Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

[TheGreatA]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

If only eh.

Both fighters were willing to make it happen but it was not to be.

[guilalah]

Dempsey is a cruiser weight sitting next to a guy who was a big heavy for that time. Somehow they don't look that far apart, size-wise.

[janitor]

Dempsey is a cruiser weight sitting next to a guy who was a big heavy for that time. Somehow they don't look that far apart, size-wise.

I think the diference would be more aparent if they both stood up.

[McGrain]

Wow. When we talk about these little fighters and what might have been we're kidding ourselves, aren't we?

These two in the ring...that would have been something. Top 5 berth for the winner.

[djanders]

It's a shame it didn't happen.

[McGrain]

"A shame"!!!!!!?????????

[McGrain]

Anyway, Dempsey early or Wills late, these days I think of it as 50.50, and I think the judges can have 40 winks if they like.

[Muchmoore]

Had this fight come off, I'd expect Dempsey to win by KO if he was at his best. If he showed up like he did in some of his defenses while not in top shape, Wills would win.

Dempseys stock would be in my top 5 had he beaten Wills, and Wills probably would drop about 5-10 spots actually. Wills claim to fame is that he was fighting more often than Dempsey when he was champion and against better fighters. If Dempsey knocked him out he would drop a lot.

[McGrain]

Interesting post Muchmoore.


I would put Wills at around 15 if he lost, down from 10.

I would move Dempsey up to 5 or 6 from 12ish.

If Wills beat Dempsey...anywhere from 1-3 depending on what he did next.

[djanders]

"A shame"!!!!!!?????????

RED :good

WEBSTER:

1shame [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]') Pronunciation: \ˈshām\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English scamu; akin to Old High German scama shame Date: before 12th century 1 a: a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety b: the susceptibility to such emotion <have you no shame?>2: a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute : ignominy ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) <the shame of being arrested>3 a: something that brings censure or reproach ; also : something to be regretted : pity ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) <it's a shame you can't go> b: a cause of feeling shame

[kmcc505]

I have Dempsey at #3 behind Louis and Ali currently. I've had him as low as 6 though.

[Muchmoore]

I have Dempsey at #3 behind Louis and Ali currently. I've had him as low as 6 though.

Dempseys resume is not that of a top 7 HW, not even close to top 3. Head to Head at his very best he was great, but his resume lacks depth and guys like Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, and Liston should ALWAYS rank above Jack.

[kmcc505]

Dempseys resume is not that of a top 7 HW, not even close to top 3. Head to Head at his very best he was great, but his resume lacks depth and guys like Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, and Liston should ALWAYS rank above Jack.

I guess it depends how you weigh the different criteria. I'd be interested in seeing your top 10.

[Muchmoore]

I guess it depends how you weigh the different criteria. I'd be interested in seeing your top 10.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Tyson
4. Lewis
5. Holmes
6. Liston
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Foreman
10. Johnson

3-5 is interchangable, 8-10 can be arranged in any order.

Now, compare Dempseys top 5 wins to the top 5 wins of everyone from 3-10. His top 5 is probably Sharkey, Willard, then maybe Fulton, Gibbons, Carpentier. This is worse than every fighter there. His title reign was horrible to boot, I honestly don't see a criteria that ranks Dempsey highly except head to head.

[SuzieQ49]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Tyson
4. Lewis
5. Holmes
6. Liston
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Foreman
10. Johnson

Here is mine


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Sonny Liston
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Mike Tyson
7. Larry Holmes
8. Jack Johnson
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier


Our lists are very similiar, and we have all of the same 10 names in our lists

[kmcc505]

Here is mine


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Sonny Liston
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Mike Tyson
7. Larry Holmes
8. Jack Johnson
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier


Our lists are very similiar, and we have all of the same 10 names in our lists

Good lists (both of you).

Here is mind. Different than you guys.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
6. Larry Holmes
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Foreman
9. Gene Tunney
10. Joe Frazier

I tend to weigh accomplishments in the ring, how they were judged by standards of their time, mythical head-to-head match-up in my head and how fighters and boxing writers tended to rank them just after their time.

I also probably rank biasedly by personal preferene. Really, their 15 or so guys you cold rank anywhere after Louis and Ali IMO. Also, I only rank the champions even if they were not allowed to fight for stupid reasions as this is my top ten heavyweight champions list. Guys like Harry Wills and Sam Langford are on my best never to get to fight for the title list.

Thanks for your thoughts/opinions.

[dmt]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Tyson
4. Lewis
5. Holmes
6. Liston
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Foreman
10. Johnson

3-5 is interchangable, 8-10 can be arranged in any order.

Now, compare Dempseys top 5 wins to the top 5 wins of everyone from 3-10. His top 5 is probably Sharkey, Willard, then maybe Fulton, Gibbons, Carpentier. This is worse than every fighter there. His title reign was horrible to boot, I honestly don't see a criteria that ranks Dempsey highly except head to head.How is tyson no 3 and suze how is liston no 3?

[My2Sense]

There's a lot of diverging opinions on exactly how good Wills was from his contemporaries. Some (like Nat Fleischer) say he was genuinely great, while others say he was mostly overhyped and not in the class of Dempsey. All agree, however, that he was the leading contender for Dempsey's title and deserved a shot at it.


Here's what James P. Dawson wrote after Wills was trounced by Sharkey:

"At the ringside and out among the vast throng people marveled at this taming of the Brown Panther, who last night was nothing more than a lamb. They pondered more over the question of Dempsey's delinquence and wondered just why the recently deposed heavyweight king never fought Wills for the title.

"None who saw last night's battle can doubt that Dempsey would have annhilated Wills four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, or a year ago. It is to be regretted that Dempsey never got the chance, because now it will always be a source of argument this question of whether Dempsey or Wills was the better man."


Incidentally, Wills supposedly made a shitload of money milking his reputation as "the man Dempsey wouldn't fight." If indeed it's true that he couldn't have beaten Dempsey, ironically enough, it probably was better for him that the fight didn't happen.

[My2Sense]

Now, compare Dempseys top 5 wins to the top 5 wins of everyone from 3-10. His top 5 is probably Sharkey, Willard, then maybe Fulton, Gibbons, Carpentier. This is worse than every fighter there. His title reign was horrible to boot, I honestly don't see a criteria that ranks Dempsey highly except head to head.

Dempsey has the edge over Liston in both critera you listed here.

What were Liston's top wins? Patterson, Machen, Foley... is that better than the fighters you listed for Dempsey? 4 of the 5 fighters you listed for Dempsey are HOFers, Patterson is the only HOFer that Liston beat.

As for Dempsey having a "horrible" title reign, Liston's was an absolute disgrace, and he never did jack to redeem himself afterward, whereas Dempsey came back to beat Sharkey.

[dmt]

And anyway heart is a massive element that neither Liston or Tyson really had. they just couldnt come back.

[janitor]

Incidentally, Wills supposedly made a shitload of money milking his reputation as "the man Dempsey wouldn't fight." If indeed it's true that he couldn't have beaten Dempsey, ironically enough, it probably was better for him that the fight didn't happen.

Wills was verry astute financialy. Sort of like the Larry holmes of his era in this respect.

He was the only black fighter of the prewar era who kept his money and died financialy secure.

In a final twist of fate Dempsey lost all his money in the Wall Street crash and Wills didnt. Whoever would have won the battle Wills won the war.

[mcvey]

Dempseys resume is not that of a top 7 HW, not even close to top 3. Head to Head at his very best he was great, but his resume lacks depth and guys like Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, and Liston should ALWAYS rank above Jack.

You forgot the last bit , " in your opinion."

[ChrisPontius]

And anyway heart is a massive element that neither Liston or Tyson really had. they just couldnt come back.

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Sure, they're not on the level of a Frazier or Louis, but at the same time, Tyson gave it all against Douglas and nearly scored knockout when he was way down on the cards. It wasn't until years after that when he had lost his passion for boxing that his motivation went down the drain. Liston has a bigger black mark on his resume, but he did show in certain fights at his peak that he could go in there when the going gets tough. Williams hit him with a shitload of punches in the first round of their first fight, and the second of their second.

[TheGreatA]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
0:20

[Muchmoore]

How is tyson no 3 and suze how is liston no 3?

Well like I said 3-5 is interchangable. It's hard to really seperate Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis in my opinion, whoever takes the 3rd spot is basically the man who I watched fight most recently :lol:

I weigh head to head highly, and Tyson is only second to Ali in head to head imo so that gives him a big boost. Resume wise he doesn't have that of an Ali but his dominance at the top puts him pretty high up there and he beat solid fighters.

[Muchmoore]

You forgot the last bit , " in your opinion."

Haha yeah of course :good

[SuzieQ49]

Dempsey has the edge over Liston in both critera you listed here.

What were Liston's top wins? Patterson, Machen, Foley... is that better than the fighters you listed for Dempsey? 4 of the 5 fighters you listed for Dempsey are HOFers, Patterson is the only HOFer that Liston beat.


Are you kidding? Machen and Folley were much more modernly developed boxers than the 1920s limited boxers. Both Folley and Machen were some of the most polished slick contenders we have ever seen come out of the heavyweight division. They both had better boxing skills in there little pinky finger than Willard, Firpo, and Fulton had combined in there whole bodies. Honestly Tommy Gibbons does not impresse me all that much on film, neither does bill brennan. There styles were too primitive. Machen and Folley would have outboxed these guys pretty handily.

Big Cat Williams was much faster, more powerful, and stronger than the farmboys like old willard that dempsey took on. Fulton with his glass jaw would have got his chin cleaned by a Williams left hook. Williams would have flattened little guys like carpentier gibbons levinskey. Again, by the late 1950s boxing was much more modernly developed in boxing technique than in the 1920s. 1920s fighters fought with there hands by there waist and chin sticking out. You do that against a cleveland williams, you get knocked out. Same with Nino Valdez. I cant see how Willard, Firpo, Brennan, Fulton would have gotten away from Nino's Jab. They did not pocesss top Jabs back in the early 1920s like Valdez had.

Floyd Patterson is better than anyone Jack Dempsey beat. If anyone can't see that from film, then I dont know what to say. Patterson skill, combination punching, handspeed far outweight anything dempseys victims have.

[SuzieQ49]

As for Dempsey having a "horrible" title reign, Liston's was an absolute disgrace, and he never did jack to redeem himself afterward, whereas Dempsey came back to beat Sharkey.

Sonny Liston fought the best BLACK heavyweights of his era, unlike Jack Dempsey. Liston NEVER ever ducked anyone and fought and beat the BEST of his era, while Dempsey did not and ducked out of some big matches.

[Muchmoore]

Dempsey has the edge over Liston in both critera you listed here.

What were Liston's top wins? Patterson, Machen, Foley... is that better than the fighters you listed for Dempsey? 4 of the 5 fighters you listed for Dempsey are HOFers, Patterson is the only HOFer that Liston beat.

As for Dempsey having a "horrible" title reign, Liston's was an absolute disgrace, and he never did jack to redeem himself afterward, whereas Dempsey came back to beat Sharkey.

Liston had a short reign because he defended his title against the man who is generally regarded as the best ever, and was a horrible style matchup for him. What other fighters would of had a long reign with a 1964 Ali/Clay as the top contender? None.

Dempseys title reign was a disgrace and he took entire years off while not fighting the CLEAR number one contender for the entire duration of it, in comparison. If Liston avoided Ali he would of had a nice reign as well, although I think it was only a matter of time before his lack of training caught up with him.

Listons wins over Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, and then take your pick of Harris, DeJohn, Valdes, combined with the manner that he destroyed these men is superior to anything Dempseys resume imo. Willard was 37, out of shape, and coming off of a long lay off. Most contenders throughout history would of beaten that version of Willard, although the manner in which Jack did it was impressive. Sharkey was beating the tar out of Dempsey before he was low blowed and then knocked out. Props to Dempsey for not hesitating and getting the W, but it wasn't a convincing KO or anything.

I actually like Dempsey, by the way. I just find his resume leaving much to be desired when compared to guys in the top ten.

[Dempsey1238]

Not sure I put Patterson over Tommy Gibbions imo. Pound for pound to speak, not as heavyweight.

[UpWithEvil]

Sonny Liston fought the best BLACK heavyweights of his era, unlike Jack Dempsey.

You aren't promoting the discredited and highly racist "negro superman" theory, are you?

[SuzieQ49]

Not sure I put Patterson over Tommy Gibbions imo. Pound for pound to speak, not as heavyweight.

Im talking heavyweight here. Patterson would have killed gibbons. Look at the talent/speed/strength/power difference between the two on film. Peek A Boo would have wrecked gibbons with his low gaurd.

[SuzieQ49]

I actually like Dempsey, by the way. I just find his resume leaving much to be desired when compared to guys in the top ten.

Agreeed

[SuzieQ49]

You aren't promoting the discredited and highly racist "negro superman" theory, are you?


Look alll I know is the colored heavyweight title reign from 1905-1920 was too tough for any white heavyweight of that time(outside of jack dempsey) to win. The colored heavyweight title reign during that time was more competitive and had better talents than the linear heavyweight title for the most part. The white heavyweights of the early 1900's ducked the top black fighters and drew the color line because they knew they could not beat them.

[UpWithEvil]

Look alll I know is the colored heavyweight title reign from 1905-1920 was too tough for any white heavyweight of that time(outside of jack dempsey) to win.

Perhaps Dempsey is part black?

I'll take a 1905 Jim Jeffries over Denver Ed or any of the other fighters bearing that magic negro superman gene as well. Perhaps the inherent superiority of the negro was confined to heavyweights, as I don't see a correlative pattern at lower weights during this period.

If you think black fighters are somehow naturally superior to "whites", you should come out and say so openly, rather than just hint at it by claiming, "Sonny Liston fought the best BLACK heavyweights of his era, unlike Jack Dempsey."

[flamengo]

OK ... dickhead... lets take a look at things. What happened the first time a 'black man' faught for the H/W title???? Boxing Day 1908, Rushcutters Bay, Sydney, Australia...... Thats what happened!!!

Would you forsake Jack Johnson vs Jim Jeffries in 1905 too??

Would you forsake Peter Jackson over John L. at any time prior to 1895?????

[mcvey]

Sonny Liston fought the best BLACK heavyweights of his era, unlike Jack Dempsey. Liston NEVER ever ducked anyone and fought and beat the BEST of his era, while Dempsey did not and ducked out of some big matches.

To be fair to Jack ,he was a little old to be tangling with Machen,Folley and Williams.:lol:

[SuzieQ49]

To be fair to Jack ,he was a little old to be tangling with Machen,Folley and Williams.

But Jeanette wasnt too old to be tangling with jacky boy considering he got in the ring with the mauler, and the mauler left the ring like a scared jack rabbit while the crowd booed, and newspapers decribed it as a "black eye for boxing"

Not to mention ducking Sam Langford in 1917, Harry Wills for 7 years, and refusing challenged matches with Kid Norfolk. Also post 1924 Dempsey wanted no part of George Godfrey in a proffesional fight.

[mcvey]

Wills was verry astute financialy. Sort of like the Larry holmes of his era in this respect.

He was the only black fighter of the prewar era who kept his money and died financialy secure.

In a final twist of fate Dempsey lost all his money in the Wall Street crash and Wills didnt. Whoever would have won the battle Wills won the war.

Joe Jeannette was very comfortable financially he bought property with his ring earnings.

[he grant]

Interesting post on Sharkey / Wills ... why zero mention that Wills was 37 at the time ? Slightly important factor ...

[UpWithEvil]

But Jeanette wasnt too old to be tangling with jacky boy considering he got in the ring with the mauler, and the mauler left the ring like a scared jack rabbit

Well that's a flaming lie. Why don't you reprint the entire newspaper article?

[mcvey]

But Jeanette wasnt too old to be tangling with jacky boy considering he got in the ring with the mauler, and the mauler left the ring like a scared jack rabbit while the crowd booed, and newspapers decribed it as a "black eye for boxing"

Not to mention ducking Sam Langford in 1917, Harry Wills for 7 years, and refusing challenged matches with Kid Norfolk. Also post 1924 Dempsey wanted no part of George Godfrey in a proffesional fight.

In 1917 Langford lost his Coloured heavyweight Title to Bill Tate, Dempsey's sparring partner.

[UpWithEvil]

In 1917 Langford lost his Coloured hravyweight Title to Bill Tate, Dempsey's sparring partner.

Negro Superman Tate would have whipped Dempsey - sparring doesn't mean jack shit!

[SuzieQ49]

Wait are you guys denying Jack Dempsey turned down a fight in 1917 with Sam Langford? In fact jack said himself he did so out of fear of getting knocked out

[hhascup]

Yes, Dempsey stated that the only man he feared was Sam Langford, BUT if they fought after Dempsey was Champion, I would favor Dempsey. I think Sam was past his prime at that time.

A couple of weeks ago they honored Joe Jeannette in his home town of Union City, New Jersey. They put up a plaque just outside of where he lived and also had his gym. I was the guest speaker and I told the story of the day Dempsey walked out of the ring on Jeannette at Madison Square Garden. They honored him on the 100th anniversary of his 49 round bout with Sam McVey.

[mcvey]

Wait are you guys denying Jack Dempsey turned down a fight in 1917 with Sam Langford? In fact jack said himself he did so out of fear of getting knocked out

Dempsey's prime was around 1919 -1923.You think he would have lost to Langford then?
Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford when he was still a young , hungry struggling comer a LH ,managed by John The Barber Reisler ,a notorious flesh pedlar.
No one doubts that many Black fighters were shit on big time , but being Black in that era ,or the Murderers Row era did not automatically make you a combination of Superman and Apollo Creed,Its time to change the record I think.
IMO. Prime Dempsey beats Prime Wills, Godfrey,Norfolk,Jeanette. Langford would be close.
Wonder how good Jack would have been if he was Black?

[UpWithEvil]

Wonder how good Jack would have been if he was Black?

Well he'd still lose to Gene Tunney, but it would be because he was on the cuffs.

[SuzieQ49]

Gene Tunney never fought a black man. He drew the Color Line. he should be punished for that. His ducking of Godfrey was so obvious, I do not even need to go into that.


Dempsey's prime was around 1919 -1923.You think he would have lost to Langford then?
Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford when he was still a young , hungry struggling comer a LH ,managed by John The Barber Reisler ,a notorious flesh pedlar.
No one doubts that many Black fighters were shit on big time , but being Black in that era ,or the Murderers Row era did not automatically make you a combination of Superman and Apollo Creed,Its time to change the record I think.
IMO. Prime Dempsey beats Prime Wills, Godfrey,Norfolk,Jeanette. Langford would be close.
Wonder how good Jack would have been if he was Black?

What does 1919-1923 have to do with anything? we are talking 1917. fact remains dempsey turned down a fight with sam langford in 1917 due to fear.

I believe prime for prime Dempsey would have knocked sam langford out. But thats not the point. the point is Dempsey DID NOT PROVE himself superior over these top black fighters who were better than the top white fighters of the era. He drew the color line, and ducked top fighters who happened to be black, and his legacy should take a hit for it.

[SuzieQ49]

I was the guest speaker and I told the story of the day Dempsey walked out of the ring on Jeannette at Madison Square Garden

Great stuff Henry. you do alot for the boxing community.

[UpWithEvil]

What does 1919-1923 have to do with anything? we are talking 1917. fact remains dempsey turned down a fight with sam langford in 1917 due to fear.

Fear of Langford's reputation as an elite fighter, or fear of Langford's negro-ness?

[Bokaj]

Dempsey has the edge over Liston in both critera you listed here.

What were Liston's top wins? Patterson, Machen, Foley... is that better than the fighters you listed for Dempsey? 4 of the 5 fighters you listed for Dempsey are HOFers, Patterson is the only HOFer that Liston beat.

I absoluteley think they are better. Machen and Folley were both genuine HW top contenders for many years in a time where there was no colour line. And Patterson is just leagues above Willard. I actually think he would have done more or less the same to Jess (under those rules) that Dempsey did.

[SuzieQ49]

Fear of Langford's reputation as an elite fighter, or fear of Langford's negro-ness?

Fear of Langford and Jeanette beating him. It just so happens The black heavyweights of that era were better than the white ones, and dempsey did not fight any of the top black heavyweeights. he drew the color line. Just imagine if Joe Louis was kept out of a title shot for all those years because of a color line.

[Seamus]

The black heavyweights of that era were better than the white ones,

What proof is there of this? That Johnson beat a depleted Jeffries? Do you really think Jeanette was that good? All accounts I have read and his record leave me to believe he was only middling. McVea, likewise. Langford was great, but he is in another class entirely, black, white, whatever. Johnson was very good but in my opinion extremely over-rated. His legacy is inflated by an unconscionable amount excuses for a rather lengthy list of underwhelming performances. Furthermore, he was smart to handpick his opponents once he had the crown, which is exactly what Dempsey did. Yet, Johnson gets no real blame for fighting (are barely defeating) middleweights and hasbeens, while Dempsey gets excoriated. Furthermore, why is it that the estimation of one group of fighters is raised and that of another group is lowered merely by the fact they rarely fought one another?

[hhascup]

Great stuff Henry. you do alot for the boxing community.

Thanks, that night I gave a Eulogy for another former boxer.

My heart is heavy right now as I am still in Florida and my brother-in-law, Larry Kohan, who is more like a close brother, is on his death bed back in New Jersey. His son and daughters told me to stay in Florida because he doesn't want to see anyone. I will return late Monday BUT my heart wants to be with him.

Two years ago, my sister, his wife passed away and I again gave the Eulogy.

He is a self made man, as he was in foster homes, like myself and had no education, BUT he was one of the founders and owners of the 1st eyeglass department in the world. He owned Pearl Vision, Eyelab and Eyes BUT now at the age of 69, he only has days to live, if that.

Sorry, about telling you this BUT I think I owe it to him.

[My2Sense]

Are you kidding? Machen and Folley were much more modernly developed boxers than the 1920s limited boxers. Both Folley and Machen were some of the most polished slick contenders we have ever seen come out of the heavyweight division. They both had better boxing skills in there little pinky finger than Willard, Firpo, and Fulton had combined in there whole bodies. Honestly Tommy Gibbons does not impresse me all that much on film, neither does bill brennan. There styles were too primitive. Machen and Folley would have outboxed these guys pretty handily.

Big Cat Williams was much faster, more powerful, and stronger than the farmboys like old willard that dempsey took on. Fulton with his glass jaw would have got his chin cleaned by a Williams left hook. Williams would have flattened little guys like carpentier gibbons levinskey. Again, by the late 1950s boxing was much more modernly developed in boxing technique than in the 1920s. 1920s fighters fought with there hands by there waist and chin sticking out. You do that against a cleveland williams, you get knocked out. Same with Nino Valdez. I cant see how Willard, Firpo, Brennan, Fulton would have gotten away from Nino's Jab. They did not pocesss top Jabs back in the early 1920s like Valdez had.

Nothing you've said here actually MAKES one group of fighters better than another. You're just making a generalization about one aspect of them, and using that to make an indirect assumption about their overall quality.

Folley had much more developed boxing skills than Henry Cooper and Doug Jones, but that didn't automatically make him better.

Machen was much slicker and more polished than Johansson, but he couldn't even last through a single round with him.

Bob Satterfield simply walked through Valdez's jab all night long and pounded him with right hand swings. Not much science there.

Sure, I suppose Williams could have "cleaned" Fulton's chin with a hook - unless Fulton cleaned Williams' chin with a right hand first.

Gibbons and Brennan do not look "primitive" at all on film. They show excellent technical ability, easily on par with many fighters of the modern era.


Floyd Patterson is better than anyone Jack Dempsey beat. If anyone can't see that from film, then I dont know what to say.

That's not something that can be seen just by looking on film. Just because a fighter "looks" better than another doesn't automatically make him better.

Besides, some of Dempsey's better opponents aren't even on film anyway. How do you know Patterson looked better than them? Or are you just assuming he looked better based on your earlier generalizations about fighters in different eras?

Patterson skill, combination punching, handspeed far outweight anything dempseys victims have.

Well guess what, it was better than Liston's or Johansson's too. Didn't prove anything.

[My2Sense]

Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford when he was still a young , hungry struggling comer a LH ,managed by John The Barber Reisler ,a notorious flesh pedlar.


Exactly. He was only a couple years into his pro career then, basically just a clubfighter still on the way up. Why should he be expected to fight someone with all the experience that Langford had over him?

Once he had come into his own, he went after guys like Fred Fulton who were far better and more highly rated than Langford at that time.

[SuzieQ49]

Nothing you've said here actually MAKES one group of fighters better than another

nothing I can say will make them better, everything is speculation. You have to make up your own opinion. I have made up mine from watching film. If Willard, Firpo, Brennan walked into a gym today with there styles, they would be laughed out of the gymnasium. If machen and folley walked in today and boxed with there same styles, they would be classified as master boxers.

Just because a fighter "looks" better than another doesn't automatically make him better.

What did dempseys opponents have over Listons then? absolutley nothing in my estimation. Outside of Jack Sharkey, I dont see how any of Dempseys victims can compete with Machen, Folley, Williams, Patterson and even Valdez. For the most part, Heavyweight boxers in the 1920s did not know what combination punching was, they did not know what a high gaurd was, they did not know what a long stiff educated jab was, they did not know how to hook off a jab, they did not know what head movement was. I just can't see any of them outside of Jack Sharkey competing against the best of Listons era.

[mcvey]

Gene Tunney never fought a black man. He drew the Color Line. he should be punished for that. His ducking of Godfrey was so obvious, I do not even need to go into that.




What does 1919-1923 have to do with anything? we are talking 1917. fact remains dempsey turned down a fight with sam langford in 1917 due to fear.

I believe prime for prime Dempsey would have knocked sam langford out. But thats not the point. the point is Dempsey DID NOT PROVE himself superior over these top black fighters who were better than the top white fighters of the era. He drew the color line, and ducked top fighters who happened to be black, and his legacy should take a hit for it.

Where is your source that Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford in 1917?.Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford and Gunboat Smith in 1916,while he was managed by John Reisler.Dempsey agreed to fight ,John Lester Johnson instead.In his auto biography Dempsey states that Johnson cracked some of his ribs,"some thought I won ,some thought he won ".Dempsey hooked up with Kearns in 1917,Dempsey stated that when he met Kearns he weighed a skinny 165lbs, and was very run down,his first fight under Kearns management saw him lose a 4 rounder to fat Willie Meehan, why should Dempsey have taken on a still very dangerous Langford in 1916? It made no sense at all.Yet you castigate him for it.Have a pop at him for not fighting Wills but to take on Langford in 1916 would have been madness,Dempsey was a skinny ,struggling ,raw youngster.Woud you have put Chris Arreola in with Klitscko 2 years ago?

[HomicideHenry]

Sam Langford used to promote himself as "Willing to take on all comers, except Jim Jeffries."

What does that tell you?

[My2Sense]

nothing I can say will make them better, everything is speculation.

Not "everything," how accomplished or highly rated a fighter is is not speculation, it's right there on paper.

At best, Folley's/Machen's extra skill/talent gave them the potential to be better, but in their own times were no more accomplished or highly rated than guys like Fulton, Sharkey, etc. were in their times.

What did dempseys opponents have over Listons then? absolutley nothing in my estimation. Outside of Jack Sharkey, I dont see how any of Dempseys victims can compete with Machen, Folley, Williams, Patterson and even Valdez.

So what did Johansson have over Machen, or Cooper over Folley, or Satterfield over Valdez, that allowed them to compete with them?

How do you know Machen wouldn't have just crumbled under Fulton's power like he did to Johansson? Or Firpo wouldn't have landed that right hand at will on Valdez like Satterfield did? Maybe Willard would've just been too big and powerful for Folley like Liston was? And so on.

Regardless of how they may have "looked" on film or in the gym, Liston's opponents never actually proved themselves to be a level above Dempsey's opponents.

[My2Sense]

His ducking of Godfrey was so obvious, I do not even need to go into that.

Not it isn't, Godfrey was only rated around #6 or 7 in the division at that time. Gibbons and Wills were rated #2 and 1 respectively, and Tunney pursued fights with them instead, and then went after the champion himself. That's the complete opposite of ducking - he was going after the highest rated guys in the division, the ones he was supposed to be fighting. There's no justification for saying someone is "ducking" a guy who is rated much lower than the one's he's actually fighting.

If Tunney had declined to pursue a fight with Wills and went after Godfrey instead, then he'd be getting flack for avoiding Wills and going after a much less accomplished and lower rated fighter in Godfrey.

But thats not the point. the point is Dempsey DID NOT PROVE himself superior over these top black fighters who were better than the top white fighters of the era.

What "top black fighters" are you referring to that were superior to the top white fighters??

The Langford that you keep criticizing Dempsey for not fighting was twice whupped by Fred Fulton around that same time. Fulton was rated as the clear #1 contender when Dempsey beat him, over anyone else white or black. The notion that Dempsey should've given more priority to the color of his opponents' skin rather than their actual quality/ranking when choosing opponents is completely nonsensical and revisionist.

The only top black fighter who distinguished himself as better than the top whites around this time was Wills, and that wasn't until a year or two after Dempsey won the title (when he beat Fulton). And in fact, he didn't prove himself better than all the top white fighters Dempsey fought either - he refused to fight Tunney and was badly outclassed by Sharkey, who also whupped Godfrey as well.

[Bokaj]

Yes, we can only speculate if Liston's victims were or were not better than Dempsey's, but what is not that speculation is that by drawing the colour line Dempsey avoided several dangerous opponents. In addition, he even ducked the best white contender out there - Greb. This is a far cry from cleaning out a division - which for example Liston did from 1958-1962.

I mean, there are those who have Dempsey just one or two places from Ali, who cleaned out the division several times. That's just plain overrating.

[kmcc505]

Yes, we can only speculate if Liston's victims were or were not better than Dempsey's, but what is not that speculation is that by drawing the colour line Dempsey avoided several dangerous opponents. In addition, he even ducked the best white contender out there - Greb. This is a far cry from cleaning out a division - which for example Liston did from 1958-1962.

I mean, there are those who have Dempsey just one or two places from Ali, who cleaned out the division several times. That's just plain overrating.

It all depends on criteria. If you are only ranking accomplishment then clearly Dempsey would not be that high. But, if you take into account other factors, such as head-to-head outcomes and how you think they's fare in other eras than it is not out of wack to rate Dempsey so high.

Still, we should all agree Dempsey was one of the best.

[robert ungurean]

Accordind to Ray Arcel from one of the Dempsey bio's Wills was overatted and didnt stand a chance against Jack.

[Seamus]

Accordind to Ray Arcel from one of the Dempsey bio's Wills was overatted and didnt stand a chance against Jack.

I regard Wills quite highly but think he was custom-made for Dempsey to completely blow out.

[SuzieQ49]

I regard Wills quite highly but think he was custom-made for Dempsey to completely blow out.

How would you know? what film do you have to judge? for all we know Wills might have been another liston. Dempsey may have been made for wills. Dempsey was stunned hurt/knocke down/knocked out by far less fighters than wills. dempsey had his flaws on film.

[Seamus]

How would you know? what film do you have to judge? for all we know Wills might have been another liston. Dempsey may have been made for wills. Dempsey was stunned hurt/knocke down/knocked out by far less fighters than wills. dempsey had his flaws on film.

Because I read books and old newspapers. That is how I formed this brilliant summation, mi amigo. Wills was big and rather lumbering, slow of foot and hand according to what I have read over the last 20 years of my boxing research. He was a strong S.O.B., for sure, but his skill set seemed all wrong for a motivated Dempsey. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

[My2Sense]

Yes, we can only speculate if Liston's victims were or were not better than Dempsey's, but what is not that speculation is that by drawing the colour line Dempsey avoided several dangerous opponents. In addition, he even ducked the best white contender out there - Greb. This is a far cry from cleaning out a division - which for example Liston did from 1958-1962.


Liston didn't "clean out" the division in those years any more thoroughly than Dempsey did in 1918-1919. Dempsey beat the reigning undisputed champion (Willard), the consensus #1 contender (Fulton), and a string of other title contenders on his way to becoming the champ. Greb and Wills weren't considered top title challengers until after that, and got their spots by beating contenders that Dempsey had already supplanted himself.

[SuzieQ49]

Liston didn't "clean out" the division in those years any more thoroughly than Dempsey did in 1918-1919.

YES HE DID. Liston beat the BEST contenders out there Williams, Valdez, Machen, Folley. Dempsey DID NOT beat the two best heavyweight contenders out there Greb or Wills. He also drew the color line which means he was refusing to fight black fighters, while liston was knocking out top rated black and white contenders.

Dempsey beat the reigning undisputed champion (Willard), the consensus #1 contender (Fulton), and a string of other title contenders on his way to becoming the champ

But he never beat Wills, Langford, Norfolk, or Greb. These are big fights dempsey missed out on. Liston missed out on no one. Liston ducked no one, While dempsey ducked langford in 1917 and drew the color line.


Greb and Wills weren't considered top title challengers until after that, and got their spots by beating contenders that Dempsey had already supplanted himself.

Greb and Wills and Norfolk were 3 outstanding challengers that Dempsey did not fight. a huge black mark. Imagine Liston not beating Machen Folley and Williams. thats how bad it is.


Fulton was NOT # 1. So what if he beat sam langford, Wills had already beaten sam langford 4 or 5 times by 1917 and had beaten a better younger version of langford too. Wills was ALWAYS the # 1 since 1915...and wills destroyed fulton broke 3 of his ribs. Fulton was not that good...wills was world class

[SuzieQ49]

In fact if u want to hear something embarrasing....165lb Harry greb actually did better against dempseys heavyweight opponents than dempsey did, and greb did not draw the color line taking on kid norfolk, who dempsey wanted no part of.

[Seamus]

In fact if u want to hear something embarrasing....165lb Harry greb actually did better against dempseys heavyweight opponents than dempsey did, and greb did not draw the color line taking on kid norfolk, who dempsey wanted no part of.

tis true. dempsey had his flavor he preferred and it was definitely not the smaller, craftier fighter.

and look, this whole who ducked who shit is intellectually embarrassing. The champs fought who got them the most money, decided per their managers.. It's called show business, folks. U2 ain't gonna play your local swill hole tavern. They play Wembley.

Some of you fuckers need to grow up.

[SuzieQ49]

Just imagine if Sonny Liston had drew the color line like dempsey did. that means you can take Machen, Valdez, Williams, Folley, Bethea, Summerlin all off his resume. dempsey should be punished for it. He eliminates 50% of his top competition by drawing the color line. Liston beat ALL of the best heavyweights of his era, and few he didn't beat were the ones unwilling to fight him due to fear. Dempsey on the otherhand did not beat the best of his era including of the 3 best heavyweights of his era, drew the color line, and refused matches from top contenders. its no comparison, liston by a landslide.

[My2Sense]

YES HE DID. Liston beat the BEST contenders out there Williams, Valdez, Machen, Folley.

Williams and Valdez weren't contenders when Liston beat them.

Dempsey DID NOT beat the two best heavyweight contenders out there Greb or Wills.

Neither of them were considered top contenders before Dempsey won the title. Greb had only just broke into the division earlier that year, Wills didn't distinguish himself as a serious contender until about a year later.

He also drew the color line which means he was refusing to fight black fighters, while liston was knocking out top rated black and white contenders.

What black fighters were considered top contenders in 1918-1919?

What top white contenders was Liston knocking out?

But he never beat Wills, Langford, Norfolk, or Greb. These are big fights dempsey missed out on. Liston missed out on no one.

He missed out on Johansson, Cooper, and Lavorante.

In fact, Liston only had about 4 or 5 total fights against rated heavyweights in the seven years before he fought Patterson, so I would say he must've "missed out" on quite a few contenders on his way up.

Liston ducked no one, While dempsey ducked langford in 1917 and drew the color line.

How many HW contenders did Liston fight in the first 2 or 3 years of his career? Liston didn't fight a rated HW of any kind until at least five years into his career, by which time Dempsey had already whupped a host of contenders and the reigning champion.

Greb and Wills and Norfolk were 3 outstanding challengers that Dempsey did not fight. a huge black mark. Imagine Liston not beating Machen Folley and Williams. thats how bad it is.

No it isn't, those three weren't considered top contenders in 1918/1919 like Machen and Folley were in 1960.

[My2Sense]

He eliminates 50% of his top competition by drawing the color line.

No he doesn't, the majority of top competitors before and during his title reign happened to be white.

[SuzieQ49]

Williams and Valdez weren't contenders when Liston beat them.


Valdez was rated # 2 going in Feb 1959 Annuel Ring Magazine ratings, the same year liston fought him. Valdez had beaten 3 top 10 ring magazine fighters in 1958 and had been turned down in a title shot vs patterson. Valdez was still very dangerous, and even after fighting liston went on to knock out top 10 Brian London.

Williams was not rated yet technically, but within the year he would be rated in the top 5 for 3 consecutive years. Liston fought williams at the peak of william's powers.

Both Williams and Valdez were clear top 5 heavyweights in the world when Sonny beat them


What black fighters were considered top contenders in 1918-1919?


Harry Wills consensus # 1, Kid Norfolk, Sam Langford, Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette was dangerous enough to be turned down by dempsey in which was described as a "black eye for heavyweight boxing"



He missed out on Johansson, Cooper, and Lavorante.

Johansson would not fight Liston, despite liston challenging to fight johansson and patterson on the same night. Johannson was the only real top fighter liston never faced, and it wasnt sonnys fault. Henry Cooper's manager said "if we saw sonny liston walking down the street, we would quicky cross to the other side. we want no part of liston." Liston couldnt get a fight with cooper if he tried. Lavorante was not rated in the top 10 until 1962 and 46 year old Archie Moore put him into a coma that year, Lavorante was never a top challenger.

Now lets look at dempsey....Ducks an ATG heavyweight in his prime and # 1 contender for SEVEN straight years, Refuses to fight old sam langford in 1917, Runs out of the ring rather than fight a 39 year old Joe Jeanette, Refuses to fight top challenger Harry Greb, Draws the color line so he wont have to fight top challenger Kid Norfolk, refuses fights with George Godfrey circa 1924.

What top white contenders was Liston knocking out?


6'5 207lb Mike DeJohn, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

6'1 195lb Roy Harris, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

Albert Westphal German Champ, Apparently rated # 4 by monthly rating



You see there was no color line in the 1950s, so most of the top opposition liston fought was black....the white heavyweights had balls enough to take on the top black challengers, and they lost more than often which would have happened to dempseys white opponents.



How many HW contenders did Liston fight in the first 2 or 3 years of his career


Johnny Summerlin, Michigan Champion 19-1 and future top contender. Liston fought him in his 5th pro fight!

Marty Marshall, RATED TOP 10 by Ring Magazine when Liston fought him in just his 7th pro fight.

Did dempsey fight a ring magazine top 10 by his 7th pro fight?


Then Liston went to jail. Imagine if Liston had 1956 and 1957 to fight....he lost two prime years of domination. imagine how many more top 10 he would have beat.

Liston didn't fight a rated HW of any kind until at least five years into his career,

This is incorrect. According to Boxing Register 4th edition Marty Marshall was top 10 rated when Liston fought him. Also do you realize Liston lost the ENTIRE 1956-57 years due to jail sentence?

it would've been like Liston not fighting Mike DeJohn or Wayne Bethea, who were rated toward the bottom of the top 10 at the time


Disagree. Harry Wills and Harry Greb were by far the two most talented and best contenders in the division. Harry Wills had already beaten sam langford 5 times, so fulton doing it wasnt that great of an accomplishment. Wills went on to DESTROY fulton. Bethea and Dejohn never went on to achieve greatness.

Those three you mentioned weren't rated as highly in 1918/1919 as Machen and Folley were in 1960.

How can we tell with no ring magazine rankings in 1918-1919?, Wills was always consensus # 1 after beating Langford Mcvea and jeanette




You can spin this around all you want but history will always remember Wills and Greb as much better fighters than Fulton, and Dempsey did not take on either Wills or Greb.

[SuzieQ49]

No he doesn't, the majority of top competitors before and during his title reign happened to be white.


Not at all. its just the white fighters were NOT giving the black fighters a chance to fight them, so they automatically got high spots. Add that to the fact newspapers were bias and racist and wanted the heavyweight division to be ruled with whites, while blacks were kept out of the loop.

[Seamus]

V
6'5 207lb Mike DeJohn, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

6'1 195lb Roy Harris, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

Albert Westphal German Champ, Apparently rated # 4 by monthly rating
.

I don't know if I can name three shittier ranked heavyweights in the history of the division.

Liston's era was horrible, reprehensibly horrible, irrevocable in fact. Not his fault, but also enhanced his reputation.

[Bokaj]

Liston didn't "clean out" the division in those years any more thoroughly than Dempsey did in 1918-1919. Dempsey beat the reigning undisputed champion (Willard), the consensus #1 contender (Fulton), and a string of other title contenders on his way to becoming the champ. Greb and Wills weren't considered top title challengers until after that, and got their spots by beating contenders that Dempsey had already supplanted himself.

Well, SuzieQ absoluteley mauled this one. But I just want to add, calling Willard "champion" and calling certain fighters "top contenders" means so much less when many fighters are obviously discriminated against because of their race.

Willard was one of the very worst lineal champions ever, and in all likelihood wouldn't have been champion if he wasn't white and favoured by a racist system. It could also easily be surmised that many of the contenders Dempsey beat wouldn't have been as higly rated if they had to compete on a level playing field with the black fighters of the day. Yes, I know Fulton beat great black fighters, but in general I definitely believe this to be the case.

[dmt]

Valdez was rated # 2 going in Feb 1959 Annuel Ring Magazine ratings, the same year liston fought him. Valdez had beaten 3 top 10 ring magazine fighters in 1958 and had been turned down in a title shot vs patterson. Valdez was still very dangerous, and even after fighting liston went on to knock out top 10 Brian London.

Williams was not rated yet technically, but within the year he would be rated in the top 5 for 3 consecutive years. Liston fought williams at the peak of william's powers.

Both Williams and Valdez were clear top 5 heavyweights in the world when Sonny beat them




Harry Wills consensus # 1, Kid Norfolk, Sam Langford, Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette was dangerous enough to be turned down by dempsey in which was described as a "black eye for heavyweight boxing"



Johansson would not fight Liston, despite liston challenging to fight johansson and patterson on the same night. Johannson was the only real top fighter liston never faced, and it wasnt sonnys fault. Henry Cooper's manager said "if we saw sonny liston walking down the street, we would quicky cross to the other side. we want no part of liston." Liston couldnt get a fight with cooper if he tried. Lavorante was not rated in the top 10 until 1962 and 46 year old Archie Moore put him into a coma that year, Lavorante was never a top challenger.

Now lets look at dempsey....Ducks an ATG heavyweight in his prime and # 1 contender for SEVEN straight years, Refuses to fight old sam langford in 1917, Runs out of the ring rather than fight a 39 year old Joe Jeanette, Refuses to fight top challenger Harry Greb, Draws the color line so he wont have to fight top challenger Kid Norfolk, refuses fights with George Godfrey circa 1924.




6'5 207lb Mike DeJohn, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

6'1 195lb Roy Harris, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

Albert Westphal German Champ, Apparently rated # 4 by monthly rating



You see there was no color line in the 1950s, so most of the top opposition liston fought was black....the white heavyweights had balls enough to take on the top black challengers, and they lost more than often which would have happened to dempseys white opponents.






Johnny Summerlin, Michigan Champion 19-1 and future top contender. Liston fought him in his 5th pro fight!

Marty Marshall, RATED TOP 10 by Ring Magazine when Liston fought him in just his 7th pro fight.

Did dempsey fight a ring magazine top 10 by his 7th pro fight?


Then Liston went to jail. Imagine if Liston had 1956 and 1957 to fight....he lost two prime years of domination. imagine how many more top 10 he would have beat.



This is incorrect. According to Boxing Register 4th edition Marty Marshall was top 10 rated when Liston fought him. Also do you realize Liston lost the ENTIRE 1956-57 years due to jail sentence?




Disagree. Harry Wills and Harry Greb were by far the two most talented and best contenders in the division. Harry Wills had already beaten sam langford 5 times, so fulton doing it wasnt that great of an accomplishment. Wills went on to DESTROY fulton. Bethea and Dejohn never went on to achieve greatness.



How can we tell with no ring magazine rankings in 1918-1919?, Wills was always consensus # 1 after beating Langford Mcvea and jeanette




You can spin this around all you want but history will always remember Wills and Greb as much better fighters than Fulton, and Dempsey did not take on either Wills or Greb.
no he didnt and u know it

[Bokaj]

No he doesn't, the majority of top competitors before and during his title reign happened to be white.

You can't seriously believe that this had nothing to do with the racism at the time.

It's a funny coincidence that champions and top contenders almost always was white up until WWII, a time when blacks was very obviously discriminated against. Then when the colour line started to dissipate after WWII (due in large part to Joe Louis, but probably also to the fact that the atrocities during the war had made open racism and discrimination a much more shameful thing) the reverse becomes true.

[My2Sense]

Valdez was rated # 2 going in Feb 1959 Annuel Ring Magazine ratings, the same year liston fought him. Valdez had beaten 3 top 10 ring magazine fighters in 1958 and had been turned down in a title shot vs patterson.

So what? Since then, he'd been flattened by Charley Powell, which ended his days as any kind of leading contender. Plus he'd lost another fight or two after that, before he fought Liston. By August '59 (which is when he actually fought Liston) he was no longer a contender of any kind.

And to be frank, he never really regained his reputation anyway after being exposed by Satterfield several years earlier.


Both Williams and Valdez were clear top 5 heavyweights in the world when Sonny beat them

If they were such "clear" top fives then they almost certainly would've been rated there. That's basically the whole point of rankings.

Regardless, Valdez wasn't the top five of jack at that time, by any standards. He'd been beaten/exposed by more fighters than I can count by then.

Harry Wills consensus # 1,

WRONG, FULTON was the consensus #1 in 1918. Wills wasn't considered a leading contender until he supplanted Fulton a couple years later.

Kid Norfolk, Sam Langford, Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette was dangerous enough to be turned down by dempsey in which was described as a "black eye for heavyweight boxing"

Again, NONE of those fighters were considered leading contenders. Langford's days as a serious top contender were ended by his first loss to Fulton (and possibly even before that), and Norfolk had recently suffered a big setback when he was embarrassingly KO'd by Langford. Johnson and Jeanette were barely even in the picture by this time.

Now lets look at dempsey....Ducks an ATG heavyweight in his prime and # 1 contender for SEVEN straight years, Refuses to fight old sam langford in 1917, Runs out of the ring rather than fight a 39 year old Joe Jeanette, Refuses to fight top challenger Harry Greb, Draws the color line so he wont have to fight top challenger Kid Norfolk, refuses fights with George Godfrey circa 1924.

None of this changes or diminishes the work Dempsey did on his way to winning the title in 1918 and 1919. Just like Liston quitting twice to Ali and then running off and hiding in Europe doesn't change what he did in 1960 and '61.

6'5 207lb Mike DeJohn, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

6'1 195lb Roy Harris, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine

Albert Westphal German Champ, Apparently rated # 4 by monthly rating

None of these fighters were top contenders.

Harris was probably rated around #5 or 6 at most.

DeJohn was near the bottom of the top 10 when Liston fought him.

Westphal was not a contender AT ALL when Liston fought him. In fact he was a total nobody.

You see there was no color line in the 1950s, so most of the top opposition liston fought was black....the white heavyweights had balls enough to take on the top black challengers, and they lost more than often which would have happened to dempseys white opponents.

Based on what?

Johnny Summerlin, Michigan Champion 19-1 and future top contender. Liston fought him in his 5th pro fight!

Summerlin was never a top contender, he only cracked the rankings briefly in the mid '50s, and I'll wager never even made the top 5.

More importantly, the key word there is "future." He was not a contender of any kind when Liston fought him, barely even was a prospect.

Marty Marshall, RATED TOP 10 by Ring Magazine when Liston fought him in just his 7th pro fight.

Marshall was never a rated HW.

This is incorrect. According to Boxing Register 4th edition Marty Marshall was top 10 rated when Liston fought him.

Not at HW. I guarantee you if Marshall was rated at this time, it was only as a LHW.

Disagree. Harry Wills and Harry Greb were by far the two most talented and best contenders in the division.

Maybe, but they'd yet to prove it yet, which is what matters.

Harry Wills had already beaten sam langford 5 times, so fulton doing it wasnt that great of an accomplishment.

You JUST said earlier that Langford was still a top contender in 1918/1919 and that Dempsey should've fought him, plus you've been making a point all thread that Dempsey should've fought him in 1917.

But now because it's been pointed out that a white fighter actually did fight him and beat him at that time, now all of a sudden beating him doesn't mean much.

How do you reconcile such an obvious contradiction here?

Wills went on to DESTROY fulton.

Key words there is "went on." He hadn't done it yet.

How can we tell with no ring magazine rankings in 1918-1919?,

Because Fulton was considered the consensus #1, and therefore no one else was, black or white.

Wills was always consensus # 1 after beating Langford Mcvea and jeanette

NO HE WASN'T. You're either just making this up, or just assuming this. EVERY contemporary source clearly acknowledges Fulton as being the consensus #1 at this time, not Wills or anyone else.

You can spin this around all you want

I haven't "spun" anything. The only spin here is coming from you - either saying this guy was scared of that guy, or this guy would've lost to that guy, or this guy was really a contender even though he wasn't, and so forth. All I've done is repeat exactly what things were and what actually happened.

but history will always remember Wills and Greb as much better fighters than Fulton, and Dempsey did not take on either Wills or Greb.

So what? What history "remembers" a century later doesn't change what the facts actually were at the time. Dempsey still fought and beat exactly who he was supposed to and expected to in 1918 and 1919. No amount of revisionism or false memories change that.

[Flea Man]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
0:20

That version of Tyson would've been a perfect replacement for Merchant:good

Fantastic analysis, and knows his boxing. A genuine student of the sport, thanks for that :good

[My2Sense]

You can't seriously believe that this had nothing to do with the racism at the time.

How does "racism" make certain fighters better than others?

Was "racism" the reason Fulton twice whupped Langford?

Was "racism" the reason Gibbons stopped Norfolk?

Was "racism" the reason Sharkey whupped both Wills and Godfrey?

It's a funny coincidence that champions and top contenders almost always was white up until WWII, a time when blacks was very obviously discriminated against.

That isn't true at all, Peter Jackson, Jack Johnson, Harry Wills, Joe Louis, and Jimmy Bivins, just to name a few, were all acknowledged as top HW contenders in that time, and for quite some time each.

What black heavyweights should've been recognized as top contenders that weren't?

[Bokaj]

How does "racism" make certain fighters better than others?

Was "racism" the reason Fulton twice whupped Langford?

Was "racism" the reason Gibbons stopped Norfolk?

Was "racism" the reason Sharkey whupped both Wills and Godfrey?

Man this is nonsense. I never said racism made anyone better than anyone else, I just stated that it made for unfair competition. Now this is a fact. That black contenders sometimes have been beaten by white contenders doesn't change this one bit.


[/quote]That isn't true at all, Peter Jackson, Jack Johnson, Harry Wills, Joe Louis, and Jimmy Bivins, just to name a few, were all acknowledged as top HW contenders in that time, and for quite some time each. [/quote]

Isn't it true at all that racism made it easier for whites to reach the top than for blacks!!!!??? Again you cite a couple of instances to disprove something which is nothing but plain fact. Actually, the very fact that two of the guys you mention didn't even get a title shot, and that one had to follow the champ around the world to get it, and another had to be very, very carefully managed to get one. And this is four of the biggest "black" names pre WWII in the HW division. Does that imply fair terms for you?

Enough with nicities. If you can't admit to the simple fact that the very prevalent racism in boxing pre WWII made it much harder for black fighters and easier for white fighters, and that Dempsey used this divide to his advantage by steering away from opponents he deemed dangerous then your'e a fucking moron. No ifs, no buts.

[McGrain]

Dempsey should have matched Wills and Greb.

The rest is just noise.

Shame he didn't.

[dmt]

Dempsey should have matched Wills and Greb.

The rest is just noise.

Shame he didn't.but it isnt a shame that wills never matched himself with Greb, Gibbons or tunney?

[McGrain]

but it isnt a shame that wills never matched himself with Greb, Gibbons or tunney?


Of course.

[he grant]

It's ironic that John L. Sullivan said it the best ..."any time the color line is drawn there is a black fighter someone is afraid of ." ... in my opinion every champ who worked the color line has an asterik next to his name, period ...

[My2Sense]

Man this is nonsense. I never said racism made anyone better than anyone else, I just stated that it made for unfair competition.

Yes you just did, you said the reason more of the best fighters in Dempsey's era happened to be white was at least partly because of racism - and you said that was a certainty, not even just a possibility.


Again you cite a couple of instances to disprove something which is nothing but plain fact.

No, I cited numerous instances which show how you were clearly and deliberately distorting the truth to push your point. Black fighters have often been recognized as leading HW contenders, and there were times when the top spot was practically monopolized by a black fighter.

Actually, the very fact that two of the guys you mention didn't even get a title shot, and that one had to follow the champ around the world to get it, and another had to be very, very carefully managed to get one. And this is four of the biggest "black" names pre WWII in the HW division.

What does that have to do with the fact that you flagrantly lied about blacks seldom or never being recognized as top HW contenders?

I'll ask again, WHAT blacks weren't recognized as top contenders that should've been?

Enough with nicities.

Why? Because you don't like being exposed for your shortcomings, or called on to actually back up your shit, so you have to run and hide behind some childish battle of insults instead?

Get lost.

[My2Sense]

its just the white fighters were NOT giving the black fighters a chance to fight them, so they automatically got high spots.

Who was "automatically" getting higher spots?

Fulton only got a higher spot than Langford after he clobbered him, ditto with Sharkey after he beat Wills and Godfrey.

Add that to the fact newspapers were bias and racist and wanted the heavyweight division to be ruled with whites, while blacks were kept out of the loop.

So is that why numerous papers were lobbying on behalf of Wills to get a title shot?

[UpWithEvil]

in my opinion every champ who worked the color line has an asterik next to his name, period ...

Shame on you, Jack Johnson!

[he grant]

No doubt at 32 plus Johnson drew the color line ... however he did fight just a few black fighters in his career ... if you are here for humor that's fine but if you intend to be taken serious, stepup !

[flamengo]

Johnson didn't draw the colour line... he faught many racial laws, and shagged many a white gal.... lmao.

[Stonehands89]

Dempsey should have matched Wills and Greb.

The rest is just noise.

Shame he didn't.
Absolutely.

The plain fact is that Wills pursued Dempsey incessantly... worse than Clay did Liston, and akin to Johnson chasing Burns. Dempsey made a couple of false starts when public demand (yep. The white masses who just wanted to see a good fight) hit crescendo, but I don't believe for a moment that he had any intention of ever facing a righteous worthy if his pigmentation didn't match.

The real shame is that 1919-1920 Dempsey would have, as someone illuminated earlier, beaten Wills. If Wills was smart, he would come out aggressively, but he usually did not. Dempsey was tough, tough, to deal with in his (very brief) prime.

Greb? Greb made Dempsey --1920 Dempsey-- look like a dunce the first time they tangled in NYC. Dempsey, pissed, said "get him back" and Greb willingly obliged 2 months later when Dempsey was training for Miske. It was an "honest-to-goodness battle" according to the New York Times and Dempsey got humiliated again. Greb beat his a*s. And that's as good a fact as any objective researcher can arrive at. Greb had two eyes at this point and was at his supernatural best.

And here's the clincher: When Greb gave Tiger Flowers a title shot Dempsey criticized Greb -publically- for giving a black man a shot. Later, while training for Tunney, Dempsey invited Flowers to come on as one of his sparring partners. Flowers, remembering this slight, turned Dempsey down. I have come to believe that Dempsey had a secret, his public false starts were smoke screens and -he was, personally, a man of the color line. I've amended my earlier position. Dempsey also wanted to retire undefeated and if that is your goal why would you risk giving a title shot to a phenomenon like Greb or a serious big man like Wills?

As it was, Greb ascended to legendary though unsung status. Flowers became the herald and the model for Joe Louis and thanks to Greb became the first black champion since Johnson. Dempsey, well, he remains a favorite of mine and a terror in any head-to-head match-up, but his legacy is tainted.

[Bummy Davis]

Dempsey should have fought Wills but I really dont think it was his fault. The powers that be did not make that fight...but it is a mar on him...still I think he would have beaten Wills

[McGrain]

And here's the clincher: When Greb gave Tiger Flowers a title shot Dempsey criticized Greb -publically- for giving a black man a shot.

Nice new avatar!

This is interesting to me. Got a source, chum?

[McGrain]

Flowers became the herald and the model for Joe Louis and thanks to Greb became the first black champion since Johnson.

Agree.

[flamengo]

They really are very embarrassing times for the land of oportunity. Dempsey was 'Endorsed' when he obliterated a beaten man, mostly whilst trying to get off the ring canvas. Willard.

Johnson was 'hated' for giving an old man a 'deserved' beating on Independance day, 1910. Jeffries.

Yet, Joe Walcott, George Dixon and Joe Gans were loved and continued to be.

Very difficult times to get a real grip of.

[he grant]

Stonehands, excellent post ....

I believe Dempsey definately would have fought Wills if Kearns and Rickard would have set him free to do so but BOTH were strongly against it. Through out his career one or the other had tremendous influence over him. Yes Dempsey could have said "fu'k off" but he knew his career was driven by those guys and went with it ... could he have bucked them, of course ... I just believe he made a mistake ..

Who would have won ? I don't know. Will was much bigger and much better than anyone Dempsey ever fought up till he lost his title. However, Will was also 6 plus years older and really was himself past his best by 1922 or so ... Wills was in his own prime while Willard was champ ... it would have been a hell of a fight, one that would have really given us the measure of Dempsey but we will never know ... this is the huge asterik on Dempsey to me ...

[Bokaj]

Yes you just did, you said the reason more of the best fighters in Dempsey's era happened to be white was at least partly because of racism, and you said that was a certainty.



No, I cited numerous instances which show how you were deliberately distorting the truth to push your point.



What does that have to do with the fact that you flagrantly lied about blacks not being recognized as top HW contenders?

And I'll ask again, what blacks weren't recognized as top contenders that should've been?



Why? Because you don't like being exposed for your shortcomings, so you have to run and hide behind some childish battle of insults instead?

Get lost.

This is the last time I'm going to adress you, because I think you're embarssing the way you disclaim a racism that was rampant. Top black contenders like Jackson, Langford, Wills, Godfrey etc never got a shot at the title because of their race, and white fighters at the time benifited because of this.

Are you actually going to deny that racism played a large part in boxing up until atleast WWII?!!!

(Even ff this is a bit inageble I think a deserve some cudos since I'm badly shit faced, and since, after all, English ain't my native language)

By the way, glad to see you here again Stonehands. Don't be a stranger.

[My2Sense]

Are you actually going to deny that racism played a large part in boxing up until atleast WWII?!!!

That depends on what "part" exactly you're trying to claim racism played. So far it seems you've tried to pin just about every shortcoming of black fighters on "racism." So if there just happens to be a span of time in which most of the best heavyweights happen to be white, then that must somehow be tied to racism.

Top black contenders like Jackson, Langford, Wills, Godfrey etc never got a shot at the title because of their race, and white fighters at the time benifited because of this.

There's an example of what I'm talking about. Godfrey didn't a title shot because of his race? There was plenty of reasons Godfrey didn't get a title shot, and those are legit reasons that others fighters, white or black, don't get title shots. He lost several of his most important fights, and he was ostracized for participating in a number of bizarre/controversial DQ results. There were white fighters right alongside him in the rankings that were just as highly rated or just as credible, and they didn't end up getting title shots either. But because Godfrey's black, that means it must be strictly racism that prevented him from getting a shot.

[SuzieQ49]

Dempsey still fought and beat exactly who he was supposed to and expected to in 1918 and 1919

I disagree. harry wills beat the consensus 3 best heavyweights in the world from 1913-1918 Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, and Sam Langford. these were the overhelming challengers for johnson and willards crown. While fulton did beat sam langford in 1917, that is defintley enough to overtake Wills since wills beat langford MULTIPLE times.

So what? Since then, he'd been flattened by Charley Powell, which ended his days as any kind of leading contender. Plus he'd lost another fight or two after that, before he fought Liston. By August '59 (which is when he actually fought Liston) he was no longer a contender of any kind.

.

Yes the Powell(who was 19-3 and seen as a very bright young contender spoken highly of by marciano) knockout loss removed him from the # 2 spot, but I highly doubt it was enough to remove him from the top 10.

By August '59 (which is when he actually fought Liston) he was no longer a contender of any kind.


do you have the ring magazine monthly issue to verify this statement. Valdez was rated # 2 coming into 1959, and I doubt he suddenly aged in a matter of a couple months. I have film of Valdez knocking out mcmutry in december of 58 and valdez looked very brutal, still possessing top power and finishing ability. even after the liston loss, Valdez went on to knockout top 10 rated Brian London(who had just challenged patterson for the title)




And to be frank, he never really regained his reputation anyway after being exposed by Satterfield several years earlier

If thats the case then why did he crawl all the way back up to a # 2 rating in 1959, get denied a title shot from Cus Damato out of fear, as well as beating most of europeans best during this period?


If they were such "clear" top fives then they almost certainly would've been rated there. That's basically the whole point of rankings.

.

I wouldn't say that. The Ring Magazine system could be very flawed. There are many cases in history where fighters got high undeserved rankings by Ring Magazine. In Cleveland Williams case, he had trouble getting big fights during this period because no one wanted to fight him due to his size power and speed. Considering Williams was rated in the top 5 within a year of fighting Liston for a 3 year period, I believe its safe to say Williams was a top 5 fighter in the world when Liston beat him. Or does your agenda go strictly by Ring Magazine ratings? Did Williams suddenly get better from 1961 compared to 1960 when Liston massacred him? Can you name me(outside of Liston) 5 heavyweights in the world that would have beaten cleveland williams in 1960?

Regardless, Valdez wasn't the top five of jack at that time, by any standards. He'd been beaten/exposed by more fighters than I can count by then

Then why was Valdez rated # 2 going into 1959 and why did Floyd Pattersons Manager denie him a title shot?


But now because it's been pointed out that a white fighter actually did fight him and beat him at that time, now all of a sudden beating him doesn't mean much.



It does not mean that much when a certain black fighter, Harry Wills, has already beaten sam langford at least 4 times.


What history "remembers" a century later doesn't change what the facts actually were at the time.

Disagree. Besides, without ring magazine rankings you have no idea who truelly were considered the best heavyweights out there. Certainly Mcvea, Jeanette, Langford, Wills were being talked about very highly in the newspapers all the way up to 1917. In fact today, historians hold these men in higher esteem than the white hopes of the era. History is very important indicator to judge. If we didnt have history, then we wouldnt realize that Gene Tunney retired with THREE hall of fame heavyweights rated # 1, # 2, # 3 in the Ring Magazine annuel ratings.

More importantly, the key word there is "future." He was not a contender of any kind when Liston fought him, barely even was a prospect.

Summerlin was 19-1, was Michigan Heavyweight Champion, and was considered by detroit free press "A Great Prospect". Summerlin would crack the top 10 Ring Magazine within months of liston beating him. I see a trend here... Sonny Liston is defeating men who would go on to achieve good things afterward meaning Liston beat these guys on there best legs.

Langford's days as a serious top contender were ended by his first loss to Fulton (and possibly even before that), and Norfolk had recently suffered a big setback when he was embarrassingly KO'd by Langford. Johnson and Jeanette were barely even in the picture by this time.

It seems to me ur putting all ur eggs in one basket with Fulton. Fulton was only top contender because he beat langford, but this win gets tainted because Harry Wills had already done so to langford multiple times. Another of Dempseys victims pre title, Billy Miske(who drew with ur "Consensus" # 1 fulton), was beaten by both Kid Norfolk and Harry Greb. Certainly Greb and Norfolk would have been rated top 5 during this time, why didnt dempsey take on either of them? Then theres Harry Wills, who went undefeated in 1918-1919 and had alreayd beaten top contender langford long before fulton did.

I would say Ring Magazine ratings 1918-1919 would have looked like

1. Harry Wills
2. Fred Fulton
3. Harry Greb
4. Kid Norfolk
5. Tommy Gibbons


Even if you switch Fulton and Wills, This still means Dempsey only took on ONE of the top 5 consensus Ring Magazine rated top 5 from 1918-1919. I would say this is not called cleaning out your division.

[SuzieQ49]

My2sense, On 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 Sundowners





"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. I think Godfrey was the most handcuffed fighter of all time. When we interviewed Dougherty's son Howard, who was also a promoter and drove Godfrey across country for his campaign in California, He talked of all the concessions they had to make in order for Godfrey to meet high rated fighters including carrying opponents, fouling out, etc. 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. His first two matches with Renault were "smellers" and his "foul-outs" were "ordered." Today People don't realize that one leading black challenger (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.I still believe Godfrey was the most "handcuffed" boxer of all time. Being the "most handcuffed boxer of all time" (my opinion) doesn't mean that he was the best of his period, just the "most feared" with the cuffs off. By the way check out photos of Godfrey pre 1926 before his frustrations caused him to gain weight. His body was ripped with muscle and he was always in top condition."- Chuck Hasson Boxing Historian

[SuzieQ49]

I don't know if I can name three shittier ranked heavyweights in the history of the division.

.


I can. Chuck Wepner, Randy, Neumann, and Larry Middleton. All 3 were top 10 rated in the "toughest era" in heavyweight history, mid 1970s.


Liston's era was horrible, reprehensibly horrible, irrevocable in fact. Not his fault, but also enhanced his reputation


I don't see how you could realistically say this. Floyd Patterson, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, Cleveland Williams, Ingemar Johansson, Harold Johnson....all of these men look outstanding on film.

[markedwardscott]

Dempsey at his best would have won by kayo. Sub-par Dempsey would have lost a decision.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[My2Sense]

I disagree. harry wills beat the consensus 3 best heavyweights in the world from 1913-1918 Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, and Sam Langford. these were the overhelming challengers for johnson and willards crown.

Jeanette and McVey were respected fighters in their day, but they weren't considered "overwhelming challengers" at the time, they were rated right in the mix with other contenders for the title.

Langford was generally more revered than those two, but his absolute peak in terms of his standing in the division was prior to those years, in around 1910/1911.

While fulton did beat sam langford in 1917, that is defintley enough to overtake Wills since wills beat langford MULTIPLE times.

But none of Wills' multiple wins were as impressive and decisive as Fulton's, and more importantly, they were interspersed among fights that Wills either lost to Langford (by KO) or only drew even with him. Wills was splitting fights and still struggling to prove his superiority to Langford at this time, whereas Fulton was far more decisive.

Regardless, I don't know that the one win over Langford (or any one win in particular) necessarily put Fulton above Wills, I believe it was the combination of the whole string of wins he had put together before and after that fight that collectively put him into the top spot.

Yes the Powell(who was 19-3 and seen as a very bright young contender spoken highly of by marciano) knockout loss removed him from the # 2 spot, but I highly doubt it was enough to remove him from the top 10.

Powell was a career journeyman. He was barely even a prospect coming into the fight (I would wager he was never even ranked before that), and never did anything particularly noteworthy afterward.

I don't know if the Powell fight on its own completely removed Valdez from the rankings, but he lost another fight to another unranked fighter after that before fighting Liston. By the time he got to Liston, he was no longer rated.

Valdez was rated # 2 coming into 1959, and I doubt he suddenly aged in a matter of a couple months.

I don't know how much he "aged" or if at all. And it really has nothing to do with my point either. The fact remains he had lost to two unranked fighters coming into the Liston fight and was no longer a contender (and for good, as it turned out).

If thats the case then why did he crawl all the way back up to a # 2 rating in 1959, get denied a title shot from Cus Damato out of fear, as well as beating most of europeans best during this period?

About six years earlier, he was the #1 rated contender (which he earned by whupping Ezzard Charles), held that ranking for about 2 or 3 years straight, and was denied a title shot by Al Weill during that entire stretch. He did not have the same ranking or reputation in the late '50s as he had earlier in the decade.

Then why was Valdez rated # 2 going into 1959 and why did Floyd Pattersons Manager denie him a title shot?

"Going into 1959" is not when Liston fought him. He fought him at the end of 1959, when he was getting whupped by fighters that weren't even in the top 10. How can you say a guy is one of the "top 5" fighters in the division when he's not even better than guys who aren't even among the top 10??

As for Cus D'Amato, he denied a lot of prospective title challengers a shot, and usually on the grounds that their promoters or managers were crooked.

It does not mean that much when a certain black fighter, Harry Wills, has already beaten sam langford at least 4 times.

So how can you say Langford was still a serious title challenger in 1918 if beating him "doesn't mean much"?

Besides, without ring magazine rankings you have no idea who truelly were considered the best heavyweights out there.

You don't always know how certain fighters would precisely compare with other fighters, but you can see who was considered muddled among the pack of contenders and who was considered standouts above it.

In fact today, historians hold these men in higher esteem than the white hopes of the era.

But by definition, historians are people who haven't seen or experienced these fighters and their circumstances first-hand. They can't know more on the matter than people who were actually at the scene and saw with their own eyes. No reason for their opinions to outweigh people who were actually there.

History is very important indicator to judge. If we didnt have history, then we wouldnt realize that Gene Tunney retired with THREE hall of fame heavyweights rated # 1, # 2, # 3 in the Ring Magazine annuel ratings.

No he didn't, the top 3 heavyweights were Heeney, Risko, and Sharkey. That's only one HOFer in the top 3.

Either way, I don't see why that should change anyone's judgment of Tunney. No one was rated in any kind of HOF at the time, and no one knew who was going to be a HOFer afterward.


Fulton was only top contender because he beat langford, but this win gets tainted because Harry Wills had already done so to langford multiple times.

No, he became top contender for the whole string of wins he put together before fighting Dempsey. Langford was just one of those wins.

Another of Dempseys victims pre title, Billy Miske(who drew with ur "Consensus" # 1 fulton), was beaten by both Kid Norfolk and Harry Greb. Certainly Greb and Norfolk would have been rated top 5 during this time, why didnt dempsey take on either of them?

I doubt Norfolk would've, seeing as he had suffered a crushing KO loss to Langford (the one Fulton had already crushed) not long after beating Miske, which badly halted his rising career at that time. From accounts I've read, Norfolk didn't appear to distinguish himself as a standout contender until about a year or so after Dempsey won the title - and he appears to have been mostly rated as a LHW anyway.

As for Greb, by the time he beat Miske and had begun to break into the division, Dempsey already supplanted the #1 rated Fulton and was moving on to a fight with the champion. How many more rated fighters did Liston fight while waiting for his upcoming title shot after beating Folley/Machen?



I would say Ring Magazine ratings 1918-1919 would have looked like

1. Harry Wills
2. Fred Fulton
3. Harry Greb
4. Kid Norfolk
5. Tommy Gibbons


Even if you switch Fulton and Wills, This still means Dempsey only took on ONE of the top 5 consensus Ring Magazine rated top 5 from 1918-1919. I would say this is not called cleaning out your division.

I don't understand how you can make a top 5 that is supposed to cover an entire two years. If you did the same for Liston to cover the couple years before he won the title, you could make something that looks like this:

1. Johansson
2. Cooper
3. Lavorante
4. Machen
5. Folley

...and that would distort things to make it look like he didn't clean out his division in the same way either.

[mcvey]

Absolutely.

The plain fact is that Wills pursued Dempsey incessantly... worse than Clay did Liston, and akin to Johnson chasing Burns. Dempsey made a couple of false starts when public demand (yep. The white masses who just wanted to see a good fight) hit crescendo, but I don't believe for a moment that he had any intention of ever facing a righteous worthy if his pigmentation didn't match.

The real shame is that 1919-1920 Dempsey would have, as someone illuminated earlier, beaten Wills. If Wills was smart, he would come out aggressively, but he usually did not. Dempsey was tough, tough, to deal with in his (very brief) prime.

Greb? Greb made Dempsey --1920 Dempsey-- look like a dunce the first time they tangled in NYC. Dempsey, pissed, said "get him back" and Greb willingly obliged 2 months later when Dempsey was training for Miske. It was an "honest-to-goodness battle" according to the New York Times and Dempsey got humiliated again. Greb beat his a*s. And that's as good a fact as any objective researcher can arrive at. Greb had two eyes at this point and was at his supernatural best.

And here's the clincher: When Greb gave Tiger Flowers a title shot Dempsey criticized Greb -publically- for giving a black man a shot. Later, while training for Tunney, Dempsey invited Flowers to come on as one of his sparring partners. Flowers, remembering this slight, turned Dempsey down. I have come to believe that Dempsey had a secret, his public false starts were smoke screens and -he was, personally, a man of the color line. I've amended my earlier position. Dempsey also wanted to retire undefeated and if that is your goal why would you risk giving a title shot to a phenomenon like Greb or a serious big man like Wills?

As it was, Greb ascended to legendary though unsung status. Flowers became the herald and the model for Joe Louis and thanks to Greb became the first black champion since Johnson. Dempsey, well, he remains a favorite of mine and a terror in any head-to-head match-up, but his legacy is tainted.

I dont allways agree with your posts ,and dont this time ,but they are invarialbly well argued and considered,just a question.have you a reliable source that Dempsey invited Flowers to be his sparring partner for his preparations for Tunney? I ask because he would seem to be a very strange choice to me ,given that 1 he was not fast aound a ring , 2 often slapped with his punches and most importantly 3 ,he was a SOUTH PAW,so what possible use would he have been to Dempsey in readying for Tunney?

[Stonehands89]

Nice new avatar!

This is interesting to me. Got a source, chum?
I'll dig it up. Check back later.

[Stonehands89]

I dont allways agree with your posts ,and dont this time ,but they are invarialbly well argued and considered,just a question.have you a reliable source that Dempsey invited Flowers to be his sparring partner for his preparations for Tunney? I ask because he would seem to be a very strange choice to me ,given that 1 he was not fast aound a ring , 2 often slapped with his punches and most importantly 3 ,he was a SOUTH PAW,so what possible use would he have been to Dempsey in readying for Tunney?
Dempsey was not always so specifically strategic in who he used for sparring. He used Tate for power and would also often use MWs for speed. Flowers was a busy fighter and would be considerably good for honing reflexes as well as conditioning. I'll find the specific source later for you as well as McGrain.

[red cobra]

Had it happened, Dempsey ko 6.

[mcvey]

Dempsey was not always so specifically strategic in who he used for sparring. He used Tate for power and would also often use MWs for speed. Flowers was a busy fighter and would be considerably good for honing reflexes as well as conditioning. I'll find the specific source later for you as well as McGrain.
:good:good

[SuzieQ49]

Jeanette and McVey were respected fighters in their day, but they weren't considered "overwhelming challengers" at the time, they were rated right in the mix with other contenders for the title.

The white heavyweight fighters were unwilling to engage with them



But none of Wills' multiple wins were as impressive and decisive as Fulton's, and more importantly, they were interspersed among fights that Wills either lost to Langford (by KO) or only drew even with him. Wills was splitting fights and still struggling to prove his superiority to Langford at this time, whereas Fulton was far more decisive.

Why because fulton stopped wills he beat him easier? Wills beat Langford 5 times and most of those were shutout decisions against a younger better version of sam langford. If fulton had tangled with langford 5 times in 1914-1915 I doubt he would avoid getting knocked out.

I believe it was the combination of the whole string of wins he had put together before and after that fight that collectively put him into the top spot.

What string? his string of wins certainly were nowhere near the string of wins Harry Wills had accumlated up to 1918


Powell was a career journeyman. He was barely even a prospect coming into the fight (I would wager he was never even ranked before that), and never did anything particularly noteworthy afterward.

I don't know if the Powell fight on its own completely removed Valdez from the rankings, but he lost another fight to another unranked fighter after that before fighting Liston. By the time he got to Liston, he was no longer rated.

Rocky Marciano picked Charles Powell as the man most likely to take his crown away from him. Powell was considered huge potential. The Powell fight was an upset win. Valdez at the time was coming off FOUR huge back to back to back to back wins over top 10 rated Harold Carter, Mike Dejohn, and Pat Mcmutry and Wayne Bethea.

By the time he got to Liston, he was no longer rated


Valdez was #2 going into 1959. despite two losses to young prospects Powell and Johnson, it was not enough to remove him from the top 10 by the time he fought liston, especially given his very strong victories in late 1958. Valdez knockout of Title Challenger brian london AFTER he fought liston shows valdez was still a very capable puncher

I don't know how much he "aged" or if at all. And it really has nothing to do with my point either. The fact remains he had lost to two unranked fighters coming into the Liston fight and was no longer a contender (and for good, as it turned out).

Valdez was certainly a contender and a dangerous puncher.


About six years earlier, he was the #1 rated contender (which he earned by whupping Ezzard Charles), held that ranking for about 2 or 3 years straight, and was denied a title shot by Al Weill during that entire stretch. He did not have the same ranking or reputation in the late '50s as he had earlier in the decade.



This was actually your worst post of the thread right here. Let me break it down for you.

About six years earlier, he was the #1 rated contender (which he earned by whupping Ezzard Charles)

Earned? Valdez did not earn anything. the # 1 rating was a GIFT given to him based on a upset over an overconfident Ezzard Charles. Valdez has lost 4 out of his last 5 meetings in a row prior to the upset charles win, and those losses should have been held against him when accessing his jump up to # 1. Harold Johnson beat both Ezzard Charles and Nino Valdez during that time, why didnt he get the # 1 rating? Fishy....

held that ranking for about 2 or 3 years straight

This is 110% wrong. If you want to debate this, we will start a new thread. Valdez "Got" the # 1 ranking in December of 1953 held that until March of 1954 where he LOST his # 1 ranking to Ezzard Charles. Ezzard then held the # 1 ranking from Feb of 1954 all the way through September of 1954. Then Valdez resumed the # 1 ranking in October of 1954 all the way through May of 1955. So lets see Dec 53-March 54 plus Oct 54-May 55 is a total of only Fourteen months as # 1 contender and most importantly it was not fourteen months "straight". So your statement Valdez was # 1 contender for 2-3 years STRAIGHT is way off mark.

In feb of 1954 Ezzard Charles and the NBA issued a Rematch challenge to Nino Valdez winner to get # 1 spot.... Charles took Nino lightly first time and wanted the chance to prove himself superior. nino REFUSED the MANDATORY offer, and during this time Charles knocked out RATED contenders Bob Satterfield and Colley Wallace, and after Nino's hometown robbery split decision win over journeyman archie mcbride, valdez LOST his spot at # 1 ranking. If you look at June 1954 Ring Magazine which I own, Charles is listed as # 1 and Valdez # 2. Only after Marciano twice beat Ezzard did Valdez regain the # 1 spot by the END of 1954. But from March-September of 1954 Charles was # 1 contender meaning charles was # 1 when he fought Marciano for the title, NOT valdez

and was denied a title shot by Al Weill during that entire stretch.

Once again, this is unquestionably wrong. In 1954 Ezzard Charles was the # 1 contender and bigger draw. But given Nino Valdez good 10 fight winning streak through 1954, Al Weill realized Valdez was a serious challenger and a good draw. So he got into negotiations with Valdez manager Bobby Gleason in 1955. Weill Norris and Gleason all got together and agreed on a SCHEDULED fight between Marciano and Valdez for the winter of 1955 in MIAMI where it would draw because of the large Latino crowd. Marciano could fight cockell first as a tuneup, then take on Valdez in the winter of late 1955 for a big fight. However, this drew huge criticism from Archie Moore, who had beaten valdez in 53 and had been calling out marciano for years. So the IBC reluctantly gave in and proposed a FINAL title eliminator between Moore vs Valdez winner a GAURANTEED shot to fight Marciano. All Valdez had to do was beat moore and he would keep his date. However Valdez could not beat a overweight 38 year old man Archie Moore who outworked Valdez down the stretch for the close but clear decision. So Marciano fought his MANDATORY archie moore instead. Because of the loss to Archie, Valdez lost his winter date in Miami. HOWEVER, in November 20th of 1955 Rocky told the Chicago Daily Tribune he "wants a title fight with Valdez in june for his 50th fight before retirement". Rocky wanted to have one more fight to get to # 50, then quit. HOWEVER, Valdez subsequetly lost a 12 round stinker with baker, then got shutout by a 180lb bob satterfield on the cards and once again BLEW HIS CHANCE at Marciano. When it came down to it, Weill was going to make this match happen, but Valdez blew his shot.

He did not have the same ranking or reputation in the late '50s as he had earlier in the decade.


Disagree. Valdez had arguebably the 2nd best year of his whole career in 1958 beating multiple top 10 fighters, and destroying the flock of europeans best heavyweights, usually by devastating early knockout. Valdez reputation was so high, that Damato turned him down immediately.

As for Cus D'Amato, he denied a lot of prospective title challengers a shot, and usually on the grounds that their promoters or managers were crooked.


Bobby Gleason wasnt that crooked. Damato feared Valdez because he was 3" taller, 20lb heavier and could punch.

[SuzieQ49]

So how can you say Langford was still a serious title challenger in 1918 if beating him "doesn't mean much"?


I never said that. I said fulton beating langford doesnt mean as much because Wills had already done so FIVE times, therefore Wills was more highly rated than langford when fulton beat langford.




No he didn't, the top 3 heavyweights were Heeney, Risko, and Sharkey. That's only one HOFer in the top 3.

Either way, I don't see why that should change anyone's judgment of Tunney. No one was rated in any kind of HOF at the time, and no one knew who was going to be a HOFer afterward.

Check the Ring Magazine 1929 Ratings. Schmeling Sharkey Godfrey were # 1 # 2 # 3.

No, he became top contender for the whole string of wins he put together before fighting Dempsey. Langford was just one of those wins.

What wins? he only drew with Miske, while miske lost to norfolk and greb

I doubt Norfolk would've, seeing as he had suffered a crushing KO loss to Langford (the one Fulton had already crushed) not long after beating Miske, which badly halted his rising career at that time. From accounts I've read, Norfolk didn't appear to distinguish himself as a standout contender until about a year or so after Dempsey won the title - and he appears to have been mostly rated as a LHW anyway

But norfolk twice whupped Billy Miske a top rated fighter who had drew with your consensus # 1 as well as recording other good wins.

As for Greb, by the time he beat Miske and had begun to break into the division, Dempsey already supplanted the #1 rated Fulton and was moving on to a fight with the champion. How many more rated fighters did Liston fight while waiting for his upcoming title shot after beating Folley/Machen

Only Ingemar Johansson. Liston challenged him refutably, and johansson wanted no part of it. You can't fight a guy who wont get in the ring with you. Other than that the 2 other highest rated contenders 1961-1962 were machen and folley and liston had creamed them. While Dempsey beat fulton, that was the only top contender he defeated. The other top dogs Wills, Greb he did not fight.


I don't understand how you can make a top 5 that is supposed to cover an entire two years. If you did the same for Liston to cover the couple years before he won the title, you could make something that looks like this:

1. Johansson
2. Cooper
3. Lavorante
4. Machen
5. Folley

...and that would distort things to make it look like he didn't clean out his division in the same way either.

Lavorante was not even in the Ring Magazine ratings in 1960 and would not crack the rankings until early 1962 at # 4. He lost that soon after by getting knocked out into a stretcher by 46 year old Archie Moore. I dont see how you could put Lavorante over Machen and Folley, when they both were in the top 5 in both 1960 and 1961. Considering Lavorante only broke the rankings(briefly) for one of these two years, I would leave him off the list all together and replace him.

Cooper and Johansson could be considered top 5 in 1960-1961, but Coopers manager REFUSED to send him in the ring with liston and johansson wanted nothing to do with Liston. this is alot different from Wills and Greb who were challenging dempsey to get in the ring, while dempsey wanted nothing to do with it. Johannson during this time also refused a fight with Cleveland Williams. Sonny Liston said in 1962 "no one wants to fight cleveland williams. he can hit as hard as me".

[mcvey]

The white heavyweight fighters were unwilling to engage with them





Why because fulton stopped wills he beat him easier? Wills beat Langford 5 times and most of those were shutout decisions against a younger better version of sam langford. If fulton had tangled with langford 5 times in 1914-1915 I doubt he would avoid getting knocked out.



What string? his string of wins certainly were nowhere near the string of wins Harry Wills had accumlated up to 1918




Rocky Marciano picked Charles Powell as the man most likely to take his crown away from him. Powell was considered huge potential. The Powell fight was an upset win. Valdez at the time was coming off FOUR huge back to back to back to back wins over top 10 rated Harold Carter, Mike Dejohn, and Pat Mcmutry and Wayne Bethea.




Valdez was #2 going into 1959. despite two losses to young prospects Powell and Johnson, it was not enough to remove him from the top 10 by the time he fought liston, especially given his very strong victories in late 1958. Valdez knockout of Title Challenger brian london AFTER he fought liston shows valdez was still a very capable puncher



Valdez was certainly a contender and a dangerous puncher.




This was actually your worst post of the thread right here. Let me break it down for you.



Earned? Valdez did not earn anything. the # 1 rating was a GIFT given to him based on a upset over an overconfident Ezzard Charles. Valdez has lost 4 out of his last 5 meetings in a row prior to the upset charles win, and those losses should have been held against him when accessing his jump up to # 1. Harold Johnson beat both Ezzard Charles and Nino Valdez during that time, why didnt he get the # 1 rating? Fishy....



This is 110% wrong. If you want to debate this, we will start a new thread. Valdez "Got" the # 1 ranking in December of 1953 held that until March of 1954 where he LOST his # 1 ranking to Ezzard Charles. Ezzard then held the # 1 ranking from Feb of 1954 all the way through September of 1954. Then Valdez resumed the # 1 ranking in October of 1954 all the way through May of 1955. So lets see Dec 53-March 54 plus Oct 54-May 55 is a total of only Fourteen months as # 1 contender and most importantly it was not fourteen months "straight". So your statement Valdez was # 1 contender for 2-3 years STRAIGHT is way off mark.

In feb of 1954 Ezzard Charles and the NBA issued a Rematch challenge to Nino Valdez winner to get # 1 spot.... Charles took Nino lightly first time and wanted the chance to prove himself superior. nino REFUSED the MANDATORY offer, and during this time Charles knocked out RATED contenders Bob Satterfield and Colley Wallace, and after Nino's hometown robbery split decision win over journeyman archie mcbride, valdez LOST his spot at # 1 ranking. If you look at June 1954 Ring Magazine which I own, Charles is listed as # 1 and Valdez # 2. Only after Marciano twice beat Ezzard did Valdez regain the # 1 spot by the END of 1954. But from March-September of 1954 Charles was # 1 contender meaning charles was # 1 when he fought Marciano for the title, NOT valdez



Once again, this is unquestionably wrong. In 1954 Ezzard Charles was the # 1 contender and bigger draw. But give Nino Valdez good 10 fight winning streak through 1954, Al Weill realized Valdez was a serious challenger and a good draw, so he got into negotiations with Valdez manager Bobby Gleason in 1955. Weill Norris and Gleason all go together and agreed on a SCHEDULED a fight between Marciano and Valdez for the winter of 1955 in MIAMI where it would draw because of the large Latino crowd. Marciano could fight cockell first as a tuneup, then take on Valdez in the winter of late 1955 for a big fight. However, this drew huge criticism from Archie Moore, who had beaten valdez in 53 and had been calling out marciano for years. So the IBC reluctantly gave in and proposed a FINAL title eliminator between Moore vs Valdez winner a GAURANTEED shot to fight Marciano. All Valdez had to do was beat moore and he would keep his date. However Valdez could not beat a overweight 38 year old man Archie Moore who outworked Valdez down the stretch for the close but clear decision. So Marciano fought his MANDATORY archie moore instead. Because of the loss to Archie, Valdez lost his winter date in Miami. HOWEVER, in November 20th of 1955 Rocky told the Chicago Daily Tribune he "wants a title fight with Valdez in june for his 50th fight before retirement". Rocky wanted to have one more fight to get to # 50, then quit. HOWEVER, Valdez subsequetly lost a 12 round stinker with baker, then got shutout by a 180lb bob satterfield on the cards and once again BLEW HIS CHANCE at Marciano. When it came down to it, Weill was going to make this match happen, but Valdez blew his shot.



Disagree. Valdez had arguebably the 2nd best year of his whole career in 1958 beating multiple top 10 fighters, and destroying the flock of europeans best heavyweights, usually by devastating early knockout. Valdez reputation was so high, that Damato turned him down immediately.



Bobby Gleason wasnt that crooked. Damato feared Valdez because he was 3" taller, 20lb heavier and could punch.

I wish Marciano had fought Valdes ,I think he would have given him a very good thumping!

[Stonehands89]

Nice new avatar!

This is interesting to me. Got a source, chum?

just a question.have you a reliable source that Dempsey invited Flowers to be his sparring partner for his preparations for Tunney?

Pittsburgh Post, 2 March 1926. Dempsey interview by Regis Welsh. See also Kaye's biography of Flowers, p. 124. The primary source may be New York Amsterdam News, 1 Sept 1926 -but I'm not certain.

[mcvey]

Pittsburgh Post, 2 March 1926. Dempsey interview by Regis Welsh. See also Kaye's biography of Flowers, p. 124. The primary source may be New York Amsterdam News, 1 Sept 1926 -but I'm not certain.
That's good enough for me , still think The Georgia Deacon was a strange choice though.:good

[mcvey]

I disagree. harry wills beat the consensus 3 best heavyweights in the world from 1913-1918 Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, and Sam Langford. these were the overhelming challengers for johnson and willards crown. While fulton did beat sam langford in 1917, that is defintley enough to overtake Wills since wills beat langford MULTIPLE times.



Yes the Powell(who was 19-3 and seen as a very bright young contender spoken highly of by marciano) knockout loss removed him from the # 2 spot, but I highly doubt it was enough to remove him from the top 10.



do you have the ring magazine monthly issue to verify this statement. Valdez was rated # 2 coming into 1959, and I doubt he suddenly aged in a matter of a couple months. I have film of Valdez knocking out mcmutry in december of 58 and valdez looked very brutal, still possessing top power and finishing ability. even after the liston loss, Valdez went on to knockout top 10 rated Brian London(who had just challenged patterson for the title)






If thats the case then why did he crawl all the way back up to a # 2 rating in 1959, get denied a title shot from Cus Damato out of fear, as well as beating most of europeans best during this period?




I wouldn't say that. The Ring Magazine system could be very flawed. There are many cases in history where fighters got high undeserved rankings by Ring Magazine. In Cleveland Williams case, he had trouble getting big fights during this period because no one wanted to fight him due to his size power and speed. Considering Williams was rated in the top 5 within a year of fighting Liston for a 3 year period, I believe its safe to say Williams was a top 5 fighter in the world when Liston beat him. Or does your agenda go strictly by Ring Magazine ratings? Did Williams suddenly get better from 1961 compared to 1960 when Liston massacred him? Can you name me(outside of Liston) 5 heavyweights in the world that would have beaten cleveland williams in 1960?



Then why was Valdez rated # 2 going into 1959 and why did Floyd Pattersons Manager denie him a title shot?





It does not mean that much when a certain black fighter, Harry Wills, has already beaten sam langford at least 4 times.




Disagree. Besides, without ring magazine rankings you have no idea who truelly were considered the best heavyweights out there. Certainly Mcvea, Jeanette, Langford, Wills were being talked about very highly in the newspapers all the way up to 1917. In fact today, historians hold these men in higher esteem than the white hopes of the era. History is very important indicator to judge. If we didnt have history, then we wouldnt realize that Gene Tunney retired with THREE hall of fame heavyweights rated # 1, # 2, # 3 in the Ring Magazine annuel ratings.



Summerlin was 19-1, was Michigan Heavyweight Champion, and was considered by detroit free press "A Great Prospect". Summerlin would crack the top 10 Ring Magazine within months of liston beating him. I see a trend here... Sonny Liston is defeating men who would go on to achieve good things afterward meaning Liston beat these guys on there best legs.



It seems to me ur putting all ur eggs in one basket with Fulton. Fulton was only top contender because he beat langford, but this win gets tainted because Harry Wills had already done so to langford multiple times. Another of Dempseys victims pre title, Billy Miske(who drew with ur "Consensus" # 1 fulton), was beaten by both Kid Norfolk and Harry Greb. Certainly Greb and Norfolk would have been rated top 5 during this time, why didnt dempsey take on either of them? Then theres Harry Wills, who went undefeated in 1918-1919 and had alreayd beaten top contender langford long before fulton did.

I would say Ring Magazine ratings 1918-1919 would have looked like

1. Harry Wills
2. Fred Fulton
3. Harry Greb
4. Kid Norfolk
5. Tommy Gibbons


Even if you switch Fulton and Wills, This still means Dempsey only took on ONE of the top 5 consensus Ring Magazine rated top 5 from 1918-1919. I would say this is not called cleaning out your division.

Jeanette was 40 years old when Wills beat him.

[Stonehands89]

That's good enough for me , still think The Georgia Deacon was a strange choice though.:good
Yep, but no stranger than his sparring with Big Bill Tate to prepare for Billy Miske.

[SuzieQ49]

Jeanette was 40 years old when Wills beat him.


No. Jeanette was born in August of 1879, and when Harry wills won a newspaper decision over him in June of 1914, Jeanette was 34 years old

[mcvey]

No. Jeanette was born in August of 1879, and when Harry wills won a newspaper decision over him in June of 1914, Jeanette was 34 years old

Wills beat Jeanette ONCE, in1919 ,when Jeanette was 40 .The fight you refer to and one a year earlier were both DRAWS .

[SuzieQ49]

Wills beat Jeanette ONCE, in1919 ,when Jeanette was 40 .The fight you refer to and one a year earlier were both DRAWS .


The one in 1914 was considered a newspaper win for Wills. Wills won the newspaper decision- (San Juan Prospector)

[mcvey]

The one in 1914 was considered a newspaper win for Wills. Wills won the newspaper decision- (San Juan Prospector)
San Juan Prospector?:patsch
I think I'll go by Box rec Suzie:lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

The one in 1914 was considered a newspaper win for Wills. Wills won the newspaper decision- (San Juan Prospector)


The Daily Thompson scored it for Jeanette.

[mcvey]

The Daily Thompson scored it for Jeanette.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::good

[dmt]

The Daily Thompson scored it for Jeanette.
:lol:

[SuzieQ49]

The Daily Prophet scored it for Wills


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[OLD FOGEY]

tis true. dempsey had his flavor he preferred and it was definitely not the smaller, craftier fighter.

and look, this whole who ducked who shit is intellectually embarrassing. The champs fought who got them the most money, decided per their managers.. It's called show business, folks. U2 ain't gonna play your local swill hole tavern. They play Wembley.

Some of you fuckers need to grow up.

"The champs fought who got them the most money"

The general consensus was that Dempsey-Wills would have done fantastic business.

What is the evidence Johnson got more for fighting Flynn than he would have for fighting Langford? Or Jeffries more for fighting Munroe than he would have gotten for fighting Johnson?

[SuzieQ49]

Btw I find it funny Joe Jeanette was unable to score a win over a 9-1 Novice Harry Wills. Shows you just how great Harry Wills was. Dempsey in his prime ran out of the ring against a 39 year old joe jeanette, I doubt jack ever would have fought a world class Joe Jeanette with a 9-1 record. Wills resume is just so much better than demseys i might be forced to place wills above jack.

[UpWithEvil]

Dempsey in his prime ran out of the ring against a 39 year old joe jeanette,

You can't make a lie true by repeating it ad nausem.

[SuzieQ49]

What dempsey did was not only described as a Cowardly act, but that it gave a "Black eye" for heavyweight boxing

[UpWithEvil]

What dempsey did was not only described as a Cowardly act, but that it gave a "Black eye" for heavyweight boxing

Unsupportable opinions cited to bolster other unsupportable opinions. Read the article. Dempsey was game. Kearns did his proper job as manager and refused to let his fighter be screwed by unscrupulous and dishonest promoters. Only an idiot would allow his prizefighter to fight with zero forewarning when a dishonest promoter pulls an unannounced double-cross. Perhaps you're that idiot, which is why you'd never be a boxing manager?:tired

[OLD FOGEY]

Williams and Valdez weren't contenders when Liston beat them.



Neither of them were considered top contenders before Dempsey won the title. Greb had only just broke into the division earlier that year, Wills didn't distinguish himself as a serious contender until about a year later.



What black fighters were considered top contenders in 1918-1919?

What top white contenders was Liston knocking out?



He missed out on Johansson, Cooper, and Lavorante.

In fact, Liston only had about 4 or 5 total fights against rated heavyweights in the seven years before he fought Patterson, so I would say he must've "missed out" on quite a few contenders on his way up.



How many HW contenders did Liston fight in the first 2 or 3 years of his career? Liston didn't fight a rated HW of any kind until at least five years into his career, by which time Dempsey had already whupped a host of contenders and the reigning champion.



No it isn't, those three weren't considered top contenders in 1918/1919 like Machen and Folley were in 1960.

"What black contenders were considered top contenders in 1918-1919?"

Probably none at all. But what black contenders were considered? The color line was drawn so sharply that they were in a separate category, like the Negroe Baseball leagues versus the big leagues. When the white press mentioned contenders, they automatically restricted their comments to the "white hopes", just as baseball writers discussing great players in the 1920's and 1930's would have talked about Ruth, Gehrig, and DiMaggio, but not Gibson or Charleston. There was speculation if Jimmy Foxx could break Ruth's record. There was none if Josh Gibson could.

Clearly, Fulton was different in taking on top black fighters such as Langford and Wills, and the win over Langford automatically made him the top contender for the Willard's crown despite his earlier loss to Carl Morris in a poor performance in which he saved himself from worse by fouling out.

[UpWithEvil]

There was speculation if Jimmy Foxx could break Ruth's record. There was none if Josh Gibson could.

There were no good records of Gibson's home runs, which modern investigation has shown to be largely overstated. 800 for his career, yes, but many of those were in exhibitions and barnstorming against against local teams of questionable talent levels; in actual "Negro Leagues" games he hit 224.

The Babe hit every one of those 714 homers against major league pitchers; if you want to include World Series and All-Star games, he's almost at 750. Throw in his numerous barnstorming and exhibition games and you're closer to 1000.

[SuzieQ49]

I find it hilarious how Fultons win over Sam Langford made him "Top" contender for willards crown, yet Harry Wills FIVE previous wins over a younger better langford did not qualify him as "Top" contender. HOGWASH.

[SuzieQ49]

I dont give baseball players credit prior to 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the color line. Baseball prior to 1947 did not include blacks, thats pretty much wiping out 50% of the top opposition. What a joke. That is why white players like Mickey Mantle deserve so much more credit than previous ones, because he dominated in a era where top black hitters and pitchers were allowed to compete. Mantle faced black pitchers, Gehrig Ruth Foxx Cobb did NOT. I rate Mickey Mantle in my top 5 hitters of all time. The most naturally talented hitter of all time, who played injured throughout his career and missed many games yet still put up great numbers. Mantle could hit the ball 600 feet from both sides of the plate. How many men could do that?

[OLD FOGEY]

There were no good records of Gibson's home runs, which modern investigation has shown to be largely overstated. 800 for his career, yes, but many of those were in exhibitions and barnstorming against against local teams of questionable talent levels; in actual "Negro Leagues" games he hit 224.

The Babe hit every one of those 714 homers against major league pitchers; if you want to include World Series and All-Star games, he's almost at 750. Throw in his numerous barnstorming and exhibition games and you're closer to 1000.

I was thinking of 60 home runs in a season. Anyway, I don't want to get into baseball, but my point was that Foxx would have been considered a rival to Ruth and a man who could break his record BECAUSE he was white and played in the big leagues. He was also good. Gibson was not considered a direct rival of Ruth BECAUSE he was black and had to play in the Negro leagues. He was also good. Who was the better between Foxx and Gibson? Or perhaps even between Ruth and Gibson? The racism of the time makes it next to impossible to judge.

[HomicideHenry]

Rocky Marciano picked Charles Powell as the man most likely to take his crown away from him. Powell was considered huge potential. The Powell fight was an upset win. Valdez at the time was coming off FOUR huge back to back to back to back wins over top 10 rated Harold Carter, Mike Dejohn, and Pat Mcmutry and Wayne Bethea.

"But don’t you think somebody might lick you?" I get asked. "Don’t you ever worry about it?"

I don’t want to seem like I’m bragging, but I don’t think anybody in the world can lick me. I’ve never been defeated in 47 fights as a pro, and right now I hope maybe I can hold the title, if I’m lucky, four or five more years and retire undefeated. At the same time, once in a while, maybe seven or eight times when I’m building up to a fight, the thought comes to me on the road or while I’m resting: "Suppose this guy licks me? What will happen to all my plans?" That’s as far as it gets. I never believe it can happen, really. It’s just one of the things that come to your mind.

I can remember, though, the night that Joe Louis and Jersey Joe Walcott fought for the first time and Walcott had Louis down twice but didn’t get the decision. I had had one pro fight 10 months before and I was sitting on the bed at home listening to the fight.

It never occurred to me that I would be the guy to knock out Louis and retire him and then knock out Walcott and take the heavyweight championship of the world. Now that I’m champion I wonder, once in a while, if there is some other kid nobody ever heard of sitting someplace and listening to one of my fights, or watching it on television, who might, in a few years, do the same thing to me.

I'm heavyweight champion of the world, but is there some young fighter somewhere who wants it as much as I did?

Out on the West Coast there’s this big, young heavyweight named Charlie Powell. He put together a lot of knockouts last year, and they were touting him as a real good prospect. That night last fall when he fought Charley Norkus I watched on television, and when the fight got under way I could see that he was a big guy and boxed nice and could punch. "You know," I thought to myself, "this might be the guy."

Collier's Magazine, May of 1955

[OLD FOGEY]

I dont give baseball players credit prior to 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the color line. Baseball prior to 1947 did not include blacks, thats pretty much wiping out 50% of the top opposition. What a joke. That is why white players like Mickey Mantle deserve so much more credit than previous ones, because he dominated in a era where top black hitters and pitchers were allowed to compete. Mantle faced black pitchers, Gehrig Ruth Foxx Cobb did NOT. I rate Mickey Mantle in my top 5 hitters of all time. The most naturally talented hitter of all time, who played injured throughout his career and missed many games yet still put up great numbers. Mantle could hit the ball 600 feet from both sides of the plate. How many men could do that?

Okay.

But is it fair to consider Mantle a better hitter than say, Foxx, just because he got to play in a integrated era and Foxx didn't.

Satchel Paige was once quoted as saying that Ted Williams was the best hitter he ever faced. Williams hit .406 in 1941 in a segregated league as a young man. He hit .388 in 1957 in an integrated league as an old man. Interestingly, I don't think anyone who has actually played a full season (Brett and Gwynn hit higher in fewer games) have hit higher since. If Williams had left baseball before integration, would it be fair to downgrade his achievements?

[SuzieQ49]

Yes, Ted Williams is probably # 1. I am a Red Sox fan since I live in Boston. Even though Mantle was a yankee, I still can respect what he did. Ted Williams once said of Mantle "If I could run like mantle, Id hit .400 every year" LOL. Mantle and Williams actually got in a huge race for the batting crown the year williams hit .388 he pulled away in the end and beat out mantle's .365. Mantle had beaten out Williams slightly the year before during his triple crown year. Williams was something special doing that as an old man. Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Ken Griffey jr, Barry Bonds all rank very high on my all time hitters list.

* Although if we go by the greatest hitter we have ever seen on film, 2000-2003 Barry Bonds easily takes the cake both stat wise and ability wise. He did superhuman things no one has ever done during those years, steroids or no steroids.

[UpWithEvil]

I dont give baseball players credit prior to 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the color line. Baseball prior to 1947 did not include blacks, thats pretty much wiping out 50% of the top opposition.

50%? What percentage of the population did blacks represent during that era?

American-born black players represented 8.2% of all major-leaguers in 2008.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, Ted Williams is probably # 1. I am a Red Sox fan since I live in Boston. Even though Mantle was a yankee, I still can respect what he did. Ted Williams once said of Mantle "If I could run like mantle, Id hit .400 every year" LOL. Mantle and Williams actually got in a huge race for the batting crown the year williams hit .388 he pulled away in the end and beat out mantle's .365. Mantle had beaten out Williams slightly the year before during his triple crown year. Williams was something special doing that as an old man.

* Although if we go by the greatest hitter we have ever seen on film, 2000-2003 Barry Bonds easily takes the cake both stat wise and ability wise. He did superhuman things no one has ever done during those years, steroids or no steroids.


"steroids or no steroids"

No steroids is not an option with Bonds.

He was a very good hitter prior to juicing up, but not quite top echelon. I remember an article in the SF Chronicle about Bonds and supplements in which it was pointed out that even reflexes and eyesight can now be improved with supplements. One line went something like "steroids can make an average player into an extraordinary player, an extraordinary player into a superstar, and a superstar into a monster."

Steroids made Bonds into a monster but I can't compare him with the "natural" athletes of previous generations.

[SuzieQ49]

Fair Points. the thing is Bonds was so dominating to the point of walking him intentionally with the bases EMPTY, walking him 200 times a year, and he still put up 46 homers and .363 average and .800 slugging percentage. I mean no other player on the juice ever put up goshly numbers like this. why is that?


have you ever made a top 10 hitters of all time list old fog?

[UpWithEvil]

Fair Points. the thing is Bonds was so dominating to the point of walking him intentionally with the bases EMPTY, walking him 200 times a year, and he still put up 46 homers and .363 average and .800 slugging percentage. I mean no other player on the juice ever put up goshly numbers like this. why is that?

Small sample size. The "steroid era" in baseball was only 15 years or so for a sport that existed since the late 1800s. If every player in history had Baroid's cocktail of custom juice you'd see equally gaudy numbers from others.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fair Points. the thing is Bonds was so dominating to the point of walking him intentionally with the bases EMPTY, walking him 200 times a year, and he still put up 46 homers and .363 average and .800 slugging percentage. I mean no other player on the juice ever put up goshly numbers like this. why is that?


have you ever made a top 10 hitters of all time list old fog?

"no other player on the juice every put up goshly numbers like this. why is that?"

They weren't as good as Bonds to begin with, but take that .363. What was Bonds career average prior to juicing? I think about .285. He was a good but not great hitter. He also moved into a bandbox stadium.

Mark McGuire is another one--compare his record to Kent Hrbek up to the age of 30. Hrbek compares pretty well. But then McGuire started juicing and the rest, as they say, is history.

Top ten all time? We are way off boxing as a topic, but Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, DiMaggio, Foxx, Mays, Aaron, and Mantle would probably make this list. Musial also. I think Stan is still alive, by the way.



You avoided what I think was the key question, both for baseball and by extension boxing-----Is it fair to consider Mantle a better hitter than Foxx merely because Mantle played in an integrated era and Foxx in a segregated era? Foxx had nothing to do with his era being segregated. Mantle had nothing to do with his era being integrated.

[UpWithEvil]

Mantle faced black pitchers, Gehrig Ruth Foxx Cobb did NOT.

Oh yeah, I couldn't let this pass without comment. All of those men faced black pitchers in exhibitions. You shouldn't be surprised to find out the best major-leaguers typically did quite well against black ballclubs. Here's a sample:

Oct. 12, 1927:BOYS JAM TRENTON FIELD AND STOP GAME
WHEN RUTH HITS HIS THIRD HOMER OF DAY
TRENTON, N.J., Oct. 11 (UP)—Babe Ruth’s third home run of the afternoon broke up an exhibition game here today between a selected Trenton team and the Brooklyn Royal Giants, which Trenton won, 9 to 4.
The Babe and Lou Gehrig of the world’s champion New York Yankees opened their exhibition barnstorming tour, playing with Trenton, before a crowd which packed the field here.
However, after his third homer in the eighth with two on base, officials found it impossible to get the fans from the field and the game was called. Lou did not fare as well as the Babe, collecting only a double and a single out of four times at bat…

The two teams played another exhibition two days later. Ruth hit one home run, Gehrig two.

A group of historians at Baseball Fever published their research on hitting statistics earned during these inter-racial exhibition games, and to the surprise of nobody Babe Ruth was awesome. I can look it up if you really want to see the numbers.

Ruth also hit a home run off of Satchel Paige in an exhibition, which was described by HOF negro leaguer Buck O'Neill as the hardest-hit ball he ever saw a player hit against the prime Paige.

[SuzieQ49]

I am not questioning the mans talent. All one needs to do is watch Ruth swing on film to realize how special he was. Ruth was one of the best. so was Gehrig. STILL, there numbers did get inflated due to weak competition....was that a negro professional baseball team they faced in that article?

[SuzieQ49]

Top ten all time? We are way off boxing as a topic, but Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, DiMaggio, Foxx, Mays, Aaron, and Mantle would probably make this list. Musial also. I think Stan is still alive, by the way.

Good list, I pretty much agree on all accounts. Dimaggio though would be the last guy I rate out of the men you listed, though he was great. Just never proved himself into that godly legend class as a power hitter. Unbelievable center fielder. Read the story on how mantle tore out his knee running into the Sprinkler...how he was covering for old man dimaggio but dimaggio still made a hard catch look easy. Mantle and Joe did not get along. Dimaggio knew mantle was going to be better, and that stole all his thunder. Joe was a jealous guy.

[UpWithEvil]

I am not questioning the mans talent. All one needs to do is watch Ruth swing on film to realize how special he was. Ruth was one of the best. so was Gehrig. STILL, there numbers did get inflated due to weak competition....was that a negro professional baseball team they faced in that article?

Yes, the Brooklyn Royal Giants were a Negro League team.

The inflated numbers from weak competition are almost assuredly falling on the side of the negro leaguers. One historian discovered a treasure trove of exhibition statistics from Cuba, of all places, where both major league and negro league teams barnstormed for many years against local talent.

Major league teams, defined by the author as a team with at least 7 players with major league experience, compiled a 92-61 record against Cuban teams from 1908 through 1921. During a similar period (1903-1925), Negro League teams compiled a 65-71 record.

Using the same parameters, with "Major League Team" defined as an exhibition team fielding at least 7 players with major league experience, the same author found in reviewing over 100 exhibitions that "Negro League" teams got the short end of the stick, going 64-78.

The author summarizes thusly: "Against nearly full to full major league teams, the Negro League teams won 45% of the games. I think this shows the strength of the Negro League teams. They were extremely competitive in games against Major Leaguers. At the same time, it also shows the strength of the Major League teams. When complete or nearly complete ML teams played against Negro League teams they were the stronger league by this measure."

[SuzieQ49]

Great stuff. Too bad they didnt combine the leagues, would have been a very competitive era.

[SuzieQ49]

jo

[mcvey]

I find it hilarious how Fultons win over Sam Langford made him "Top" contender for willards crown, yet Harry Wills FIVE previous wins over a younger better langford did not qualify him as "Top" contender. HOGWASH.

I'm guessing the fact that Fulton stopped Langford in 6 rds ,Sam unable to come out for the 7th,being floored in the 2nd and hospitalized after the fight mean that greater weight was given to this win.Wills had beaten Langford 5 times in between losing to him but had done so by dec.

[mcvey]

What dempsey did was not only described as a Cowardly act, but that it gave a "Black eye" for heavyweight boxing

Dempsey was there to give a free exhibition against Joe Bonds ,Kearns knew all about Bonds ,he had managed him.Why should he let Dempsey fight Jeanette at the last minute and for nothing?:huh

[mcvey]

Yep, but no stranger than his sparring with Big Bill Tate to prepare for Billy Miske.

Tate was taken on to prepare Dempsey for Willard ,,Tate was very big and was able to absorb Dempsey's shots ,Jack didnt pull punches in sparring ,same reason Godfrey came on board ,my puzzlement over Flowers was that he was a south paw.

[UpWithEvil]

Tate was taken on to prepare Dempsey for Willard ,,Tate was very big and was able to absorb Dempsey's shots ,Jack didnt pull punches in sparring ,same reason Godfrey came on board ,my puzzlement over Flowers was that he was a south paw.

Dempsey genuinely liked Tate's company as well. There's an old newspaper article from the mid-20s where Dempsey was quoted as saying Tate's wife made the best breakfasts he'd ever had and that he'd keep Bill around just for more biscuits, or something to that effect.

[mcvey]

Dempsey genuinely liked Tate's company as well. There's an old newspaper article from the mid-20s where Dempsey was quoted as saying Tate's wife made the best breakfasts he'd ever had and that he'd keep Bill around just for more biscuits, or something to that effect.

Nice bit of info,thanks,Tate looks pretty good in the clips sparring with Jack,you can see how tall he is in the Willard fight, he is waving at Dempsey to come back to the ring after the 1st round.

[My2Sense]

The white heavyweight fighters were unwilling to engage with them

And? That doesn't automatically make them "outstanding contenders." Lots of fighters throughout history, white and black, have supposedly been avoided by other fighters, but that in itself didn't make them better or higher rated than other fighters.

Why because fulton stopped wills he beat him easier?

That, plus by all accounts he completely shut him down and beat the piss out of him, in a way that many people had never seen or heard of Langford being whupped since becoming a serious HW contender.

Wills beat Langford 5 times and most of those were shutout decisions against a younger better version of sam langford.

But he never was able to stop or punish him the way Fulton did, and more importantly, his wins alternated with embarrassing KO losses or lackluster draws/no-contests with the same Langford that set him back.

If fulton had tangled with langford 5 times in 1914-1915 I doubt he would avoid getting knocked out.

Why? By all accounts, Langford couldn't get anywhere remotely close to Fulton's chin in either of their fights.

You're free to "doubt" whatever you want, but what actually happened in the ring is what matters, and what happened is that Fulton had proved his superiority to Langford far more quickly and decisively than Wills had at that time.

What string? his string of wins certainly were nowhere near the string of wins Harry Wills had accumlated up to 1918

Why not? He beat the same best guy Wills had yet beaten (Langford) and even more impressively, plus beat a few other contenders/prospects before and after that, and wasn't getting stopped or held to draws/no-contests as often as Wills was along the way.

Rocky Marciano picked Charles Powell as the man most likely to take his crown away from him.

If he did, he was the only one.

Powell was considered huge potential.

No, "huge" is an exaggeration. He caught some notice for a string of knockouts very early in his career, but he quickly fizzled out before becoming any kind of serious prospect.

The Powell fight was an upset win.

That's right - exactly because of the fact that Powell was not a highly rated/regarded fighter.

Valdez at the time was coming off FOUR huge back to back to back to back wins over top 10 rated Harold Carter, Mike Dejohn, and Pat Mcmutry and Wayne Bethea.

I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them "huge," certainly none of them were anywhere remotely on the level of his win over Charles, or even as big as his win over Hurricane Jackson. Most of those fighters were rated in the lower end of the top 10, if even at all (I don't think Carter was still rated at that time).

Valdez was #2 going into 1959. despite two losses to young prospects Powell and Johnson, it was not enough to remove him from the top 10 by the time he fought liston, especially given his very strong victories in late 1958.

Yes it was, and it DID. The loss to Powell dropped him down to #6 in the Ring rankings, and dropped him out of the NBA's rankings altogether. The loss to Johnson dropped him out altogether, across the board.

Valdez knockout of Title Challenger brian london AFTER he fought liston shows valdez was still a very capable puncher

What "knockout"?? He stopped him on cuts.

Valdez was certainly a contender and a dangerous puncher.

No he wasn't.

Simply being a "dangerous puncher" isn't enough to make you a contender.

Earned? Valdez did not earn anything. the # 1 rating was a GIFT given to him based on a upset over an overconfident Ezzard Charles.

How is that a "gift"?? The most direct and justifiable way possible to earn a top ranking is to whup a leading contender.

Valdez has lost 4 out of his last 5 meetings in a row prior to the upset charles win, and those losses should have been held against him when accessing his jump up to # 1.

No it shouldn't have. Rankings are done on a month by month basis for that reason.

This is 110% wrong. If you want to debate this, we will start a new thread. Valdez "Got" the # 1 ranking in December of 1953 held that until March of 1954 where he LOST his # 1 ranking to Ezzard Charles. Ezzard then held the # 1 ranking from Feb of 1954 all the way through September of 1954. Then Valdez resumed the # 1 ranking in October of 1954 all the way through May of 1955. So lets see Dec 53-March 54 plus Oct 54-May 55 is a total of only Fourteen months as # 1 contender and most importantly it was not fourteen months "straight". So your statement Valdez was # 1 contender for 2-3 years STRAIGHT is way off mark.

In feb of 1954 Ezzard Charles and the NBA issued a Rematch challenge to Nino Valdez winner to get # 1 spot.... Charles took Nino lightly first time and wanted the chance to prove himself superior. nino REFUSED the MANDATORY offer, and during this time Charles knocked out RATED contenders Bob Satterfield and Colley Wallace, and after Nino's hometown robbery split decision win over journeyman archie mcbride, valdez LOST his spot at # 1 ranking. If you look at June 1954 Ring Magazine which I own, Charles is listed as # 1 and Valdez # 2. Only after Marciano twice beat Ezzard did Valdez regain the # 1 spot by the END of 1954. But from March-September of 1954 Charles was # 1 contender meaning charles was # 1 when he fought Marciano for the title, NOT valdez



Once again, this is unquestionably wrong. In 1954 Ezzard Charles was the # 1 contender and bigger draw. But given Nino Valdez good 10 fight winning streak through 1954, Al Weill realized Valdez was a serious challenger and a good draw. So he got into negotiations with Valdez manager Bobby Gleason in 1955. Weill Norris and Gleason all got together and agreed on a SCHEDULED fight between Marciano and Valdez for the winter of 1955 in MIAMI where it would draw because of the large Latino crowd. Marciano could fight cockell first as a tuneup, then take on Valdez in the winter of late 1955 for a big fight. However, this drew huge criticism from Archie Moore, who had beaten valdez in 53 and had been calling out marciano for years. So the IBC reluctantly gave in and proposed a FINAL title eliminator between Moore vs Valdez winner a GAURANTEED shot to fight Marciano. All Valdez had to do was beat moore and he would keep his date. However Valdez could not beat a overweight 38 year old man Archie Moore who outworked Valdez down the stretch for the close but clear decision. So Marciano fought his MANDATORY archie moore instead. Because of the loss to Archie, Valdez lost his winter date in Miami. HOWEVER, in November 20th of 1955 Rocky told the Chicago Daily Tribune he "wants a title fight with Valdez in june for his 50th fight before retirement". Rocky wanted to have one more fight to get to # 50, then quit. HOWEVER, Valdez subsequetly lost a 12 round stinker with baker, then got shutout by a 180lb bob satterfield on the cards and once again BLEW HIS CHANCE at Marciano. When it came down to it, Weill was going to make this match happen, but Valdez blew his shot.

You left out all the times that Weill had turned down or stalled the fight from happening during that time.

Why is it that when it's D'Amato who turns down Valdes, or a similar scenario with other fighters, you're content to just look on the surface and say "He's scared of him" or "He's ducking him"; But when Weill/Marciano turns down a fight with a fighter, suddenly you want to delve deep beneath the surface and look at all the surrounding "politics" of the matter?

Disagree. Valdez had arguebably the 2nd best year of his whole career in 1958 beating multiple top 10 fighters, and destroying the flock of europeans best heavyweights, usually by devastating early knockout.

None of those wins were on par with the best wins he had in the early '50s, nor was his ranking as high or held nearly as long as it had been during his peak as a contender in the early '50s.

Valdez reputation was so high, that Damato turned him down immediately.

That isn't saying much, Damato turned down a lot of prospective challengers.

Damato feared Valdez because he was 3" taller, 20lb heavier and could punch.

Did he actually say that, or are you just assuming that's the reason?

[My2Sense]

Check the Ring Magazine 1929 Ratings. Schmeling Sharkey Godfrey were # 1 # 2 # 3.

Tunny didn't retire in 1929. :nono

That ranking is from about a year-and-a-half after he had retired.


But norfolk twice whupped Billy Miske a top rated fighter who had drew with your consensus # 1 as well as recording other good wins.

Norfolk became a hot prospect around the time he beat Miske the first time, but his KO loss to Langford, plus a few other losses and unimpressive performances, stemmed his rise and set him back for at least a year. By the time he started getting back on track (around the time he beat Miske the second time) Dempsey was fighting Willard.

On top of that, Norfolk did most of his serious campaigning as a LHW, and that's where he was mostly rated. His big fights with Wills and Gibbons were intended to establish him as a leading HW contender had he won, but he flopped badly in both of them.

Only Ingemar Johansson. Liston challenged him refutably, and johansson wanted no part of it. You can't fight a guy who wont get in the ring with you. Other than that the 2 other highest rated contenders 1961-1962 were machen and folley and liston had creamed them. While Dempsey beat fulton, that was the only top contender he defeated. The other top dogs Wills, Greb he did not fight.

That wasn't my question. My question was, how many contenders did Liston fight in the two year interim between beating Machen/Folley and waiting for his upcoming title shot with Patterson? The answer is NONE. Nor was he expected to.

Lavorante was not even in the Ring Magazine ratings in 1960 and would not crack the rankings until early 1962 at # 4. He lost that soon after by getting knocked out into a stretcher by 46 year old Archie Moore. I dont see how you could put Lavorante over Machen and Folley, when they both were in the top 5 in both 1960 and 1961. Considering Lavorante only broke the rankings(briefly) for one of these two years, I would leave him off the list all together and replace him.


If that would be your reasoning for leaving him out, then why not do the same for Norfolk, who broke into the picture by beating Miske but then was blasted out by Sam Langford right after that?

[My2Sense]

Btw I find it funny Joe Jeanette was unable to score a win over a 9-1 Novice Harry Wills. Shows you just how great Harry Wills was.

How can you be sure exactly what it showed, without having seen the fight? Or even seen much of Jeanette himself, in general? Maybe it showed how much Jeanette had declined at that time?

Wills resume is just so much better than demseys i might be forced to place wills above jack.

How is Wills' resume "better"?? His biggest career win was over a guy Dempsey had already smoked a couple years earlier (and two rounds quicker). Dempsey went a step further by KOing Sharkey, who in fact had just gotten done whupping Wills himself.

[My2Sense]

Probably none at all. But what black contenders were considered? The color line was drawn so sharply that they were in a separate category, like the Negroe Baseball leagues versus the big leagues. When the white press mentioned contenders, they automatically restricted their comments to the "white hopes", just as baseball writers discussing great players in the 1920's and 1930's would have talked about Ruth, Gehrig, and DiMaggio, but not Gibson or Charleston. There was speculation if Jimmy Foxx could break Ruth's record. There was none if Josh Gibson could.

That's not true at all, there's numerous articles and press notices written on black contenders during that time. Their fights were given media coverage and so were the challenges they issued to the champion, just like the white contenders. Langford and Jeanette were often mentioned as prospective challengers for Jack Johnson, and Johnson was often hounded by reporters after his fights demanding to know "When are you going to fight Langford?"

The truth is that when Dempsey came around, the rated black HWs of Johnson's era (Langford, Jeanette, McVey, etc.) were all on the way down or out, and it just happened that there was a paucity of similar quality black fighters at this time to take their places.

Clearly, Fulton was different in taking on top black fighters such as Langford and Wills, and the win over Langford automatically made him the top contender for the Willard's crown despite his earlier loss to Carl Morris in a poor performance in which he saved himself from worse by fouling out.

Fulton wasn't universally accepted as the top contender until he reversed that fight with Morris, and made him foul out in the rematch.

[My2Sense]

I'm guessing the fact that Fulton stopped Langford in 6 rds ,Sam unable to come out for the 7th,being floored in the 2nd and hospitalized after the fight mean that greater weight was given to this win.Wills had beaten Langford 5 times in between losing to him but had done so by dec.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

[My2Sense]

That night last fall when he fought Charley Norkus I watched on television, and when the fight got under way I could see that he was a big guy and boxed nice and could punch. "You know," I thought to myself, "this might be the guy."


Did he still think that a few rounds later, when Norkus brutally knocked him out?

:lol:

[SuzieQ49]

And? That doesn't automatically make them "outstanding contenders." Lots of fighters throughout history, white and black, have supposedly been avoided by other fighters, but that in itself didn't make them better or higher rated than other fighters.



How come black fighters back then never drew a color line for White fighters? It was always the other way around. the soft white fighters using the color line to hide from the better black fighters




That, plus by all accounts he completely shut him down and beat the piss out of him, in a way that many people had never seen or heard of Langford being whupped since becoming a serious HW contender.


You need to chill out with the sensationalism. This was 1917 when langford was FAR past his prime, Harry Wills knocked langford out easily in 1918 right around the time Fulton fought langford. In fact he knocked him out in 6 rounds, while fulton took 7. in the rematch, langford went the distance with fulton. Bottom Line, Fultons win over sam langford does not mean that much after harry wills has already recorded FIVE wins over him.



But he never was able to stop or punish him the way Fulton did, and more importantly, his wins alternated with embarrassing KO losses or lackluster draws/no-contests with the same Langford that set him back

Yes he did. Wills knocked Langford out worse 2 times just one short year later. Also take note Wills won WIDE decisions over langford. Is a 7th round TKO victory any more dominant than a SHUTOUT DECISION? I would hardly call Dempsey TKO 2 of Firpo more dominating than wills 2 knockdown shutout decision of firpo...just cause dempsey flattneed him doesnt take away the fact he got floored 3 times. you see the point im making? shutout decisions show us alot.

Why? By all accounts, Langford couldn't get anywhere remotely close to Fulton's chin in either of their fights.

You're free to "doubt" whatever you want, but what actually happened in the ring is what matters, and what happened is that Fulton had proved his superiority to Langford far more quickly and decisively than Wills had at that time.


Sam eye sight was failing miserably by 1917. he entered the bout with poor eye sight and fulton just worsened it. Langford of 1914 was not physically handicapped, and he was 3 years younger and fresher. Fulton was NOT a good fighter. I am glad Harry Wills spanked the shit out of him and broke his soft ribs....It scared dempsey half to death he went running from the hills. Before the fight he said he would take on the winner, then after wills DESTROYED fulton dempsey signed to fight terminally ill billy miske the next day...GO FIGURE!

Why not? He beat the same best guy Wills had yet beaten (Langford) and even more impressively, plus beat a few other contenders/prospects before and after that, and wasn't getting stopped or held to draws/no-contests as often as Wills was along the way.


Wills beat a younger fresher healthier version of langford, plus wills knocked out that same version of langford in 6 rounds that fulton beat. Wills 2 wins over Sam Mcvea and Newspaper win over Joe Jeanette were BY FAR better than fulton's wins over Carl "I dont know how to fight" Morris. So Wills wins in resume by a LANDSLIDE.


I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them "huge," certainly none of them were anywhere remotely on the level of his win over Charles, or even as big as his win over Hurricane Jackson. Most of those fighters were rated in the lower end of the top 10, if even at all (I don't think Carter was still rated at that time).

I talked to John Garfield about Hurricane Jackson. He told me Hurricane Jackson was not a world class fighter, in fact he said the word at the time was Nino Valdez exposed what everyone already knew about Jackson. I think his Entire Sweep of the European Heavyweight Flock and some dominant wins over Young American lions in the top 10 in 1957-1960 show me he was still a VERY dangerous fighter. Do you agree?

Most of those fighters were rated in the lower end of the top 10, if even at all (I don't think Carter was still rated at that time).

Harold Carter was rated # 3 in 1957, and DID NOT lose from 1957 all the way to the Valdez fight in 1958...so how could he possibly be removed from the top 10???



Yes it was, and it DID. The loss to Powell dropped him down to #6 in the Ring rankings, and dropped him out of the NBA's rankings altogether. The loss to Johnson dropped him out altogether, across the board.

Please Provide Either the June or July 1959 Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight ratings to support your evidence. I need Proof.

What "knockout"?? He stopped him on cuts.

Yes I confused this with the Mcmutry fight. I do have the London fight on tape. Valdez DOMINATED him. London was coming off a WORLD TITLE shot where he went 11 rounds with patterson and floored him and would go on to flatten ingemar johansson in the 12th round. Valdez destroyed London.



No he wasn't.

Simply being a "dangerous puncher" isn't enough to make you a contender.

So you agree Valdez was still a dangerous puncher in 1959. GOOD.



How is that a "gift"?? The most direct and justifiable way possible to earn a top ranking is to whup a leading contender.

YES it was a GIFT. If you lose 4 out of your last 5 fights, one upset close win over a # 1 contender is now enough to overtake him considering your losses to the other guys. It is enough to move Valdez into the # 10, but not top spot.



No it shouldn't have. Rankings are done on a month by month basis for that reason.

Valdez was the # 1 annuel heavyweight contender of 1953 DESPITE losing FOUR times that year! What a Gift! Very undeserving! FOUR losses

You left out all the times that Weill had turned down or stalled the fight from happening during that time.


PLEASE provide a source of "All the times" that Weill turned down Valdez???

Stall? its called PROMOTING the fight and building up the gate. Valdez was just considered a lucky one shot wonder unheard of journeyman in 1954..only after he continued to win did newspapers finally consider him worthy by the end of 1954. NOW that valdez was actually a draw, Weill then pursued the fight. Weill was also about making money and when he realized Valdez would draw well in Miami, he arranged the fight for 1955. why fight in 1954 when Valdez lost his # 1 rating and was not a big draw then? Valdez-Marciano made no sense in 1954. No drawing power. It made sense in 1955 when valdez FINALLY put together a respectable winning streak and was earning respect around the world. This is when Weill made plans for the fight. Valdez all he needed to do was win the FINAL title eliminator and he had a GAURANTEED SHOT. why couldnt he beat 38 year old archie moore? Marciano destroyed Moore in 9

Why is it that when it's D'Amato who turns down Valdes, or a similar scenario with other fighters, you're content to just look on the surface and say "He's scared of him" or "He's ducking him"; ?

"When your ready to fight heavyweights I will tell you. But not a guy like Baker or Valdez. You will fight who I tell you to fight."- Cus Damato 1955 from Floyd Patterson biography book released in 1963

I talked to a Boxing Historian Enrigue Enisoca, a man who did the CBS interview with Nino Valdez. He said Damato turned down Valdez because he didnt want to send floyd in the ring with a man who was 3" taller 20lb heavier with a punch. He also said Marciano never ducked Valdez, and the only ones who thinks so are passionate cuban sportswriters.

But when Weill/Marciano turns down a fight with a fighter, suddenly you want to delve deep beneath the surface and look at all the surrounding "politics" of the matter

PLEASE provide a source where marciano ever turned down a fight.

[SuzieQ49]

None of those wins were on par with the best wins he had in the early '50s, nor was his ranking as high or held nearly as long as it had been during his peak as a contender in the early '50s.

Sure, but even past his prime he was still a very dangerous puncher with a top jab






That isn't saying much, Damato turned down a lot of prospective challengers.


?

No. He only turned down Machen, Folley, Williams, and Valdez. Coincidently, Liston beat ALL of them. the 4 most dangerous challengers to dethrone patterson


I will respond to the rest later

[mcvey]

How come black fighters back then never drew a color line for White fighters? It was always the other way around. the soft white fighters using the color line to hide from the better black fighters





You need to chill out with the sensationalism. This was 1917 when langford was FAR past his prime, Harry Wills knocked langford out easily in 1918 right around the time Fulton fought langford. In fact he knocked him out in 6 rounds, while fulton took 7. in the rematch, langford went the distance with fulton.



Yes he did. Wills knocked Langford out worse 2 times just one short year later. Also take note Wills won WIDE decisions over langford. Is a 7th round TKO victory any more dominant than a SHUTOUT DECISION? I would hardly call Dempsey TKO 2 of Firpo more dominating than wills 2 knockdown shutout decision of firpo...just cause dempsey flattneed him doesnt take away the fact he got floored 3 times. you see the point im making? shutout decisions show us alot.



Sam eye sight was failing miserably by 1917. he entered the bout with poor eye sight and fulton just worsened it. Langford of 1914 was not physically handicapped, and he was 3 years younger and fresher. Fulton was NOT a good fighter. I am glad Harry Wills spanked the shit out of him and broke his soft ribs....It scared dempsey half to death he went running from the hills. Before the fight he said he would take on the winner, then after wills DESTROYED fulton dempsey signed to fight terminally ill billy miske the next day...GO FIGURE!



Wills beat a younger fresher healthier version of langford, plus wills knocked out that same version of langford in 6 rounds that fulton beat. Wills 2 wins over Sam Mcvea and Newspaper win over Joe Jeanette were BY FAR better than fulton's wins over Carl "I dont know how to fight" Morris. So Wills wins in resume by a LANDSLIDE.




I talked to John Garfield about Hurricane Jackson. He told me Hurricane Jackson was not a world class fighter, in fact he said the word at the time was Nino Valdez exposed what everyone already knew about Jackson. I think his Entire Sweep of the European Heavyweight Flock and some dominant wins over Young American lions in the top 10 in 1957-1960 show me he was still a VERY dangerous fighter. Do you agree?



Harold Carter was rated # 3 in 1957, and DID NOT lose from 1957 all the way to the Valdez fight in 1958...so how could he possibly be removed from the top 10???



Please Provide Either the June or July 1959 Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight ratings to support your evidence. I need Proof.



Yes I confused this with the Mcmutry fight. I do have the London fight on tape. Valdez DOMINATED him. London was coming off a WORLD TITLE shot where he went 11 rounds with patterson and floored him and would go on to flatten ingemar johansson in the 12th round. Valdez destroyed London.



So you agree Valdez was still a dangerous puncher in 1959. GOOD.





YES it was a GIFT. If you lose 4 out of your last 5 fights, one upset close win over a # 1 contender is now enough to overtake him considering your losses to the other guys. It is enough to move Valdez into the # 10, but not top spot.



Valdez was the # 1 annuel heavyweight contender of 1953 DESPITE losing FOUR times that year! What a Gift! Very undeserving! FOUR losses



PLEASE provide a source of "All the times" that Weill turned down Valdez???

Stall? its called PROMOTING the fight and building up the gate. Valdez was just considered a lucky one shot wonder unheard of journeyman in 1954..only after he continued to win did newspapers finally consider him worthy by the end of 1954. NOW that valdez was actually a draw, Weill then pursued the fight. Weill was also about making money and when he realized Valdez would draw well in Miami, he arranged the fight for 1955. why fight in 1954 when Valdez lost his # 1 rating and was not a big draw then? Valdez-Marciano made no sense in 1954. No drawing power. It made sense in 1955 when valdez FINALLY put together a respectable winning streak and was earning respect around the world. This is when Weill made plans for the fight. Valdez all he needed to do was win the FINAL title eliminator and he had a GAURANTEED SHOT. why couldnt he beat 38 year old archie moore? Marciano destroyed Moore in 9



"When your ready to fight heavyweights I will tell you. But not a guy like Baker or Valdez. You will fight who I tell you to fight."- Cus Damato 1955 from Floyd Patterson biography book released in 1963

I talked to a Boxing Historian Enrigue Enisoca, a man who did the CBS interview with Nino Valdez. He said Damato turned down Valdez because he didnt want to send floyd in the ring with a man who was 3" taller 20lb heavier with a punch. He also said Marciano never ducked Valdez, and the only ones who thinks so are passionate cuban sportswriters.



PLEASE provide a source where marciano ever turned down a fight.

Langford may have been"far past his prime" when Fulton chopped him up in 1917,but a month earlier he had beaten Wills.:good

[dmt]

:lol:Langford may have been"far past his prime" when Fulton chopped him up in 1917,but a month earlier he had beaten Wills.:good
:good

[mcvey]

How come black fighters back then never drew a color line for White fighters? It was always the other way around. the soft white fighters using the color line to hide from the better black fighters



u need to chill out with the sensationalism. This was 1917 when langford was FAR past his prime, Harry Wills knocked langford out easily in 1918 right around the time Fulton fought langford. In fact he knocked him out in 6 rounds, while fulton took 7. in the rematch, langford went the distance with fulton.



Yes he did. Wills knocked Langford out worse 2 times just one short year later. Also take note Wills won WIDE decisions over langford. Is a 7th round TKO victory any more dominant than a SHUTOUT DECISION? I would hardly call Dempsey TKO 2 of Firpo more dominating than wills 2 knockdown shutout decision of firpo...just cause dempsey flattneed him doesnt take away the fact he got floored 3 times. you see the point im making? shutout decisions show us alot.



Sam eye sight was failing miserably by 1917. he entered the bout with poor eye sight and fulton just worsened it. Langford of 1914 was not physically handicapped, and he was 3 years younger and fresher. Fulton was NOT a good fighter. I am glad Harry Wills spanked the shit out of him and broke his soft ribs....It scared dempsey half to death he went running from the hills. Before the fight he said he would take on the winner, then after wills DESTROYED fulton dempsey signed to fight terminally ill billy miske the next day...GO FIGURE!



Wills beat a younger fresher healthier version of langford, plus wills knocked out that same version of langford in 6 rounds that fulton beat. Wills 2 wins over Sam Mcvea and Newspaper win over Joe Jeanette were BY FAR better than fulton's wins over Carl "I dont know how to fight" Morris. So Wills wins in resume by a LANDSLIDE.




I talked to John Garfield about Hurricane Jackson. He told me Hurricane Jackson was not a world class fighter, in fact he said the word at the time was Nino Valdez exposed what everyone already knew about Jackson. I think his Entire Sweep of the European Heavyweight Flock and some dominant wins over Young American lions in the top 10 in 1957-1960 show me he was still a VERY dangerous fighter. Do you agree?



Harold Carter was rated # 3 in 1957, and DID NOT lose from 1957 all the way to the Valdez fight in 1958...so how could he possibly be removed from the top 10???



Please Provide Either the June or July 1959 Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight ratings to support your evidence. I need Proof.



Yes I confused this with the Mcmutry fight. I do have the London fight on tape. Valdez DOMINATED him. London was coming off a WORLD TITLE shot where he went 11 rounds with patterson and floored him and would go on to flatten ingemar johansson in the 12th round. Valdez destroyed London.



So you agree Valdez was still a dangerous puncher in 1959. GOOD.





YES it was a GIFT. If you lose 4 out of your last 5 fights, one upset close win over a # 1 contender is now enough to overtake him considering your losses to the other guys. It is enough to move Valdez into the # 10, but not top spot.



Valdez was the # 1 annuel heavyweight contender of 1953 DESPITE losing FOUR times that year! What a Gift! Very undeserving! FOUR losses



PLEASE provide a source of "All the times" that Weill turned down Valdez???

Stall? its called PROMOTING the fight and building up the gate. Valdez was just considered a lucky one shot wonder unheard of journeyman in 1954..only after he continued to win did newspapers finally consider him worthy by the end of 1954. NOW that valdez was actually a draw, Weill then pursued the fight. Weill was also about making money and when he realized Valdez would draw well in Miami, he arranged the fight for 1955. why fight in 1954 when Valdez lost his # 1 rating and was not a big draw then? Valdez-Marciano made no sense in 1954. No drawing power. It made sense in 1955 when valdez FINALLY put together a respectable winning streak and was earning respect around the world. This is when Weill made plans for the fight. Valdez all he needed to do was win the FINAL title eliminator and he had a GAURANTEED SHOT. why couldnt he beat 38 year old archie moore? Marciano destroyed Moore in 9



"When your ready to fight heavyweights I will tell you. But not a guy like Baker or Valdez. You will fight who I tell you to fight."- Cus Damato 1955 from Floyd Patterson biography book released in 1963

I talked to a Boxing Historian Enrigue Enisoca, a man who did the CBS interview with Nino Valdez. He said Damato turned down Valdez because he didnt want to send floyd in the ring with a man who was 3" taller 20lb heavier with a punch. He also said Marciano never ducked Valdez, and the only ones who thinks so are passionate cuban sportswriters.



PLEASE provide a source where marciano ever turned down a fight.

"How come black fighters didnt draw the colour line?"
How many black promoters where there?
Don't you know the Golden Rule?
" Them thats got the gold ,makes the rules"

[dmt]

"How come black fighters didnt draw the colour line?"
How many black promoters where there?
Don't you know the Golden Rule?
" Them thats got the gold ,makes the rules"
its virtually impossible to argue with these modern "experts" who accuse him of being a coward.

[SuzieQ49]

Norfolk became a hot prospect around the time he beat Miske the first time, but his KO loss to Langford, plus a few other losses and unimpressive performances, stemmed his rise and set him back for at least a year. By the time he started getting back on track (around the time he beat Miske the second time) Dempsey was fighting Willard.

On top of that, Norfolk did most of his serious campaigning as a LHW, and that's where he was mostly rated. His big fights with Wills and Gibbons were intended to establish him as a leading HW contender had he won, but he flopped badly in both of them.

So who then would you consider top 5 heavyweight in the world 1918-1919? Please provide a list. It seems Dempsey beat ONLY fulton and no one else worthy top 5 spot. He did not beat Harrry Greb who was top 5.

That wasn't my question. My question was, how many contenders did Liston fight in the two year interim between beating Machen/Folley and waiting for his upcoming title shot with Patterson? The answer is NONE. Nor was he expected to.

You are totally relying on this one win over Fulton as though dempsey did not need to accomplish anythign else just by beating fulton. I disagree and so does history, considering fulton was not a good fighter and got beaten up by harry wills.



How can you be sure exactly what it showed, without having seen the fight? Or even seen much of Jeanette himself, in general? Maybe it showed how much Jeanette had declined at that time?

Doubt it. After this fight Jeanette went on a 17-0 winning streak with multiple wins over Sam Langford




Tunny didn't retire in 1929.

That ranking is from about a year-and-a-half after he had retired.

You know what I am going to take a different approach


Take a look at 1928 Ring Magazine ratings.

1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcuden
4. Jack Sharkey


THATS 3 out of the top 4 challengers HALL OF FAMERS...No exuse for tunney to leave without fighting one of them. Especially sharkey who was beating up dempsey just as badly as tunney was before getting fouled out, or godfrey a man he had been ducking since 1925. Tunney never fought a fighter as big as godfrey. Tunney drew the color line, never fought a black fighter. this is a punishble offense.




How is Wills' resume "better"?? His biggest career win was over a guy Dempsey had already smoked a couple years earlier (and two rounds quicker). Dempsey went a step further by KOing Sharkey, who in fact had just gotten done whupping Wills himself.

Wills resume is much better. He beat very good versions/ near prime versions of Sam langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea all when Wills was a novice and the latters were much more experienced. These 3 were considered the top contenders for johnson crown when Wills beat them. these 3 are arguebably better wins than anything dempsey has on his resume. 1914 langford is better than 1917 langford that fulton beat. How bout the way Wills dominated knocked down twice Firpo winning every round, while dempsey was knocked down 3 times once out of the ring and had to be saved by typewriter. Wills also dominated and knocked out kid norfolk in 2, which is better than demspseys win over billy miske. Wills dominated both top black fighters and the top white fighters WILLING to face him. dempsey only beat top white fighters.

2ndly, comparing jack sharkey result is irrelevant. Wills was 37 and way over the hill when he fought sharkey. Dempsey was much younger and still was getting the shit beaten out of him and lost nearly every round before hitting jack inna balls and fouling him. this win has some controversy.


Bottom Line: we look at the quality of there wins. Fulton cancels out. the only very good fighter Dempsey beat was jack sharkey. Wills beat Sam Langford Sam Mcvea and Joe Jeanette. Sharkey is the only fighter dempsey beat(that wills didnt) on there level. But thats only one win. Wills has a 3 to 1 edge here.

[My2Sense]

How come black fighters back then never drew a color line for White fighters? It was always the other way around. the soft white fighters using the color line to hide from the better black fighters

No, some highly rated white fighters using it to avoid taking certain high risk/ low reward fights. That's not the same thing. Again, you're taking one thing and making an inference about something else based on it.

You need to chill out with the sensationalism.

Why? You've featured no shortage of "sensationalism" throughout your posts.

You ASKED me why Fulton's win over Langford was or should be considered more impressive than Wills'. I simply gave you the answer to your question.

This was 1917 when langford was FAR past his prime, Harry Wills knocked langford out easily in 1918 right around the time Fulton fought langford.

By the time Wills was finally able to stop Langford, Fulton had already moved on and was distinguished as the top contender.

in the rematch, langford went the distance with fulton.

He only had to survive four rounds in order to do that. I don't think Wills ever stopped him in that short a span either.

Bottom Line, Fultons win over sam langford does not mean that much after harry wills has already recorded FIVE wins over him.

It means much because those five wins alternated with getting KO'd or being held to a draw with Langford. And it especially means much because Wills failed to get more than a draw the month prior to Fulton completely outclassing Langford.

Also take note Wills won WIDE decisions over langford. Is a 7th round TKO victory any more dominant than a SHUTOUT DECISION? I would hardly call Dempsey TKO 2 of Firpo more dominating than wills 2 knockdown shutout decision of firpo...just cause dempsey flattneed him doesnt take away the fact he got floored 3 times. you see the point im making?

Although I sorta see your point, your scenerio doesn't fit in with this one. Fulton was never floored by Langford, or reportedly given any trouble with him (and in fact floored him), unlike Dempsey against Firpo.

Sam eye sight was failing miserably by 1917. he entered the bout with poor eye sight and fulton just worsened it.

According to Sam himself and the people around him, among other reports, his eyesight problems didn't start until after the first Fulton fight, and probably as a result of it.

I am glad Harry Wills spanked the shit out of him and broke his soft ribs....It scared dempsey half to death he went running from the hills. Before the fight he said he would take on the winner, then after wills DESTROYED fulton dempsey signed to fight terminally ill billy miske the next day...GO FIGURE!

I thought you just said you don't like "sensationalism." :think

Wills beat a younger fresher healthier version of langford, plus wills knocked out that same version of langford in 6 rounds that fulton beat.

You JUST said that Langford's eyesight was made much worse by his loss to Fulton. How is it that Wills KO'd the "same version" of Langford that Fulton did in your book, even though you just said Langford was "made worse" by the Fulton fight?

If you're going to speculate, wouldn't you guess that the Langford that drew with Wills a mere month before being crushed by Fulton, was much closer in quality/form to the one Fulton beat than a version a full year (plus several fights and one horrific beating) afterward?

Wills 2 wins over Sam Mcvea and Newspaper win over Joe Jeanette were BY FAR better than fulton's wins over Carl "I dont know how to fight" Morris.

Why?

And how do you know Morris "didn't know how to fight"? Did you ever actually see him?

I talked to John Garfield about Hurricane Jackson. He told me Hurricane Jackson was not a world class fighter, in fact he said the word at the time was Nino Valdez exposed what everyone already knew about Jackson.

They apparently didn't know it too well, as a majority of them picked him to beat Valdes.

But regardless, you're saying that you don't actually know any of this yourself, and are simply going by someone else's personal opinion/assessment of the matter, correct?

I think his Entire Sweep of the European Heavyweight Flock and some dominant wins over Young American lions in the top 10 in 1957-1960 show me he was still a VERY dangerous fighter.

And yet you can find people who felt the same way about each of those fighters he was beating then as Garfield did about Jackson. Heck, you could probably find people who thought that way about Valdes himself at the time he was upset by Powell - a shot or badly faded fighter just waiting to be "re-exposed." Certainly, most people generally felt he was used up by the time he was thrown in with Liston.

Harold Carter was rated # 3 in 1957, and DID NOT lose from 1957 all the way to the Valdez fight in 1958...so how could he possibly be removed from the top 10???

Because he quit boxing and joined the army for roughly a year-and-a-half after getting that #3 ranking.

More to the point, you're saying that you don't actually KNOW whether he was a contender or not at the time he fought Valdes, correct? You looked at something else and then made an assumption off of that, correct?

Please Provide Either the June or July 1959 Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight ratings to support your evidence. I need Proof.

You already have "proof" because you own a copy of The Boxing Register and you know it shows that Valdes was not a contender at the time Liston fought him. Moreover, I don't see why I need to dig up "evidence" for something that is truth and which you should've researched youself before making your own claim in the first place. On top of that, you've been in debates about Valdes before and other posters have also pointed out to you that he wasn't a rated contender at the time he fought Liston, so this isn't the first time you've heard that. Yet despite all that, you still persevere in claiming he was a contender at that time.

I'd like to know, where did you get the notion that Valdes was a contender at the time Liston fought him, and what has made you steadfastly stand by that despite evidence/suggestions to the contrary?

Yes I confused this with the Mcmutry fight. I do have the London fight on tape. Valdez DOMINATED him. London was coming off a WORLD TITLE shot where he went 11 rounds with patterson and floored him and would go on to flatten ingemar johansson in the 12th round. Valdez destroyed London.

But you claimed the London fight showed he was still a dangerous puncher. What is the indication that he was still a dangerous puncher in this fight in which he won by cut stoppage rather than any kind of KO?

So you agree Valdez was still a dangerous puncher in 1959.

No, merely pointing out the flaw in your logic.

YES it was a GIFT. If you lose 4 out of your last 5 fights, one upset close win over a # 1 contender is now enough to overtake him considering your losses to the other guys.

Why do you say it was close? Have you seen it?

I've never seen or heard of anything saying it was a close fight. All accounts say Valdes beat him decisively. Even Charles himself has said on numerous occasions that he took a "licking."


PLEASE provide a source of "All the times" that Weill turned down Valdez???

The NY Times reported that Valdes' camp made on offer to Marciano's team in late '53, when he was the #1 contender. The Times also closely chronicled the efforts of Valdes' team and the IBC to make the fight from mid '54 (after Valdes KO'd Jackson) onward. Ultimately, Weill decided against it and went with Cockell instead, who was lesser rated, lesser regarded, and even lesser known in the US at that time.

And incidentally (seeing as you wanted to know "all" the times) Marciano was also offered a big money fight with Valdes in Havana, after Valdes stopped Cockell.

Stall? its called PROMOTING the fight and building up the gate.

No, it's called stalling. Whether it's justified or not, whether it's really a bad thing or not, or whatever other opinion/spin you have on it, that doesn't change what it fundamentally is.

When other fighters have done similar, you've criticized them for it, without looking at or giving any regard to anything else involved. But here, you look to try to justify it and put a positive spin on it. How come you don't extend the same courtesy and objectivity to all fighters, instead of just certain ones?

Valdez was just considered a lucky one shot wonder unheard of journeyman in 1954..only after he continued to win did newspapers finally consider him worthy by the end of 1954.

No, Valdes was considered a viable challenger even earlier than that, in July of '54 after he KO'd Jackson. Marciano's team chose to rematch Charles instead. Following that 2nd Charles fight, in autumn '54, the NBA issued a statement declaring that Valdes was the only standout challenger for Marciano. Despite all that, Weill made his first defense of '55 against Cockell instead, even though he rated lower than Valdes in the rankings, and was far less thought of by the American public and media.

[My2Sense]

I talked to a Boxing Historian Enrigue Enisoca, a man who did the CBS interview with Nino Valdez. He said Damato turned down Valdez because he didnt want to send floyd in the ring with a man who was 3" taller 20lb heavier with a punch. He also said Marciano never ducked Valdez, and the only ones who thinks so are passionate cuban sportswriters.

Yes, I've read that article by Encinosa, he used it as his obit for Valdes I believe.

So in other words, you're acknowledging that there indeed was criticism for Marciano not fighting Valdes, and you're taking one person's word for why that criticism is either unwarranted or inaccurate, correct?

Sure, but even past his prime he was still a very dangerous puncher with a top jab

Even assuming that's true, it still doesn't substantiate your earlier points that he was
1) still held in the same regard as in the early '50s, and
2) still a rated contender at the time he fought Liston.

No. He only turned down Machen, Folley, Williams, and Valdez.

What do you mean "only"?? You just named three other fighters he turned down, one of whom was rated in the bottom 10 at the time - and that's not including Liston, who he turned down as well.

So who then would you consider top 5 heavyweight in the world 1918-1919? Please provide a list.

What are the standards for making rankings that are supposed to encompass an entire 2-year stretch? It contradicts the whole point of rankings, which is to continually change to reflect the continually changing landscape of the division.

You are totally relying on this one win over Fulton as though dempsey did not need to accomplish anythign else just by beating fulton. I disagree and so does history, considering fulton was not a good fighter and got beaten up by harry wills.

No, "history" acknowledges that Dempsey did beat several contenders in his rise to the top and was far and away the clear cut #1 challenger for Willard's title at this time. He accomplished as much as Liston did in earning his top ranking, and was every bit acknowledged as the consensus #1 as Liston was.

Doubt it. After this fight Jeanette went on a 17-0 winning streak with multiple wins over Sam Langford

But you don't actually know, correct? You're just making an assumption?

You know what I am going to take a different approach

Why? Why is it your objective to find "approaches" to discrediting a fighter? And why wouldn't you make it a point to learn the information BEFORE you formed an opinion on a fighter, rather than forming the opinion first and then learning what things actually were as you go?

Take a look at 1928 Ring Magazine ratings.

1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcuden
4. Jack Sharkey

No, this is the FEBRUARY 1929 rankings. It says on the top of that ranking that the title was already vacant by this time, correct? This is how the rankings looked 6-7 months AFTER Tunney had already retired and vacated his title.

No exuse for tunney to leave without fighting one of them.

Since when is it the champion's responsibility to wait around for prospective challengers to maybe, someday earn their shots??

Especially sharkey who was beating up dempsey just as badly as tunney was before getting fouled out,

No he wasn't, he was getting roughed up on the inside and having increasingly more trouble keeping Dempsey off of him, whereas Tunney did progressively better as the fight progressed.

Moreover, Tunney had already given Sharkey three chances to get a shot at him (vs. Dempsey, Heeney, and Risko), and he blew them all. Earlier, you excused Marciano for not fighting Valdes because he eventually lost an "eliminator" to Moore, and put all the blame for that fight not happening on Valdes; yet you expect Tunney to have fought Sharkey in spite of three straight failures??

or godfrey a man he had been ducking since 1925.

No, a man that he had bypassed for bigger fights and more highly rated contenders since 1925. "Ducking" is purely your own spin on it.

You have no basis for saying Tunney "ducked" Godfrey if Marciano not fighting Valdes does not constitute ducking in your book.

Tunney never fought a fighter as big as godfrey. Tunney drew the color line, never fought a black fighter.

Fighting Harry Wills would've fulfilled both of those, but Wills kept turning him down. Why is it you give Liston credit for pursuing fighters who turn him down, but not Tunney?

this is a punishble offense.

No it isn't. The quality and the stature of a fighter's opposition is what matters when judging him. What the color of their skin happens to be doesn't.

Wills resume is much better. He beat very good versions/ near prime versions of Sam langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea all when Wills was a novice and the latters were much more experienced. These 3 were considered the top contenders for johnson crown when Wills beat them.

No, Wills FAILED to beat Jeanette and McVey in the time that they were considered contenders for Johnson's title. It wasn't until after Johnson's reign was over that Wills started to beat those two.

these 3 are arguebably better wins than anything dempsey has on his resume.

No, they aren't even "arguably" the best wins on Wills' resume.

1914 langford is better than 1917 langford that fulton beat.

How much so? Have you actually seen him in that time, or are just assuming that?

Wills also dominated and knocked out kid norfolk in 2, which is better than demspseys win over billy miske.

And likewise, Dempsey's win over Gibbons must be far better than Wills' win over Norfolk.

Wills dominated both top black fighters and the top white fighters WILLING to face him. dempsey only beat top white fighters.

Seeing as the majority of the top fighters in general were white at this time (including the champion and #1 contender when Dempsey came up) and through Dempsey's reign, how much of a difference is that supposed to make?

Dempsey was much younger and still was getting the shit beaten out of him and lost nearly every round before hitting jack inna balls and fouling him. this win has some controversy.

Wills had a notorious reputation in his time as a rough/dirty fighter, probably much moreso than Dempsey did. Why would you look to make an issue out of fouls in a Dempsey win but not do the same for Wills?

Bottom Line: we look at the quality of there wins. Fulton cancels out. the only very good fighter Dempsey beat was jack sharkey. Wills beat Sam Langford Sam Mcvea and Joe Jeanette. Sharkey is the only fighter dempsey beat(that wills didnt) on there level.

Why do you say that?

For example, Gibbons clobbered Norfolk, who you gave Wills credit for beating; also twice beat Clay Turner, who twice beat Norfolk that same year (at a time when you tried to claim Norfolk was a leading HW contender); he decisively whupped Carpentier, who Jeanette only got away with a close and highly disputed decision over at a time when you said Jeanette was a leading contender for Johnson's title; decisively beat Greb once, who you claim was a "top 5" HW contender at that time; also beat Billy Miske a couple of times, and was rated #2 in the division when the Ring debuted its rankings not long after Dempsey beat him. Certainly you've touted other fighters with less credentials than that. So what "disqualifies" someone like Gibbons from being at least on par, if not better than Jeanette or McVey?

[OLD FOGEY]

That's not true at all, there's numerous articles and press notices written on black contenders during that time. Their fights were given media coverage and so were the challenges they issued to the champion, just like the white contenders. Langford and Jeanette were often mentioned as prospective challengers for Jack Johnson, and Johnson was often hounded by reporters after his fights demanding to know "When are you going to fight Langford?"

The truth is that when Dempsey came around, the rated black HWs of Johnson's era (Langford, Jeanette, McVey, etc.) were all on the way down or out, and it just happened that there was a paucity of similar quality black fighters at this time to take their places.



Fulton wasn't universally accepted as the top contender until he reversed that fight with Morris, and made him foul out in the rematch.


"Langford and Jeannette were often mentioned as prospective challengers for Jack Johnson"

But not for Willard. ANYONE would have been viewed as an improvement over Johnson. Willard drew the color line immediately after winning the title. Do you have a single shred of evidence that any black fighter was considered as a title challenger for him?

In 1939 or so, Joe DiMaggio would have been "universally recognized" as the "consensus" greatest baseball player in the world, except by the black press and black fans who would probably have championed Josh Gibson. Most of the white press and white fans would not even have considered Gibson.

In the same way, Fred Fulton and Jack Dempsey were "univerally recognized" as the "consensus" top contenders. Most of the white press and white fans probably did not even consider Wills.

One fact I would like to know. When Fulton and Wills were matched in 1920, what were the odds? If you are right, Fulton should have been the overwhelming favorite.

[My2Sense]

Do you have a single shred of evidence that any black fighter was considered as a title challenger for him?

Printed in the NY Times, December 20, 1917.

Headline: "Challengers for Willard"

"Jess Willard, world's heavyweight champion, brought forward a flock of challengers with his announcement the other day that he was willing and ready to defend his championship laurels in a bout, provided the match was held for the benefit of the Red Cross.

"Challenges are being issued by all and sundry heavyweights who have been striving since Willard won the title to get the Kansan's consent to a meeting. These include Fred Fulton, the Minnesota heavyweight; Bill Brennan of Chicago; Frank Moran, Pittsburgh's blonde boxer; Sam Langford, the veteran colored boxer of Boston."


Given that the black contenders like Langford, Jeanette, etc. were considered at the peak of their powers during Johnson's reign, it shouldn't be considered a surprise that they received more attention/acclaim then than they would several years later.


One fact I would like to know. When Fulton and Wills were matched in 1920, what were the odds? If you are right, Fulton should have been the overwhelming favorite.

Believe I remember reading Fulton was the favorite, don't know the odds though.

[Axl_Nose]

I have Dempsey at #3 behind Louis and Ali currently. I've had him as low as 6 though.

Dempsey shouldnt be anywere near 3 all time .. Im as much a fan of Dempsey as anybody, but he could not handle boxers. Its a little too convenient to suggest that Tunney came way past Dempsey's best. Tunney virtually won every round in both fights, but everyone remembers 'The Long Count' round ..
Dempsey always struggled with boxers, he'd lose badly against Ali and Holmes specifically .. I also think he'd get beat by Louis and Lewis. We already know he wouldnt take on Greb and he got beat twice by Tunney.
I personally think he'd get done by Frazier and a pre-Ali Foreman .. I also think Ezzard Charles would beat him but im not so certain on Walcott, Marciano or Liston ....
Im a Dempsey fan but he should be at 7 or 8 at the highest, any higher and thats a fan's emotion talking .. Nobody will convince me that Dempsey beats Jack Johnson ..

[dmt]

Dempsey shouldnt be anywere near 3 all time .. Im as much a fan of Dempsey as anybody, but he could not handle boxers. Its a little too convenient to suggest that Tunney came way past Dempsey's best. Tunney virtually won every round in both fights, but everyone remembers 'The Long Count' round ..
Dempsey always struggled with boxers, he'd lose badly against Ali and Holmes specifically .. I also think he'd get beat by Louis and Lewis. We already know he wouldnt take on Greb and he got beat twice by Tunney.
I personally think he'd get done by Frazier and a pre-Ali Foreman .. I also think Ezzard Charles would beat him but im not so certain on Walcott, Marciano or Liston ....
Im a Dempsey fan but he should be at 7 or 8 at the highest, any higher and thats a fan's emotion talking .. Nobody will convince me that Dempsey beats Jack Johnson ..appearently being knocked down by middleweight stanley ketchel or losing to marvin hart may convince you.

[SuzieQ49]

appearently being knocked down by middleweight stanley ketchel

better than being knocked out COLD in the first round for SEVERAL seconds by a 37 year old journeyman and losing to a fat willie meehan

[UpWithEvil]

better than being knocked out COLD in the first round for SEVERAL seconds by a 37 year old journeyman and losing to a fat willie meehan

You'll cry to the moon that George Godfrey was "on the cuffs" any time he got his ears boxed but you'll stand here with a straight face and flog this bunkum like it's gospel?

[HomicideHenry]

Printed in the NY Times, December 20, 1917.

Headline: "Challengers for Willard"

"Jess Willard, world's heavyweight champion, brought forward a flock of challengers with his announcement the other day that he was willing and ready to defend his championship laurels in a bout, provided the match was held for the benefit of the Red Cross.

"Challenges are being issued by all and sundry heavyweights who have been striving since Willard won the title to get the Kansan's consent to a meeting. These include Fred Fulton, the Minnesota heavyweight; Bill Brennan of Chicago; Frank Moran, Pittsburgh's blonde boxer; Sam Langford, the veteran colored boxer of Boston."

Willard done won a decision over Moran in 1916. Its a shame, really, that Willard wouldnt defend the title until 3 years later, but then again, he did get a $150,000 contract with a circus and he boxed exhibitions. The position, imo, is more ideal promoting yourself safely as the HW champion doing exhibitions than risking the title.

I think, though, Jess more than made a gross mistake when he took on Dempsey. The matches with Morris and Fulton, other fellow giants, should have been a dead give away to Willard that the 'little man' could throw down.

[dmt]

better than being knocked out COLD in the first round for SEVERAL seconds by a 37 year old journeyman and losing to a fat willie meehandempsey took a dive vs Flynn and you know it.

Dempseys real record vs meehan should be 2 wins, 1 loss, and 2 draws. Dempsey was robbed in his final fight with Meehan despite fighting with an injured hand. Besides Meehan held victories over Langford and one more hall of famer i think

[dmt]

You'll cry to the moon that George Godfrey was "on the cuffs" any time he got his ears boxed but you'll stand here with a straight face and flog this bunkum like it's gospel?exactly, lol Godfrey was always on cuffs according to suzie , atleast whenever he lost :lol:

[My2Sense]

better than being knocked out COLD in the first round for SEVERAL seconds by a 37 year old journeyman and losing to a fat willie meehan

Getting KO'd by a body shot from a washed up 33-year old middleweight isn't much better.

[My2Sense]

You'll cry to the moon that George Godfrey was "on the cuffs" any time he got his ears boxed but you'll stand here with a straight face and flog this bunkum like it's gospel?

Good point.

[Maxmomer]

dempsey took a dive vs Flynn and you know it.

There's no way for anybody to ever really know it. I think there are too many question marks around the fight for it to really count for much when considering Dempsey's career, but there's no way to know it was a dive.

[mcvey]

Dempsey shouldnt be anywere near 3 all time .. Im as much a fan of Dempsey as anybody, but he could not handle boxers. Its a little too convenient to suggest that Tunney came way past Dempsey's best. Tunney virtually won every round in both fights, but everyone remembers 'The Long Count' round ..
Dempsey always struggled with boxers, he'd lose badly against Ali and Holmes specifically .. I also think he'd get beat by Louis and Lewis. We already know he wouldnt take on Greb and he got beat twice by Tunney.
I personally think he'd get done by Frazier and a pre-Ali Foreman .. I also think Ezzard Charles would beat him but im not so certain on Walcott, Marciano or Liston ....
Im a Dempsey fan but he should be at 7 or 8 at the highest, any higher and thats a fan's emotion talking .. Nobody will convince me that Dempsey beats Jack Johnson ..

Well he seemed to handle Tommy Gibbons pretty well, how many rounds did Gibbons win in their fight?

[ChrisPontius]

Well he seemed to handle Tommy Gibbons pretty well, how many rounds did Gibbons win in their fight?

You mean that skinny light heavyweight?

[mcvey]

You mean that skinny light heavyweight?

Yes that skinny Light heavyweight who was only 12 1/2 lbs the lighter man ,and who is acknowledged as a fine boxer.
PS Gibbons scaled 5 1/2lbs more than Conn did against Louis in their first fight.

[My2Sense]

Wills dominated both top black fighters and the top white fighters WILLING to face him.

Incidentally, this is misleading. Wills in fact avoided some prominent white fighters willing to meet him, like Gibbons and Tunney. Using the same standards you used for Tunney and Dempsey, you should be criticizing him for "ducking" those two.

[mcvey]

Incidentally, this is misleading. Wills in fact avoided some prominent white fighters willing to meet him, like Gibbons and Tunney. Using the same standards you used for Tunney and Dempsey, you should be criticizing him for "ducking" those two.

I have read several times that Wills refused to fight Godfrey as well.

[McGrain]

Will definitely ducked guys he could have matched. It seems that this happened closer to the end of his career?

I don't understand the line of reasoning if it's Wills-Dempsey that's being discussed, though.

[dmt]

Will definitely ducked guys he could have matched. It seems that this happened closer to the end of his career?

I don't understand the line of reasoning if it's Wills-Dempsey that's being discussed, though.
to expose suzie qs bias

[mcvey]

Will definitely ducked guys he could have matched. It seems that this happened closer to the end of his career?

I don't understand the line of reasoning if it's Wills-Dempsey that's being discussed, though.
I dont blame Wills for not fighting the dangerous young tigers,he merited a title shot years earlier,that cannot be denied[and Im a big Dempsey fan]. Nat Fleischer ,who somewhat courageously championed Wills ,in those still racist times, did get a bit irritated at Mullins ,Wills manager ,Nat wrote a piece saying that he kept Wills on a diet of well chewed meat ,meaning he avoided the real threats ,but Wills was going into his late 30's by then so who can blame him?

[OLD FOGEY]

Printed in the NY Times, December 20, 1917.

Headline: "Challengers for Willard"

"Jess Willard, world's heavyweight champion, brought forward a flock of challengers with his announcement the other day that he was willing and ready to defend his championship laurels in a bout, provided the match was held for the benefit of the Red Cross.

"Challenges are being issued by all and sundry heavyweights who have been striving since Willard won the title to get the Kansan's consent to a meeting. These include Fred Fulton, the Minnesota heavyweight; Bill Brennan of Chicago; Frank Moran, Pittsburgh's blonde boxer; Sam Langford, the veteran colored boxer of Boston."


Given that the black contenders like Langford, Jeanette, etc. were considered at the peak of their powers during Johnson's reign, it shouldn't be considered a surprise that they received more attention/acclaim then than they would several years later.



Believe I remember reading Fulton was the favorite, don't know the odds though.

This is evidence. Good for you. But the quote indicates Langford was challenging Willard, not that Willard or the promoters would ever have entertained such a challenge from a black fighter.

[OLD FOGEY]

Incidentally, this is misleading. Wills in fact avoided some prominent white fighters willing to meet him, like Gibbons and Tunney. Using the same standards you used for Tunney and Dempsey, you should be criticizing him for "ducking" those two.

"Wills in fact avoided some prominent white fighters williing to meet him"

Not exactly. This is from TIME Magazine, April 7, 1924

quoting Tex Rickard----"Wills agrees to fight any heavyweight I select, leading up to a meeting with Dempsey."

TIME then explained "Wills was expected to meet Firpo. If Firpo retired, Wills would fight Spalla. If Wills wins, Richard will let him have at Dempsey in September."

I don't see how Wills can be accused of ducking anyone when he agreed to fight 'any heavyweight'. The man chosen was Firpo and Wills defeated him badly, winning every round according to the New York Times report. And what happened?

TIME Magazine 7-27-1925

"Jack Dempsey reached an agreement to fight whomever Tex Rickard should select--one bout this year, one next. His first opponent will be Gene Tunney, George Godfrey, or Jack Renault. Then, if not defeated, he will face Harry Wills."

So Wills wins the elimination Rickard has set up and then drops behind three other guys.

My judgement is that Wills was getting the run-a-round and there was no way he ever going to get a shot at Dempsey.

Dempsey probably agreed. Wills was not going to get a shot if Dempsey beat Tunney. Ever.

New York Times--September 13, 1926, page 27

"Harry Will will never get a chance at the world's heavyweight championship title while Jack Dempsey remains the titleholder nor will Wills get a chance to make money with Dempsey as a medium. This was the emphatic declaration made here this afternoon by Dempsey in response to a question by one of the newspaper men who visited the titleholder in the dressing room before the day's workout."

[Bokaj]

"Wills in fact avoided some prominent white fighters williing to meet him"

Not exactly. This is from TIME Magazine, April 7, 1924

quoting Tex Rickard----"Wills agrees to fight any heavyweight I select, leading up to a meeting with Dempsey."

TIME then explained "Wills was expected to meet Firpo. If Firpo retired, Wills would fight Spalla. If Wills wins, Richard will let him have at Dempsey in September."

I don't see how Wills can be accused of ducking anyone when he agreed to fight 'any heavyweight'. The man chosen was Firpo and Wills defeated him badly, winning every round according to the New York Times report. And what happened?

TIME Magazine 7-27-1925

"Jack Dempsey reached an agreement to fight whomever Tex Rickard should select--one bout this year, one next. His first opponent will be Gene Tunney, George Godfrey, or Jack Renault. Then, if not defeated, he will face Harry Wills."

So Wills wins the elimination Rickard has set up and then drops behind three other guys.

My judgement is that Wills was getting the run-a-round and there was no way he ever going to get a shot a Dempsey.

Dempsey probably agreed. Wills was not going to get a shot if Dempsey beat Tunney. Ever.

New York Times--September 13, 1926, page 27

"Harry Will will never get a chance at the world's heavyweight championship title while Jack Dempsey remains the titleholder nor will Wills get a chance to make money with Dempsey as a medium. This was the emphatic declaration made here this afternoon by Dempsey in response to a question by one of the newspaper men who visited the titleholder in the dressing room before the day's workout."


Good stuff!

[OLD FOGEY]

just on Wills, I came across this description of his fight with Sam Langford in New York in December, 1915. It is a long article and I don't know how to transfer it. The article did state that Langford was most effective when he trapped Wills on the ropes. The description of the young Wills is the best I have seen.

New York Times, December 4, 1915, page 13

"Harry Wills, the New Orleans colored heavyweight, easily outpointed and outfought Sam Langford of Boston in the ten-round bout last night at the Harlem Sporting Club, 135th Street. The Southern boxer is a fast and clever performer for a man of his weight, and throughout this entire ten rounds, except at intervals when Langford forced him against the ropes, he gave the Boston boxer a lesson on the scientific points of the game. Wills won the honers in seven of the ten rounds, two were even, and one-the ninth-went to Langford."

"As the bout progressed, Wills managed to keep the Boston boxer off with a stiff left hand jab."

"In the closing round, both made a whilewind finish, but Wills, by keeping his left hand in his opponent's face landed more effectively and cleanly, and the final bell found him winning by a large margin."

I hope someone can transfer this whole article over to this thread.

I think it interesting that Wills is described as at least a relatively fast and skilled boxer with a strong jab. He seems able to dominate Langford. I would note that Langford lost every decision (except one six round draw, I think) to Wills with his only wins via two late round knockouts.

[Seamus]

Tunney was open to fighting Wills but Harry was not too excited by the prospect. There's justification to some degree in that he thought rightly he deserved a shot in Dempsey. However, every fighter, I don't care who they are, has opponents he would prefer over others. Ducking has many shades, from outright a'la Bowe-Lewis to the guy who stays busy with easier opponents until his nemesis ages or gets beat, to the guy who makes a career out of fighting naturally smaller or past their prime "name" opponents.

[ChrisPontius]

just on Wills, I came across this description of his fight with Sam Langford in New York in December, 1915. It is a long article and I don't know how to transfer it. The article did state that Langford was most effective when he trapped Wills on the ropes. The description of the young Wills is the best I have seen.

New York Times, December 4, 1915, page 13

"Harry Wills, the New Orleans colored heavyweight, easily outpointed and outfought Sam Langford of Boston in the ten-round bout last night at the Harlem Sporting Club, 135th Street. The Southern boxer is a fast and clever performer for a man of his weight, and throughout this entire ten rounds, except at intervals when Langford forced him against the ropes, he gave the Boston boxer a lesson on the scientific points of the game. Wills won the honers in seven of the ten rounds, two were even, and one-the ninth-went to Langford."

"As the bout progressed, Wills managed to keep the Boston boxer off with a stiff left hand jab."

"In the closing round, both made a whilewind finish, but Wills, by keeping his left hand in his opponent's face landed more effectively and cleanly, and the final bell found him winning by a large margin."

I hope someone can transfer this whole article over to this thread.

I think it interesting that Wills is described as at least a relatively fast and skilled boxer with a strong jab. He seems able to dominate Langford. I would note that Langford lost every decision (except one six round draw, I think) to Wills with his only wins via two late round knockouts.

Interesting that this article calls Wills "fast", despite the bigger man. So much for the "Dempsey always beat the slow, big men"-reasoning when saying he has no chance against Dempsey.

[Bokaj]

Tunney was open to fighting Wills but Harry was not too excited by the prospect. There's justification to some degree in that he thought rightly he deserved a shot in Dempsey. However, every fighter, I don't care who they are, has opponents he would prefer over others. Ducking has many shades, from outright a'la Bowe-Lewis to the guy who stays busy with easier opponents until his nemesis ages or gets beat, to the guy who makes a career out of fighting naturally smaller or past their prime "name" opponents.

Sure, but Dempsey's ducking of Wills was at the very bottom. Probably the worst duck-job in the history of boxing. Disgraceful.

[Seamus]

Sure, but Dempsey's ducking of Wills was at the very bottom. Probably the worst duck-job in the history of boxing. Disgraceful.

Not even close. This argument is so incredibly tedious and redundant. Of course, it stands as one of the sports greatest disappointments that the two did not meet. However, the truth remains that Dempsey did sign for the fight and that his management- not necessarily him- fought to avoid the fight on several grounds due more to their past and proclivities than to Jack's. Before adding fuel to this extremely tired fire, let me just add this perspective...

Back in the 20's sports entered the true realm of show business in terms of scale and dollars. Promotion entered the game in a new, incredibly powerful role. The dollar became the only dictate. Matchmaking became soley about drawing the largest audience with "a story" and retaining the title for the next defense. Wills did not offer an overly-compelling story nor did he guarantee future defenses for Dempsey. This said, promotions in the realm of boxing was new and rather crude. Today, one would think a Dempsey-Wills trilogy would be a gold mine. Back then, I think their approach was more conservative and less imaginative. All said, the real culprits in this affair were Rickard and Jacobs.

[Bokaj]

Not even close. This argument is so incredibly tedious and redundant. Of course, it stands as one of the sports greatest disappointments that the two did not meet. However, the truth remains that Dempsey did sign for the fight and that his management- not necessarily him- fought to avoid the fight on several grounds due more to their past and proclivities than to Jack's. Before adding fuel to this extremely tired fire, let me just add this perspective...

Back in the 20's sports entered the true realm of show business in terms of scale and dollars. Promotion entered the game in a new, incredibly powerful role. The dollar became the only dictate. Matchmaking became soley about drawing the largest audience with "a story" and retaining the title for the next defense. Wills did not offer an overly-compelling story nor did he guarantee future defenses for Dempsey. This said, promotions in the realm of boxing was new and rather crude. Today, one would think a Dempsey-Wills trilogy would be a gold mine. Back then, I think their approach was more conservative and less imaginative. All said, the real culprits in this affair were Rickard and Jacobs.

No fighter, I mean NO ONE, is defended with the same BS that Dempsey is. Did you actually read the quote from NY-times that Old Fogey dug up? There Dempsey himself plainly stated that Wills never would get a shot at his title.

And hiding behind one's management is BS, as well. If Patterson had done that Liston would probably never have gotten a title shot either.

Dempsey ducked the nr. 1 contender for his entire reign, and the nr. 2 for a sizeable portion of it. Which other champion, in any weight class, has done this during so many years?

[McGrain]

I dont blame Wills for not fighting the dangerous young tigers,he merited a title shot years earlier,that cannot be denied[and Im a big Dempsey fan]. Nat Fleischer ,who somewhat courageously championed Wills ,in those still racist times, did get a bit irritated at Mullins ,Wills manager ,Nat wrote a piece saying that he kept Wills on a diet of well chewed meat ,meaning he avoided the real threats ,but Wills was going into his late 30's by then so who can blame him?

About right.

[janitor]

No fighter, I mean NO ONE, is defended with the same BS that Dempsey is. Did you actually read the quote from NY-times that Old Fogey dug up? There Dempsey himself plainly stated that Wills never would get a shot at his title.

And hiding behind one's management is BS, as well. If Patterson had done that Liston would probably never have gotten a title shot either.

Dempsey ducked the nr. 1 contender for his entire reign, and the nr. 2 for a sizeable portion of it. Which other champion, in any weight class, has done this during so many years?

There is another aspect you have to look at.

Dempsey signed to fight Wills in New York State and the NYST athletic comision refused to sanction the bout for fear that it would cause race riots.

This is the best part.

The same athletic comision later striped Dempsey of his liscence to fight in that state for not meeting Wills!!!!

The esentials said:

"You have to fight Wills but dont do it in our backyard".

Is it any wonder that Dempsey lost patience with them?

[Seamus]

No fighter, I mean NO ONE, is defended with the same BS that Dempsey is.

The mental contortions of those who spout Jack Johnson's greatness are either the product of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Completely unparalleled.

I agree, Dempsey's legacy has holes. But many of these occurred because of the changing era in which he fought, both socially and in the evolution of the sport. This does not make him a better or worse fighter, just less proven. Wills does not become a better fighter by the fact he and Dempsey never fought, just as Dempsey does not become a lesser fighter because of this.

[My2Sense]

This is evidence. Good for you. But the quote indicates Langford was challenging Willard, not that Willard or the promoters would ever have entertained such a challenge from a black fighter.

It doesn't say whether Willard was going to entertain any of those challengers, white or black. The fact still remains, the papers had no qualms about denoting a black man as being a serious title contender. In fact, I'd say they were actually doing Langford a favor by listing his name here, given that he was embarrassed by Fulton just a few months earlier and didn't deserve a title shot over him (which, incidentally, the article goes on to say). If Willard and his people ever did entertain his challenge, I'd say they were wrong to do so.

[My2Sense]

to expose suzie qs bias

Bingo! :good

[SuzieQ49]

You want DMT's Bias

here it is


DMT wrote



Dempsey beat a peak tunney faggot



DMT wrote


Shut up cunt. Dempsey was shot when tunney fought him



Anyone remember that? :lol:

[OLD FOGEY]

It doesn't say whether Willard was going to entertain any of those challengers, white or black. The fact still remains, the papers had no qualms about denoting a black man as being a serious title contender. In fact, I'd say they were actually doing Langford a favor by listing his name here, given that he was embarrassed by Fulton just a few months earlier and didn't deserve a title shot over him (which, incidentally, the article goes on to say). If Willard and his people ever did entertain his challenge, I'd say they were wrong to do so.

"If Willard and his people ever did entertain his challenge, I'd say they were wrong to do so"

Well, they didn't, before he fought Fulton or afterwards. And if Langford had beaten Fulton and also later Dempsey, they still wouldn't have.

That is my judgement.

[SuzieQ49]

My2sense who is in denial tunney ducked 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 Sundowners





"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. I think Godfrey was the most handcuffed fighter of all time. When we interviewed Dougherty's son Howard, who was also a promoter and drove Godfrey across country for his campaign in California, He talked of all the concessions they had to make in order for Godfrey to meet high rated fighters including carrying opponents, fouling out, etc. 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. His first two matches with Renault were "smellers" and his "foul-outs" were "ordered." Today People don't realize that one leading black challenger (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.I still believe Godfrey was the most "handcuffed" boxer of all time. Being the "most handcuffed boxer of all time" (my opinion) doesn't mean that he was the best of his period, just the "most feared" with the cuffs off. By the way check out photos of Godfrey pre 1926 before his frustrations caused him to gain weight. His body was ripped with muscle and he was always in top condition."- Chuck Hasson Boxing Historian

[SuzieQ49]

Incidentally, this is misleading. Wills in fact avoided some prominent white fighters willing to meet him, like Gibbons and Tunney. Using the same standards you used for Tunney and Dempsey, you should be criticizing him for "ducking" those two.

Please provide ONE source which states Harry Wills ducked Tommy Gibbons, and please provide once source where Wills refused to fight tunney pre 1924 when Wills was not a 35 year old tired past his prime fighter.


Old Fogster here just posted an article which harry wills said he was willing to meet ANYBODY. Also Harry Wills had already been ducked and avoided by white fighters for the past 5-7 years prior to 1925. He shouldnt need to fight anybody to gather a shot at dempseys crown he proved himself.


jack dempsey said the winner of Wills-Fulton he would defend his title against gauranteed. After Wills DESTROYED fulton, dempsey signed the next day to fight terminally ill billy miske. go figure

[SuzieQ49]

Why do you say it was close? Have you seen it?

I've never seen or heard of anything saying it was a close fight. All accounts say Valdes beat him decisively. Even Charles himself has said on numerous occasions that he took a "licking."

Its called reading fight reports. Charles swept the early rounds by outfighting valdez in close and landing the body shots. Valdez took over late. The decision was close but clear. if two of the judges altered there scorecard by 1 round, the fight would have been a draw.

But regardless, you're saying that you don't actually know any of this yourself, and are simply going by someone else's personal opinion/assessment of the matter, correct?




I have seen Jackson fight on film many times and read countless newspaper reports. He was not world class fighter material.

The NY Times reported that Valdes' camp made on offer to Marciano's team in late '53, when he was the #1 contender. .



Valdez lost 4 times in 1953. He did not have enough drawing power then to make the fight a realistic one. he LOST FOUR TIMES THAT YEAR!!!

The Times also closely chronicled the efforts of Valdes' team and the IBC to make the fight from mid '54 (after Valdes KO'd Jackson) onward. Ultimately, Weill decided against it and went with Cockell instead, who was lesser rated, lesser regarded, and even lesser known in the US at that time

I already explained this. Marciano used cockell as a tuneup for a mega showdown for a fight with the title eliminator winner of Valdez/Moore. Marciano had already fought EVERY SINGLE Ring magazine # 1 heavyweight contender(Walcott, lastarza, charles 2x) and after that horrible cut nose, he needed a tuneup before a big showdown. A Marciano-Valdez fight was booked for Miami in the winter. Moore blocked it and earned a FINAL TITLE ELIMINATOR to fight the rock. All Valdez had to do was beat Archie Moore, HE LOST. Marciano destroyed moore in 9 rounds.

And incidentally (seeing as you wanted to know "all" the times) Marciano was also offered a big money fight with Valdes in Havana, after Valdes stopped Cockell.

1. Right after Valdez lost a one sided shutout decision to a glass jawed 5'10 180lb bob satterfield getting outslugged toe to toe for 10 rounds.

2. Yes with the win over Cockell. It put Valdez back on the map. So what did the IBC do? Stage another title eliminator for Valdez to have his shot. However, Valdez LOST a dreadfull one sided decision to bob baker in yet ANOTHER title eliminator(his 2nd blown oppertunity and lost another chance at marciano

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

No, Valdes was considered a viable challenger even earlier than that, in July of '54 after he KO'd Jackson.


Which is why after Marciano rematched ring magazine # 1 Ezzard Charles, they immediatley began negotiations with nino valdez manager gleason for a match in 1955.

Marciano's team chose to rematch Charles instead..

Charles was the # 1 contender and had just taken marciano to one of the most gruelling 15 round fights of all time, that was also a close decision. A rematch was warranted not only for the reputation of both boxers, but more the fans as well. I believe a fighter deserves alot of credit for rematching after close fights.

Following that 2nd Charles fight, in autumn '54, the NBA issued a statement declaring that Valdes was the only standout challenger for Marciano.

Yes but not until AFTER marciano had already beaten charles. Charles was the # 1 ring magazine heavyweight contender going into both marciano fights, and was listed as "most logical contender" by NBA going in as well.

Despite all that, Weill made his first defense of '55 against Cockell instead, even though he rated lower than Valdes in the rankings, and was far less thought of by the American public and media

Yes as a Tuneup. Imagine that, Marciano management used a # 2 rated heavyweight contender as a tuneup for a big fight with Valdez. Weill was smart. He chose Cockell first to test Rocky's nose in san fransisco, and arranged a showdown with Valdez in Miami of 1955 where there would be a large latino crowd. Ultimatley Moore stepped in, got a final title eliminator and Valdez could not beat a 38 year old man.





So in other words, you're acknowledging that there indeed was criticism for Marciano not fighting Valdes, and you're taking one person's word for why that criticism is either unwarranted or inaccurate, correct

Please provide a source where the american media critisized marciano of ducking nino valdez?

[SuzieQ49]

No, "history" acknowledges that Dempsey did beat several contenders in his rise to the top and was far and away the clear cut #1 challenger for Willard's title at this time. He accomplished as much as Liston did in earning his top ranking, and was every bit acknowledged as the consensus #1 as Liston was.

Not at all. Dempsey cleaned out the WHITE heavyweight contenders, he did not defeat the top black heavyweight contenders 1917-1919. Liston defeated both.

But you claimed the London fight showed he was still a dangerous puncher. What is the indication that he was still a dangerous puncher in this fight in which he won by cut stoppage rather than any kind of KO?

Valdez was knocking londons block off, and cut him because of his sharp heavy punches, he gave a beating similiar to the way he gave Don Cockell. Valdez took london out of there before patterson did. This is the mark of a dangerous puncher.


I'd like to know, where did you get the notion that Valdes was a contender at the time Liston fought him, and what has made you steadfastly stand by that despite evidence/suggestions to the contrary?

ENTERING 1959 THE Same YEAR liston fought him, Valdez was the Ring Magazine annuel # 2 rated contender, ducked by patterson camp of a title shot, and had defeated several Ring Magazine top 10 or near it in 1958. Valdez was on a roll 1958 was his best year since 1954.





No he wasn't, he was getting roughed up on the inside and having increasingly more trouble keeping Dempsey off of him, whereas Tunney did progressively better as the fight progressed.

Moreover, Tunney had already given Sharkey three chances to get a shot at him (vs. Dempsey, Heeney, and Risko), and he blew them all. Earlier, you excused Marciano for not fighting Valdes because he eventually lost an "eliminator" to Moore, and put all the blame for that fight not happening on Valdes; yet you expect Tunney to have fought Sharkey in spite of three straight failures??

I dont know what fight you were watching. Sharkey beat the hell out of dempsey in the first, and then outboxed jack winning 5 of the first 6 rounds to any unbias fan. Then Dempsey fouled him.

* Yet Heeney gets a title shot just for beating Risko? Because he certainly did not defeat sharkey. Heeney had already lost to Uzcuden, whom George Godfrey defeated. This is a round robin, we can keep on going around and around. Sharkey was considered very highly by american media after he putt a whupping on the famous jack dempsey for 7 rounds. If Sharkey is not fouled by dempsey, he wins a unanimous decision and a gauranteed shot at tunney. I think he puts up a better fight than jack did in rematch(even though jack knocked gene down and out for 14 seconds), maybe he beats gene.

* After tunney defeated heeney, sharkey was the overwhelming # 1 or # 2 rated heavyweight contender by media and Ring Magazine. he was in line as the clear next tunney opponent. instead, tunney retired. When Marciano retired, Archie Moore was the clear # 1 heavyweight contender(but since rocky already beat him) that meant there was no one left to fight, and moore was made a 6 to 5 favorite vs floyd patterson, which shows u how high the media thought of moore as next heavyweight champ. Notice how after Marciano beats moore, archie stills retains the # 1 ranking. After tunney beat Heeney, Heeney dropped all the way down to # 9!!!



No, Wills FAILED to beat Jeanette and McVey in the time that they were considered contenders for Johnson's title. It wasn't until after Johnson's reign was over that Wills started to beat those two.


Wrong. He won a newspaper decision over Jeanette in 1914 and defeated Mcvea in 1915 when Sam was top contender. Wills also defeated # 1 heavyweight contneder in 1914 sam langford.

[SuzieQ49]

Because he quit boxing and joined the army for roughly a year-and-a-half after getting that #3 ranking.

More to the point, you're saying that you don't actually KNOW whether he was a contender or not at the time he fought Valdes, correct? You looked at something else and then made an assumption off of that, correct?


"Harold Carter, 22, an ambitious, energetic and well- conditioned heavyweight. Carter has a 21-2-2 record, including 10 kayos. He is ranked fourth by the NBA and a 9 to 5 favorite over Baker."- Los Angeles Times Jan 11 1957






Carter and Valdes Mix in TV Fight


SPOKANE, Wash., July 9 (UPI)-Harold Carter of Detroit makes his second start tonight since his return from the army. He is currently ranked fifth in the division by NBA.

[hhascup]

moore was made a 3 to 1 favorite vs floyd patterson, which shows u how high the media thought of moore as next heavyweight champ.

I agree with most of what you said, BUT Moore was only a 6-5 favorite when he fought Patterson.

[SuzieQ49]

I agree with most of what you said, BUT Moore was only a 6-5 favorite when he fought Patterson.


Are you sure? when were these odds changed? Orginally it was listed 3 to 1 I believe. or the source I got it from lied to me. Either way, Moore was defintley the favorite

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Those are the rankings the month Rocky Retired



[Only registered and activated users can see links]




[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[hhascup]

Are you sure? when were these odds changed? Orginally it was listed 3 to 1 I believe. or the source I got it from lied to me. Either way, Moore was defintley the favorite

Every Ring Record Book, starting in 1957, has the odds at 6-5 for Moore.

[SuzieQ49]

Thanx. I will concede that point to you. I think those odds are being generous to floyd. Despite floyds youth and reputation, the two best opponents he fought up to date he lost to joey maxim and won a split decision over hurricane jackson. Nothing to rave over, especially against an experienced great fighter like moore

[Maxmomer]

You want DMT's Bias

here it is


DMT wrote





DMT wrote




Anyone remember that? :lol:

All that proves is that you're both biased. No offense, everyone has their biases.

[SuzieQ49]

No offense, everyone has their biases.

No offense, but so do you too bud.

[SuzieQ49]

For example, Gibbons clobbered Norfolk, who you gave Wills credit for beating; also twice beat Clay Turner, who twice beat Norfolk that same year (at a time when you tried to claim Norfolk was a leading HW contender);

I am suprised you bring this up. It is well known that Kid Norfolk was blind when Tommy Gibbons fought him. This win has no meaning at all.


Kid Norfolk certainly competed better against Harry Greb and Billy Miske than Gibbons did. Jack Dempsey refused to fight Kid Norfolk. this is a tough fight for Jack. Kid Norfolk is one of the few fighter's whose record speaks for itself. He was 5-0 against world champions and he beat every good black fighter (who many of the white contenders would not face), of his time. His only un-avenged losses during his prime were against Hall of Famers Sam Langford and Harry Wills.

[SuzieQ49]

Lets face the facts. Liston beat his two top ranking contenders prior to fighting for the heavyweight title Zora Folley and Eddie Machen. Jack dempsey did not defeat his 2 outstanding heavyweight contenders Harry Greb and Harry Wills.

[Maxmomer]

No offense, but so do you too bud.

I said everyone.

[McGrain]

Lets face the facts. Liston beat his two top ranking contenders prior to fighting for the heavyweight title Zora Folley and Eddie Machen. Jack dempsey did not defeat his 2 outstanding heavyweight contenders Harry Greb and Harry Wills.

Bottom line speaks loudest.

It's a bit bizarre that Liston got dragged into this thread, but i've always found it strange the level of apoligism that surrounds Dempsey's failure to meet these two men. I mean some of it is reasonable, truly, but there are guys that literally don't penalise Dempsey for ducking the two most serious threats to his title, it seems.

[Bokaj]

There is another aspect you have to look at.

Dempsey signed to fight Wills in New York State and the NYST athletic comision refused to sanction the bout for fear that it would cause race riots.

This is the best part.

The same athletic comision later striped Dempsey of his liscence to fight in that state for not meeting Wills!!!!

The esentials said:

"You have to fight Wills but dont do it in our backyard".

Is it any wonder that Dempsey lost patience with them?

History tends to be a bit complicated, does it not? Still, Dempsey could have made the fight happen, and it should have happened, but he didn't.

From a historical the complexity of events are interesting, but it does not excuse Dempsey as a champion.

[Bokaj]

The mental contortions of those who spout Jack Johnson's greatness are either the product of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Completely unparalleled.

I think it's worse when it comes to Dempsey. Johnson didn't take on the most dangerous contenders either - as he should have - but he had at least beaten them previously. There are no Wills or Greb missing from his record altogether. But his championship reign wasn't better than Dempsey's, perhaps worse.

I agree, Dempsey's legacy has holes. But many of these occurred because of the changing era in which he fought, both socially and in the evolution of the sport. This does not make him a better or worse fighter, just less proven. Wills does not become a better fighter by the fact he and Dempsey never fought, just as Dempsey does not become a lesser fighter because of this.

I basically agree with what you're saying here. But the holes in Dempsey's record are quite large since he didn't take on his most dangerous challengers. If Ali didn't have his wins over for example Liston and Foreman, he would drop a bit even though he still would have wins over 30+ ranked opponents.

[My2Sense]

My2sense who is in denial tunney ducked 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 Sundowners





"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. I think Godfrey was the most handcuffed fighter of all time. When we interviewed Dougherty's son Howard, who was also a promoter and drove Godfrey across country for his campaign in California, He talked of all the concessions they had to make in order for Godfrey to meet high rated fighters including carrying opponents, fouling out, etc. 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. His first two matches with Renault were "smellers" and his "foul-outs" were "ordered." Today People don't realize that one leading black challenger (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.I still believe Godfrey was the most "handcuffed" boxer of all time. Being the "most handcuffed boxer of all time" (my opinion) doesn't mean that he was the best of his period, just the "most feared" with the cuffs off. By the way check out photos of Godfrey pre 1926 before his frustrations caused him to gain weight. His body was ripped with muscle and he was always in top condition."- Chuck Hasson Boxing Historian

EVERY one of these sources shows that Tunney bypassed Godfrey for far more highly rated and more deserving fighters. Outside of that, it's just someone else's personal opinion/spin on why his doing that was somehow "wrong." The last two articles undermine your point by actually ACKNOWLEDGING that Godfrey was not that highly rated or deserving of the fight, and that he had a lot of embarrassing losses; they basically just try to argue that Tunney should've done him a favor and given him the fight based purely on his "ability" or "potential."

[My2Sense]

Please provide ONE source which states Harry Wills ducked Tommy Gibbons,

NY newspapers reported on Gibbons' continual hounding of Wills for a fight some time. Eventually, Rickard got involved and they started to enter into negotiations, but as the papers reported, Wills kept stalling or postponing the fight from happening. Eventually, Gibbons got fed up, basically told him "Now or never," and when Wills didn't respond, he signed to fight Tunney instead. Just a few days after Gibbons signed to fight Tunney, Wills immediately signed to fight Charley Weinert, no problem.

and please provide once source where Wills refused to fight tunney pre 1924 when Wills was not a 35 year old tired past his prime fighter.

So again, this is a case of you agreeing that the guy avoided a fight, but now putting a spin on it as to why in this case it is "acceptable" when for other fighters it wouldn't be, correct?

Old Fogster here just posted an article which harry wills said he was willing to meet ANYBODY. Also Harry Wills had already been ducked and avoided by white fighters for the past 5-7 years prior to 1925. He shouldnt need to fight anybody to gather a shot at dempseys crown he proved himself.


jack dempsey said the winner of Wills-Fulton he would defend his title against gauranteed. After Wills DESTROYED fulton, dempsey signed the next day to fight terminally ill billy miske. go figure

First of all, I have the actual statement by Dempsey (not just boxrec's summary of it) and he didn't "guarantee" (as you claim) that he would fight the winner, he said he would give consideration to fighting the winner if he gave an impressive performance. Moreover, he said he already had a fight lined up with Bill Brennan later that year, and no matter what, the winner would not receive a shot prior to that.

Secondly (and more to the point), your two points blatantly contradict each other. First you point to what Wills "said" like it actually means something, and then in your second point you show how a fighter's words don't mean shit.

If Wills turned them down, he turned them down. What does what he "said" he would do make any difference to that?

[My2Sense]

Its called reading fight reports. Charles swept the early rounds by outfighting valdez in close and landing the body shots. Valdez took over late. The decision was close but clear.

By "early rounds" you mean the first two, correct? Because those are the only early rounds that reports are in agreement that clearly belonged to Charles.

if two of the judges altered there scorecard by 1 round, the fight would have been a draw.

Or it would've been a 4-round win for Charles, depending on which way they altered it.

The third judge scored something like 7 or 8 rounds for Valdes.

I have seen Jackson fight on film many times and read countless newspaper reports. He was not world class fighter material.

Then why not make your own case on why Jackson was not "world class" based on these films/reports, rather than just use someone else's opinion?

Either way you'd still have to explain why he was a top 5 contender at this time and favored to beat Valdes; and why a win over him should matter less than those late '50s wins over other contenders or second rate Europeans that you could just as easily argue weren't truly "world class" either.

Valdez lost 4 times in 1953. He did not have enough drawing power then to make the fight a realistic one. he LOST FOUR TIMES THAT YEAR!!!

Look at all the losses Godfrey had just prior to breaking the rankings, yet you insist Tunney or Dempsey should've fought him at that time. And unlike Valdes, he wasn't rated anywhere close to #1 at the time.

So you're saying "losses and lack of drawing power" is a legit reason for Marciano to not have fought his #1 contender, but not for Dempsey/Tunney not to fight a guy rated around #6 or less, correct?

I already explained this. Marciano used cockell as a tuneup for a mega showdown for a fight with the title eliminator winner of Valdez/Moore. Marciano had already fought EVERY SINGLE Ring magazine # 1 heavyweight contender(Walcott, lastarza, charles 2x) and after that horrible cut nose, he needed a tuneup before a big showdown. A Marciano-Valdez fight was booked for Miami in the winter. Moore blocked it and earned a FINAL TITLE ELIMINATOR to fight the rock. All Valdez had to do was beat Archie Moore, HE LOST. Marciano destroyed moore in 9 rounds.

So then you AGREE that Weill had either nixed or stalled opportunities to make the Valdes fight, correct?

Please provide a source where the american media critisized marciano of ducking nino valdez?

Why? Are you suddenly particular about what sources you use?

But since you ask, Sports Illustrated put out a scathing article criticizing Marciano's people for choosing Cockell over Valdes or another better known/ more deserving challenger. Believe some Ring writers criticized him a few times too. And frankly, I think pretty much everyone in the American media criticized him for bypassing Valdes for Cockell, given the popular perception (rightly or wrongly) of Cockell as just some "Eurobum" in the US.

Not at all. Dempsey cleaned out the WHITE heavyweight contenders, he did not defeat the top black heavyweight contenders 1917-1919. Liston defeated both.

No, as already stated, he did not defeat the top white heavyweights, just the top black ones.

Valdez was knocking londons block off, and cut him because of his sharp heavy punches, he gave a beating similiar to the way he gave Don Cockell. Valdez took london out of there before patterson did. This is the mark of a dangerous puncher.

No it isn't, all he did was cut him up. That's nothing like the way he had Cockell down early and almost out on his feet. He showed nothing of that kind of explosiveness against London.

ENTERING 1959 THE Same YEAR liston fought him, Valdez was the Ring Magazine annuel # 2 rated contender, ducked by patterson camp of a title shot, and had defeated several Ring Magazine top 10 or near it in 1958. Valdez was on a roll 1958 was his best year since 1954.

None of this answers my question. What showed you that Valdes was actually ranked AT THE TIME LISTON FOUGHT HIM?? - not simply "the same year," but actually WHEN the fight actually took place.

Be honest, have you ever actually seen anything that says Valdes was ranked AT THE TIME Liston fought him, or no?

I dont know what fight you were watching. Sharkey beat the hell out of dempsey in the first, and then outboxed jack winning 5 of the first 6 rounds to any unbias fan.

Again, you're talking around my point. That doesn't change the fact that Dempsey was getting in on Sharkey and giving him an increasingly rougher time, and Sharkey was beginning to lose his poise, whereas Tunney had already had the fight well in hand by this point and was coasting his way to a clear win.

* Yet Heeney gets a title shot just for beating Risko?

No, he'd also beaten Jack Delaney and Jimmy Maloney on top of that.

Heeney had already lost to Uzcuden, whom George Godfrey defeated.

Uzcuden had already lost to two guys Heeney beat (Risko and Delaney) in between beating Heeney and losing to Godfrey.

This is a round robin, we can keep on going around and around.

Not really, the only fighters you could make a case for deserving a title shot as of April 1928 were either Risko or Heeney. The only complaint you could make here is that there maybe should've been yet another elimination fight between those two, but the NY commission refused to wait any longer and told Tunney to pick a challenger right away or he'd be suspended; so he went with Heeney.

If Sharkey is not fouled by dempsey, he wins a unanimous decision and a gauranteed shot at tunney.

Speculation.

I think he puts up a better fight than jack did in rematch(even though jack knocked gene down and out for 14 seconds), maybe he beats gene.

All very possible, but still all just speculation, and ultimately all irrelevant.

Sharkey was given three consecutive shots to make a fight with Tunney (most fighters would be lucky just to get two, or even one for that matter) and blew them all. That's where the matter begins and ends.

* After tunney defeated heeney, sharkey was the overwhelming # 1 or # 2 rated heavyweight contender by media and Ring Magazine. he was in line as the clear next tunney opponent. instead, tunney retired. When Marciano retired, Archie Moore was the clear # 1 heavyweight contender(but since rocky already beat him) that meant there was no one left to fight, and moore was made a 6 to 5 favorite vs floyd patterson, which shows u how high the media thought of moore as next heavyweight champ. Notice how after Marciano beats moore, archie stills retains the # 1 ranking. After tunney beat Heeney, Heeney dropped all the way down to # 9!!!

So what? He had already given Sharkey three chances. It's not his responsibility to wait around till a prospective challenger gets his act together, nor is it his concern where a challenger's rank might possibly be a year later.

Wrong. He won a newspaper decision over Jeanette in 1914

That depends on what newspaper you read.

Either way, he didn't record a surefire win over Jeannette until sometime after that.

and defeated Mcvea in 1915 when Sam was top contender. Wills also defeated # 1 heavyweight contneder in 1914 sam langford.

What leads you to say those two were the standout top contenders at that time?

I am suprised you bring this up. It is well known that Kid Norfolk was blind when Tommy Gibbons fought him.

He had one eye when Wills beat him too, that didn't stop you from giving him credit for beating him. Why does it only become a factor when it's a white fighter who beats him?

This win has no meaning at all.

So then you don't think Wills' win over him has any meaning at all either, correct? Anything else would be contradictory of course.

Kid Norfolk is one of the few fighter's whose record speaks for itself. He was 5-0 against world champions and he beat every good black fighter (who many of the white contenders would not face), of his time. His only un-avenged losses during his prime were against Hall of Famers Sam Langford and Harry Wills.

Are you serious?? You just cut and pasted this directly from Kevin Smith's bio of him. :lol:

But now you're claiming it's OK to consider Norfolk "in his prime" at a time when he had only one eye, correct?

[dmt]

lol the last part on qs post is a cut and paste job

[My2Sense]

1. Right after Valdez lost a one sided shutout decision to a glass jawed 5'10 180lb bob satterfield getting outslugged toe to toe for 10 rounds.

2. Yes with the win over Cockell. It put Valdez back on the map. So what did the IBC do? Stage another title eliminator for Valdez to have his shot. However, Valdez LOST a dreadfull one sided decision to bob baker in yet ANOTHER title eliminator(his 2nd blown oppertunity and lost another chance at marciano

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



You wanted to know "all" the time that Marciano was given an opportunity to make the fight with Valdes, so I told you.

But from the looks of it, you now AGREE with my earlier point that Valdes' reputation had suffered irreparable damage after his early '50s heyday, correct?

[SuzieQ49]

DMT wrote


Dempsey beats a peak tunney faggot


Tunney beat a shot dempsey cunt



LMAO LOL

[SuzieQ49]

lol the last part on qs post is a cut and paste job

I quote Kevin Smith all the time. I met the man personally, he is a great guy. I trust his work whole heartedly. His article is there for all to see.

[mcvey]

I quote Kevin Smith all the time. I met the man personally, he is a great guy. I trust his work whole heartedly. His article is there for all to see.


But if DMT if attempting to accuse me of plagurism, let me point out DMT stole my Bob Baker vs Bob Satterfield upload, my rare carmine vingo vs rocky marciano, and Sam Mcvea vs Jim Johnson upload on youtube and tried to take credit for it!!!!
And he's got a pair of your Boxers.:lol:

[dmt]

I quote Kevin Smith all the time. I met the man personally, he is a great guy. I trust his work whole heartedly. His article is there for all to see.


But if DMT if attempting to accuse me of plagurism, let me point out DMT stole my Bob Baker vs Bob Satterfield upload, my rare carmine vingo vs rocky marciano, and Sam Mcvea vs Jim Johnson upload on youtube and tried to take credit for it!!!!Lol i didnt. U gave me the downloads, in the utube description, i thanked u and said i got this footage from a very good member of another site.


Nothing wrong with the Smith quote. Kevin was a good poster, has alot of good info, it just made me laugh when i read ur post since i read Norfolks bio a few days ago. Nothing wrong with the quote, it was just funny.

[dmt]

DMT wrote









LMAO LOL:lol: The second quote i did write but the first quote is not mine. Regardless that was almost three years ago and i have learned how to control my temper since. Still funny to see those quotes though :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:lol:

[SuzieQ49]

btw there is this one asshole youtube poster who continues to try to post shit in marciano vs vingo wall that the video is fake. I always argue with him. you should clean his clock. I dont like this guy Pugcat. he is a troll.

[dmt]

I havent viewed my vidoes in a while. Ill ban that idiot soon.

[SuzieQ49]

GODFREY WILL FIGHT CHAMP FOR NOTHING
Same Goes For Wills

Dec.1- Now Dougherty is coming to their rescue with an offer the like of which has probably never been made in ring history. Dougherty, as is pretty well known, is the manager of George Godfrey, the Negro heavyweight who has been beating all comers at the California clubs during the past few months. He has defeated every fighter who could be induced to meet him and made himself the best box office attraction they have on the coast.

With no more of the ordinary run of fightters to meet Godfrey, Dougherty has been doing his utmost to get a match for his Negro protege with Jack Dempsey or Harry Wills. But in the case with both of them they have refused to give Big George a tumble and seem never to have heard his name. In trying to arrange for a fight the chief difficulty the promoters always have is in regard to the money.

Dougherty proposes to remove any such difficulty in regard to Godfrey, for he says that he will let George fight either Dempsey or Wills for nothing. All the promoter has to do is get Dempsey or Wills, let them pay Jack or Harry whatever they wish, Godfrey will come in without asking a dollar. Nothing in the world could be fairer and if any promoter can secure Dempsey or Wills, Dougherty will sign articles and the lucky promoters can stage the biggest ring encounter now in sight.

Dougherty Sure Of Victory
Dougherty feels in his heart that Godfrey can whip Dempsey or Wills. But he has little hopes of ever getting the champion to meet his fighter. Godfrey was a sparring partner for Dempsey once and he proved such a rough cutomer for Jack that he was fired from the camp. That was when Dempsey was training for that memorable fight at Shelby with Tom Gibbons, whom he failed to stop in 15 rounds.

Feeling positive that there is no chance for getting a fight for Godfrey against Dempsey, Dougherty began looking elsewhere. Then he began negotiations for a fight with Wills. But so far he has had no success. There are several California promoters willing to stage the contest. The same goes for New York and Philadelphia. Dougherty feels so sure of winning that the advertising vain of a victory he considers sufficient pay for him and his man.............the victory will be enough for us and the other fellow can have all he can get from the promoter. Fifty percent of the gate is enough for any fighter, and if Godfrey can get a match, Dempsey or Wills can have half the gate and the promoter can have thew other half. Has any fighter ever made such an offer before?"







Interesting read

[OLD FOGEY]

NY newspapers reported on Gibbons' continual hounding of Wills for a fight some time. Eventually, Rickard got involved and they started to enter into negotiations, but as the papers reported, Wills kept stalling or postponing the fight from happening. Eventually, Gibbons got fed up, basically told him "Now or never," and when Wills didn't respond, he signed to fight Tunney instead. Just a few days after Gibbons signed to fight Tunney, Wills immediately signed to fight Charley Weinert, no problem.



So again, this is a case of you agreeing that the guy avoided a fight, but now putting a spin on it as to why in this case it is "acceptable" when for other fighters it wouldn't be, correct?



First of all, I have the actual statement by Dempsey (not just boxrec's summary of it) and he didn't "guarantee" (as you claim) that he would fight the winner, he said he would give consideration to fighting the winner if he gave an impressive performance. Moreover, he said he already had a fight lined up with Bill Brennan later that year, and no matter what, the winner would not receive a shot prior to that.

Secondly (and more to the point), your two points blatantly contradict each other. First you point to what Wills "said" like it actually means something, and then in your second point you show how a fighter's words don't mean shit.

If Wills turned them down, he turned them down. What does what he "said" he would do make any difference to that?

"New York newspapers reported on Gibbons' continual hounding of Wills for a fight some time"

I checked the New York Times archive. Maybe I missed something, but there is one mention of a possible Gibbons-Wills match, on March 10, 1925.

"If Jack Dempsey, choose to box Tommy Gibbons instead of Harry Wills, in the first bout of his summer campaign, Gibbons stands ready to box Wills before meeting the heavyweight champion, Eddie Kane, Gibbons' manager, said tonight on his return from New York.
Kane expects to meet Jack Kearns, Dempsey's manager, here Saturday to discuss the possibility of a match between Gibbons and Dempsey in California this summer."

That is it for the New York Times on Wills and Gibbons. By the way, if there was any 'continual hounding' going on, it was from both Gibbons and Wills trying in 1924 and 1925 to get a match with Dempsey. There is article after article about various promotional offers and wrangling before the NYSAC to force Dempsey to defend his title. The managers of both Wills and Gibbons had laid claim to the title because of the champion's inactivity.

By April 26, 1925, the 'continual hounding' must have been over as it is mentioned in an article that Gibbons was set to fight Tunney and Wills set to fight Weinert.

Weinert might be easy to dismiss in retrospect, but he was coming off wins over both Firpo and Sharkey. Gibbons was not fighting, let alone defeating, heavyweights of that stature. His high rating was due mainly to his unexpectedly good showing against Dempsey back in 1923.

[My2Sense]

"New York newspapers reported on Gibbons' continual hounding of Wills for a fight some time"

I checked the New York Times archive. Maybe I missed something, but there is one mention of a possible Gibbons-Wills match, on March 10, 1925.

"If Jack Dempsey, choose to box Tommy Gibbons instead of Harry Wills, in the first bout of his summer campaign, Gibbons stands ready to box Wills before meeting the heavyweight champion, Eddie Kane, Gibbons' manager, said tonight on his return from New York.
Kane expects to meet Jack Kearns, Dempsey's manager, here Saturday to discuss the possibility of a match between Gibbons and Dempsey in California this summer."

That is it for the New York Times on Wills and Gibbons.

If you're only looking for Times articles, here's a few pieces I have on hand that talk about this.

-In January 1924, the Times reports that two Newark promoters "offered $100,000 for Wills to box Tommy Gibbons, St. Paul light-heavyweight, in a twelve-round bout contemplated for May 1 at Dreamland Park."

-In February 1925, Gibbons claims the HW title following a report that Dempsey is considering retirement. Gibbons says he wants to solidify his claim by fighting Wills, who he says is now his own #1 contender.

-February 21, Rickard says he is planning to promote a possible Wills-Gibbons fight, which Gibbons has been seeking.

-March 17, the Times reports that the final signing of the fight has been "delayed" by Wills' camp once again, which apparently contradicts an earlier report that the fight was a done deal. The negotiations have apparently been ongoing for some time.

-March 31, Gibbons issues an ultimatum to Wills. Eddie Kane, Gibbons' manager, "issued an ultimatum that unless Wills's signed contract to box Gibbons is presented to him today by noon he will proceed with arrangements for a meeting between Gibbons and Tunney."

-April 2, Gibbons signs to fight Tunney after failing to get a response from Wills' people.

-April 10, a mere 8 days later, it's announced that Wills has signed to fight Weinert.

By the way, if there was any 'continual hounding' going on, it was from both Gibbons and Wills trying in 1924 and 1925 to get a match with Dempsey.

Gibbons' whole plan for getting Dempsey to fight him again was to get Wills into the ring with him and beat him.

Weinert might be easy to dismiss in retrospect, but he was coming off wins over both Firpo and Sharkey. Gibbons was not fighting, let alone defeating, heavyweights of that stature. His high rating was due mainly to his unexpectedly good showing against Dempsey back in 1923.

Weinert had been considered washed up only a year or so earlier, before his big upset of Firpo briefly put him back into contention. He was not held in nearly the same regard as Gibbons. If anything, his record looks better in retrospect because of a couple of wins over a young Sharkey, but Sharkey was only in his first or second year as a pro, not even good enough to be considered a prospect at that time.

[OLD FOGEY]

If you're only looking for Times articles, here's a few pieces I have on hand that talk about this.

-In January 1924, the Times reports that two Newark promoters "offered $100,000 for Wills to box Tommy Gibbons, St. Paul light-heavyweight, in a twelve-round bout contemplated for May 1 at Dreamland Park."

-In February 1925, Gibbons claims the HW title following a report that Dempsey is considering retirement. Gibbons says he wants to solidify his claim by fighting Wills, who he says is now his own #1 contender.

-February 21, Rickard says he is planning to promote a possible Wills-Gibbons fight, which Gibbons has been seeking.

-March 17, the Times reports that the final signing of the fight has been "delayed" by Wills' camp once again, which apparently contradicts an earlier report that the fight was a done deal. The negotiations have apparently been ongoing for some time.

-March 31, Gibbons issues an ultimatum to Wills. Eddie Kane, Gibbons' manager, "issued an ultimatum that unless Wills's signed contract to box Gibbons is presented to him today by noon he will proceed with arrangements for a meeting between Gibbons and Tunney."

-April 2, Gibbons signs to fight Tunney after failing to get a response from Wills' people.

-April 10, a mere 8 days later, it's announced that Wills has signed to fight Weinert.



Gibbons' whole plan for getting Dempsey to fight him again was to get Wills into the ring with him and beat him.



Weinert had been considered washed up only a year or so earlier, before his big upset of Firpo briefly put him back into contention. He was not held in nearly the same regard as Gibbons. If anything, his record looks better in retrospect because of a couple of wins over a young Sharkey, but Sharkey was only in his first or second year as a pro, not even good enough to be considered a prospect at that time.

on Gibbons:

Dec 5, 1924 New York Times, page 25--"Dempsey may fight Gibbons here May 5; Champion may defend title in last show at Garden, Rickard says."

Feb 17, 1925 New York Times, page 17--"Eddie Kane, manager of Tom Gibbons, said here today that he has accepted terms for a match with Jack Dempsey in California, in either May or June. The proposed match may be staged in the Rose Bowl."

March 17, 1925 New York Times-----"OFFER TO FIGHT GIBBONS AT MILK FUND----quotes Wills manager Paddy Mullings--"I listened to a proposition to have Wills fight Gibbons in the Milk Fund feature, with the understanding that the winner would get Dempsey in the fall, but I did nothing definite toward arranging the match," said Mullins. "Right now I am after a match for Wills against Dempsey. The State Athletic Commission has Will's challenge to Dempsey and has demanded action of Dempsey on the challenge. I am therefore in no position to accept any matches for Wills in the present situation.
"If I were to accept a Gibbons match, I could not reasonably expect the commission to press my campaign for a Dempsey bout with any degree of success. That is obvious. I took the proposition this afternoon under consideration, but I will do nothing until I obtain a Dempsey bout for Harry or am convinced that a Dempsey match is out of the question."

This quote seems to indicate this was the first firm offer. Kane had said a month earlier that Gibbons was going to fight Dempsey.

The Times article goes on to give a review of the politics of the commission:

"The question of Dempsey's attitude toward the demand of the board that he accept Wills' challenge is expected to come up for consideration at today's meeting of the State Commission."

So the State Athletic Commission had acted on Will's challenge to Dempsey that Dempsey either defend against Wills or vacate the title. It was waiting for Dempsey's answer when Rickard tosses the Gibbons offer on the table. If Wills accepts, he abrogates the Commisssion's decision, which favors him.



March 31, 1925--New York Times---GIBBONS MAY CLOSE TUNNEY BOUT TODAY

Kane has broken off negotiations for a Wills bout and is signing to fight Tunney. This paragraph seems critical to me:

"It is understood negotiations for the Gibbons-Wills struggle have been abandoned. Even if they have not been abandoned, there is little likelihood of the match materializing because the State Athletic Commission, it is learned from an authoritive source, is opposed to the sanctioning of such a bout."

Bottom line--Gibbons breaks off negotiations, not Wills. It is absurd to imply Wills ducked Gibbons. The politics is so Byzantine, who knows what is going on. When push comes to shove, the commission does not want to see Wills fight Gibbons. Is there a secret agenda?

[OLD FOGEY]

And what about Tunney?

Rickard signs Tunney to a contract to fight Wills in August, 1925, while Wills is negotiating to fight Dempsey. Still, this fight might have come off, except for-----

September 9, 1925 New York Times page 30

COMMISSION HALTS WILLS-TUNNEY BOUT

"Gives October 12 date her to Sports Alliance, upsetting Rickard's plans for match."

There is a long and complex article detailing how Tex Rickard and two other promotional groups, Sports Alliance, fronted by Jimmy Johnston, and Ebbets Field, bid to stage fights on October 12, Rickard lost and so the Wills-Tunney fight died on the vine.

"In assigning this date to the Alliance the commission rejected an application from Promoter Rickard and another from Ebbets Field which was also seeking the privilege of holding a boxing show on that holiday."

"These developments in the fistic situation automatically preclude Rickard's holding a Wills-Tunney match on Columbus Day, as he had planned."

So Rickard is out of the picture--but the match might not be dead:

"Promoters J Frank Black, Babe Culman, and Henry Blaufus, Newark's boxing triumverate, dashed madly into the office of Billy Gibson, manager of Tunney, and offered to match the Greenwich Village idol with Wills for September 28."

"Gibson . . . estimated the possible receipts and Tunney's reward from a Wills-Tunney match in Newark. Then Gibson laughed the matter off."

Bottom line--Again the commission comes in to torpedo the bout in New York. It seems hard to believe Rickard couldn't get the date for a match on this scale. Is there a secret agenda?

Tunney still could have had a Wills fight in Newark. Wills had signed to fight in Newark and in fact did that October against Floyd Johnson. Gibson seems not to have liked the money. Okay, boxing is a business, but there is no basis at all to imply that Wills ducked Tunney.

September 10, 1925 New York Times, page 21-----WILLS NOW READY TO FIGHT TUNNEY

"Just when it seemed all prospects for a heavyweight battle between Harry Wills and Gene Tunney before the end of outdoor season was unlikely, Paddy Mullins, manager of the negro boxer, announced yesterday that Wills was ready and eager to meet Tunney."

Tunney signed to fight Bartley Madden.

[My2Sense]

This quote seems to indicate this was the first firm offer.

Maybe the first offer he actually entertained, but not the first that he had received. Wills had already received offers to fight Gibbons.

Bottom line--Gibbons breaks off negotiations, not Wills.

No, the bottom line is that Wills refused to sign or even respond after prolonged negotiations.

The politics is so Byzantine, who knows what is going on.

You could say that about any situation at any time. If that's your position here, then you could never claim that anyone ever ducked anyone, anytime.

[OLD FOGEY]

Maybe the first offer he actually entertained, but not the first that he had received. Wills had already received offers to fight Gibbons.



No, the bottom line is that Wills refused to sign or even respond after prolonged negotiations.



You could say that about any situation at any time. If that's your position here, then you could never claim that anyone ever ducked anyone, anytime.


Wills was in the middle of legal negotiations with the New York State Athletic Commission to force Dempsey to sign to defend against him or to vacate the title. Gibbons isn't really very relevant. He had lost to Dempsey two years earlier and had not since defeated a top heavyweight. The commission had already ruled that Wills was the top challenger and entitled to a title match. Before the issues between Dempsey and Wills could be settled, Gibbons signed to fight Tunney.

Anyway, this is a charade. Did you read the quote I reprinted from the Times article on March 31? The commission was not prepared to sanction a fight between Wills and Gibbons.

How "prolonged" could negotiations have possibly been when Kane is announcing to the press on February 17 that he had closed a fight with Dempsey in the Rose Bowl? and on March 10th that he was going to meet with Kearns to discuss details of such a match.

on ducking--why in the hell should Wills throw away a possible shot at Dempsey to fight Gibbons? The commission had ruled in his favor. He was waiting for Dempsey's response. Is he supposed to abort the whole process because of Gibbons?

[My2Sense]

Wills was in the middle of legal negotiations with the New York State Athletic Commission to force Dempsey to sign to defend against him or to vacate the title.

Before the issues between Dempsey and Wills could be settled, Gibbons signed to fight Tunney.

Not true, the NYSAC had already made its ruling on the matter by March 23, when it ruled to ban Dempsey from fighting in the state. The commission said it had no intention of ever stripping Dempsey of his title, they told Wills "Titles are only won in the ring." Gibbons' people gave Wills the ultimatum a full week after that.

Gibbons isn't really very relevant.

He was the #2 rated contender in the world. I'd hardly call that "irrelevant."

Charley Weinert was far less relevant at that time.

Before the issues between Dempsey and Wills could be settled, Gibbons signed to fight Tunney.

But what was different about the Dempsey-Wills "issues" when Wills suddenly found he was able to fight Weinert a few days later?

Anyway, this is a charade. Did you read the quote I reprinted from the Times article on March 31? The commission was not prepared to sanction a fight between Wills and Gibbons.

Yes, according to the writer's "inside" source - but even assuming that's true, that would only come into play if Wills had actually followed through and signed for the fight in the first place. But he didn't. Whether or not the fight would've happened if he did sign, the fact still is he wouldn't sign, which makes it a moot point.

The day after the ultimatum, the promoters of the event issued a statement that they were confident the fight could be held in NY, if the fighters were still willing; but they still had not heard yet from Wills or his team.

A few days later (once Tunney-Gibbons was signed and sealed), Wills turns up and is signed to fight Weinert for a fight in NY. The NYSAC had none of the reported "problems" sanctioning the fight.

------------------------------

PS, I think you're missing my point. I'm not really looking to accuse anyone of "ducking" anyone. I only brought this up to illustrate the hypocrisy and double standards of other posters who are accusing fighters of ducking.

[SuzieQ49]

PS, I think you're missing my point. I'm not really looking to accuse anyone of "ducking" anyone. I only brought this up to illustrate the hypocrisy and double standards of other posters who are accusing fighters of ducking.

If not fighting your #1 contender for 7 straight years and your # 2 contender for multiple years isnt termed "ducking" then the term ducking doesnt exist. wills and greb were ducked. plain and simple

[OLD FOGEY]

Not true, the NYSAC had already made its ruling on the matter by March 23, when it ruled to ban Dempsey from fighting in the state. The commission said it had no intention of ever stripping Dempsey of his title, they told Wills "Titles are only won in the ring." Gibbons' people gave Wills the ultimatum a full week after that.



He was the #2 rated contender in the world. I'd hardly call that "irrelevant."

Charley Weinert was far less relevant at that time.



But what was different about the Dempsey-Wills "issues" when Wills suddenly found he was able to fight Weinert a few days later?



Yes, according to the writer's "inside" source - but even assuming that's true, that would only come into play if Wills had actually followed through and signed for the fight in the first place. But he didn't. Whether or not the fight would've happened if he did sign, the fact still is he wouldn't sign, which makes it a moot point.

The day after the ultimatum, the promoters of the event issued a statement that they were confident the fight could be held in NY, if the fighters were still willing; but they still had not heard yet from Wills or his team.

A few days later (once Tunney-Gibbons was signed and sealed), Wills turns up and is signed to fight Weinert for a fight in NY. The NYSAC had none of the reported "problems" sanctioning the fight.

------------------------------

PS, I think you're missing my point. I'm not really looking to accuse anyone of "ducking" anyone. I only brought this up to illustrate the hypocrisy and double standards of other posters who are accusing fighters of ducking.

1. I don't see Gibbons was relevant to Wills. No.

2. Weinert was the #3 contender in 1924, one place behind Gibbons. He had defeated Romero-Rojas (#4 contender), Firpo, and Sharkey twice. You said earlier Sharkey was not even a prospect, but he had defeated Floyd Johnson, Homer Smith, Jack DeMave, and Sully Montgomery, and had fought the #3 and #4 contenders in his FIRST active years as a pro fighter. Sharkey had been thrown to the wolves like no one in boxing history, even Joe Louis. I would myself consider Weinert the tougher opponent, with his wins over three top heavyweights. Gibbons hadn't beaten a top heavy since Miske. He was a great lightheavyweight, not heavyweight.

3. Who is Gibbons to give ultimatums to Wills? The fact is he broke off the negotiations to sign with Tunney.

4. Wills probably accepted the bout with Weinert to fulfill his contractual obligation to Rickard. He had signed a contract with Rickard in 1924. Once he fulfilled that contract, he could negotiate with other promoters for a shot at Dempsey.

5. I have to assume the reporter was correct, as he said "authoritive" source, probably shorthand for someone on the commission who wanted to remain anonymous.

6. The ban of Dempsey did not settle the Wills-Dempsey matter. It just meant Dempsey could not fight anyone else in New York until he accepted Wills's challenge. Dempsey was still appearing before the commission that summer. Obviously, he never accepted Wills' challenge and did not fight in New York State until after he had lost the title and Wills was out of the picture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"PS. I think you are missing my point. I am not looking to accuse anyone of 'ducking' anyone."

Sorry. I did miss your point. Yes, of the "ducking" we are talking about were with men who didn't actually prove they were outstanding (Martin and Godfrey) or got screwed because of historical circumstances (1943 to 1945) or are arbitrary (Patterson should have fought Valdes rather than Harris), or nonexistant (Ingo ducking Liston, everyone ducking Williams). Of the ones that matter, Jeff probably should have fought Johnson in the 1903 to 1905 period, but Johnson lost a key fight. Marciano probably should have fought Valdes in 1955, but Valdes lost key fights.
The most serious historical issues in the pre-1980 era are Johnson and Dempsey avoiding their leading contenders. This went on so long and with so much dancing around that I don't see how issues of "ducking" can be avoided for these champions.

[Bokaj]

If not fighting your #1 contender for 7 straight years and your # 2 contender for multiple years isnt termed "ducking" then the term ducking doesnt exist. wills and greb were ducked. plain and simple

It really is as simple as that. Amazing that this is even disputed.

[OLD FOGEY]

By the way, on Greb:

August 3, 1925--New York Times

"DEMPSEY REFUSES GREB BOUT OFFER"

"Tells promoter Fitzsimmons the only fight he wants is with Harry Wills"

So I guess the reason Dempsey did not defend against Greb is that he was interested in defending against Wills. I guess!?

[McGrain]

"DEMPSEY REFUSES GREB BOUT OFFER"

"Tells promoter Fitzsimmons the only fight he wants is with Harry Wills"

So I guess the reason Dempsey did not defend against Greb is that he was interested in defending against Wills. I guess!?

:lol:

[OLD FOGEY]

Because I read books and old newspapers. That is how I formed this brilliant summation, mi amigo. Wills was big and rather lumbering, slow of foot and hand according to what I have read over the last 20 years of my boxing research. He was a strong S.O.B., for sure, but his skill set seemed all wrong for a motivated Dempsey. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

The New York Times report of his December 1915 fight with Langford described Wills as a fast and clever boxer for his size with a strong left jab. Not quite the description you are giving.

Off what I have read of him, he seems a big man (6' 4") who could box but had only so-so power. He sounds more like Larry Holmes than George Foreman.