Press.













"Tunney wanted nothing to do with Godfrey--plain and simple--too tough a fight. Godfrey is vastly under-rated. His record and career are somewhat mired in mystery. So many DQ's, knockouts and damn mystifying losses. I have no doubt, for instance, that he had the cuffs on against Sharkey. The high number of DQ's has more to do with him fighting to order than it does with him being sloppy. Tunney could outbox most heavies and I don't doubt that he could outbox George Godfrey for 5 or six or even ten rounds. However, George was fast for his size, was adept at chasing men down and could hit like a team of mules. If this were a fifteen round fight, I see Godfrey having a hell of chance catching up to Gene. Remember that Tunney's heavyweight resume is not that long or overly impressive. His two best wins were against Dempsey--over 10 rounds--and it is probable that Jack was past it then. Godfrey handled Larry Gaines fairly easily and Gaines was a boxer in both the mold and style of Tunney. Gaines stated that he feared only two men in his life, his father and George Godfrey. George was a beast--big, athletic, huge puncher and surprisingly good speed and movement for a man his size. I think in his prime, 1925-1931, he was about as good as it got. Nobody really wanted to fight George, and for good reason. Tunney avoided him like the plague. In his prime, with no handcuffs, and this is strictly my opinion, I think he could have beaten, Tunney, Sharkey, Carnera and maybe even Dempsey(certainly a post 1926 Dempsey)."- Boxing historian Kevin Smith Author of Unforgiveable Blackness


"Not only did Tunney duck Godfrey but so did Dempsey and Wills. From late 1923 Baron (James) Dougherty issued challenges almost daily for Wills to take on Godfrey, who was Philadelphia's greatest drawing card. Promoters Herman Taylor and Bobby Gunnis figured such a match in Phila would do between $250 K to $500 K. and the winner would be the "logical challenger" for Dempsey. Dougherty offered all kinds of perks to Wills including that Godfrey would take the match for $ 1." - Chuck Hasson

[My2Sense]

George Godfrey was the # 2 rated contender by Ring Magazine in 1928, Heeney was all the way back to # 9.


Here it is

1928 Ring Magazine


1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcudun
4. Jack Sharkey
5. Knute Hansen
6. Jim Maloney
7. Johnny Risko
8. Phil Scott
9. Tom Heeney
10. Otto von Porat



These ranking aren't from during 1928 though, when Tunney actually fought Heeney. This is how the rankings looked at the END of the year - in other words, a full six months after Tunney had whupped Heeney and retired.

What's the source of this list? I'll bet anything it's from the January/February '29 issue of The Ring, correct?

Going into 1928, their positions were exactly reversed (see [Only registered and activated users can see links] ):

Champion: Tunney
2. Dempsey
3. Sharkey
4. Heeney
5. Risko
6. Uzcudun
7. Delaney
8. Compolo
9. Godfrey
10. Hansen

After these rankings were compiled, Heeney drew with the #3 man, beat the #7 man, and the #2 man retired for good. Meanwhile, the #3 guy and the #9 guy both lost to the #5 guy. That meant NEITHER of them deserved a title shot more than Heeney.

Wow look at that. After facing a pathetic tom heeney, tunney retired with 3 prime hall of fame heavyweights 1, 2, and 3 in the rankings.


No he didn't, he had ALREADY retired six months earlier.

he couldnt give one of them a shot?

Why should he have? -none of them had actually earned it at that time. It doesn't matter who "looks" to be the most talented, who individual sportswriters happen to sing the most praise for, or what conspiracy theories and secret agendas others speculate about. In the end, what a fighter actually does in the ring, with his fists, supersedes everything. Heeney went out and MADE himself the most deserving challenger as of July 26, 1928, so on that date he rightfully got the shot.



- Boxing historian Kevin Smith Author of Unforgiveable Blackness

Probably irrelevant, but are you sure you're thinking of the right guy here?

[My2Sense]

Tunney should have fought sharkey. no argueing that.

Sharkey had failed to win in three fights in a row (once vs. Heeney) - that's what you can't argue with.

What's the justification for a guy deserving a title shot when he's just failed to win 3 in a row?

sharkey was a great fighter, just as good as tunney.

He may have been a great fighter, but there's little or no basis for saying he was as good as Tunney, at least at that time. He had three consecutive chances to prove that, and he fell short each time.

[My2Sense]

Wills beat Langford in 1914. Fulton never beat the 1914 version of langford. He beat sam over 3 years later. langford of 1914 was a different animal.

Exactly how much different would you say he was, and why? Was it enough of a difference that you could argue the 1914 version of Langford would've completely reversed the situation with the 1917 Fulton?

Accounts I've read seem to suggest he was not at his absolute peak even by 1914, but his genuine decline didn't start in earnest until after he was pounded by Fulton in their first fight, and probably came about as a result of it. That fight essentially seems to have been a sharp turning point in his career. It also is reportedly the fight that left him with eye damage, which impaired his vision through the rest of his career afterward.

[OLD FOGEY]

Exactly how much different would you say he was, and why? Was it enough of a difference that you could argue the 1914 version of Langford would've completely reversed the situation with the 1917 Fulton?

Accounts I've read seem to suggest he was not at his absolute peak even by 1914, but his genuine decline didn't start in earnest until after he was pounded by Fulton in their first fight, and probably came about as a result of it. That fight essentially seems to have been a sharp turning point in his career. It also is reportedly the fight that left him with eye damage, which impaired his vision through the rest of his career afterward.

There is a problem with all this focus on Fulton versus Langford. Dempsey beat Fulton. He did not fight Langford. Wills beat both Langford and Fulton. I think the edge is obviously with Wills.

[OLD FOGEY]

Godfrey knocks out Harry Wills by 1925 defintley..wills reflexes had slowed down too much for a superheavyweight with punching skills of godfrey in his prime..Prime for Prime? difficult, I would probably side with Wills there, though boxing historian Kevin Smith who has authored books on Black Dynamite fighters of the past told me once prime for prime he believes Godfrey would win.


Interestingly enough, Godfrey was trained by jack blackburn. it was blackburn that developed him into such a devastating puncher. Godfrey scored 82 knockouts out of 99 wins I believe. Might have been more if he wasnt forced to fight with the Cuffs on vs White fighters.

"boxing historian Kevin Smith who has authored books on Black Dynamite fighters of the past told me once prime for prime he believes Godfrey would win."

Yes, Kevin Smith is a distinguished boxing historian, but I don't think he has seen any more of Wills or Godfrey than the rest of us have. Is there any footage of a close to prime Wills?

As for the people who saw them live, most seem to have thought Wills was better (although most probably judged Langford better than either).

Here is Jack Kofoed, 1920's era boxing writer, writing in THE RING in Nov, 1933:

"Godfrey had speed and a punch and boxing skill, but an inferiority complex regarding white men. I would rate him behind Wills in all-around ability."

I would be interested in any quotes you can unearth from the 1920's comparing Wills and Godfrey. Most of the comments I have seen favor Wills.

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

Wills certainly tarred up the Tar Baby - inflicting about half Langford's total career losses!

[McGrain]

Fair's fair, you nit pick at Dempsey, I'll nit pick at Wills.

I don't feel i've nit-picked Dempsey' resume at all. In fact, aside from criticising him for not matching Greb i've hardly mentioned it.

I'm sure that's not the case

That's nice of you to say!! "And then some", I would add.

You won't?! It's not like we're going anywhere.

No, I won't re-type something i've already typed, especially as i've already directed you to where i've typed it. I could copy and paste it i guess, but it really is easier for you to just quote it.

[McGrain]

You have NOT been judging their wins "objectively." As you yourself have acknowledged several times, you've been judging them incorporating your own pre-conceived notions of who is a great HW, who is not great, who is in your own top 40, who is better than who, etc., etc.

Of course, but the original judgement is objective too.

The point is, your criteria are skewed. In one instance you are using ONE fight by each man to judge resume, which is not logical. In another case you are excluding 4 years of Wills career, laying the following four years of their respective careers side by side and claiming superiority for Wills.

That's total nonsense. You don't even see that type of bullshit in general.


For example, do you give Dempsey more credit for beating Fulton than to Wills for beating Langford, given that Fulton completely crushed and outclassed Langford when they fought around that same time? Or do you give Wills more credit based purely on Langford being "arguably the greatest HW of all time" in your opinion? Unless I've misunderstood you (in which case I apologize), you seem to be giving Wills more credit for beating Langford than to Dempsey for anyone he beat, correct?

I've never said that Langford is arguably the best HW of all time. That would be insane.

Yes, I think that Wills's best wins over Langford are better than Dempsey's best wins.

[McGrain]

Wills beat Langford in 1914. Fulton never beat the 1914 version of langford. He beat sam over 3 years later. langford of 1914 was a different animal.


These are exactly my feelings.

People seem to have confused the fact that Wills beat a past-prime Langford (a lot) with the fact that he also beat a Langford who was perfectly capable of beating a great fighter.

[CASH_718]

Judah KO 1

[fists of fury]

Well good to see you back.


Thank you. I don't know how long it'll last though...

[SuzieQ49]

Champion: Tunney
2. Dempsey
3. Sharkey
4. Heeney
5. Risko
6. Uzcudun
7. Delaney
8. Compolo
9. Godfrey
10. Hansen

so the pathetically untalented Heeney loses to Uzcuden and NEVER beats sharkey yet he gets the title shot? tunney and his management damm well knew sharkey and godfrey were the tougher tests. they publicly denied fights with godfrey for years, and after watching sharkey-dempsey they steered clear of sharkey. Sharkey fought and defeated black fighters tunney wanted no part of. what a waste of a title defense on tom heeeney.


After these rankings were compiled, Heeney drew with the #3 man, beat the #7 man, and the #2 man retired for good. Meanwhile, the #3 guy and the #9 guy both lost to the #5 guy. That meant NEITHER of them deserved a title shot more than Heeney.


So Sharkey WAS RATED HIGHER THAN HEENEY. yet fat heeney gets the shot instead lol. Heeney NEVER beat the # 3 man, and he LOST to the # 6 man. sharkey kayoed the # 7 in one short round. Also the godfrey-risko match was highly controversial. most sources report godfrey as the winner, and many historians believe godfrey was on the cuffs and was not allowed to open up on risko. surely this takes into consideration.

Lets face it at the end of 1928 when Tunney still could have had one more title defense before retirement, sharkey and godfrey were # 2 and # 4 in the rankings.




No he didn't, he had ALREADY retired six months earlier.


He retired because he knew they were very tough fights for him, that he may not win. Thats 3 prime hall of fame heavyweights 1, 2, 3 in the rankings and tunney damm well knew they were there and did not fight one of them. instead he fights butterball talentless tom heeney instead. My father friends with sharkeys grandson went fishing with Jack Sharkey. He said Sharkey spoke very well of dempsey and louis, but said that Tunney completley ducked him and he always wanted that match.

Why should he have? -none of them had actually earned it at that time.


Jack Sharkey more than earned it with his boxing lesson of dempsey, and wins over wills and godfrey. with dempseys retirement, that left sharkey as the highest rated contender.

Godfrey was a consistent top 10 contender dating all the way back to 1928 and he moved up to # 2 in the rankings by 1928...he had been publicly challenging tunney for years, and tunneys camp refused to fight him. I think it had something to do with 6'3 225lb size and high knockout percentage.


Heeney went out and MADE himself the most deserving challenger as of July 26, 1928, so on that date he rightfully got the shot.


I disagree. one win over risko in a "rigged" elimination tournament(that purposely kept godfrey out due to fear he would win) and a NON win over sharkey does not warrant him a title shot over sharkey, not to mention if godfrey had justifiably been awared the decision over risko like he should have heeney shouldnt even be in the top 10.





Probably irrelevant, but are you sure you're thinking of the right guy here?


I think i meant Sundowners


Sharkey had failed to win in three fights in a row (once vs. Heeney) - that's what you can't argue with.



Sharkey was clearly outpointing dempsey until jack won in controversial fashion. This IMO furthered sharkeys reputation. Tunney saw this fight and got scared of sharkeys boxing ability. Sharkey didnt need to beat heeney to earn the spot. just because he had a draw with him(a fight many ringsiders had sharkey winning) on a off night, Heeney needed more than one win over risko to earn a shot considering he lost to paolino uzcuden who godfrey beat. Heeney was terrible.


What's the justification for a guy deserving a title shot when he's just failed to win 3 in a row?


Jack Sharkey was the HIGHEST RATED contender. His controversial loss to dempsey did nothing to hurt his image...he never lost to heeney. so it was that one risko loss that you can make an arguement for hurt his chances, but thats just one loss and he came back and knocked out delaney. sharkeys controversial loss to dempsey alone should have been enough to warrant him a title shot. somehow a heeney-sharkey draw sparked enough interest in tunneys protective management to give the less talented much less dangerous low rated heeney a shot instead.


He may have been a great fighter, but there's little or no basis for saying he was as good as Tunney, at least at that time. He had three consecutive chances to prove that, and he fell short each time.


Actually there is a basis. Sharkey beat better competittion at heavyweight than tunney, and IMO has skills at the level of gene tunney on film. this would have been a very tough fight for gene. you say he had three chances, well sharkey was outboxing dempsey just as badly as tunney did...difference here is sharkey got cheap shotted and lost controversially, while tunney got knocked out for 14 seconds yet won controversially. Say what you want about Heeney, but Sharkey beat Max Schmeling Harry Wills and George Godfrey at heavyweight...who did tunney ever beat at heavyweight outside of old jack dempsey?

[OLD FOGEY]

SuzieQ-----"Who did Tunney beat at heavyweight besides an old Jack Dempsey?"

To play Devil's Advocate

Johnny Risko and Charley Weinert, both of whom defeated Jack Sharkey.

[SuzieQ49]

Old Fogster....

Tunney beat a very green Johnny Risko who held a record of 16-8 and going into the bout and had lost 4 out of his last six, one of the to jack sharkey. Not the sign of a world class fighter to me. coincidently, tunney never gave risko a rematch


Tunney beat Charley Weinhert, perhaps his best win outside of jack dempsey which does not tell you much. Especially when you take into account in there first fight, the fight could have gone either war.


Tunney fought just 8 career fights at heavyweight...The rated contenders he fought outside of old dempsey, Spalla, retirement home gibbons, and fat heeney are nothing to be proud of.

[janitor]

SuzieQ-----"Who did Tunney beat at heavyweight besides an old Jack Dempsey?"

To play Devil's Advocate

Johnny Risko and Charley Weinert, both of whom defeated Jack Sharkey.

You should add Ermilo Spalla.

I think he was ranked at the time.

[SuzieQ49]

You should add Ermilo Spalla.

I think he was ranked at the time.



Tunney fought just 8 career fights at heavyweight...The rated contenders he fought outside of old dempsey, Spalla, retirement home gibbons, and fat heeney are nothing to be proud of.



Tunneys heavyweight resume is comparable to Michael Spinx

[janitor]

Tunney fought just 8 career fights at heavyweight...The rated contenders he fought outside of old dempsey, Spalla, retirement home gibbons, and fat heeney are nothing to be proud of.



Tunneys heavyweight resume is comparable to Michael Spinx

I would agree if Spinks had shut Holmes out twice instead of narrowly/ controvertialy beating him twice.

That is really the only point where the comparison falls down.

Incidentaly Spalla outboxed Tunney for much of the fight and gave him no small trouble. Tunneys power bailed him out.

[SuzieQ49]

The fight report i read suggested tunney gave him a one sided licking, and spalla was more reminisint of a wrestler than a boxer. did u read something else? im interested.

[My2Sense]

I've never said that Langford is arguably the best HW of all time. That would be insane.


My apologees then, I must've been misreading this post here (# 106):

And there's no question that Langford wasn't what he once was by the end, i'm also clear that there are diminishing returns. A lot has been said about only providing credit for "a few" win over Langford, arguably the greatest HW of all time, top 25 HW on my list. Let's look.

[janitor]

The fight report i read suggested tunney gave him a one sided licking, and spalla was more reminisint of a wrestler than a boxer. did u read something else? im interested.

I was going by Tunneys own acount of the fight which strangley portrays him as having no small dificulty.

[janitor]

I've never said that Langford is arguably the best HW of all time. That would be insane.


No but you should have!

[McGrain]

My apologees then, I must've been misreading this post here (# 106):

Edited.

[My2Sense]

so the pathetically untalented Heeney loses to Uzcuden and NEVER beats sharkey yet he gets the title shot?

Yes, because both Uzcudun AND Sharkey (and Godfrey) lost to Risko afterward, who Heeney beat.

tunney and his management damm well knew sharkey and godfrey were the tougher tests. they publicly denied fights with godfrey for years, and after watching sharkey-dempsey they steered clear of sharkey.

No, Sharkey and Godfrey inadvertently steered themselves clear of Tunney by failing to establish themselves as the outstanding contender at any time during the two years that Tunney held the title.

Sharkey fought and defeated black fighters tunney wanted no part of.

No, it was Wills who wanted no part of Tunney.

So Sharkey WAS RATED HIGHER THAN HEENEY. yet fat heeney gets the shot instead lol.

NOT WHEN THE FIGHT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, he wasn't. Sharkey lost to Risko after these rankings were compiled, which dropped his ranking even further down the list. Heeney meanwhile beat Delaney to raise his stock even more.

The only guy you could possibly argue deserved to fight Tunney in place of Heeney was Risko - but not Sharkey or Godfrey.

And I don't see what Heeney being "fat" has to do with anything.


Heeney NEVER beat the # 3 man, and he LOST to the # 6 man.

...who himself then lost to the #5 and #7 men, who Heeney then beat.

sharkey kayoed the # 7 in one short round.

After Heeney had already beaten him as well.


Also the godfrey-risko match was highly controversial. most sources report godfrey as the winner, and many historians believe godfrey was on the cuffs and was not allowed to open up on risko. surely this takes into consideration.

No it doesn't. No matter how you spin it, Godfrey still didn't do better against Risko than Heeney did, and historians' speculations don't prove or change anything.

Lets face it at the end of 1928 when Tunney still could have had one more title defense before retirement, sharkey and godfrey were # 2 and # 4 in the rankings.

Sharkey and Godfrey could've made themselves the #2 guys six months earlier, when it mattered.

Seeing as they were the hopeful challengers and Tunney was the rightful champion, the burden here was on them and not him.

He retired because he knew they were very tough fights for him, that he may not win.

You know that for a fact?

Thats 3 prime hall of fame heavyweights 1, 2, 3 in the rankings and tunney damm well knew they were there and did not fight one of them.

Blame them for not being good enough to distinguish themselves as the outstanding contender in the two years that Tunney was champ.

And I don't see how Tunney (or anyone) could know who was going to someday be inducted into the HoF, unless he was psychic. Especially since I don't even think a Hall of Fame even existed for boxing at that time.

instead he fights butterball talentless tom heeney instead. My father friends with sharkeys grandson went fishing with Jack Sharkey. He said Sharkey spoke very well of dempsey and louis, but said that Tunney completley ducked him and he always wanted that match.

Sharkey has also spoken well of Heeney - but here you are calling him a butterball talentless bum.

Jack Sharkey more than earned it with his boxing lesson of dempsey, and wins over wills and godfrey.

Sharkey didn't give Dempsey a "boxing lesson," he was KO'd. That result DISQUALIFIED him from being able to fight Tunney.

with dempseys retirement, that left sharkey as the highest rated contender.

Not once he'd lost to Risko.

Godfrey was a consistent top 10 contender dating all the way back to 1928 and he moved up to # 2 in the rankings by 1928...he had been publicly challenging tunney for years, and tunneys camp refused to fight him. I think it had something to do with 6'3 225lb size and high knockout percentage.

...and NOT the fact that he wasn't as highly regarded or important a fight as the ones Tunney actually WAS fighting and pursuing fights with?

I disagree. one win over risko in a "rigged" elimination tournament(that purposely kept godfrey out due to fear he would win) and a NON win over sharkey does not warrant him a title shot over sharkey,

Why not? That's clearly better than a LOSS to Risko and a non-win against Heeney.

not to mention if godfrey had justifiably been awared the decision over risko like he should have

How can you know for sure Godfrey deserved the decision without being able to see it and score it for yourself?

heeney shouldnt even be in the top 10.

Beating 3-4 other guys already in the top ten and drawing with two others doesn't make you a legit top 10 contender??

What on earth does, then??

Sharkey didnt need to beat heeney to earn the spot.

No, but he needed to beat someone - either Dempsey or Risko.

Heeney needed more than one win over risko to earn a shot considering he lost to paolino uzcuden who godfrey beat.

And he got that - against Maloney, Delaney, and Gorman.

Heeney was terrible.

That's your opinion, and irrelevant to a guy's earned standing in division ratings. Your father's friend Sharkey didn't share that opinion either.

. so it was that one risko loss that you can make an arguement for hurt his chances, but thats just one loss and he came back and knocked out delaney.

Heeney had already beaten Delaney as well. So you're comparing one guy who had just beaten Risko and Delaney as opposed to a guy who was 1-1 against those same two, at around the same time. No matter how you spin it, the former is still much better than the latter.

sharkeys controversial loss to dempsey alone should have been enough to warrant him a title shot.

LOSSES don't warrant anyone a title shot - especially if its against a guy the champion decisively outpoints twice around that same time.


somehow a heeney-sharkey draw sparked enough interest in tunneys protective management to give the less talented much less dangerous low rated heeney a shot instead.

More like Sharkey's loss to Risko dropped him from the top spot, and left Tunney's management to have to choose between either Risko (who Tunney had already beaten) and Heeney (who had just beaten Risko, and since beaten Delaney too) as their challenger.

Actually there is a basis. Sharkey beat better competittion at heavyweight than tunney,

That's debatable, and moreover, doesn't supersede the fact that they had the SAME competition and Tunney clearly proved himself to be better. We have about as clear and direct a comparison as we could possibly ask for.

and IMO has skills at the level of gene tunney on film.

Maybe, maybe not - but what you actually MAKE of those skills is what determines how good a fighter is, not simply what skills you have.

this would have been a very tough fight for gene.

Maybe so, who knows.

you say he had three chances, well sharkey was outboxing dempsey just as badly as tunney did...

No he wasn't, Tunney was able to outmaneuver Dempsey and keep him from getting in close and mugging him, and he got even more dominant as the rounds progressed whereas Sharkey's style began to disintegrate.

difference here is sharkey got cheap shotted and lost controversially, while tunney got knocked out for 14 seconds yet won controversially.

Tunney was never "knocked out" at any time by Dempsey, and had already beaten him cleanly and decisively anyway.

Say what you want about Heeney, but Sharkey beat Max Schmeling Harry Wills and George Godfrey at heavyweight...who did tunney ever beat at heavyweight outside of old jack dempsey?

Gibbons (rated well over Godfrey and Sharkey at the time), Risko (who Sharkey and Godfrey lost to), Heeney (who Sharkey could only get a draw with). Of course, that's if twice beating Dempsey, the undisputed champion and top rated man in the division, wasn't enough for you.

[Dempsey1238]

Tunney didnt retire because of Sharkey and co.

He retire because he was set. His goal in boxing was

1, win the title/beat Jack Dempsey to do it.

2, make a million $(He did that with Dempsey II, and the Heenly fight was a last pay day)

3 Marry a rich girl to get into the wealty elite. And he needed the Million to do it.

After all that was done, he retire.

[My2Sense]

"boxing historian Kevin Smith who has authored books on Black Dynamite fighters of the past told me once prime for prime he believes Godfrey would win."

Yes, Kevin Smith is a distinguished boxing historian, but I don't think he has seen any more of Wills or Godfrey than the rest of us have. Is there any footage of a close to prime Wills?

As for the people who saw them live, most seem to have thought Wills was better (although most probably judged Langford better than either).

Here is Jack Kofoed, 1920's era boxing writer, writing in THE RING in Nov, 1933:

"Godfrey had speed and a punch and boxing skill, but an inferiority complex regarding white men. I would rate him behind Wills in all-around ability."

I would be interested in any quotes you can unearth from the 1920's comparing Wills and Godfrey. Most of the comments I have seen favor Wills.

I just happened to come across an old NY Times clipping I have the other day, on the Greb-Walker fight. Wills' win over Charlie Weinert was on the undercard. The writer (James P. Dawson if I remember right) describes the win as one of the best performances of Wills' career, a very shockingly quick win over a rated contender (Wills was expected to win, but not by such a quick blowout), and says that the general feeling among those in attendance was that Wills has yet again reaffirmed his status as the best contender in the division. It also says that Jack Kearns had been barred from the arena, even though his fighter Walker was in the main event, because of the uproar among boxing fans that Dempsey had not yet made a fight with the outstanding contender Wills.

No mention of Godfrey, nothing about Wills being a vulnerable "poor old man," or that ilk. In fact, the complete opposite.

[My2Sense]

These are exactly my feelings.

People seem to have confused the fact that Wills beat a past-prime Langford (a lot) with the fact that he also beat a Langford who was perfectly capable of beating a great fighter.

But you could probably make that argument as much about Langford in 1917 as you could in 1914.

Which raises the question, did Wills ever beat a version of Langford that was better than Fulton? (Most people at the time apparently didn't seem to think he did, as his win over Fulton was generally considered to be his biggest win up to that point.)

And if Fulton, and not Langford, was actually the biggest win of Wills' career, what does that mean for his resume/legacy as compared to Dempsey's?

[My2Sense]

Tunney didnt retire because of Sharkey and co.

He retire because he was set. His goal in boxing was

1, win the title/beat Jack Dempsey to do it.

2, make a million $(He did that with Dempsey II, and the Heenly fight was a last pay day)

3 Marry a rich girl to get into the wealty elite. And he needed the Million to do it.

After all that was done, he retire.

Yep.

In his time as a HW, he:
-KO'd the #2 rated contender (who had never before been KO'd).
-Tried to make a fight with the consensus #1 contender (and was turned down).
-Unseated the undisputed champion.
-Rematched and defeated the ex-champion, who had won an eliminator to earn the spot.
-Successfully defended against a current leading contender.

There was no one left as the clear cut #1 challenger at that point, so he retired.

It's not his fault if the other contenders in the division couldn't get their shit together in the 3 years he was there.

[OLD FOGEY]

But you could probably make that argument as much about Langford in 1917 as you could in 1914.

Which raises the question, did Wills ever beat a version of Langford that was better than Fulton? (Most people at the time apparently didn't seem to think he did, as his win over Fulton was generally considered to be his biggest win up to that point.)

And if Fulton, and not Langford, was actually the biggest win of Wills' career, what does that mean for his resume/legacy as compared to Dempsey's?

"Did Wills ever beat a version of Langford that was better than Fulton?"

I grew up in the Minneapolis area, where Fulton was from. There was a TV show in the area (following the Friday Night Fights) discussing boxing. Fulton came up for discussion quite a bit. No one thought Fulton was somehow as good as Langford. What they thought is that he got lucky. Langford suffered a severe cut over the eye in training but went through with the fight anyway because he needed the big payday. Fulton reopened the cut almost immediately and went on to stop Langford on a TKO.

I don't remember a single commentator who thought Fulton was in either Langford's or Wills' class.

[OLD FOGEY]

Kevin Smith used to post on this board on the Dempsey, Wills, Tunney situation. He finally gave up, his last post being to the effect why bother as the same old myths resurface over and over again.

I tend to agree. This was just a very confusing legal situation. These are the facts as far as I can gleam them from Smith, the NY Times, and Time Magazine:

1. Kearns had signed Dempsey to an exclusive contract with Rickard.

2. Dempsey nevertheless entered into a negotiation with Promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons to fight Wills. Dempsey and his lawyer may or may not have known about this contract.

3. Wills was negotiating with Dempsey in good faith.

4. The negotiations were for a 10 round ND fight in Indiana. Wills would have had to ko Dempsey to win. Indiana was also a stronghold of the KKK. Why Indiana?

5. In the midst of these negotiations, Rickard announces that he has signed Tunney to a contract to fight Wills. Wills was not negotiating with Rickard at the time. He was negotiating with Fitzsimmons to fight Dempsey.

6. The guarentee money is paid to Wills, not to the champion, whose check bounces. Most fishy.

7. When Dempsey signs to meet Wills, Richard and Kearns announce to the press that Dempsey is under exclusive contract.

8. Rickard, who has promised Wills a shot at Dempsey on numerous occasions, gives Tunney the shot.

9. According to writers of the time, Rickard has been informed by the "very highest sources" in Washington that boxing would be banned if a Dempsey-Wills fight were made.

That is as far as I know the facts. I think it silly to assert Wills ducked anyone, myself. He was the duckee, not the ducker. Dempsey's and Tunney's agreements to fight Wills were charades. Perhaps one or both of the fighters did not know that, and perhaps they did, but who can dig out the truth now. I think the only real issue is was Washington and Coolidge really involved, or did Rickard simply prefer not to chance a race-based backlash at a time when the money was rolling in with exclusively white championship fights.

[Cmoyle]

From an unknown boxing magazine:
“Dempsey always denied that he was afraid to meet Wills and felt he was tailor made for him. “I could always lick those big, slow guys. I personally never ducked him. I thought the fight should take place.”
In fact, Dempsey actually signed a contract to defend his title against Wills. Harry got his $50,000 guarantee in advance. Dempsey was to receive an advance of $300,000 against a guarantee of one million. Instead he received a down payment of only $25,000 and when that check bounced he bounced the fight.”

In comparing the opportunities to fight both Langford and Smith at that stage of his career, Dempsey said that although he knew Smith could lick him at the time, he felt he would eventually be able to lick him once he gained more experience in the ring. Langford on other hand he could never envision himself beating. Explaining further, Dempsey said that at the time he was asked to fight Sam, he was about 21 years old and wouldn’t have stood a chance against Sam. He didn’t mean that he was afraid of him physically, but knew better than to get in there, after a little more than a year’s experience, with a man of Sam’s ability and punching power who had been fighting for fourteen or fifteen years.

One later speculation was that George Godfrey, who was Dempsey’s favorite sparring partner, may have had a great deal with Jack’s attitude toward Langford. Godfrey would have had ample opportunity during the long periods he spent with Jack to tell him about the two times Langford knocked him cold. Godfrey often said “Sam was the greatest of them all.”

[McGrain]

But you could probably make that argument as much about Langford in 1917 as you could in 1914.

And i've made it. But I think it's pretty clear that Langford with really bad eye trouble is less good than Langford with much better vision.

Which raises the question, did Wills ever beat a version of Langford that was better than Fulton?

I think you're the only guy for whom this question is raised, actually.

"Yes" is the obvious answer, unless you are trying to slip out of answering it on wierd reverse logic like, "Langford could beat a great fighter in late 1917 and also in 1914 so may not have been any better in 1914 than he was in 1917" - or whateverthehell this is about.

This has been a strange thread for you and this might be the strangest shout!

[UpWithEvil]

4. The negotiations were for a 10 round ND fight in Indiana. Wills would have had to ko Dempsey to win. Indiana was also a stronghold of the KKK. Why Indiana?

That's easy enough to answer - Floyd Fitzsimmons owned his own area in Michigan City, Indiana.

[OLD FOGEY]

That's easy enough to answer - Floyd Fitzsimmons owned his own area in Michigan City, Indiana.

Interesting. That is a solid explanation. Unfortunately, though, the Indiana authorities were not willing to let a mixed match go on, even if Floyd came up with the guarentee money.

[McGrain]

Yeah, definitely nice posts by OLD FOGEY and UpWithEvil.

I didn't know Kevin Smith used to post here.

[My2Sense]

But I think it's pretty clear that Langford with really bad eye trouble is less good than Langford with much better vision.

What vision troubles was he having until Fulton beat him up?

"Yes" is the obvious answer, unless you are trying to slip out of answering it on wierd reverse logic like, "Langford could beat a great fighter in late 1917 and also in 1914 so may not have been any better in 1914 than he was in 1917" - or whateverthehell this is about.

No, it's not the "obvious" answer, unless you can first illustrate that there was a drastic difference between Langford in 1914 and the one Fulton beat.

[McGrain]

What vision troubles was he having until Fulton beat him up?

Hard to be sure. I think he wasn't as bad up until the Fulton fight, some think otherwise.



No, it's not the "obvious" answer, unless you can first illustrate that there was a drastic difference between Langford in 1914 and the one Fulton beat.

I'm not interested in demonstrating a difference, the one who has become obsessed about the Dempsey-Wills question hinging on this fight is you, in a similair way to your previous fixation on the Dempsey-Sharkey fight.

This is the fight where the eye damage was done. I don't know if it was the 2nd or the 6th i've been told both.

If I wanted to point to some crazy reason for supsecting Sam Langford was on the slide by 1917 - which is almost universally accepted - i'd probably point to his losing more in that year than any year previous. Something like that.

[My2Sense]

I'm not interested in demonstrating a difference, the one who has become obsessed about the Dempsey-Wills question hinging on this fight is you, in a similair way to your previous fixation on the Dempsey-Sharkey fight.

That's because it poses a very direct question to one of your primary arguments.

You've reiterated several times that you consider the 1914 version of Langford to be better than anyone Dempsey beat. That's a very questionable claim, and not wholly supported by the facts.


If I wanted to point to some crazy reason for supsecting Sam Langford was on the slide by 1917 - which is almost universally accepted - i'd probably point to his losing more in that year than any year previous. Something like that.

My question is not whether or not he was past his peak when Fulton got to him. Yes, he was indeed considered past his peak by 1917 - but he was also considered past his peak in 1914 as well. My question is, how much better is the past-peak version in 1914 than the past-peak version that Fulton beat?

Since you mentioned using losses to make that judgement, he wasn't losing with any more regularity at the start of 1917 than he had the previous two years. It wasn't until after Fulton beat him that the losses started really piling up.

[McGrain]

That's because it poses a very direct question to one of your primary arguments.

You've reiterated several times that you consider the 1914 version of Langford to be better than anyone Dempsey beat. That's a very questionable claim, and not wholly supported by the facts.



My question is not whether or not he was past his peak when Fulton got to him. Yes, he was indeed considered past his peak by 1917 - but he was also considered past his peak in 1914 as well. My question is, how much better is the past-peak version in 1914 than the past-peak version that Fulton beat?

Since you mentioned using losses to make that judgement, he wasn't losing with any more regularity at the start of 1917 than he had the previous two years. It wasn't until after Fulton beat him that the losses started really piling up.

So, to be clear, you are not interested in Langford 1917 v 1914, but how good Langford was when he fought Fulton?

Hard to say.

But if you are trying to base an argument for Sharkey being better than Langford based upon the fact that he was beaten by Fulton in a fight in which he sustained horrific injuries which forced him to retire, I think it is pretty clear you are onto a loser.

[he grant]

Guys, anyone hear of styles making fights?

I don't think anyone is making an argument that Langford was the best heavyweight of all time. POund for pound best is another matter ...Fulton was 6' 4", had a huge reach, an excellent jab and was a stylistic nightmare for Langford ...

[SuzieQ49]

But Fulton had a glass jaw. Surely the Langford with two eyes of 1914 would break that jaw.

[McGrain]

Well not if he got hit in the eye in round two and it was hanging out on his cheek!

Freak injuries like that happen in fights, and when you have as many as Langford did, the chances increase that you will be hurt in this way.

[Cmoyle]

"Freak injuries like that happen in fights, and when you have as many as Langford did, the chances increase that you will be hurt in this way."

You've got me wondering what other injuries he suffered that you're refering to.

[My2Sense]

So, to be clear, you are not interested in Langford 1917 v 1914, but how good Langford was when he fought Fulton?

Both, actually.

But if you are trying to base an argument for Sharkey being better than Langford based upon the fact that he was beaten by Fulton in a fight in which he sustained horrific injuries which forced him to retire, I think it is pretty clear you are onto a loser.

Why?? Since when has inflicting major damage on an opponent while thoroughly whupping them somehow made the win "less credible"??

What kind of bizarre logic is that? I've never heard of that in my entire life.

Did Wills fail to prove he was better than Fulton then, because Fulton suffered serious injuries in their fight? Or do you give Wills credit for his fists breaking Fulton's ribs?

[McGrain]

Both, actually.



Why?? Since when has inflicting major damage on an opponent while thoroughly whupping them somehow made the win "less credible"??

When did I say it was less credible? The point is not that it is less credible, at all, the point is that if a fighter sustains very bad damage in a fight which causes the fight to be stopped it is very difficult to say for sure, especially when we have not film, exactly to what degree Fulton beat the "best Langford".

If i've understood you correctly (Which is very difficult by the way) you are tyring to ascertain what "quality" of Langford the Langford that beat Fulton represented? I'm telling you that because he was badly injured in the fight it is hard to be sure.

What kind of bizarre logic is that? I've never heard of that in my entire life.

Coming from you, that's a little rich. It's difficult to know which of your bizarre efforts to offer up as an example.

Did Wills fail to prove he was better than Fulton then, because Fulton suffered serious injuries in their fight? Or do you give Wills credit for his fists breaking Fulton's ribs?


Wills proved he was better than Fulton in many different ways.

[janitor]

But Fulton had a glass jaw. Surely the Langford with two eyes of 1914 would break that jaw.

I would bet my house on it.

[janitor]

Kevin Smith used to post on this board on the Dempsey, Wills, Tunney situation. He finally gave up, his last post being to the effect why bother as the same old myths resurface over and over again.

I tend to agree. This was just a very confusing legal situation. These are the facts as far as I can gleam them from Smith, the NY Times, and Time Magazine:

1. Kearns had signed Dempsey to an exclusive contract with Rickard.

2. Dempsey nevertheless entered into a negotiation with Promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons to fight Wills. Dempsey and his lawyer may or may not have known about this contract.

3. Wills was negotiating with Dempsey in good faith.

4. The negotiations were for a 10 round ND fight in Indiana. Wills would have had to ko Dempsey to win. Indiana was also a stronghold of the KKK. Why Indiana?

5. In the midst of these negotiations, Rickard announces that he has signed Tunney to a contract to fight Wills. Wills was not negotiating with Rickard at the time. He was negotiating with Fitzsimmons to fight Dempsey.

6. The guarentee money is paid to Wills, not to the champion, whose check bounces. Most fishy.

7. When Dempsey signs to meet Wills, Richard and Kearns announce to the press that Dempsey is under exclusive contract.

8. Rickard, who has promised Wills a shot at Dempsey on numerous occasions, gives Tunney the shot.

9. According to writers of the time, Rickard has been informed by the "very highest sources" in Washington that boxing would be banned if a Dempsey-Wills fight were made.

That is as far as I know the facts. I think it silly to assert Wills ducked anyone, myself. He was the duckee, not the ducker. Dempsey's and Tunney's agreements to fight Wills were charades. Perhaps one or both of the fighters did not know that, and perhaps they did, but who can dig out the truth now. I think the only real issue is was Washington and Coolidge really involved, or did Rickard simply prefer not to chance a race-based backlash at a time when the money was rolling in with exclusively white championship fights.

This is a briliant and in depth summary on K Smiths part.

I think we have to consider that Dempsey might to some extent have been the sewer but not the sewage.

He seems to have made some effort to arrange a fight with Wills.

The New York State Athletic comision told him to fight Wills on pain of loosing his liscence to fight in New York State, but at the same time refused to sanction the bout in that state for fear that it would cause race riots.

You can understand how he felt that he was getting it from both sides.

[Marciano Frazier]

Well, I believe Dempsey has the most historically-impressive single win between the two in the Sharkey fight, in that he was past his prime facing an in-form future champion- and note that a past-prime Wills lost badly to Sharkey. In addition, Dempsey has the best streak of pure, concentrated dominance in his tear in the late teens through the start of the twenties. Wills was consistent for many years, but I wouldn't say he ever had a concentrated run where he ripped through practically everyone the way Dempsey did. Moreover, I do think it should be noted that the vast majority of their contemporaries did think Dempsey was the better fighter; I realize this was a racist era, but historically, sportswriters were actually generally quite honest and fair in their actual assessments of black fighters' ability, as, for example, in the case of many who passionately disliked Jack Johnson but nevertheless acknowledged his exceptional ability, or as with Langford.
I think either man can reasonably be ranked above the other, depending upon one's criteria.

[ChrisPontius]

Well, I believe Dempsey has the most historically-impressive single win between the two in the Sharkey fight, in that he was past his prime facing an in-form future champion- and note that a past-prime Wills lost badly to Sharkey. In addition, Dempsey has the best streak of pure, concentrated dominance in his tear in the late teens through the start of the twenties. Wills was consistent for many years, but I wouldn't say he ever had a concentrated run where he ripped through practically everyone the way Dempsey did. Moreover, I do think it should be noted that the vast majority of their contemporaries did think Dempsey was the better fighter; I realize this was a racist era, but historically, sportswriters were actually generally quite honest and fair in their actual assessments of black fighters' ability, as, for example, in the case of many who passionately disliked Jack Johnson but nevertheless acknowledged his exceptional ability, or as with Langford.
I think either man can reasonably be ranked above the other, depending upon one's criteria.


I disagree with your statements on several levels.

First of all, how can you call Dempsey's work "concentrated dominance where he ripped through practically everyone" when he did not fight Langford, Jeanette, Wills or Greb? All of them were top contenders and he got in the ring none of them. You could say he dominated the white heavies of the time (Greb alone is excuseable).

Furthermore, on saying how honest the contemporary historians were, again i have to disagree. As far as i know, Wills wasn't even ranked in the top10's from the 20's until the 50's, and Joe Louis barely hit the top10 in most lists, even in 1954 after he retired, despite clear superiority to all of his predecessors. I can understand people ranking Dempsey higher than Wills, but realistically, based on resume they should be pretty close together. Yet Dempsey was often ranked in the top3 (and as high as #1) while Wills remained suspiciously absent from the entire top10 of the lists that i have seen.

Sorry, but i don't call that honest. Maybe they didn't know as much as we do now, and great popularity and promotion (the Flynn fight suddenly becoming a fix years after when Dempsey is popular) certainly helped Jack a lot more than Harry, but still....

[McGrain]

I think we have to consider that Dempsey might to some extent have been the sewer but not the sewage.
.

Ellegantly put.

[Cmoyle]

"Freak injuries like that happen in fights, and when you have as many as Langford did, the chances increase that you will be hurt in this way. "

McGrain, it jus dawned on me that I misunderstood the above, I thought you were saying that Langford had "many freak injuries". You were obviously referring to "many fights". Sorry about that.

[Maxmomer]

Ellegantly put.

I disagree. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I even looked up the words "sewer" and "sewage" just to see if there were any definitions I was unaware of. There were not. Is he saying that Dempsey was the artificial conduit that carried the waste matter rather than the waste matter itself? Maybe it's just too elegant for me.

[mcvey]

I disagree with your statements on several levels.

First of all, how can you call Dempsey's work "concentrated dominance where he ripped through practically everyone" when he did not fight Langford, Jeanette, Wills or Greb? All of them were top contenders and he got in the ring none of them. You could say he dominated the white heavies of the time (Greb alone is excuseable).

Furthermore, on saying how honest the contemporary historians were, again i have to disagree. As far as i know, Wills wasn't even ranked in the top10's from the 20's until the 50's, and Joe Louis barely hit the top10 in most lists, even in 1954 after he retired, despite clear superiority to all of his predecessors. I can understand people ranking Dempsey higher than Wills, but realistically, based on resume they should be pretty close together. Yet Dempsey was often ranked in the top3 (and as high as #1) while Wills remained suspiciously absent from the entire top10 of the lists that i have seen.

Sorry, but i don't call that honest. Maybe they didn't know as much as we do now, and great popularity and promotion (the Flynn fight suddenly becoming a fix years after when Dempsey is popular) certainly helped Jack a lot more than Harry, but still....
You have a great case for Wills ,but,I don't think Jeanette was a threat to Dempsey in his prime he was past it and old, by then.

[McGrain]

"Freak injuries like that happen in fights, and when you have as many as Langford did, the chances increase that you will be hurt in this way. "

McGrain, it jus dawned on me that I misunderstood the above, I thought you were saying that Langford had "many freak injuries". You were obviously referring to "many fights". Sorry about that.

No bother at all, I had mis-understood your original post anyway and only re-read it in the light of this one, so absolutley no harm was done.

[McGrain]

I disagree. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I even looked up the words "sewer" and "sewage" just to see if there were any definitions I was unaware of. There were not. Is he saying that Dempsey was the artificial conduit that carried the waste matter rather than the waste matter itself? Maybe it's just too elegant for me.

:lol:

[My2Sense]

If i've understood you correctly (Which is very difficult by the way) you are tyring to ascertain what "quality" of Langford the Langford that beat Fulton represented?

I want to know how much (or if at all) his quality at the time of the first Fulton fight differed from his quality in his previous fights with Wills.

To put it another way, I want to know what Langford still had in 1914 that makes you so certain he would've been better than a guy he was clearly inferior to just a couple years later.

I'm telling you that because he was badly injured in the fight it is hard to be sure.

Why? How do injuries inflicted on him in the course of the fight have any bearing on what his quality was coming into the fight?

Coming from you, that's a little rich. It's difficult to know which of your bizarre efforts to offer up as an example.

I don't see what's so bizarre about looking at the outcomes of actual fights, comparing results against common opponents, pointing out Ring rankings, or researching eyewitness accounts of fights/circumstances.

I'd say it would be far more bizarre to try to ignore or diminish those things.

Wills proved he was better than Fulton in many different ways.

Was BEATING HIM one of them? - that's my question.

[My2Sense]

But Fulton had a glass jaw. Surely the Langford with two eyes of 1914 would break that jaw.

Why surely? He still had two eyes in 1917, and failed utterly to "break that jaw."


Here's the account that was featured in the NY Times:

"BOSTON, June 19. -Fred Fulton's height and reach were too great a handicap for Sam Langford at the Armory A.A. tonight, and, after seven rounds of one-sided fighting, the Minnesota plasterer stopped the Boston negro. Langford was being punished so badly by Fulton in the seventh that his seconds threw up the sponge and ended the bout, the referee declaring Fulton the winner.

"Langford tried in vain for the first few rounds to get at Fulton, but the big fellow's reach was so great that he had little trouble in holding him off. Langford was game, and repeatedly kept coming in, but there was such a difference in the sizes of the boxers that Langford had little success in reaching his opponent. In the second round, after breaking away from a clinch, Fulton caught Langford on the point of the jaw and sent him down for the count of seven.

"Only once, in the third round, was Langford successful in reaching Fulton, and then he drove him back up the ropes with hard blows to the body. He was not able to reach Fulton's jaw."

[McGrain]

I want to know how much (or if at all) his quality at the time of the first Fulton fight differed from his quality in his previous fights with Wills.

You are clear that you consider Langford after Fulton to be a different, worse fighter. This is because, I think, you agree he was injured during the Fulton fight.

In short, Langford's eye injury renders the victories over him after this fight to be worth less than those before this injury. I think, upon that much, we agree.

But Langford's eye injury did not occur after the Fulton fight. It occured during it. In other words, if you are trying to discern if Fulton's win over Langford is a victory over the best version ever, the answer should be "no". By the time of the victoy, Langford had already sustained the eye injury that would lay him lower in your estimation.

[SuzieQ49]

Harry Wills broke 3 of Fultons ribs in there 1920 Bout. WOW

[My2Sense]

But Langford's eye injury did not occur after the Fulton fight. It occured during it. In other words, if you are trying to discern if Fulton's win over Langford is a victory over the best version ever, the answer should be "no". By the time of the victoy, Langford had already sustained the eye injury that would lay him lower in your estimation.

What he reduced Langford to over the course of the fight is not what he had to beat. What Langford was when he climbed into the ring is what Fulton had to deal with and provide the answers to - and he did that. That he could outclass and batter him so thoroughly that he inflicted career-changing injuries, just reinforces how superior he was to him at this time.

Using your logic, every time a fighter is battered over the course of a fight, the winning fighter can't get credit for beating the fighter who climbed into the ring with him, because he was a different fighter by the end of the night.

That would as silly as saying Wills beat a lesser version of Fulton than Dempsey did, simply because Fulton had three broken ribs at the time he was actually counted out.

[SuzieQ49]

simply because Fulton had three broken ribs at the time he was actually counted out.


He didnt get those 3 broken ribs from playing teaparty with his girlfriends, he got it from a Harry Wills devastating punch. Wills had bonecrushing power.


I do think Langford was better in 1914 than 1917. Younger, faster reflexes, sharper punches.