# Is there any consistency to the criticism of Dempsey?



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Here's what I've seen so far on this board:

If Dempsey fights a big man, then he's cherrypicking a stationary target who can't handle his speed. But if he fights a lighter man, he's cherrypicking someone who's too small to handle his strength and power.

If there's a bigger man that Dempsey doesn't fight, it's because he's worried about size and strength. If there's a smaller man that he doesn't fight, it's because he's troubled by speed and skill.

When Dempsey fights a leading contender, then that guy is really just a lot of hype and everyone who rated him as a top contender and paid millions to see the fight did so for no apparent reason. But when there's a top contender that Dempsey doesn't fight, then that guy is unquestionably "the real deal" and Dempsey's resume suffers terribly for not having his name on it.

When discussing the quality of challengers that Dempsey fought, their flaws should be emphasized foremost and their strengths and qualifications should be ignored. When discussing the quality of fighters Dempsey didn't fight, the reverse should be done.

If one of Dempsey's opponents turns out to be handicapped by illness or injury, that fighter's credentials should be completely disregarded. But if there's a handicapped fighter that Dempsey doesn't fight, that fighter should be judged strictly on his achievements.

Dempsey should never be forgiven for any fights he might've turned down while on the way up. As we all know, no fighter in history has ever been selective about choosing opponents while on the way up. Every fighter looks to fight rated contenders from the moment they turn pro.

If any factual information conflicts with criticism of Dempsey, it's probably just "made up."


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Here's what I've seen so far on this board:
> 
> If Dempsey fights a big man, then he's cherrypicking a stationary target who can't handle his speed. But if he fights a lighter man, he's cherrypicking someone who's too small to handle his strength and power.


Or how about he just avoided the best fighters of his era?



Sittin Sonny said:


> If there's a bigger man that Dempsey doesn't fight, it's because he's worried about size and strength. If there's a smaller man that he doesn't fight, it's because he's troubled by speed and skill.


Or how about he just avoided the best fighters of his era?



Sittin Sonny said:


> When Dempsey fights a leading contender, then that guy is really just a lot of hype and everyone who rated him as a top contender and paid millions to see the fight did so for no apparent reason.


As other top contenders also disposed of him with ease perhaps?



Sittin Sonny said:


> But when there's a top contender that Dempsey doesn't fight, then that guy is unquestionably "the real deal" and Dempsey's resume suffers terribly for not having his name on it.


Because said top contender disposed of the other top contender easily? Crazy shit!!!



Sittin Sonny said:


> *When discussing the quality of challengers that Dempsey fought, their flaws should be emphasized foremost and their strengths and qualifications should be ignored. *When discussing the quality of fighters Dempsey didn't fight, the reverse should be done.


You seem to get equally upset when it's noted how Dempsey lost/drew to his opponents and got tagged clean like a heavy bag and decked by them



Sittin Sonny said:


> If one of Dempsey's opponents turns out to be handicapped by illness or injury, that fighter's credentials should be completely disregarded. But if there's a handicapped fighter that Dempsey doesn't fight, that fighter should be judged strictly on his achievements.


How about when we focus on when the handicapped fighter wasn't near deaths door and he arguably beat Dempsey? Do you prefer that?



Sittin Sonny said:


> Dempsey should never be forgiven for any fights he might've turned down while on the way up. As we all know, no fighter in history has ever been selective about choosing opponents while on the way up. Every fighter looks to fight rated contenders from the moment they turn pro.


When was this imaginary point in time Dempsey took on any man? Because on the way up he was too young and when he won the championship he ran for the hills, so I suppose that's being unfair to him because plenty of opponents don't want hard fights.



Sittin Sonny said:


> If any factual information conflicts with criticism of Dempsey, it's probably just "made up."


You mean the factual information made up by his wife and manager?


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

I think you need to be more specific, and by specific I mean ducking Wills and Greb, two fighters repeatedly called out in press as the best opponents... and one in particular of whom Jack preferred to defend against his victims rather than meet himself.

The above, plus the inactivity during his reign, provide justified criticism.

In the end, Dempsey is still a great, but in my opinion, one of the great wastes of talent and potential the division has seen.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Or how about he just avoided the best fighters of his era?
> 
> Or how about he just avoided the best fighters of his era?


Fulton was rated as the top contender when Dempsey beat him, Willard was the reigning world HW champ, Carpentier had been considered Dempsey's outstanding challenger for 2 years before they finally fought (and had also been a top contender several years earlier, before serving in WW1), and Gibbons split a 4 fight series with Greb.



Powerpuncher said:


> As other top contenders also disposed of him with ease perhaps?
> 
> Because said top contender disposed of the other top contender easily? Crazy shit!!!


Who disposed of Carpentier with ease?

Greb disposed of Gibbons with ease in one fight, but was himself disposed of easily in 2 others.



Powerpuncher said:


> You seem to get equally upset when it's noted how Dempsey lost/drew to his opponents and got tagged clean like a heavy bag and decked by them


:huh When on earth did I do that?

Dempsey didn't "lost/draw" to Sharkey after he beat Wills with ease. He also didn't "lost/draw" to Gibbons or the "dying" version of Miske, both of whom Wills turned down after Dempsey had already beaten them decisively (although without getting anywhere near the same criticism that Dempsey gets for not taking fights).



Powerpuncher said:


> You mean the factual information made up by his wife and manager?


No, I mean factual information cited in contemporary newspaper reports.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Fulton was rated as the top contender when Dempsey beat him, Willard was the reigning world HW champ, Carpentier had been considered Dempsey's outstanding challenger for 2 years before they finally fought (and had also been a top contender several years earlier, before serving in WW1), and Gibbons split a 4 fight series with Greb.
> 
> Who disposed of Carpentier with ease?
> 
> ...


Hey congrats, you finally mentioned Wills, you know, Dempsey's top contender for 7 years. Since when is it the #1 contenders responsibility to fight an endless stream of elimination matches? Wills had fought half a dozen elimination bouts successfully by the time guys like Gibbons, Tunney, and Sharkey were asking for bouts with him. At some point your hero needed to shit or get off the pot.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

And why avoid a runt like Greb and instead take on his victims (Brennan, Miske, Darcy, Gibbons) instead? Would it be that a certain somebody was schooled in sparring in Michigan?


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Seamus said:


> I think you need to be more specific, and by specific I mean ducking Wills and Greb, two fighters repeatedly called out in press as the best opponents... and one in particular of whom Jack preferred to defend against his victims rather than meet himself.


Carpentier had been called out as Dempsey's best opponent since beating Joe Beckett 2 years earlier - that point gets overlooked whenever the argument about Dempsey avoiding his best opponents is made. During that same time, Wills was the underdog against Dempsey leftover Fulton. Wills only emerged as the consensus #1 contender after Dempsey settled matters with Carpentier.

If Dempsey hadn't fought Carpentier, he'd be criticized for depriving him of a long overdue title shot.

As far as Greb, he was certainly accomplished as a HW, but it's questionable whether he ever stood out as the clear #1 or even #2 leading contender. In a 1922 newspaper poll asking who should be Dempsey's next challenger, Greb just barely edged out Willard for the #3 spot, and was rated a sizable number of votes behind Bill Brennan despite having previously beaten him. If Dempsey had fought Greb, he'd be criticized today for fighting an "aging," punchless natural MW with only one eye.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Hey congrats, you finally mentioned Wills, you know, Dempsey's top contender *for 7 years*.


He wasn't his top contender "for 7 years" - that's exactly the kind of revisionism I'm talking about. Wills still wasn't highly regarded enough to be favored over a post-Dempsey Fulton in 1920. He only emerged as a clear #1 contender after Dempsey beat Carpentier, who had already been considered a leading HW contender a year before Wills' upset of Fulton.



Seamus said:


> And why avoid a runt like Greb and instead take on his victims (Brennan, Miske, Darcy, Gibbons) instead? Would it be that a certain somebody was schooled in sparring in Michigan?


See my post at 9:24 PM.

Also, this is another contradictory argument - you criticize Dempsey for not fighting a guy who had given him hell _in a sparring session_, while simultaneously criticizing him for rematching a guy who had given him hell _in two actual fights_.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

We try to mix it up. Hobgoblins and all that.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> He wasn't his top contender "for 7 years" - that's exactly the kind of revisionism I'm talking about. Wills still wasn't highly regarded enough to be favored over a post-Dempsey Fulton in 1920. He only emerged as a clear #1 contender after Dempsey beat Carpentier, who had already been considered a leading HW contender a year before Wills' upset of Fulton.


That's a load of horseshit. I can quote articles all day from before the Carpentier fight that suggest Wills is being ducked. Here's one from 1918! (and I apologize for the language)... Jimmy Stack, June 7, 1918.

"Jack Kearns, in one of his humorous moods, pulled a funny one yesterday. It is to laugh. Ha, ha, ha. He says Jack Dempsey, his charge, is too good to bother about fighting Harry Wills, the talented **** who now has two wins over Sam Langford. That's great talk. That was what Jeffries' supporters chattered when Jack Johnson challenged him. Jeffries was too good for Johnson.

Kearns knows down deep in his heart that Wills is a fighter. His contention that Wills is a most ordinary scrapper is bunk...

You will always observe that colored fighters who don't amount to much can always get fights. The white boys takes them on as fast as they can... As to Wills I think he is a great fighter, and if I had Dempsey I would not bet a cent he could drop the *****. In the fights I saw Wills he was splendid."


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> He wasn't his top contender "for 7 years" - that's exactly the kind of revisionism I'm talking about. Wills still wasn't highly regarded enough to be favored over a post-Dempsey Fulton in 1920. He only emerged as a clear #1 contender after Dempsey beat Carpentier, who had already been considered a leading HW contender a year before Wills' upset of Fulton.
> 
> See my post at 9:24 PM.
> 
> Also, this is another contradictory argument - you criticize Dempsey for not fighting a guy who had given him hell _in a sparring session_, while simultaneously criticizing him for rematching a guy who had given him hell _in two actual fights_.


thats bullshit. dempsey was asked about defending against wills immediately after winning the title and drew the color line. even if you believe wills "only" became a top contender in 1921 you still admit that dempsey ducked him for five years. if you think that is excusable then you are obviously long on excuses for dempsey and should rightly be labled a biased apologist.


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Here's what I've seen so far on this board:
> 
> If Dempsey fights a big man, then he's cherrypicking a stationary target who can't handle his speed. But if he fights a lighter man, he's cherrypicking someone who's too small to handle his strength and power.
> 
> ...


Sitting Sonny, prepare for the onslaught you will receive for defending Jack Dempsey...Reading other boxing sites, Dempsey was a scoundrel, 
a coward, unworthy of the great praise heaped upon him as a FIGHTER by tons of his peers, boxing writers and historians. As an observer of
boxing history you will have to be strong to fight many of today's revisionists, who utterly hate the name Dempsey...My best to you and be STRONG...


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Seamus said:


> That's a load of horseshit. I can quote articles all day from before the Carpentier fight that suggest Wills is being ducked. Here's one from 1918! (and I apologize for the language)... Jimmy Stack, June 7, 1918.
> 
> "Jack Kearns, in one of his humorous moods, pulled a funny one yesterday. It is to laugh. Ha, ha, ha. He says Jack Dempsey, his charge, is too good to bother about fighting Harry Wills, the talented **** who now has two wins over Sam Langford. That's great talk. That was what Jeffries' supporters chattered when Jack Johnson challenged him. Jeffries was too good for Johnson.
> 
> ...


But was this a consensus view of Wills' ability, or a contrary view from someone with inside insight? The fact that most people still favored one of Dempsey's 1st-round victims over Wills 2 years later supports the latter.

Besides, if not fighting Wills was the only criticism that was routinely made of Dempsey, I wouldn't have started this thread.



Klompton said:


> even if you believe wills "only" became a top contender in 1921 you still admit that dempsey ducked him *for five years*.


That's assuming I blame Dempsey for the fact that the NY Commission turned around and barred the fight in 1923 (along with multiple other states) - which I don't. Do you?


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> But was this a consensus view of Wills' ability, or a contrary view from someone with inside insight? The fact that most people still favored one of Dempsey's 1st-round victims over Wills 2 years later supports the latter.


I've done a fair amount of research and I could quote a lot more with similar sentiments . I don't know how we calculate consensus or not. What I do have are first hand, contemporary accounts. I am not saying that I think Wills would win, just that he clearly deserved the shot... before guys like Darcy, Brennan or even Carpentier or Gibbons.

Mind also that Kearns had his hands in quite a few of the sportswriters' pockets. Runyon being perhaps the most egregious of these.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Show me where the New York State Athletic Commission banned the bout. But regardless of that ridiculous ascertion, was New York the only venue for the fight? Because as champion Dempsey fought there twice. He had no problem fighting in Montana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Michigan. Anyone who reads at length the contemporary sources from the period between 1919 and 1926 cannot help but be overwhelmed by the massive amount of evidence pointing to Dempsey actively ducking Wills. People have for years done everything they can to move blame from Dempsey to Kearns, Rickard, and a number of other people while conveniently ignoring the fact that Dempsey was quoted on several occasions as drawing the color line and that Dempsey and Kearns split in 1925, a full year and a half before Dempsey lost to Tunney, during which time the New York State Athletic Commission bore down on Dempsey with all of their weight in an effort to force the Wills match and Dempsey continuously and steadfastly refused to the point that he was banned in the state and Rickard was forced to move his planned Tunney defense to Pennsylvania. But lets go on and pretend that the Dempsey two step was not a concerted effort to duck his most threatening challenger. Either you are ill informed, naive, or have an agenda. Whichever it is none of it is factual and does a great injustice to Wills and misguidedly ATTEMPTS to deflect criticism from a man who deserves it least as much as anyone else: Dempsey.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Hey congrats, you finally mentioned Wills, you know, Dempsey's top contender for 7 years. Since when is it the #1 contenders responsibility to fight an endless stream of elimination matches? Wills had fought half a dozen elimination bouts successfully by the time guys like Gibbons, Tunney, and Sharkey were asking for bouts with him. At some point your hero needed to shit or get off the pot.


The 1924 version of Wills was considered to have eliminated himself as a viable contender for Dempsey after his underwhelming win over Firpo.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=3181,2790358&dq=harry+wills&hl=en

Wills passed on a $5000 opportunity to spar for 10 days with Dempsey ,when the 1919 Mauler was training for Willard.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...IBAJ&pg=2541,5238238&dq=dempsey+v+wills&hl=en


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

While Wills was a very serious omission on Dempsey's record, there is no justification for saying that he was the top contender for seven years. 

He simply wasn't.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Fulton was rated as the top contender when Dempsey beat him,


His resume was inferior to Wills and he was proven to be not that special, basically a Shannon Briggs or Mike Grant of his era.



Sittin Sonny said:


> Willard was the reigning world HW champ,


At 37yo with 1 fight in 4 years and previously beaten by nobodies within a close period of his championship win.



Sittin Sonny said:


> Carpentier had been considered Dempsey's outstanding challenger for 2 years before they finally fought (and had also been a top contender several years earlier, before serving in WW1),


No he wasn't the outstanding HW challenger, which top HW contenders did he beat within the 2 years prior to them fighting? He was a LHW champ who wasn't facing the best LHWs.



Sittin Sonny said:


> and Gibbons split a 4 fight series with Greb.


What you meant to say was coming off being schooled twice by Greb and was effectively a left over.



Sittin Sonny said:


> Who disposed of Carpentier with ease?


Allot of contenders seemed to dominate Carpenties, he was ko'd 9 times, Gibbons and Tunney dominated, Siki ko'd him in 6.



Sittin Sonny said:


> Greb disposed of Gibbons with ease in one fight, but was himself disposed of easily in 2 others.


Yes Gibbons was coming off losing 25 straight rounds to Greb and Dempsey chose the 32yo Gibbons instead of the dominant boxer of the moment.



Sittin Sonny said:


> :huh When on earth did I do that?


Dempsey fans tend to, not sure, who were you on ESB?



Sittin Sonny said:


> Dempsey didn't "lost/draw" to Sharkey after he beat Wills with ease. He also didn't "lost/draw" to Gibbons or the "dying" version of Miske, both of whom Wills turned down after Dempsey had already beaten them decisively (although without getting anywhere near the same criticism that Dempsey gets for not taking fights).


He either lost or drew to Prime Miske. Wills claimed Tunney ducked him.



Sittin Sonny said:


> No, I mean factual information cited in contemporary newspaper reports.


Factual interviews with his manager/promoter you mean :lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

janitor said:


> While Wills was a very serious omission on Dempsey's record, there is no justification for saying that he was the top contender for seven years.
> 
> He simply wasn't.


That's true he was more like the top contender for the title from 1914-1926


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> That's true he was more like the top contender for the title from 1914-1926


Hindsight is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> The 1924 version of Wills was considered to have eliminated himself as a viable contender for Dempsey after his underwhelming win over Firpo.
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=3181,2790358&dq=harry+wills&hl=en
> 
> ...


Way to make a statement and use a source that in no way backs it up :rolleyes

And Rickard is Gospel now?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> His resume was inferior to Wills and he was proven to be not that special, basically a Shannon Briggs or Mike Grant of his era.
> 
> At 37yo with 1 fight in 4 years and previously beaten by nobodies within a close period of his championship win.
> 
> ...


Fulton was considered the stand-out challenger to Willard when Dempsey took him out in under half a minute .Just a year earlier he had floored and stopped Langford .

Wills would not fight Gibbons,Godfrey , or Tunney. He was on the slide by the time Tunney was a top contender, but he was prime when he avoided Gibbons and Godfrey.

Prior to Dempsey, Carpentier was only stopped when he was 1.a 16years old lightweight and 2.an 18 years old middleweight. His stoppage defeats after Dempsey were to Tunney and Siki.Nine stoppage defeats in 108 fights, when he was either a skinny teenager or a past it veteran.

Gibbons was coming off losing to Greb ? Aside from his wins over faded fellow blacks.Wills best wins are over Firpo and Fulton ,both early ko victims of Dempsey who together lasted less than 5 minutes.Gibbons had won his last 6 fights when he faced Dempsey 3 by 1 rd kos ,one by 2 rds ko.The only one of the 6 to go the distance was Miske ,whom Gibbons had beat 7 months earlier.

Miske had not lost in his previous 18 fights.

After losing to Dempsey, Gibbons went on a winning spree of 18 consecutive fights only Carpentier being around to hear the final bell.It would be 2 years for Gibbons was beaten again, by Tunney in his last fight.Gibbons was 34.

Wills is a glaring omission on Dempsey's record.

How about Brennan,Tunney,Gibbons,Greb,Miske not being on Harry's?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> That's true he was more like the top contender for the title from 1914-1926


You base this on what factual evidence?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Way to make a statement and use a source that in no way backs it up :rolleyes
> 
> And Rickard is Gospel now?


 There are quite a few newspapers of that year castigating Wills for his dull performance against a Firpo that Dempsey had already kod in 2 rds.

The second link does not even mention Rickard ,did you even read it? It is a public statement, made in print in 1926, by Jack Kearns that he offered Wills $5000 to spar with Dempsey when Dempsey was readying himself to challenge Willard.Wills never disputed it .


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

janitor said:


> Hindsight is a wonderful thing.


The only hindsight is your invented history that Wills wasn't the top contender from the title from 1919 onward:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=1576,6851479&dq=wills+dempsey&hl=en

Dempsey was considered to be ducking Wills very early on and received much criticism in the press as severe as on the forums today.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Dempsey chose to not fight wills and greb. He preferred to fight guys greb had beaten and retire until wills himself was beaten. This isn't contradictory bs it's recorded fact.

Wills was a top contender for years but by the time he'd beaten firpo he was pretty much the only challenge left and Dempsey still wouldn't fight him. Greb went through a process of beating guys, calling out Dempsey and then watching Dempsey face those he'd beaten.

Jack beat some great names and I believe he was a great boxer. But he deserves criticism for his omissions.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> The only hindsight is your invented history that Wills wasn't the top contender from the title from 1919 onward:
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=1576,6851479&dq=wills+dempsey&hl=en
> 
> Dempsey was considered to be ducking Wills very early on and received much criticism in the press as severe as on the forums today.


Wills wasn't really seen as the standout challenger until he beat Fred Fulton in 1920. 

After he lost to Big Bill Tate in 1922, he ceased to be the standout challenger, and did not regain the status until he beat Luis Firpo in 1924. 

Wills was a towering figure in the heavyweight division at the time, but he was not the consistent standout his supporters make him out to be.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> Wills wasn't really seen as the standout challenger until he beat Fred Fulton in 1920.
> 
> After he lost to Big Bill Tate in 1922, he ceased to be the standout challenger, and did not regain the status until he beat Luis Firpo in 1924.
> 
> Wills was a towering figure in the heavyweight division at the time, but he was not the consistent standout his supporters make him out to be.


from what I've read there is absolutely no way the tate fight had any negative impact upon his standing as top contender. From beating Fulton he was number 1, after beating firpo there was noone else left and Jack went to Hollywood.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Fulton was considered the stand-out challenger to Willard when Dempsey took him out in under half a minute .Just a year earlier he had floored and stopped Langford .


He was considered the stand out white challenger but he won some and lost some prior to putting his little run together. Wills at the time had a better resume with more wins over Langford, Jeanette and McVey. Fulton's win over Langford after Wills beat him 5 times wouldn't have made him top contender if he was black and not white.



Cormac said:


> Wills would not fight Gibbons,Godfrey , or Tunney. He was on the slide by the time Tunney was a top contender, but he was prime when he avoided Gibbons and Godfrey.


What evidence is there he wouldn't fight them? Their managers claims? Wills always maintained Tunney wouldn't fight him. As soon as Dempsey paid the 50k forfeit for avoiding Wills he signed to fight Tunney. So when was there time for Wills-Tunney to be made? Sounds like a media smokescreen.

Either way Wills was a contracted mandatory for the from the early 20s, he's trying to fight the champion not other contenders after he'd already beat all comers for a decade.



Cormac said:


> Prior to Dempsey, Carpentier was only stopped when he was 1.a 16years old lightweight and 2.an 18 years old middleweight. His stoppage defeats after Dempsey were to Tunney and Siki.Nine stoppage defeats in 108 fights, when he was either a skinny teenager or a past it veteran.


And before he fought Dempsey he'd hardly faced any HW contenders. He's hardly a proven HW.



Cormac said:


> Gibbons was coming off losing to Greb ? Aside from his wins over faded fellow blacks.Wills best wins are over Firpo and Fulton ,both early ko victims of Dempsey who together lasted less than 5 minutes.Gibbons had won his last 6 fights when he faced Dempsey 3 by 1 rd kos ,one by 2 rds ko.The only one of the 6 to go the distance was Miske ,whom Gibbons had beat 7 months earlier.


Deflection doesn't make Dempsey look better. Dempsey was fighting Greb's left overs instead of Greb, Wills is irrelevant.



Cormac said:


> Miske had not lost in his previous 18 fights


Coming into the Dempsey fight he'd won 1 out his 5 prior fights though, hardly a qualified challenger.



Cormac said:


> After losing to Dempsey, Gibbons went on a winning spree of 18 consecutive fights only Carpentier being around to hear the final bell.It would be 2 years for Gibbons was beaten again, by Tunney in his last fight.Gibbons was 34.


Ahh so 34 is old but 32 isn't. Gibbons is a good win, maybe Dempsey's best but he's still a couple of levels below Greb in 1923.



Cormac said:


> Wills is a glaring omission on Dempsey's record.
> 
> How about Brennan,Tunney,Gibbons,Greb,Miske not being on Harry's?


Deflection isn't a defense, but it's well known the white fighters of the time nearly all drew the colour line. Allot of those men never faced black opponents so it's pretty clear they were drawing the colour line themselves.



Cormac said:


> There are quite a few newspapers of that year castigating Wills for his dull performance against a Firpo that Dempsey had already kod in 2 rds.
> 
> The second link does not even mention Rickard ,did you even read it? It is a public statement, made in print in 1926, by Jack Kearns that he offered Wills $5000 to spar with Dempsey when Dempsey was readying himself to challenge Willard.Wills never disputed it .


You said 'eliminated himself as a viable contender' which is clearly incorrect.

You're right about the second article it is Kearns. It's sound like BS for the main part though. As for 'Wills never disputed it', Wills was hardly interviewed about all the claims Dempsey's camp made was he? And if he turned down the sparring, so what? Why if you're number 1 contender would you spar with your next opponent? Why would Dempsey spar with someone he plans on fighting for a title too? Utter bullshit, but it works for the Dempsey apologists to malign the threat of Wills.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> from what I've read there is absolutely no way the tate fight had any negative impact upon his standing as top contender. From beating Fulton he was number 1, after beating firpo there was noone else left and Jack went to Hollywood.


When in the history of the sport has a contender lost to another contender, then drawn against him, and retained a No 1 ranking? 

There were no rankings at the time, but if there had been, Wills would certainly have been knocked off his perch.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> When in the history of the sport has a contender lost to another contender, then drawn against him, and retained a No 1 ranking?
> 
> There were no rankings at the time, but if there had been, Wills would certainly have been knocked off his perch.


Then. That is when. I have found no sources whatsoever indicating he was no longer the outstanding contender after the fights with tate. I don't even think they were considered serious fights on the level tbh.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> He was considered the stand out white challenger but he won some and lost some prior to putting his little run together. Wills at the time had a better resume with more wins over Langford, Jeanette and McVey. Fulton's win over Langford after Wills beat him 5 times wouldn't have made him top contender if he was black and not white.
> 
> What evidence is there he wouldn't fight them? Their managers claims? Wills always maintained Tunney wouldn't fight him. As soon as Dempsey paid the 50k forfeit for avoiding Wills he signed to fight Tunney. So when was there time for Wills-Tunney to be made? Sounds like a media smokescreen.
> 
> ...


 Godfrey's manager tried several times to put him with Wills, Paddy Mullins refused each time.Tunney offered to fight Wills but Mullins refused. it was in print many times. Jack Johnson thought Dempsey would ko Wills because Wills chin was not too special, he also thought Dempsey made a mistake in choosing Tunney instead of Wills.Johnson said Wills would have beaten Tunney , but would always be meat for Jack.

Wills had his thoughts and experiences syndicated in several national papers during his life time, he never refuted Kearns claim. If as you aver Wills was the number one challenger in 1919,[you said from1914 on] , what better way to illustrate it than by beating up a young 187lbs Dempsey daily in front of a huge paying public?

When would he ever get a better opportunity to demonstrate his title challenge claims? Will's two best wins during Dempsey's reign were over previous Dempsey ko victims.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

janitor said:


> Wills wasn't really seen as the standout challenger until he beat Fred Fulton in 1920.
> 
> After he lost to Big Bill Tate in 1922, he ceased to be the standout challenger, and did not regain the status until he beat Luis Firpo in 1924.
> 
> Wills was a towering figure in the heavyweight division at the time, but he was not the consistent standout his supporters make him out to be.


You haven't looked into the Tate fight beyond boxrec have you Janitor?

It was described as a fiasco and incompetant refereeing

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...EREE+OF+THE+WILLS-TATE+ARGUMENT.&pqatl=google

And a fixed fight with bribed official in order to remove Wills from Dempsey's mandatory position

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...IBAJ&pg=2046,628557&dq=harry+wills+tate&hl=en

Wills didn't lose his mandatory position though and this is why he was able to push an injunction through the courts against the NYCC and Dempsey seeking an injunction against the Firpo fight.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> You haven't looked into the Tate fight beyond boxrec have you Janitor?
> 
> It was described as a fiasco and incompetant refereeing
> 
> ...


I have looked into it beyond boxrec as it happens, and I can assure you that Wills did draw a lot of criticism for it.  

However incompetent the refereeing of the first fight, the result is still the result, and Wills failed to get a win in the return fight. 

There is speculation about a motive for the refereeing, but no evidence is put forward to support it. 

Either way, it is inconceivable that Wills could have remained the #1 challenger after loosing to Tate, then drawing with him in the return.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> I have looked into it beyond boxrec as it happens, and I can assure you that Wills did draw a lot of criticism for it.
> 
> However incompetent the refereeing of the first fight, the result is still the result, and Wills failed to get a win in the return fight.
> 
> ...


mate you're being blinkered here. You can't just rewrite history like that.

Wills status as mandatory challenger was not damaged by these two farcical fights.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Godfrey's manager tried several times to put him with Wills, Paddy Mullins refused each time.Tunney offered to fight Wills but Mullins refused. it was in print many times. Jack Johnson thought Dempsey would ko Wills because Wills chin was not too special, he also thought Dempsey made a mistake in choosing Tunney instead of Wills.Johnson said Wills would have beaten Tunney , but would always be meat for Jack.
> 
> Wills had his thoughts and experiences syndicated in several national papers during his life time, he never refuted Kearns claim. If as you aver Wills was the number one challenger in 1919,[you said from1914 on] , what better way to illustrate it than by beating up a young 187lbs Dempsey daily in front of a huge paying public?
> 
> When would he ever get a better opportunity to demonstrate his title challenge claims? Will's two best wins during Dempsey's reign were over previous Dempsey ko victims.


Sources on Godfrey and Gibbons, I've seen the Tunney claims and it seems meerly to be posturing and justification for a Tunney-Dempsey fight given the fact Tunney signed to fight Dempsey within. Did you know the NYCC voted on a Dempsey-Tunney in July 1926, it says so in the book 'Jack Dempsey: The Manassa Mauler' so when was Tunney-Wills supposed to happen? It's clearly posturing on Rickard's part to make it seem.

As for Kearns claims, yea ok maybe you should ask Dempsey's mum's thoughts on the matter too to make it even more balanced :rolleyes Beating up Dempsey in sparring didn't do Greb much good in getting his title shot did it?

And wait Kearns was willing to pay Wills 5k per day as a sparring partner :lol: You do know Dempsey didn't make even 30k against Willard yet for 6 days sparring he's giving Wills more than his whole title fight purse to spar Dempsey? :lol:


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> mate you're being blinkered here. You can't just rewrite history like that.
> 
> Wills status as mandatory challenger was not damaged by these two farcical fights.


Realy?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...MssAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CiAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4958,1057534

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...ZAApAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PNQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2662,287211


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> Realy?
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...MssAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CiAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4958,1057534
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...ZAApAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PNQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2662,287211


have you read them two?

One is a fight report of wills starting strong and tate finishing strong.

The other is Dempsey saying if tate beats him decisively over 15 rounds he'd consider fighting him instead of wills.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Sources on Godfrey and Gibbons, I've seen the Tunney claims and it seems meerly to be posturing and justification for a Tunney-Dempsey fight given the fact Tunney signed to fight Dempsey within. Did you know the NYCC voted on a Dempsey-Tunney in July 1926, it says so in the book 'Jack Dempsey: The Manassa Mauler' so when was Tunney-Wills supposed to happen? It's clearly posturing on Rickard's part to make it seem.
> 
> As for Kearns claims, yea ok maybe you should ask Dempsey's mum's thoughts on the matter too to make it even more balanced :rolleyes Beating up Dempsey in sparring didn't do Greb much good in getting his title shot did it?
> 
> And wait Kearns was willing to pay Wills 5k per day as a sparring partner :lol: You do know Dempsey didn't make even 30k against Willard yet for 6 days sparring he's giving Wills more than his whole title fight purse to spar Dempsey? :lol:


 Rickard offered Wills a final title eliminator against Tunney .He and his manager refused it, you may well say he had already proved himself, but the fact is he refused to face Tunney.

If you spent less time with sarcastic emoticons and more time digesting the posts you would have seen it was Kearns and not Rickard ,and also that the $5000 was for 10 days sparring.
Greb's sparring with Dempsey was in private workouts and not filmed similar to Dempsey with Loughran.Wills would have been in public before a big crowd as was Dempsey's with Tate which was filmed,spot the difference? I have the Manassa Mauler book. Wills could have fought Tunney 25 or 26 and if he won would have faced Dempsey.I wish he had because I think he would have been dropped early and kod,and all this hoopla about him would not be spinning around.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Then. That is when. I have found no sources whatsoever indicating he was no longer the outstanding contender after the fights with tate. I don't even think they were considered serious fights on the level tbh.


 The rematch was certainly on the level it was a hard fought, bitterly contested draw. In essence Dempsey's sparring partner floored and drew with the number one contender.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> have you read them two?
> 
> One is a fight report of wills starting strong and tate finishing strong.
> 
> The other is Dempsey saying if tate beats him decisively over 15 rounds he'd consider fighting him instead of wills.


What I took away from it is that people took the outcome of the two fights very seriously, and many started to consider Tate instead of Wills as the logical challenger for Dempsey. Not much would have had to go right for one of the other top contenders at this point, to push him ahead of Wills.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> What I took away from it is that people took the outcome of the two fights very seriously, and many started to consider Tate instead of Wills as the logical challenger for Dempsey. Not much would have had to go right for one of the other top contenders at this point, to push him ahead of Wills.


what I took from was what was written: Dempsey said if tate won a 15 round eliminator he'd consider him.over wills.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> The rematch was certainly on the level it was a hard fought, bitterly contested draw. In essence Dempsey's sparring partner floored and drew with the number one contender.


rematch sounds better contested than the first I agree.

Yeah Dempsey asked wills to be his sparring partner :lol: cheek of that!


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Part of the difficulty with what we are doing, is that we are trying to deduce rankings for a time when there were no rankings. We can however take the first ever annual heavyweight rankings for 1924 and extrapolate back. If a fighter had lost a major fight prior to these, then we can infer that they were previously higher. 


*Heavyweights*​​​
Jack Dempsey, _Champion_ 
Harry Wills 
Tommy Gibbons 
Charley Weinert 
Quintin Romero Rojas 
Jack Renault 
Luis Angel Firpo 
George Godfrey 
Jim Maloney 
Erminio Spalla


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Rickard offered Wills a final title eliminator against Tunney .He and his manager refused it, you may well say he had already proved himself, but the fact is he refused to face Tunney.
> 
> If you spent less time with sarcastic emoticons and more time digesting the posts you would have seen it was Kearns and not Rickard ,and also that the $5000 was for 10 days sparring.
> Greb's sparring with Dempsey was in private workouts and not filmed similar to Dempsey with Loughran.Wills would have been in public before a big crowd as was Dempsey's with Tate which was filmed,spot the difference? I have the Manassa Mauler book. Wills could have fought Tunney 25 or 26 and if he won would have faced Dempsey.I wish he had because I think he would have been dropped early and kod,and all this hoopla about him would not be spinning around.


Sources, or you're just making up things up as you did in your first post in this thread.

Why would Wills fight Tunney in '25 when the NYCC were voting enforcing Dempsey to face him? There was a few days between NYCC enforcing a Wills-Dempsey fight and accepting a Tunney-Dempsey fight. So when should Wills-Tunney supposed to have happened?

OK 5k plus expenses is still clearly BS, the purse is less than 30k, so they'd give Wills 8-10% of the total purse?

Dempsey apologists such as yourself have no concern for the truth or have any shame in how disingenuous you are.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> Part of the difficulty with what we are doing, is that we are trying to deduce rankings for a time when there were no rankings. We can however take the first ever annual heavyweight rankings for 1924 and extrapolate back. If a fighter had lost a major fight prior to these, then we can infer that they were previously higher.
> 
> 
> *Heavyweights*​​​
> ...


I'm not sure how that helps your point tbh. Wills is only behing Dempsey in that list.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> I'm not sure how that helps your point tbh. Wills is only behing Dempsey in that list.


I am not sure that it does help my point, but I still have to factor it into the debate. 

Wills had just beaten Firpo, so he would have been at a hiatus at the end of 1924. 

Gibbons had lost to Dempsey recently, so that might have pushed him beneath Wills. 

Firpo had lost to Wills and Weinert, so he would presumably have been a lot higher when Dempsey and Wills fought him. 

Weinert probably got the #4 slot off the back of beating Firpo, who had already lost to Dempsey and Wills. 

We could go on.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

because he is overrated clearly h2h and his career was not that great, his era was not that strong. he was crude, he was not even a full sized cruiser, he was dropped by a lhw who was not even a top puncher in his own division and at hw tunney was a pussy puncher. the victory of dempsey over willard is overrated like hell, he took advantage of the old rules when he did not have to go to the corner after he dropped willard, it is why he stopped him that fast . willard was stylistically the perfect victim for him.. he was a big target, slow, not skilled, not specially powerful... easy rival for dempsey who could run in circle around willard and hit him like a wasp. he avoided harry wills and greb, he never fought langford... he did struggle with average guys like firpo(who did put his ass out of the ring), he did beat small men like carpentier. dempsey is overrated, yes. tons of all time greats would have beaten him.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

More early reviews and demands for the Dempsey Wills bout which you all can happily ignore...

Oct 3, 1918 Salt Lake Telegram

"A shadow has fallen across the past which Jack Dempsey is following in the hope that it will lead him to the heavyweight championship and the buntlines of a reflection closely resemble the form of Harry Wills...

It is a difficult matter for Wills to obtain matches with his white rivals... A few years ago he was kept fairly busy but now that he has developed into a first class fighting man, a splendid, ebony hued, graceful animal, there are not too many who care to take him on... a match between these men at this time would be a good one, and if Dempsey is wise he will consent to it. Should he become champion, Jack will find it exceedingly difficult to avoid meeting Wills, and it is certain that if he does succeed Willard, the Crescent City ***** will be his most formidable and persistent challenger."


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Carpentier had been called out as Dempsey's best opponent since beating Joe Beckett 2 years earlier - that point gets overlooked whenever the argument about Dempsey avoiding his best opponents is made. During that same time, Wills was the underdog against Dempsey leftover Fulton. Wills only emerged as the consensus #1 contender after Dempsey settled matters with Carpentier.


It depends upon what you mean by "consensus." I've read newspaper reports from the week after Willard-Dempsey that label Wills the only reasonable challenger to Dempsey's title. On the other hand, you are right that Carpantier was made a viable opponent by press, to the point where he became a betting favourite.

Basically, that was a publicity machine in full flow. I'm not saying Carpantier was terrible or anything like that, and I think he was a reasonable chalanger if not an outstanding one, but he was very clear built up by press in excess of his abilities...for whatever reason



> As far as Greb, he was certainly accomplished as a HW, but it's questionable whether he ever stood out as the clear #1 or even #2 leading contender. In a 1922 newspaper poll asking who should be Dempsey's next challenger, Greb just barely edged out Willard for the #3 spot, and was rated a sizable number of votes behind Bill Brennan despite having previously beaten him. If Dempsey had fought Greb, he'd be criticized today for fighting an "aging," punchless natural MW with only one eye.


OR he would have been a forgotten champion, remembered only for being deposed by the goat, a sort of prehistoric Sonny Liston.

The point is, we'll never know, and as you yourself have pointed out, he was a viable contender.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> I am not sure that it does help my point, but I still have to factor it into the debate.
> 
> Wills had just beaten Firpo, so he would have been at a hiatus at the end of 1924.
> 
> ...


the point is wills was still the top contender.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> When in the history of the sport has a contender lost to another contender, then drawn against him, and retained a No 1 ranking?
> 
> There were no rankings at the time, but if there had been, Wills would certainly have been knocked off his perch.


Again, and I must have posted them for you two or three times, there are newspaper articles from the weeks after the Tate debacle that describe him in exactly those terms.

What you're saying here _should_ be true, perhaps, but just wasn't based upon the primary press I have seen. I'm very interested to see contradictory press, but I never have, and have asked you about it before. I think you're just supposing, but it can get frustrating to see posters do it after producing primary sources multiple times that appear to have disproved the point.

And again, i've no specific axe to grind here, because I think Wills SHOULD have dropped from the #1 contender slot - i just haven't seen any primary evidence that he did so, and have seen some to the contrary.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

To answer the OP's question, no, there is no consistency. But it's a forum. A forum amasses many different opinions as a matter of course. A forum isn't consistent about anything. Some of his individual critics are consistent though.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Here is the timeline of the key events in the heavyweight division over this period:

04/07/1919 Jack Dempsey wins the heavyweight title

26/071920 Harry Wills defeats Fred Fulton in an elimination bout to select an opponent for Dempsey. 

02/01/1922 Harry Wills looses to Big Bill Tate by DQ. 

06/01/1922 Harry Wills fights a rematch with Tate and is held to a draw. 

12/05/1923 Jess Willard defeats the very highly rated Floyd Johnson

04/07/1923 Dempsey defends his title against Gibbons. 

12/07/1923 Luis Firpo defeats Jess Willard, and is given a title shot. 

14/04/1923 Dempsey defends his title against Luis Firpo

11/09/1924 Harry Wills defeats Luis Firpo

23/09/1926 Jack Dempsey looses his title to Gene Tunney, its no longer his problem. 

12/10/1926 Jack Sharkey defeats Harry Wills ending his spell as the #1 contender for good. 

My inference from this is as follows:


It is hard to say whether Wills would have held the #1 ranking when Dempsey won the title, but it is possible. 

Wills would almost certainly have held the #1 ranking after he beat Fulton. 

When Wills dropped the ball against Tate, he would likely have lost his #1 ranking to Firpo and perhaps even Willard or Gibbons. 

Wills probably held the #1 ranking in 1924 on the strength of beating Firpo.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Again, and I must have posted them for you two or three times, there are newspaper articles from the weeks after the Tate debacle that describe him in exactly those terms.
> 
> What you're saying here _should_ be true, perhaps, but just wasn't based upon the primary press I have seen. I'm very interested to see contradictory press, but I never have, and have asked you about it before. I think you're just supposing, but it can get frustrating to see posters do it after producing primary sources multiple times that appear to have disproved the point.


What would constitute contradictory press in your eyes?

Some sort of contemporary account that takes the result of the fight at face value? 

Do you think that the officiating was incompetent or deliberately corrupt in both fights?

Even if it was, isn't the result still the result?


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> What would constitute contradictory press in your eyes?
> 
> Some sort of contemporary account that takes the result of the fight at face value?
> 
> ...


Something that spoke about Wills no longer being at the front of the que with Jack, something that said that Wills was no longer in the box seat, the man the champion must face, something that clearly names the man percieved to be _replacing_ Wills.

I'm not an expert on Wills-Tate, so I don't really have an answer to your other question, but it's neither here nor there. Someone taking the result at face value isn't the same as someone thinking he's not the #1 contender any more though. Those two things aren't the same thing. Fighters can lose, have lost, and not lost their status in rankings, specifically because they are perceived as being so far in advance as a contender of the man directly behind them. Chess, not chequers.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

NEW YORK TIMES, JANUARY 1922:

"William A Brady declared his readiness yesterday to post 50,000 dollars to bind a world's heavyweight title match between between Jack Dempsey, titleholder, and Harry Wills, New Orleans ***** *who is regarded as the foremost challenger of the champion*...

..."Wills must be regarded as the logical challenger for Dempsey," said Brady, "*he stands head and shoulders above any white contender*."

The article continues in this vein, with the NYT also opining that Kearns is of the opinion that an "inferior" white challenger would be prefered by the public.

This article was published in the three weeks after the Tate fights.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Something that spoke about Wills no longer being at the front of the que with Jack, something that said that Wills was no longer in the box seat, the man the champion must face, something that clearly names the man percieved to be _replacing_ Wills.
> 
> I'm not an expert on Wills-Tate, so I don't really have an answer to your other question, but it's neither here nor there. Someone taking the result at face value isn't the same as someone thinking he's not the #1 contender any more though. Those two things aren't the same thing. Fighters can lose, have lost, and not lost their status in rankings, specifically because they are perceived as being so far in advance as a contender of the man directly behind them. Chess, not chequers.


The articles that I have put forward suggest that Tate might have an equal claim to Wills to fight Dempsey, or perhaps even a better claim to fight Dempsey.

I don't see anybody here bashing Dempsey for not fighting Tate, perhaps they are missing a trick there.

Looking at the timeline I have posted, would your conclusions differ from mine?


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> NEW YORK TIMES, JANUARY 1922:
> 
> "William A Brady declared his readiness yesterday to post 50,000 dollars to bind a world's heavyweight title match between between Jack Dempsey, titleholder, and Harry Wills, New Orleans ***** *who is regarded as the foremost challenger of the champion*...
> 
> ...


Here is an article written after the Brady offer, which points to the Tate fight as a reason why the bout should not happen:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...sZPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KFMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6692,4537536


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Providence News, January 22 1922:

"An insulting offer of $200,000 for a Dempsey-Wills match next June has been...indignantly spurned. What is he butting into the picture with a fellow like Wills for when the Carpantier plum may be had for the picking in London?"

Jack Kearns in the NYT, January 30 1922:

"Harry Wills, I admit, is a strong, rugged heavyweight and looks like the best prospect for a heavyweight title fight right now."

And the Border Cities Star a few days later:

"I believe Dempsey and Wills would attract more attention and be a much better match than was the Dempsey-Carpantier affair."

Early February, The Evening Independent in an article analysing potential HW contenders:

"What of Harry Wills? In size Wills is the one contender who shapes up well with Dempsey. As a matter of fact he has a slight physical edge." More importantly, absolutely no mention of Tate, at all, in any articles i've ever read about his contendership as being even slightly relevant - and certainly not as relevant as you paint it, @janitor.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> Here is an article written after the Brady offer, which points to the Tate fight as a reason why the bout should not happen:
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...sZPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KFMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6692,4537536


Yeah, that will do for me as a counterweight.

"The slump Wills' stock has taken since he flivvered (?) against Tate is very evident...those who were whooping it up for a Dempsey-Wills match last summer aren't whooping it up now."

At the very least you have to say, someone saw it that way at that time. Though weirdly, Wills had rehabilitated himself something fierce by this point with KO's of Clark and Norfolk and a points win against Sam.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

The Evening Independent , Mar 13 1922.

"Harry Wills is the public's choice as the next opponent of champion Harry Wills. In a referendum of fight fans held by more than 500 client newspapers of the NEA Service. Harry Wills, the coloured fighter, emerged as a winner. *The total vote for Wills was by 131,073*. Gibbons trailed him by about 6,000."

Brennan was third.

Maybe Wills standing took a dunt behind Tate, but I don't think there is any way to dispute he was the #1 - at least on balance.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

The Morning Leader March 1922.

"FOES OF CHAMPION DWINDLE TO WILLS.

Looks like the entire challenging field is left to Harry Wills, the big ***** heayweight. *Harry looms larger now than ever*...it is generally conceeded that Wills will be a more even match with Dempsey [than Greb]."


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

The Border Cities Star, February 1922:

"Wills of course - but where, and what purse?"

In the immediate wake of Tate, Wills was both the people's and the press's choice, I think. Dempsey's saving grace is that the *********** structure (of which he was a part) was against the match, including the NJ and apparently NY commissions, at least at that time.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> rematch sounds better contested than the first I agree.
> 
> Yeah Dempsey asked wills to be his sparring partner :lol: cheek of that!


Kearns asked the 218lbs 28years old Coloured Heavyweight Champion Wills to spar with the 187lbs 23 years old Dempsey and offered him more to do so than he got for most of his fights, $5000. What an opportunity to expose the tiny Dempsey before a huge public, and cement his claims for a title shot into the bargain as well as making a bundle of $$$$.

Where's the cheek in it? Jack Johnson sparred with Sharkey , McVey, Gardner, Godfrey, and Firpo did it demean him? Larry Gains and Godfrey along with Allentown Joe Gans , Harry Greb and Tommy Loughran were partners for Dempsey.

Wonder why he didnt take it?


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Kearns asked the 218lbs 28years old Coloured Heavyweight Champion Wills to spar with the 187lbs 23 years old Dempsey and offered him more to do so than he got for most of his fights, $5000. What an opportunity to expose the tiny Dempsey before a huge public, and cement his claims for a title shot into the bargain as well as making a bundle of $$$$. Wonder why he didnt take it?


Probably the same reason most top pros decline the opportunity to spar top, top opponents when they are established. A bad performance derails a title shot, a good performance doesn't guarantee one and in the meantime you may have to show some of your best stuff to keep it competitive.

The other possibility is that Wills knew he had no chance to match Dempsey. That would be unusual for a top contender without his resume, never mind with it. But anything is possible.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Kearns asked the 218lbs 28years old Coloured Heavyweight Champion Wills to spar with the 187lbs 23 years old Dempsey and offered him more to do so than he got for most of his fights, $5000. What an opportunity to expose the tiny Dempsey before a huge public, and cement his claims for a title shot into the bargain as well as making a bundle of $$$$.
> 
> Where's the cheek in it? Jack Johnson sparred with Sharkey , McVey, Gardner, Godfrey, and Firpo did it demean him? Larry Gains and Godfrey along with Allentown Joe Gans , Harry Greb and Tommy Loughran were partners for Dempsey.
> 
> Wonder why he didnt take it?


:lol: where is the benefit from sparring with a possible opponent?

At best wills beats him as bad as greb did and continues to get ducked.

Maybe Floyd should say that to Pacman? "I don't wanna fight you but lets spar instead" :lol:


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Does anyone know of any occasion where the champion and #1 contender in any division sparred?

Or another occasion when such an offer was made? 

Interesting one, and a strange one. Probably publicity?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Does anyone know of any occasion where the champion and #1 contender in any division sparred?
> 
> Or another occasion when such an offer was made?
> 
> Interesting one, and a strange one. Probably publicity?


:lol: I wonder what haye would say if he was offered sparring with vitali


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Does anyone know of any occasion where the champion and #1 contender in any division sparred?
> 
> Or another occasion when such an offer was made?
> 
> Interesting one, and a strange one. Probably publicity?


Sullivan-Corbett the evening wear fight. Unless that's something I imagined...


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> Sullivan-Corbett the evening wear fight. Unless that's something I imagined...


:lol: no you are bang on, top hat and tails, literally.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

The whole Bill Tate thing is a complete non starter. The people who NOW bring this up conveniently forget that two months later Wills fought a highly publicized Rickard promoted title eliminator against Kid Norfolk (who Dempsey refused to even spar with) and won by second round KO. Two weeks later middleweight Greb dominated LHW Gibbons in another eliminator. Dempsey had two choices: Greb or Wills with Wills being the clear choice as his biggest legit threat and conveniently Dempsey didnt fight either.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Klompton said:


> The whole Bill Tate thing is a complete non starter. The people who NOW bring this up conveniently forget that two months later Wills fought a highly publicized Rickard promoted title eliminator against Kid Norfolk (who Dempsey refused to even spar with) and won by second round KO. Two weeks later middleweight Greb dominated LHW Gibbons in another eliminator. Dempsey had two choices: Greb or Wills with Wills being the clear choice as his biggest legit threat and conveniently Dempsey didnt fight either.


Realistically though, after the Tate "debacle" not much would have had to go right for one of the other top fighters, for them to leapfrog over Willis's head. I also rather question how much weight a win over Norfolk would have carried at heavyweight in 1922. 

Still we could argue that Dempsey failed to meet the three top contenders of his era, because he didn't fight Tate either.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Janitor said:


> Realistically though, after the Tate "debacle" not much would have had to go right for one of the other top fighters, for them to leapfrog over Willis's head.


Yeah, but most of the press and two public polls indicate that this did not happen.

Do you disagree?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Does anyone know of any occasion where the champion and #1 contender in any division sparred?
> 
> Or another occasion when such an offer was made?
> 
> Interesting one, and a strange one. Probably publicity?


 Difference being Dempsey was just another contender and one possibly still short of his prime, whereas Wills at 28, and posting the best wins of his career was bang in his prime.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> :lol: where is the benefit from sparring with a possible opponent?
> 
> At best wills beats him as bad as greb did and continues to get ducked.
> 
> Maybe Floyd should say that to Pacman? "I don't wanna fight you but lets spar instead" :lol:


 Dempsey was well known not to take prisoners in sparring.What if Wills had shown up well in front of the big crowds that turned out to see Dempsey spar? Just imagine the added pressure that would have been on Dempsey to defend against him? The dough was good too.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Yeah, but most of the press and two public polls indicate that this did not happen.
> 
> Do you disagree?


I admit, a lot of people seem to have been surprisingly forgiving towards Wills. 

I think that Firpo effectively leapfrogged him in 1923 when he beat Willard however. 

Of course today Tate would have moved to #1 in the rankings automatically, which would have made things interesting.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> I also rather question how much weight a win over Norfolk would have carried at heavyweight in 1922.


A quick look makes it clear the answer is "considerable."

Telegraph-Herald: "The meeting of the Panther and the Thunderbolt in a fifteen round contest tonight may develop and opponent for Jack Dempsey as Wills has been considered by many as many of the most likely heavyweights."

New York Day: "The rather confused situation existing in the upper strata of the heavyweight division is certain to be clarified considerably by the result of the fifteen round battle between Harry Wills and Kid Norfolk at Madison Square Garden tonight."

And then after the fight:

"The bout between Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills will be fought next summer that was settled when Harry Wills dropped Kid Norfolk tonight."

The Evening Independent: "Harry Wills is to be pointed as a result of his victory over Kid Norfolk, for a title match with Jack Dempsey."


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

janitor said:


> Realistically though, after the Tate "debacle" not much would have had to go right for one of the other top fighters, for them to leapfrog over Willis's head. I also rather question how much weight a win over Norfolk would have carried at heavyweight in 1922.
> 
> Still we could argue that Dempsey failed to meet the three top contenders of his era, because he didn't fight Tate either.


but that never happened and tate was never considered a top three contender


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> but that never happened and tate was never considered a top three contender


 I think we can all agree the dsq win Tate received over Wills was pretty meaningless, the subsequent draw is a little harder to justify/explain however.

If Tate was never a top contender what was he doing drawing with Wills?


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> A quick look makes it clear the answer is "considerable."
> 
> Telegraph-Herald: "The meeting of the Panther and the Thunderbolt in a fifteen round contest tonight may develop and opponent for Jack Dempsey as Wills has been considered by many as many of the most likely heavyweights."
> 
> ...


Yes that is what I have found on closer inspection.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey was well known not to take prisoners in sparring.What if Wills had shown up well in front of the big crowds that turned out to see Dempsey spar? Just imagine the added pressure that would have been on Dempsey to defend against him? The dough was good too.


wills wasn't a sparring partner he was the man everyone wanted jack to fight.

Greb sparred with Dempsey, beat him up and lost his shot at ever competing for the title despite being white, highly ranked and beating everyone jack would go onto face.

The fact Dempsey wanted to spar with wills rather than fight him says it all to me. What a fukin cheeky request.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> wills wasn't a sparring partner he was the man everyone wanted jack to fight.
> 
> Greb sparred with Dempsey, beat him up and lost his shot at ever competing for the title despite being white, highly ranked and beating everyone jack would go onto face.
> 
> The fact Dempsey wanted to spar with wills rather than fight him says it all to me. What a fukin cheeky request.


It was not unusual for a champion of that era to offer a contender an exhibition.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> It was not unusual for a champion of that era to offer a contender an exhibition.


how many champions of that era offered a sparring session to the man they were accused of ducking?

All I can think of is Dempsey and Greb; Johnson and Gunboat. Both times the champ got whipped and both times the champ refused to defend against them.

History has shown that a man offered a sparring session in that position is essentially in a lose-lose. Prolly why the practice died out.

It surprises me that defenders of jack would bring up something that only undermines the man and his intentions.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> how many champions of that era offered a sparring session to the man they were accused of ducking?
> 
> All I can think of is Dempsey and Greb; Johnson and Gunboat. Both times the champ got whipped and both times the champ refused to defend against them.
> 
> ...


Higher quality contenders were often used as sparring partners back then, because they often needed to do this to get money. There were a lot of fights back then where the sparring partners were better than the opponent.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> Higher quality contenders were often used as sparring partners back then, because they often needed to do this to get money. There were a lot of fights back then where the sparring partners were better than the opponent.


which is exactly the problem, as I say it's no wonder the pratice died out.

"hey mate, I know you're my toughest fight, so instead of fighting you I'm gonna fight someone you just beat, you can spar with me though"

:lol: I'm glad wills stood his ground. Sucks for him that Jack wouldn't fight him but perhaps it went a ways towards convincing top contenders they should be angling for a shot rather than helping out in training.

It's the exact reason Larry left Ali as a training partner, the reason groves refused to spar with froch.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> how many champions of that era offered a sparring session to the man they were accused of ducking?
> 
> All I can think of is Dempsey and Greb; Johnson and Gunboat. Both times the champ got whipped and both times the champ refused to defend against them.
> 
> ...


Johnson was not accused of ducking Smith when he sparred with him ,Smith was not even a professional fighter. Greb outspeeding Dempsey for 2 rds is not exactly beating him up , neither is Smith taking a liberty and firing his Sunday punch on a champion,and knocking him into the ropes a beating up. Johnson would have kicked the living shit out of Smith who knew it and never pursued a title shot with him. Dempsey sparred with Loughran too anyone think he did so instead of fighting him? This is unsubstantiated bull shit.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Johnson was not accused of ducking Smith when he sparred with him ,Smith was not even a professional fighter. Greb outspeeding Dempsey for 2 rds is not exactly beating him up , neither is Smith taking a liberty and firing his Sunday punch on a champion,and knocking him into the ropes a beating up. Johnson would have kicked the living shit out of Smith who knew it and never pursued a title shot with him. Dempsey sparred with Loughran too anyone think he did so instead of fighting him? This is unsubstantiated bull shit.


Johnson did get accused of ducking smith. I personally think Johnson was a full level above anyone in his era when he trained.

Dempsey sparred greb, got the worse of it and fought guys greb had beaten. Take from that what you will.

Woahhhhh nelly, where is your proof that Dempsey ducked loughran? First I've heard of that claim. Did loughran even chase a Dempsey fight? I'd need to see sources before I could take that claim seriously. Until you do it's just unsubstantiated bs.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Johnson did get accused of ducking smith. I personally think Johnson was a full level above anyone in his era when he trained.
> 
> Dempsey sparred greb, got the worse of it and fought guys greb had beaten. Take from that what you will.
> 
> Woahhhhh nelly, where is your proof that Dempsey ducked loughran? First I've heard of that claim. Did loughran even chase a Dempsey fight? I'd need to see sources before I could take that claim seriously. Until you do it's just unsubstantiated bs.


Dempsey did not duck Loughran it was sarcasm.Loughran jabbed Dempsey's head off for 2 rds when Jack was prepping for Tunney, in a real fight he would have been toast and so would Greb have been.
Smith was a nobody when he sparred with Johnson ,he had a brief period when he could have beena viable opponent for the champion but did not pursue the fight.When asked after beating Bombadier Billy Wells ,when he would face Johnson, Smith said" Johnson will wait ,and the longer he waits the better."Christ he couldn't beat a 20 years old Carpentier who was giving him about 28lbs., Johnson would have toyed with the crude Gunner.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey did not duck Loughran it was sarcasm.Loughran jabbed Dempsey's head off for 2 rds when Jack was prepping for Tunney, in a real fight he would have been toast and so would Greb have been.
> Smith was a nobody when he sparred with Johnson ,he had a brief period when he could have beena viable opponent for the champion but did not pursue the fight.When asked after beating Bombadier Billy Wells ,when he would face Johnson, Smith said" Johnson will wait ,and the longer he waits the better."Christ he couldn't beat a 20 years old Carpentier who was giving him about 28lbs., Johnson would have toyed with the crude Gunner.


if you're gonna throw sarcarm in randomly I have no idea what you're point actually is.

Do us a favour and summise your point in this convo.

Mine is wills was right to refuse the sparring and instead pursue a title shot given his high ranking.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

It feels just like old times. I think we need a thread accusing Ali of avoiding Manuel Ramos, backed by made up interviews to feel really homey...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Sources, or you're just making up things up as you did in your first post in this thread.
> 
> Why would Wills fight Tunney in '25 when the NYCC were voting enforcing Dempsey to face him? There was a few days between NYCC enforcing a Wills-Dempsey fight and accepting a Tunney-Dempsey fight. So when should Wills-Tunney supposed to have happened?
> 
> ...


I don't make things up,neither do I debate with haters, bye.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> if you're gonna throw sarcarm in randomly I have no idea what you're point actually is.
> 
> Do us a favour and summise your point in this convo.
> 
> Mine is wills was right to refuse the sparring and instead pursue a title shot given his high ranking.


Actually I'll do myself a favour and leave you and Power Puncher to your own devices


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> It feels just like old times. I think we need a thread accusing Ali of avoiding Manuel Ramos, backed by made up interviews to feel really homey...


Just two questions for the haters, then I'm done here.

1.If the number one contender for a champions title has as his two best wins during your reign, victories over men that lasted less than 6 minutes with you, How solid are his credentials?
2.If the number one contender during your reign is floored and held to a draw by your sparring partner, a fighter they have already stated was never a contender How good does that make you?


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Just two questions for the haters, then I'm done here.
> 
> 1.If the number one contender for a champions title has as his two best wins during your reign, victories over men that lasted less than 6 minutes with you, How solid are his credentials?
> 2.If the number one contender during your reign is floored and held to a draw by your sparring partner, a fighter they have already stated was never a contender How good does that make you?


I will reply, and try to maintain some civility in these parts.

I am sold on Wills' credentials because the majority of impartial observers at the time championed his cause as the most deserving challenger to the crown. I can quote these sources all days long, from 1918 until 1926. Some credence must be given the astute contemporary observers of the craft.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I Always felt like Dempsey was so highly regarded in those days because of:

1- his excting style
2- his H2H ability

We don´t talk too much about this here...it´s always, Wills, resume, resume, Greb, ducked, etc, etc.......we should talk more about his style, his obvious amazing power, skills and stuff.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah. He was a load, quick, hard punching. That whole million dollar gate thing might get underrated by contemporaries. Shit boxing wasn't far removed from being an illegal enterprise. Plus that's an ATG haircut.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I _think_, I don´t know maybe I´m wrong in what I´ll say now.....but I _think_ that in those days the writers and the fans gave more value to h2h skills, to the ability than we do, today......I feel that way when I read what they used to say about Corbett, Johnson, Dempsey, etc..


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Sports itself was changing in America. A transcendent heavyweight champion is as much a reflection of his times as a product, and Dempsey fit his times. He even fit the new boundaries of the sport, with his quick attacking style, from those arduous to-the-end battles too something shorter.

To your point vic- it's possible. There were no ratings, in a top 10 sense, for much of Dempsey's career. That should say something about how they felt about it. Baseball, an entirely statistical game had dismal record keeping. When babe Ruth broke the career home run record in the early '20's no one noticed because no kept track of that.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Vic said:


> I _think_, I don´t know maybe I´m wrong in what I´ll say now.....but I _think_ that in those days the writers and the fans gave more value to h2h skills, to the ability than we do, today......I feel that way when I read what they used to say about Corbett, Johnson, Dempsey, etc..


Half those writers were on Jack Kearns' private payroll.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Seamus said:


> More early reviews and demands for the Dempsey Wills bout which you all can happily ignore...
> 
> Oct 3, 1918 Salt Lake Telegram
> 
> ...


This article, like the other you posted, shows that insiders were impressed with Wills' form, but neither one explicitly says that he was viewed as the outstanding contender by the public at large. This article indicates that Wills has only just begun to gain a reputation among his fellow boxers, and anticipates that he will become the outstanding contender in time.

The first article you posted also says Wills "now has two wins over Sam Langford," when his record actually shows more than that as of that time (both official and "newspaper") - which possibly raises questions as to how much buzz (or lack thereof, to b exact) did his earlier fights generate.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Show me where the New York State Athletic Commission banned the bout.


"Muldoon _*bars*_ bouts for Dempsey's crown."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...J5QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ayEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6195,6288744

"_*Bars*_ all title bouts involving the heavyweights."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vPJgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q2MNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3337,4545036

"_*Muldoon had already ruled against Tom Gibbons, Bill Brennan, Wills, and Harry Greb as challengers for the heavyweight title*_, which practically banned any heavyweight championship fight. This left in the field only Luis Angel Firpo, Argentine giant, whose ring prowess has never really been tested, and Floyd Johnson, the youthful Iowa battler who is set to fight Gibbons and Beckett."



Klompton said:


> But regardless of that ridiculous ascertion, was New York the only venue for the fight? Because as champion Dempsey fought there twice. He had no problem fighting in Montana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Michigan.


It was the venue that both parties felt was most ideal for the fight. Wills even had it put in the contract that the fight should be overseen by the NY Commission. On top of that, numerous other states also followed NY's example by barring the fight, even after initially appearing receptive to it.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

McGrain said:


> It depends upon what you mean by "consensus." I've read newspaper reports from the week after Willard-Dempsey that label Wills the only reasonable challenger to Dempsey's title.


By "consensus" I mean that his claim to the #1 spot was almost universally accepted, with little or no dispute. That didn't happen until after Dempsey disposed of Carpentier.

From what I've read, it seems to me that there was no clear #1 contender in the immediate aftermath of Dempsey's win over Willard. I'm sure there were a number of writers who had seen Wills fight and felt he was the best of the contenders Dempsey hadn't already beaten (Seamus has already posted a couple articles indicating as such), but I've also read reports saying the same about Joe Beckett, who was apparently tabbed to be Dempsey's first challenger before Carpentier upset him.

Here are some reports giving a bit of a timeline of events, beginning with Carpentier's destruction of Beckett in a designated eliminator, which apparently thrust him into the role of Dempsey's leading contender.

"Georges Carpentier is apparently the logical contender to meet Jack Dempsey for the world's heavyweight championship."
-The Milwaukee Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1919

"Experts believe that the Frenchman can put up a great battle with Jack Dempsey."
-United Press, Dec. 5, 1919

"When the Carpentier-Beckett match was made it was acclaimed throughout the world that the winner would be the logical opponent for Jack Dempsey. That was generally conceded."
-The Atlanta Constitution, Dec. 17, 1919

_Meanwhile, this was published in the NY Times on July 25, 1920, one day before the Wills-Fulton fight:_

"Speculation seems to be particularly keen with regard to the possibilities of the Fulton-Wills meeting, which will go far toward determining whether the clever colored boxer *is to become a contender* for a bout with Champion Jack Dempsey."

_The Los Angeles Times reported the odds for the Fulton fight:_

"Frederick the Confessor is a Heavy Favorite.
...Fulton rules favorite at odds of 7 to 5."

_Reported in the NY Times on June 14, 1922:_
"Wills has been regarded as Dempsey's most dangerous rival *since the champion polished off Carpenter*."



McGrain said:


> OR he would have been a forgotten champion, remembered only for being deposed by the goat, a sort of prehistoric Sonny Liston.
> 
> The point is, we'll never know, and as you yourself have pointed out, he was a viable contender.


Yes he was a viable contender - but so was everyone Dempsey defended his title against. In order to substantiate the "Dempsey ducked his 2 best contenders" argument, it would have to be shown that Greb was clearly the 2nd most viable contender after Wills. I don't think Greb was any more deserving of a title shot than Carpentier or Firpo. On top of that, if Dempsey had fought Greb instead of either of those two, he'd almost certainly be savaged today for fighting a "light-hitting natural MW" in place of two proven HW punchers.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

McGrain said:


> "Harry Wills is the public's choice as the next opponent of champion Harry Wills. In a referendum of fight fans held by more than 500 client newspapers of the NEA Service. Harry Wills, the coloured fighter, emerged as a winner. *The total vote for Wills was by 131,073*. Gibbons trailed him by about 6,000."
> 
> Brennan was third.


I know you posted this to make a point about Wills, but this also illustrates my point about Greb. According to this poll, Greb didn't even make the top 3 among the public's rating of potential challengers, and was actually rated below two fighters he had previously beaten (and for who Dempsey gets criticized for fighting in place of Greb).

I referenced a similar poll earlier in this thread, the results of which were as follows:

!. Wills (4,835 votes)
*2. Brennan (1,320 votes)*
*3. Greb (725 votes)*
*4. Willard (700 votes)

*Notice that Greb rates more than 300 votes behind Brennan, and only 25 votes ahead of Willard, an old, inactive fighter that Dempsey had already crushed.

Also worth noting is that Firpo KO'd the #2 and #4 fighters on this list the following year.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> His resume was inferior to Wills and he was proven to be not that special, basically a Shannon Briggs or Mike Grant of his era.


If Fulton was "not that special," then what does that say about Wills' credentials as a contender, seeing as Fulton was considered his biggest win up until that time? Fulton pounded Langford into a stoppage around the same time that Wills was still getting KO'd or struggling through close, indecisive fights with the same Langford.



Powerpuncher said:


> At 37yo with 1 fight in 4 years and previously beaten by nobodies within a close period of his championship win.


This is exactly the sort of selective description of Dempsey's opponents that I criticized in my original post - no mention of the fact that Willard had won his title by flattening a long-reigning, future HOF champion, or had been dominant in his title defense.

Is being an old, semi-active giant any worse than being a punchless, half-blind midget?



Powerpuncher said:


> No he wasn't the outstanding HW challenger, which top HW contenders did he beat within the 2 years prior to them fighting?


Beckett, in a designated eliminator (see my response to McGrain).



Powerpuncher said:


> Allot of contenders seemed to dominate Carpenties, he was ko'd 9 times, Gibbons and Tunney dominated, Siki ko'd him in 6.


If you're going to bring up fights from well before, or after the period in question, why not bring up the fact that Wills was KO'd twice by Langford, or quit in the 2nd round against Battling Jim Johnson?



Powerpuncher said:


> Wills claimed Tunney ducked him.


So?? :lol: Why on earth would you simply accept a fighter's word for the truth - especially after you criticized others for supposedly doing the same earlier in this thread



Powerpuncher said:


> Factual interviews with his manager/promoter you mean :lol:


Actually, this is what I mean:


Powerpuncher said:


> *Sounds made up* given the NY Commision said in 1925 that they'd strip Dempsey if he didn't fight Wills.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> When babe Ruth broke the career home run record in the early '20's no one noticed because no kept track of that.


Keep in mind that it was more a case of home runs being not that big of a deal back then. Everyone was into the Ty Cobb style of playing until Ruth came along. Ruth MADE home runs important and the home run-crazy furor that he started exists to this very day. It all goes back to Ruth. ;-)


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Actually I'll do myself a favour and leave you and Power Puncher to your own devices


you think I'm a hater?

Do you realise how stupid a label that actually is. Why would i hate one of the greatest protagonists our sport has ever seen? Dempsey is a legend. There is no two ways about it.

Even legends can have faults though and in the case of his career the two glaring omissions are greb and wills. That isn't something as juvenile as hate you silly little boy, it is recorded fact.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> I will reply, and try to maintain some civility in these parts.
> 
> I am sold on Wills' credentials because the majority of impartial observers at the time championed his cause as the most deserving challenger to the crown. I can quote these sources all days long, from 1918 until 1926. Some credence must be given the astute contemporary observers of the craft.


I've called him the number one contender in both questions I posed.What I am not sold on is how good he actually was.
Some random thoughts.

The stories we are getting about Dempsey that he was even scared to spar with Kid Norfolk, are unconvincing , he wouldn't spar with the 5'8" lhvy yet he happily went in the ring daily with the 6'3" 200lbs plus George Godfrey?

Dempsey took advantage of the lax rules to stand over fallen opponents in fights,well.
1. First he had to knock them down before he could do that.
2, That would have equally applied if they were capable of knocking him down.

Was Dempsey a dirty fighter? In 77 fights he was never dsq'd ,contrast that with Wills who was tossed out 3 times for, hitting after the break, back handing , hitting after the bell.

Wills participated in at least 5 fake fights,was thrown out for not giving of his best, was involved in several no contests in which purses were withheld.
Wills, during Dempsey's reign beat a 37 years old Langford,a 40 years old Jeannette and a 40 years old Denver Ed Martin,his two best wins during Dempsey's title tenure were over previous quick Dempsey ko victims.

Wills beat 5'8" Kid Norfolk , how many top heavyweights are on Norfolk's resume?

Come to think of it, how many heavyweights of any ability are on it?

All the white boys avoided Norfolk .Did they?

Gibbons stopped a 29 years old Norfolk in 1924 this is a year after Gibbons was beaten by Dempsey, yet Dempsey was afraid to even spar with Norfolk?
Jeff Clark was a washed up relic when Wills beat him during Dempsey's reign.
Dempsey is castigated for defending against light heavies Carpentier and Gibbons,and castigated for not defending against light heavies,Greb, and Norfolk.

Wills appetite for the game when the going got tough has never been satisfactorily illustrated to me,
He quit against Battling JIm Johnson in the second rd after sustaining a broken wrist, he was 27 years old.

Contrast this with Jack Johnson at 35 also sustaining a broken arm against Battling Jim again in the 2nd rd , yet struggling through the 10 rounds allotted distance to scrape a draw.

Wills was kod by Uzcudun a moderate hitter,ok he was 37/38 but the punches that put him down in the 4th don't look that special nor does he appear to make any attempt to get up.
Contrast that with a 37 years old Johnson going 26 rds with Willard a big right hand puncher before finally succumbing.

Wills fouled out to Sharkey to avoid a beating.
No I'm not sold on his capacity to fight an uphill battle.

These thoughts obviously make me a Dempsey apologist .


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> I've called him the number one contender in both questions I posed.What I am not sold on is how good he actually was.
> Some random thoughts.
> 
> The stories we are getting about Dempsey that he was even scared to spar with Kid Norfolk, are unconvincing , he wouldn't spar with the 5'8" lhvy yet he happily went in the ring daily with the 6'3" 200lbs plus George Godfrey?
> ...


Well you are quick to throw labels around, that much is evident.

That's the problem with people emotionally invested, they become blinkered with this "us against them mentality". I just don't get it. If I see a thread asking wlad v Dempsey I'll pick jack by ko. Doesn't make me an apologist. If I see a thread talking about his failings as a champ I'll mention him avoiding greb and wills. Doesn't make me a hater.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

The principle thing to come out of this thread, is that Wills divided contemporary opinion. Some people saw him as a standout challenger, while some thought he was just another contender, perhaps no better than some others. This should come as no great shock to us, because a similar divide exists on most top contenders today.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> The principle thing to come out of this thread, is that Wills divided contemporary opinion. Some people saw him as a standout challenger, while some thought he was just another contender, perhaps no better than some others. This should come as no great shock to us, because a similar divide exists on most top contenders today.


I think everyone agreed he was a top contender. I'm sure at times Fulton and Firpo overtook him and yes at times Carpentier had more hype surrounding him (a bit like haye when he burst onto the he scene perhaps) but wills was always there or thereabouts that can't be denied.

the ability of wills certainly divided opinion, some thought he'd be a stern test and others he'd be just another victim. Shame we never got to see who was right.

But let's not forget greb. Repeatedly won HW fights only to see the loser get a shot ahead of him.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Surf-Bat said:


> Keep in mind that it was more a case of home runs being not that big of a deal back then. Everyone was into the Ty Cobb style of playing until Ruth came along. Ruth MADE home runs important and the home run-crazy furor that he started exists to this very day. It all goes back to Ruth. ;-)


That's true, to a certain extent, but you have guys like Home Run Baker. Anyway i'm not sure anyone knew who the hits leader was that Cobb blew past or who he took the career stalls record from.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> you think I'm a hater?
> 
> Do you realise how stupid a label that actually is. Why would i hate one of the greatest protagonists our sport has ever seen? Dempsey is a legend. There is no two ways about it.
> 
> Even legends can have faults though and in the case of his career the two glaring omissions are greb and wills. That isn't something as juvenile as hate you silly little boy, it is recorded fact.


You talk at people, not to them, let me make a guess you are in education,a teacher? Its their most common fault ,and the label apologist was thrown at me ,I just responded. Calling me names from the safety of your key board is very macho.Now go and lecture someone else.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> Half those writers were on Jack Kearns' private payroll.


 But on no other boxing managers I take it? How silly is that remark?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> You talk at people, not to them, let me make a guess you are in education,a teacher? Its their most common fault ,and the label apologist was thrown at me ,I just responded. Calling me names from the safety of your key board is very macho.Now go and lecture someone else.


a bit like how the label hater was thrown at me and I just responded?

I ain't lecturing you I am telling you should not be so emotional to the point you consider recorded fact as hating. Dempsey is a legend, a legend with holes in his resume, deal with it.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> a bit like how the label hater was thrown at me and I just responded?
> 
> I ain't lecturing you I am telling you should not be so emotional to the point you consider recorded fact as hating. Dempsey is a legend, a legend with holes in his resume, deal with it.


"I aint lecturing you,I'm telling you,"

= Lecture
I'm not emotional at all. I was accused of making up stories and called an apologist, and then a "silly little boy" Now that doesnt make me emotional but it does slightly irk me because I would respond to the latter epiphet if I was face to face with the person[you] spewing it out,and not with words .

Why do you persist in stating the obvious ? Do you think there is a classic boxing fan alive who does not know Dempsey did not fight Wills and Greb? I myself knew it over 4 decades ago.
Two holes in his resume?
How about Gibbons,Brennan,Greb, Tunney,Godfrey,Miske, Carpentier, not being on Will's?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> "I aint lecturing you,I'm telling you,"
> 
> = Lecture
> I'm not emotional at all. I was accused of making up stories and called an apologist, and then a "silly little boy" Now that doesnt make me emotional but it does slightly irk me because I would respond to the latter epiphet if I was face to face with the person[you] spewing it out,and not with words .
> ...


Yes and I was involved in a discussion about such a thing and one man felt it appropriate to call me a hater I would call him a silly little boy for being so juvenile. And by your own logic you should label yourself a hater by stating the same thing I did, his failure to face wills and greb.

Yes wills has holes in his resume as well. But this is a thread about Dempsey and his criticisms, not wills and his.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> "Muldoon _*bars*_ bouts for Dempsey's crown."
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...J5QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ayEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6195,6288744
> 
> "_*Bars*_ all title bouts involving the heavyweights."
> ...


This doesnt tell the full story though. Within two months of this Muldoon's power had been curbed by Gov. Al Smith who moved much of the NYSAC power to over the licensing commission headed by William McCormack and boxing was back in business in New York. Dont forget that Muldoon had also banned Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Wilson, and others in an increasingly erratic and dictatorial outlook on the sport. McCormack would resign his post within a year while dogged by controversy due to his accepting a bribe from Tex Rickard to allow the Firpo-Dempsey contest. This also ignores the fact that this short lived "ban" came a full year after Wills had won his title eliminator over Kid Norfolk and nearly three years after he defeated Fulton. So no, Dempsey and Wills were not banned in the state.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Yes and I was involved in a discussion about such a thing and one man felt it appropriate to call me a hater I would call him a silly little boy for being so juvenile. And by your own logic you should label yourself a hater by stating the same thing I did, his failure to face wills and greb.
> 
> Yes wills has holes in his resume as well. But this is a thread about Dempsey and his criticisms, not wills and his.


 Dempsey is forever linked with Wills and any discussion of him will inevitably include some of Wills to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

You've made some assertions on this thread that I could accurately call those of," a silly little boy". But I won't, I'll leave that for juveniles that insult others from the safety of their keyboards. 
1." Smith beat up Johnson ", 
2. "Johnson was accused of ducking Smith". Neither are true.

3.The second fight between "Wills and Tate was farcical," untrue it was a hard fought draw in which Wills was cut and floored.

When I asked how it was that Tate, who was not a contender could manage to draw with the number one challenger I was met with silence.

Now show me a post in which I called you a hater. You jumped the gun on that, maybe you were being pre-emptive because you've been referred to as such before.
.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

It always has to be at the back of your mind when reading contemporary sources, that the writer might be the 1920s equivalent of a rabid Klitschko fan, or a person with a rabid anti Klitschko agenda. I get the idea that there were significant camps favourable to Dempsey, Greb and Wills out there, who might not have been entirely fair to the other parties. The fighters might have changed over the years, but the arguments haven't.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey is forever linked with Wills and any discussion of him will inevitably include some of Wills to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
> 
> You've made some assertions on this thread that I could accurately call those of," a silly little boy". But I won't, I'll leave that for juveniles that insult others from the safety of their keyboards.
> 1." Smith beat up Johnson ",
> ...


I wouldn't suggest otherwise. you asked if wills had holes and i said yes.

beat up, knocked out of the ring, whatever.

he has been accused in the past, i've debated the very point in favour of johnson.

i made a mistake, apologies.

#92 and #93. i get called a dempsey hater and a dempsey fanboy depending on the subject at hand. usually by those emotionally invested.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> I wouldn't suggest otherwise. you asked if wills had holes and i said yes.
> 
> beat up, knocked out of the ring, whatever.
> 
> ...


 I was referring specifically to Power Puncher and Klompton , both of whom had a hearty dislike for Dempsey .Klompton's extends to Carpentier as well. The only person I know who has accused Johnson of ducking Smith is someone of no consequence whatsoever and I won't give him the importance of mentioning his user name. 
Smith ,in sparring with Johnson for the Ketchel fight saw an opportunity and fired his best Sunday punch, it put Johnson halfway through the ropes,opportunist , and unprofessional.Johnson should have sparred with him the following day and crucified him ,Dempsey would have,
but then Dempsey would have punished him without mercy even if he had behaved himself and took no liberties
I'm not emotionally involved in events that happened almost a century ago, but I can get very involved with those that personally insult me. Let us move on.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> I was referring specifically to Power Puncher and Klompton , both of whom had a hearty dislike for Dempsey .Klompton's extends to Carpentier as well. The only person I know who has accused Johnson of ducking Smith is someone of no consequence whatsoever and I won't give him the importance of mentioning his user name.
> Smith ,in sparring with Johnson for the Ketchel fight saw an opportunity and fired his best Sunday punch, it put Johnson halfway through the ropes,opportunist , and unprofessional.Johnson should have sparred with him the following day and crucified him ,Dempsey would have,
> but then Dempsey would have punished him without mercy even if he had behaved himself and took no liberties
> I'm not emotionally involved in events that happened almost a century ago, but I can get very involved with those that personally insult me. Let us move on.


well if the insult wasn't aimed at me I apologise.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> By "consensus" I mean that his claim to the #1 spot was almost universally accepted, with little or no dispute. That didn't happen until after Dempsey disposed of Carpentier.


I would argue, with that criteria, that it never happened, or did perhaps briefly.



> From what I've read, it seems to me that there was no clear #1 contender in the immediate aftermath of Dempsey's win over Willard. I'm sure there were a number of writers who had seen Wills fight and felt he was the best of the contenders Dempsey hadn't already beaten (Seamus has already posted a couple articles indicating as such), but I've also read reports saying the same about Joe Beckett, who was apparently tabbed to be Dempsey's first challenger before Carpentier upset him.


I agree; I think Wills is a legitimate pick who was seen by some but not all as the clear #1 contender at that time. I think that you could _legitimately _argue that Wills could be considered the #1 contender for Dempsey's entire reign. You could also legitimately claim that this was not the case. Again, under your criteria, it unquestionably was not the case.



> Here are some reports giving a bit of a timeline of events, beginning with Carpentier's destruction of Beckett in a designated eliminator, which apparently thrust him into the role of Dempsey's leading contender.


Although it must be noted that Carpantier was the apparent beneficiary of perhaps the most powerful pugilistic publicity machine in boxing history, whilst Wills was not. Nonetheless, Carpantier was a white European with crossover appeal, which alone makes him amongst the "logical" contenders for a crack at Dempsey, in the same way Gatti was a logical contender for a crack at Mayweather.



> Yes he was a viable contender - but so was everyone Dempsey defended his title against. In order to substantiate the "Dempsey ducked his 2 best contenders" argument, it would have to be shown that Greb was clearly the 2nd most viable contender after Wills. I don't think Greb was any more deserving of a title shot than Carpentier or Firpo. On top of that, if Dempsey had fought Greb instead of either of those two, he'd almost certainly be savaged today for fighting a "light-hitting natural MW" in place of two proven HW punchers.


Carpantier may have been as deserving as Greb of a title shot by virtue of the fact that they both won title eliminators. I would also say that Greb is clearly the superior fighter of the two. It is therefore a natural frustration to fans that he fought the former but not the latter. It is also the pertinent fact, rather than the idea that both were as deserving as each other (that, is that the better fighter doesn't get the stab).

I no longer care for the "Dempsey would have been critisised for facing a light-hitting MW" argument. I'm sure he would have been - if he had won handily. And he might not have done that. Additionally, I don't understand the notion that he has to fight Greb _instead _of the contenders you mention. His title reign was poorly furnished to say the least. In the end, I don't really care if Greb was the second best contender for Dempsey's title or not. I'm satisfied that he was more deserving than many of the men Dempsey met, and i'm satisfied that Dempsey had already made a fight to meet a small white fighter in Carpantier.

I'm satisfied that, like the man in your avatar, Dempsey betrayed the world's heavyweight championship he held by failing to fight Wills, failing to fight Greb and by inactivity during a period when these two outstanding contenders were available for a challenge. That is the extent of my criticism, and whilst it is fulsome, I believe it is not unreasonable.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Sittin Sonny said:


> I know you posted this to make a point about Wills, but this also illustrates my point about Greb. According to this poll, Greb didn't even make the top 3 among the public's rating of potential challengers, and was actually rated below two fighters he had previously beaten (and for who Dempsey gets criticized for fighting in place of Greb).
> 
> I referenced a similar poll earlier in this thread, the results of which were as follows:
> 
> ...


Yes, Greb didn't do well on my poll either. Greb was only a good contender (#3 here which seems unreasonable given his total domination of Brennan, but there you go) until he won his championship eliminator, at which point Dempsey's failure to fight Greb became a duck IMO.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Seamus said:


> Half those writers were on Jack Kearns' private payroll.


Okay.....not sure about that (I mean, half of them?) but anyway, Dempsey was the first to say that he was pretty good but who made him great where the writers....


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Yes, Greb didn't do well on my poll either. Greb was only a good contender (#3 here which seems unreasonable given his total domination of Brennan, but there you go) until he won his championship eliminator, at which point Dempsey's failure to fight Greb became a duck IMO.


The problem with these polls (although Wills does always seem to dominate them which just adds to the argument that he was clearly the best contender) is that there was a complete lack of mass media at the time. You have to put yourself in the mindset of people who had never seen Greb defeat Brennan 4 times and maybe never even read about it, maybe never saw Wills fight, etc etc. So with that frame of reference its totally logical, with a huge gap in understanding by these people, to see Brennan (who had given Dempsey all he could handle in 1920) and Willard (who was a huge former champion, and whose age was constantly being disputed) as viable contenders over other guys who were probably more deserving. That being said you also have to keep in mind when you look at these polls and then say "Firpo knocked out the #2 and #4 guys on this list the following year" that this is more of an indictment on the poll than a reason to laud Firpo as a contender. Willard was so old and so inactive that he went through hell just to get licensed to fight fringe contender Floyd Johnson which set up the Firpo fight. After losing to Greb the fourth time Brennan did absolutely nothing in terms of serious fighting because he was being fast tracked by Kearns as an opponent for Dempsey. He just had to sit and wait and thats exactly what he did. After his showing against Dempsey there was a call in some quarters for a rematch and so Brennan basically coasted again for the next several years waiting. When Firpo faced him he had just been dropped and defeated by Johnson. Basically at best these guys were trying to rest on their previous laurels and sneak into the title via the back door.

Remember Greb tried to fight Firpo in 1923 and Firpo refused, instead of facing Greb he wanted to fight Cliff Kramer. Draw your own conclusions as to what that meant. I have no doubt that Wills would have faced Firpo also prior to Firpo's fight with Dempsey but keep in mind that Firpo had been imported to the United States for the express purpose of being built up as an exotic cave man adversary for Dempsey to face in a million dollar gate. Rickard wasnt going to let Firpo anywhere near anyone that really had a chance to beat him.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

The first great relief ace in baseball was called "Firpo" Marberry. I thought this should be mentioned.


----------



## SP_Mauker (Jun 5, 2013)

Klompton said:


> This doesnt tell the full story though. Within two months of this Muldoon's power had been curbed by Gov. Al Smith who moved much of the NYSAC power to over the licensing commission headed by William McCormack and boxing was back in business in New York. Dont forget that Muldoon had also banned Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Wilson, and others in an increasingly erratic and dictatorial outlook on the sport. *McCormack would resign his post within a year while dogged by controversy due to his accepting a bribe from Tex Rickard to allow the Firpo-Dempsey contest.* This also ignores the fact that this short lived "ban" came a full year after Wills had won his title eliminator over Kid Norfolk and nearly three years after he defeated Fulton. So no, Dempsey and Wills were not banned in the state.


McCormack demanded money or else the fight would not go ahead


----------



## SP_Mauker (Jun 5, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> Here's what I've seen so far on this board:
> 
> If Dempsey fights a big man, then he's cherrypicking a stationary target who can't handle his speed. But if he fights a lighter man, he's cherrypicking someone who's too small to handle his strength and power.
> 
> ...


Wills is a glorified victim who posed no threat to Dempsey. He's a fighter like Tate, like in the spar Dempsey/Tate except Dempsey would have smashed Wills even worse


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

SP_Mauker said:


> Wills is a glorified victim who posed no threat to Dempsey.


That's absolutely retarded.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Jack Dempsey said that he would not fight men who posed no threat to him- now bring him the man with Brights disease!


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

McGrain said:


> That's absolutely retarded.


Consider the source. That's probably overachieving. Hand him a lollipop and a bright balloon.


----------

