# Wills v Dempsey



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Given the footage we have of both. How do you see a fight between these two going?

Wills:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM7vyvipYfQ#t=2m59s

Dempsey:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoSEEXIe6Gg

Would Wills shut down Dempsey's ferocious attacks, catch him on the way in and punish him to the body once inside?

Would Dempsey tale advantage of his speed advantage and beat Wills to the punch chopping down the big man?

Who takes it in a fight any time during Dempsey's championship reign?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Given the footage we have of both. How do you see a fight between these two going?
> 
> Wills:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM7vyvipYfQ#t=2m59s
> ...


Dempsey shined against big men, Wills looks slow afoot on the limited footage available, he also looks hittable.

Wills is bigger ,Dempsey faster both of hand, and foot, he also had the bigger punch and took a better shot imo . Dempsey by ko.

" In 1924 Wills's reputation suffered somewhat when he was unable
to knock out the much smaller Bartley Madden in a fifteen-round
fight. Although hampered by an injured thumb, Wills decisively
beat Argentine heavyweight Luis Angel Firpo in twelve rounds
at Jersey City (newspaper decision) on 11 September 1924. After
two impressive knockouts by Wills over white heavyweights Charley
Weinert and Floyd Johnson in 1925, there was renewed pressure
from sportswriters for a Dempsey-Wills fight. This led to an
ultimatum to Dempsey by the New York State Boxing Commission
that he would be barred from fighting in the state unless he
fought Wills. Kearns refused to accept the Wills fight and Rickard
refused to promote it, and instead a fight between Dempsey and
Gene Tunney was arranged. The License Committee of the New York
Boxing Board refused to allow a Dempsey-Tunney fight, but Rickard
simply moved the fight to Philadelphia, where it occurred on
23 September 1926.

Paddy Mullins, Wills's manager, had turned down possible fights
for Wills with Tommy Gibbons and Tunney, insisting that Wills
would meet only Dempsey. Tunney, by defeating Gibbons, secured
the match with Dempsey and won the heavyweight title. On 12 October
1926 Wills fought Jack Sharkey in Brooklyn and suffered a bad
beating, losing every round until being disqualified in the thirteenth,
thus ending his heavyweight title chances.

On 13 July 1927 Wills made an attempt to put himself back into
contention for the heavyweight title by fighting a young Spanish
heavyweight, Paulino Uzcudun, in Brooklyn. Wills's more clever
boxing held his opponent at bay for a couple of rounds, but the
aggressive Uzcudun scored a four-round knockout. Afterward Wills
had only three minor fights, the last in 1932."


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> Dempsey shined against big men, Wills looks slow afoot on the limited footage available, he also looks hittable.
> 
> Wills is bigger ,Dempsey faster both of hand, and foot, he also had the bigger punch and took a better shot imo . Dempsey by ko.
> 
> ...


that's what I would assume based on what we have but for some reason team Dempsey were desperate not to face him like you say.

I would make jack a favourite though and by ko.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Wills right hand and uppercut are dangerous counters for a left hooker like Dempsey and either could potenitally KO the smaller man. 

Wills jab is solid but not as dynamic as Tunney's though but still an important tool. But he'd be by far the best and most powerful in-fighter Dempsey ever fought

Dempsey is the quicker of the 2 and maybe able to quickly get inside to get his left hook off. But once there if he doesn't put Wills down he's getting smashed with Wills left hooks and uppercuts, which are a small man's kryptonite.

Dempsey's chances definitely go up every year he's champion as Wills ages and slows. Wills is 35 in the bouts that have come out, it would be safe to say he'd be a much greater threat around 1919 when he was 30.

It's impossible to say as Dempsey and his handlers never fancied it, so they very much saw the threat even if Dempsey would have possibly won.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Wills right hand and uppercut are dangerous counters for a left hooker like Dempsey and either could potenitally KO the smaller man.
> 
> Wills jab is solid but not as dynamic as Tunney's though but still an important tool. But he'd be by far the best and most powerful in-fighter Dempsey ever fought
> 
> ...


his jab wouldn't be enough to keep Dempsey at bay imo. We have to assume he's gonna be more fine tuned as he's younger but he would behave to be significantly quicker for me to favour him over jack.

He will be strong on the inside but can you envision him outlanding Dempsey inside? And if he can't, surely the harder hitting, better leveraged punches would be coming from Jack?

As you say though there must be somehting they saw, something I can't. But I reckon Jack is a solid favourite here.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

WIllis looks like shit in that footage....


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Dempsey should be favoured. 

Dempsey should NOT be "handed" a win over Wills like a sweetie by people who don't like what failing to fight Wills rightly does (in the eyes of many) to the Dempsey legacy.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I agree McG.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Dempsey should be favoured here, but Wills cannot be counted out. Wills seems to have been a tremendous hitter who could land a punishing shot within a very short distance, see the Kid Norfolk fight. Maybe just maybe he can time Dempsey coming in and win the day.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

McGrain said:


> Dempsey should be favoured.
> 
> Dempsey should NOT be "handed" a win over Wills like a sweetie by people who don't like what failing to fight Wills rightly does (in the eyes of many) to the Dempsey legacy.


This.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

janitor said:


> Dempsey should be favoured here, but Wills cannot be counted out. Wills seems to have been a tremendous hitter who could land a punishing shot within a very short distance, see the Kid Norfolk fight. Maybe just maybe he can time Dempsey coming in and win the day.


He was a good hitter, I don't know that I would call him a tremendous one .His results against common opponents with Dempsey tip the nod to Dempsey. I also don't think his chin was top notch. One thing neither side of this debate can deny ,Wills deserved a title shot and never received one.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah this thread isn't trying to award a hypothetical victory. It's more a "how do you see it now we have more info"

Really wish we had both men against Fulton.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Cormac said:


> He was a good hitter, I don't know that I would call him a tremendous one


There is both anecdotal and circumstantial evidence pointing to Wills having a punch like a mules kick.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

janitor said:


> There is both anecdotal and circumstantial evidence pointing to Wills having a punch like a mules kick.


Well he hit Madden with everything but the kitchen sink and failed to drop him,

MADDEN STAYS LIMIT IN BOUT WITH WILLS; Decision Goes to Dempsey's Challenger, Who Fails to Score Knockdown in 15 Rounds. CROWD CHEERS THE LOSER Irish Boxer, Badly Beaten, Stirs 17,000 by Plucky Fight at Queensboro A.C. VICTOR SHOWS POOR FORM Tries Desperately for Knockout, but Old-Time Speed and Dash Are Missing.

Sign In to E-Mail
 Permissions

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]
Harry Wills, New Orleans *****, who is regarded as the foremost contender for the world heavyweight championship title, won the decision from the rugged Bartley Madden, West Side Irishman, last night in their 15-round bout at the Queensboro Stadium, Long Island City, but suffered a loss of prestige in the estimation of a crowd of about 17, 000 persons who paid about $80,000 to witness the bout.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> his jab wouldn't be enough to keep Dempsey at bay imo. We have to assume he's gonna be more fine tuned as he's younger but he would behave to be significantly quicker for me to favour him over jack.
> 
> He will be strong on the inside but can you envision him outlanding Dempsey inside? And if he can't, surely the harder hitting, better leveraged punches would be coming from Jack?
> 
> As you say though there must be somehting they saw, something I can't. But I reckon Jack is a solid favourite here.


His jab may land first though, his jab and grab hit and hold tactics could probably be pretty frustrating. Dempsey's head movement and footspeed could see him get past the jab to land the left hook but Wills has the best right and uppercut Dempsey would have faced as he comes inside.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> His jab may land first though, his jab and grab hit and hold tactics could probably be pretty frustrating. Dempsey's head movement and footspeed could see him get past the jab to land the left hook but Wills has the best right and uppercut Dempsey would have faced as he comes inside.




Not sure this is a given.

Dempsey faced right hand power punchers ,Gunboat Smith,Luis Firpo,and Fred Fulton, he also dealt with crafty exponents of the uppercut like Miske ,and Brennan


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm not convinced he had a better jab/uppercut than Fulton. He sounds a quality boxer just not durable when clocked.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> I'm not convinced he had a better jab/uppercut than Fulton. He sounds a quality boxer just not durable when clocked.


Fulton seems to have had equal ko power in either hand, in 79 wins he scored 70 kos. I don't doubt he was Wills equal for power and probably hit harder. as well as Fulton, Smith ,and Firpo, Dempsey faced Willard, and Carpentier both good right hand punchers.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Not sure this is a given.
> 
> Dempsey faced right hand power punchers ,Gunboat Smith,Luis Firpo,and Fred Fulton, he also dealt with crafty exponents of the uppercut like Miske ,and Brennan [/U]


A big man with an uppercut is a hard task against a smaller left hooker, see Foreman-Frazier, Bowe-Holyfield or Arguello versus anyone.

Miske and Brennan were gatekeepers as title defenses and Brennan's right hand did light him up. If he's getting hit by a 210lb man he won't be able to walk through it like he did against Brennan, as we can see when Firpo knocked him from the ring. Wills ofcourse is more precise than Firpo and much harder to hit.



Cormac said:


> Fulton seems to have had equal ko power in either hand, in 79 wins he scored 70 kos. I don't doubt he was Wills equal for power and probably hit harder. as well as Fulton, Smith ,and Firpo, Dempsey faced Willard, and Carpentier both good right hand punchers.


Fulton's power is pretty irrelevant given he didn't land a punch.

In Carpentier you're comparing an ex-lightweight to a genuine super heavyweight of the day.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> A big man with an uppercut is a hard task against a smaller left hooker, see Foreman-Frazier, Bowe-Holyfield or Arguello versus anyone.
> 
> Miske and Brennan were gatekeepers as title defenses and Brennan's right hand did light him up. If he's getting hit by a 210lb man he won't be able to walk through it like he did against Brennan, as we can see when Firpo knocked him from the ring. Wills ofcourse is more precise than Firpo and much harder to hit.
> 
> ...


So a 210 lbs fighter ,necessarily hits harder than a 188lbs one? Dempsey hit harder and faster than any of them,how much did he weigh?

Whose to say Wills would get the opportunity to land on Dempsey? Fulton was quicker than Wills he still got taken out in under a minute.

Willard had a great uppercut, how many did he land on Dempsey ?
How old was Carpentier when he made the lightweight limit? This makes as much sense and is as valid as saying Langford was an ex-lightweight. You need to do better than this P. P.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> So a 210 lbs fighter ,necessarily hits harder than a 188lbs one? Dempsey hit harder and faster than any of them,how much did he weigh?
> 
> Whose to say Wills would get the opportunity to land on Dempsey? Fulton was quicker than Wills he still got taken out in under a minute.
> 
> ...


Guess what all these fighters you mention have in common, they're at least 2 levels below Wills. So Brennan/Miske/Tunney/Meehan all easily tag Dempsey but Wills can't? Sounds unlikely doesn't it?

What basis is there of Willard having a good uppercut? It's not apparent in any footage, he also never put together a run nearly as good as Wills and was 3 years inactive at 37 against Dempsey.

Fulton had a chin like wet tissue paper, either that or no heart.

Carpentier has little to no heavyweight pedigree.

Dempsey may have been the most aggressive unrelenting puncher in the division, that doesn't necessarily make him the biggest puncher with 1 shot, he doesn't have too many 1 punch KO's to his name against top opposition. He maybe but it's no given.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

No sense debating with mcvey. Dempsey could crawl out of his grave and say he avoided Wills for fear of getting a thrashing and mcvey would argue with him, after lighting a few candles and bowing down at the alter he had erected at graveside...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Guess what all these fighters you mention have in common, they're at least 2 levels below Wills. So Brennan/Miske/Tunney/Meehan all easily tag Dempsey but Wills can't? Sounds unlikely doesn't it?
> 
> What basis is there of Willard having a good uppercut? It's not apparent in any footage, he also never put together a run nearly as good as Wills and was 3 years inactive at 37 against Dempsey.
> 
> ...


One of the reasons for this discussion is to determine how good Wills really was. Since he never fought Brennan, Miske, or Tunney its difficult to state with any certainty.

Carpentier may not have a long pedigree at heavyweight but he beat the best white heavy in the world at the time Gun Boat Smith ,[ not the washed up relic Wills blew over],[Smith had beaten Langford a few months earlier,] won the European title, and as a 20year old lost a hotly disputed decision to Jeannette, the same year a 25 years old Wills could only scrape a draw with him in the second of two tries.In fact Wills could not beat Jeannette till Joe was 40 years old.

In one other respect Carpentier looks better than Wills , when past his best he was prepared to go in with Gibbons ,and Tunney, Wills was not. Dempsey did not have many one punch kos? Did he not, how many of his early kos have you seen?
How many one punch kos did Foreman or Liston have? 
Fulton had over a hundred fights including against Dempsey , Langford x2[both wins],Smith,Moran,Madden,Miske,Morris,Godfrey. There was nothing wrong with his ticker. His chin was vulnerable,I don't think Wills was anything special and I'm not sold on his ticker when he was under pressure either.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

What you see here is a guy who doesn't give a goddamn what the other feller is going to throw. He is absolutely dismissive to the little runt's offensive arsenal and dominating him both physically and mentally. There is an enormous gulf in physical talent (Madden was a whopping 5-11, 180 with a 70" reach) and experience (Wills was 70 or so fights in and Madden about 20). This is just an aging Wills putting in another day at the office. Nothing here to cause revelations. We would have to see a more prime Wills against a much better opponent.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> No sense debating with mcvey. Dempsey could crawl out of his grave and say he avoided Wills for fear of getting a thrashing and mcvey would argue with him, after lighting a few candles and bowing down at the alter he had erected at graveside...


The thread is about who wins, not why they never met. Looking at the poll, I'm not on my own in my picking Dempsey.
ps .You forgot the personal insults , perhaps you're tired?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Ah cormac is McVey? I wouldn't have guessed!

For my money I agree with both PP and C here. Wills would likely present the biggest challenge Dempsey faced and there is every chance he tags him. However given Dempsey's speed advantage it seems certain he'll land first and when did he ever land first and fail to hurt his opponent?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> What you see here is a guy who doesn't give a goddamn what the other feller is going to throw. He is absolutely dismissive to the little runt's offensive arsenal and dominating him both physically and mentally. There is an enormous gulf in physical talent (Madden was a whopping 5-11, 180 with a 70" reach) and experience (Wills was 70 or so fights in and Madden about 20). This is just an aging Wills putting in another day at the office. Nothing here to cause revelations. We would have to see a more prime Wills against a much better opponent.


Three inches in height, 30lbs in weight,an enormous gulf in physical talent, yet Madden was there at the end? 
:huh

Reports say that Wills hit Madden with everything, but could not floor him he was hardly coasting

Madden was 34 ,only a few months younger than Wills ,so the excuse its an aging Wills doesn't go.

Wills hardly looks any better against Firpo. Two ,"another days at the office?"
Both of which totally underwhelmed the paying public , that's the way to push your chances for a title shot.
:happy

Bottom line ,Wills accomplished no more against Madden than Jack Renault did a couple of months later.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Ah cormac is McVey? I wouldn't have guessed!For my money I agree with both PP and C here. Wills would likely present the biggest challenge Dempsey faced and there is every chance he tags him. However given Dempsey's speed advantage it seems certain he'll land first and when did he ever land first and fail to hurt his opponent?


 By 1924 I think Wills was definitely sliding, looking at what we have , Dempsey takes him out,imo.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I agree. I pick Dempsey to stop him. Especially when it was more likely to happen during the Hollywood years.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Cormac said:


> One of the reasons for this discussion is to determine how good Wills really was. Since he never fought Brennan, Miske, or Tunney its difficult to state with any certainty.


No he beat significantly better contenders, Brennan was a gatekeeper with no real top wins. Talking about 'missing out on Brennan' is laughable as is missing out on a Miske at death's door.

You conveniently ignore the fact that most of the white contenders of the day also drew the colour line and instead make it out as if Wills avoided them. Disingenuous



Cormac said:


> Carpentier may not have a long pedigree at heavyweight but he beat the best white heavy in the world at the time Gun Boat Smith ,[ not the washed up relic Wills blew over],[Smith had beaten Langford a few months earlier,] won the European title,


Gunboat Smith's Langford bout is widely regarded as a robbery, you probably know this



Cormac said:


> and as a 20year old lost a hotly disputed decision to Jeannette, the same year a 25 years old Wills could only scrape a draw with him in the second of two tries.In fact Wills could not beat Jeannette till Joe was 40 years old.


Wills has newspapers reports scoring him wins over 33/34yo versions of Jeanette. I'm not sure of the details of Jeanette-Carpentier, but it's very rare a black fighter gets a gift over a white fighter in this era, the newspapers were possibly biased for the hometown white fighter.



Cormac said:


> In one other respect Carpentier looks better than Wills , when past his best he was prepared to go in with Gibbons ,and Tunney, Wills was not.


Another disingenuous dishonest claim from you. I've proven to you time and again the Tunney fight was not genuine. It becomes tiresome when you blissfully ignore this evidence to pedal your lies.



Cormac said:


> Dempsey did not have many one punch kos? Did he not, how many of his early kos have you seen?
> How many one punch kos did Foreman or Liston have?


Regardless of that, most of his KO's he wailed away on most of his opponents, most of them get up time and again and took 100s of punches from Dempsey. Obviously Sharkey is an exception but that's a borderline sucker punch.



Cormac said:


> Fulton had over a hundred fights including against Dempsey , Langford x2[both wins],Smith,Moran,Madden,Miske,Morris,Godfrey. There was nothing wrong with his ticker. His chin was vulnerable,I don't think Wills was anything special and I'm not sold on his ticker when he was under pressure either.


Golota had allot of fights too and folded under pressure. Who knows maybe he was china chinned or maybe he had a lack of grit. Wills stopped Fulton on bodyshots, maybe he could have continued, who knows.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> No he beat significantly better contenders, Brennan was a gatekeeper with no real top wins. Talking about 'missing out on Brennan' is laughable as is missing out on a Miske at death's door.
> 
> You conveniently ignore the fact that most of the white contenders of the day also drew the colour line and instead make it out as if Wills avoided them. Disingenuous
> 
> ...


 Can you not debate without personal insults and accusations of lying? I've been civil to you .Telll you what.

FUCK OFF!


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Apparently in fantasy land Carpentier winning a controversial DQ against Gunboat Smith 7 full years prior to his title shot in 1921 trumps anything Wills did... Pathetic.

Also, apparently, in someone's world, Drawing with Jeanette is worse than losing to him... Pathetic. 

Just for the record Mike Collins who managed Fulton and knew him a lot better than mcvey stated that the reason he dumped Fulton was because he couldnt stomach the fact that Fulton had no heart... I guess that answers that.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Three inches in height, 30lbs in weight,an enormous gulf in physical talent, yet Madden was there at the end?
> :huh


He was there and beaten the fuck up. Bloody, cut, reeling. Wills came extremely close to stopping him twice. Sometimes a guy is just not going to go. Think Waldo-Wach, Lewis-Mavrovic, Foreman-Stewart... It happens.

"The Irishman seemed more intent upon the reputation he would gain by staying the limit with his noted opponent than in doing any effective battling himself," seems to sum it up.



Cormac said:


> Madden was 34 ,only a few months younger than Wills ,so the excuse its an aging Wills doesn't go.


You are too smart for this. Wills had almost 4 times the recorded bouts, against heavyweights, and surely more unrecorded bouts beforehand. Miles on the odometer are more important than birthdate.



Cormac said:


> Wills hardly looks any better against Firpo. Two ,"another days at the office?"
> Both of which totally underwhelmed the paying public , that's the way to push your chances for a title shot.
> :happy


Yes, he was an old ass fighter, at an age far beyond that at which Dempsey had retired. "Push for a title shot" is laughable as he had been the best contender for the title until arguably BEFORE Dempsey had won it. By that time, he was simply not the fighter who bulldozed Langford, Clark, Norfolk, Martin, Fulton, McVea and the like. His resume was the best of Dempsey's challengers and frankly, better than Dempsey's



Cormac said:


> Bottom line ,Wills accomplished no more against Madden than Jack Renault did a couple of months later.


That is a very myopic way to approach Will's viability as a contender.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

You know who mcvey sounds like when he says Wills accomplished no more against Madden than Renault? The same white establishment guard that allowed Dempsey to get away with not fighting him. In reality nobody did much with Madden. The guy was a human heavy bag. That is until Gene Tunney miraculously knocked him after Madden had been paid between $5,000 and $20,000 under the table for some unexplained reason. But, hey, if youve got the white blinders on then this all looks legit. I mean, if you are looking for reasons to support your argument then you can always twist the truth and the facts to fit the argument right? Right mcvey? Again, Madden was sent to the hospital by Wills. Wills didnt have to go out there look dynamic every single time out. He just had to keep winning, which is what he did until he was 37 years old and had been a top contender for the entire run of Dempsey's reign. So keep grasping at straws for why Wills never got the fight, why he shouldnt have, why others should have ahead of him, and why Dempsey would have beaten him easily had the fight actually come off (which it would have if Dempsey had your confidence on the subject). By now your desperate arguments have exposed your agenda.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I agree that to be certain we would have to see more prime footage of wills but unless he was massively quicker in his prime I'm not sure I'd favour him ever.

I wonder, however, if Jack had a weakness to body shots? One of Wills best punches. Could that be the real reason behind the avoidance of his top challenger for so long?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Apparently in fantasy land Carpentier winning a controversial DQ against Gunboat Smith 7 full years prior to his title shot in 1921 trumps anything Wills did... Pathetic.
> 
> Also, apparently, in someone's world, Drawing with Jeanette is worse than losing to him... Pathetic.
> 
> Just for the record Mike Collins who managed Fulton and knew him a lot better than mcvey stated that the reason he dumped Fulton was because he couldnt stomach the fact that Fulton had no heart... I guess that answers that.


I thought I was to be ignored, does this mean you will be communicating via intermediary posters? Oh the novelty and intrigue of it all!

As a gesture of my good will I'll try and enter into the spirit of things.

Carpentier v Jeannette 1914.

"Apparently" Carpentier was only 20 years old when he fought Jeannette ,"apparently" Carpentier scaled 165lbs [a super middle weight]for the fight, also "apparently" this was 20lbs lighter than Jeannette ,who came in at 185lbs.

"Apparently "Jeannette was floored by a left hook in the 1st rd.
Also "apparently Jeannette was threatened three times with dsq for holding and hitting.

"Apparently" Jeannette received a public warning for this offence .

"Apparently" Carpentier landed on Jeannette almost at will in the first 4 rds.Being described as both ,"faster and cleverer".

"Apparently". Jeannette was saved by the bell at the end of the 8th rd.

"Apparently ",the crowd caused a near riot when the decision for Jeannette was announced.

Wills v Jeannete 1914

Apparently Wills fouled Jeannette by picking him up and throwing him to the canvas , "apparently" Wills though 25lbs the heavier man did NOT floor Jeannette , nor did he have him on the verge of a ko only to be saved by the bell."

Apparently" Wills was in his prime at 25 when the fight took place.

*1914-06-09 Harry Wills nd-drew 10 Joe Jeannette, National Baseball Park, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA*

From Barry Hugman's History of World Championship Boxing

Jump to: navigation, search 
1914-06-09 Harry Wills nd-drew 10 Joe Jeannette, National Baseball Park, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Referee: Buddy Griffin. Billed for the 'black' title, with Wills seen as the champion, the _Daily Picayune_ reported it to be a contest that lacked interest as both men held on throughout and neither would lead. In the fourth round Wills picked up Jeanette and threw him to the floor in sheer frustration and although the latter was definitely weakened by the action he was able to continue as before. While Wills was more effective with body blows in the clinches and Jeannette smashed in a few telling left hooks, the press were equally divided on who should be named as the winner.

" Apparently", another underwhelming, tugging and mauling , unedifying, and unexciting fight for ,this time a not 35 buta 25 years old Mr Harry Wills.

"Apparently" it was a NWS not a rendered decision.

Gun Boat Smith v Carpentier.

Apparently Carpentier floored Gunboat Smith for a count of 9 but the bell rang before Smith could be counted out. "Apparently" later in the fight threw a punch at Smith but missing was carried forwards onto his knees by his own momentum ,whilst on his knees, Smith struck him on the back of the head Carpentier,which was the reason Smith was dsq'd.

Fred Fulton had several managers other than Mike Collins including Jack Reddy , Frank Force and Tommy Russell.

When boxers and managers fall out the insults fly , rather as they do when" someone" on this forum fails to win the day.

eg After falling out with Jeffries, purely because he told him the truth namely that he had no chance against Johnson ,James Brady stated that Jim Jeffries "lacked grit and had always been mortally afraid of Johnson."

Fulton beat 1917 and 18 versions of Sam Langford once by stoppage.yet he lacked guts?"

Apparently ", Fulton had 101 fights thats rather a lot for someone who lacks heart.

Fulton had durability problems, so does Amir Khan, no one suggests he lacks guts.
Thank for the visit .Catch you later ,you funny little man.
:bbb


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> I agree that to be certain we would have to see more prime footage of wills but unless he was massively quicker in his prime I'm not sure I'd favour him ever.
> 
> I wonder, however, if Jack had a weakness to body shots? One of Wills best punches. Could that be the real reason behind the avoidance of his top challenger for so long?


I don't think there is any magic punch that defeats Dempsey, who himself was a murderous body puncher. That said, if you wanted to pursue your argument, John Lester Johnson, the last colored fighter Dempsey tangled with, broke Jack's ribs and caused him much and lingering discomfort.

I still don't favor Wills, but I didn't favor Douglas either... or Lennox Lewis versus Ruddock. Wills deserved a shot at the title like none other who has been shunned before or since. His record was immensely strong, stronger than the champion's.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Seamus said:


> I don't think there is any magic punch that defeats Dempsey, who himself was a murderous body puncher. That said, if you wanted to pursue your argument, John Lester Johnson, the last colored fighter Dempsey tangled with, broke Jack's ribs and caused him much and lingering discomfort.
> 
> I still don't favor Wills, but I didn't favor Douglas either... or Lennox Lewis versus Ruddock. Wills deserved a shot at the title like none other who has been shunned before or since. His record was immensely strong, stronger than the champion's.


I think I agree with every single word you posted there.

Actually I disagree with one: colored; as a Brit I spell it coloured :good


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> I agree that to be certain we would have to see more prime footage of wills but unless he was massively quicker in his prime I'm not sure I'd favour him ever.
> 
> I wonder, however, if Jack had a weakness to body shots? One of Wills best punches. Could that be the real reason behind the avoidance of his top challenger for so long?


I dont think Dempsey avoided Wills because he was scared of him, or even because he thought he wouldn't win. He was a professional and the heavyweight champion of the world; im sure he thought he could beat an elephant. Hell Tunney kicked the shit out of him (and Flynn knocked him out cold) and he fought those guys again.

But why risk it? Not thinking you're going to lose isn't the same as being sure you're going to win, as I'm sure Doc Kearns pointed out. Too risky; and Wills was unable to press the issue because he was a black guy in an era when the KKK was going through a populist phase. The color line was a convenient tool. Ultimately you can say Dempsey didn't fight Wills because he didn't have too.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> He was there and beaten the fuck up. Bloody, cut, reeling. Wills came extremely close to stopping him twice. Sometimes a guy is just not going to go. Think Waldo-Wach, Lewis-Mavrovic, Foreman-Stewart... It happens.
> 
> "The Irishman seemed more intent upon the reputation he would gain by staying the limit with his noted opponent than in doing any effective battling himself," seems to sum it up.
> 
> ...


Fulton, not Wills was considered the number one contender for Willards crown until Dempsey took him out in under half a minute. Clark and Norfolk were lhv's.,Fulton was a previous ko victtm of Dempsey's, Martin, like Jeannette was 40 years old Mcvey beat Wills in their first two encounters then claimed a foul in another, Harry's modus operandi. Which victory during Dempsey's reign as Champ should have ensured Wills got a title shot?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> I dont think Dempsey avoided Wills because he was scared of him, or even because he thought he wouldn't win. He was a professional and the heavyweight champion of the world; im sure he thought he could beat an elephant. Hell Tunney kicked the shit out of him (and Flynn knocked him out cold) and he fought those guys again.
> 
> But why risk it? Not thinking you're going to lose isn't the same as being sure you're going to win, as I'm sure Doc Kearns pointed out. Too risky; and Wills was unable to press the issue because he was a black guy in an era when the KKK was going through a populist phase. The color line was a convenient tool. Ultimately you can say Dempsey didn't fight Wills because he didn't have too.


that's the worst bit about the situation.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> Fulton, not Wills was considered the number one contender for Willards crown until Dempsey took him out in under half a minute. Clark and Norfolk were lhv's.,Fulton was a prevoius ko victtm of Dempsey's, Martin, like Jeannette was 40 years old Mcvey beat Wills intheir first tow encounter s then claimeda foul in another Harry's modus operandi. Which victory during Dempsey's reign as Champ should have ensured Wills got a title shot?


I have previously quoted those who contended Wills was the most dangerous threat to the title in 1918. As there were no official rankings as such, we must go on contemporary opinion. It is arguable which is why qualified the statement with "arguably".

Also, didn't old Jess immediately draw the color line after defeating Johnson?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> You know who mcvey sounds like when he says Wills accomplished no more against Madden than Renault? The same white establishment guard that allowed Dempsey to get away with not fighting him. In reality nobody did much with Madden. The guy was a human heavy bag. That is until Gene Tunney miraculously knocked him after Madden had been paid between $5,000 and $20,000 under the table for some unexplained reason. But, hey, if youve got the white blinders on then this all looks legit. I mean, if you are looking for reasons to support your argument then you can always twist the truth and the facts to fit the argument right? Right mcvey? Again, Madden was sent to the hospital by Wills. Wills didnt have to go out there look dynamic every single time out. He just had to keep winning, which is what he did until he was 37 years old and had been a top contender for the entire run of Dempsey's reign. So keep grasping at straws for why Wills never got the fight, why he shouldnt have, why others should have ahead of him, and why Dempsey would have beaten him easily had the fight actually come off (which it would have if Dempsey had your confidence on the subject). By now your desperate arguments have exposed your agenda.


"Apparently" I'm now a white supremacist,with white blinders on.

Question for "someone".

Which fights from 1919 to 1926 Dempsey's title reign did Wills look "dynamic " in?


----------



## Seamus (Jun 4, 2013)

Cormac said:


> "Apparently" I'm now a white supremacist,with white blinders on.


I don't think so. I think you are making some good arguments. It is possible to have disagreements (even ever so minor) without resorting to name calling.

I'll dig into newspapers and give you a longer response to the main point later when time allows.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Seamus said:


> I don't think so. I think you are making some good arguments. It is possible to have disagreements (even ever so minor) without resorting to name calling.
> 
> I'll dig into newspapers and give you a longer response to the main point later when time allows.


Ok S, don't rush I think this one may run for a while .

Meanwhile it might be nice to get back to the subject of the thread , namely does Wills beat Dempsey? Or Dempsey beat Wills?

Dempsey has a comfortable lead at the moment ,obviously this is due to "nuthuggers, white blinder wearing racists, and apologists for the Manassa Mauler. Sure does seem to be a lot of us. N. B Both Jack Johnson ,and Sam Langford picked Dempsey,I suppose they must have been black blinder wearing, reverse racists.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Seamus said:


> I have previously quoted those who contended Wills was the most dangerous threat to the title in 1918. As there were no official rankings as such, we must go on contemporary opinion. It is arguable which is why qualified the statement with "arguably".
> 
> Also, didn't old Jess immediately draw the color line after defeating Johnson?


If Wills was regarded more highly than Fulton in 1918, it was probably for the sole reason that Dempsey had just beaten Fulton, and thus cleared him out of the way. 

Fulton continued to be a name fighter after Dempsey beat him, and he would almost certainly have got a rematch if Wills had not beaten him.

When they fought it was billed as an elimination fight, and Dempsey said that he would fight them both if they drew.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> that's the worst bit about the situation.


First I will rank John L Sullivan, James Jeffries, and Jack Dempsey from 1 to 3, in terms of how noble their intentions were on the issue of the colour line:



Jack Dempsey
James J Jeffries
John L Sullivan
 
Now I will rank them on how much their legacy was damaged as a result of them drawing the colour line with 1 being the most. 



Jack Dempsey
James J Jeffries
John L Sullivan
 
It's a funny old world.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

"Clark and Norfolk were l. heavies"

So now Dempsey has a problem defending against undeserving light heavies?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

janitor said:


> First I will rank John L Sullivan, James Jeffries, and Jack Dempsey from 1 to 3, in terms of how noble their intentions were on the issue of the colour line:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The timeline is everything.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> "Clark and Norfolk were l. heavies"
> 
> So now Dempsey has a problem defending against undeserving light heavies?


 No ,Wills had no, problem fighting lhvy's. Men up to 40lbs lighter than himself .Outside of Firpo a ko victim of Dempsey's, Wills best win during Dempsey's reign was over 5''8" Kid Norfolk, a lhvy.

Would it help if I typed slower?
:hey


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

janitor said:


> First I will rank John L Sullivan, James Jeffries, and Jack Dempsey from 1 to 3, in terms of how noble their intentions were on the issue of the colour line:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could you elaborate on this a bit. I understand what you are getting at with how Dempsey's legacy was hurt more (he actively ducked his challenger longer. But Im not sure what you mean by "noble intentions" I dont think Dempsey's intentions were the least bit noble. Indeed I think they were self serving by design and by application.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I think he means Dempsey was the least racist. Maybe.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Could you elaborate on this a bit. I understand what you are getting at with how Dempsey's legacy was hurt more (he actively ducked his challenger longer. But Im not sure what you mean by "noble intentions" I dont think Dempsey's intentions were the least bit noble. Indeed I think they were self serving by design and by application.


On my first point, which you partly acknowledge:

Sullivan and Jeffries legacies are comparatively unharmed by their drawing the colour line, because the worst case scenario is that the fighter they ducked snips the end off their glorious title reign. 

For comparison, Wills was there when Dempsey won the title, there when he lost the title, and there much betwixt. 

On my second point:

Sullivan was a virulent racist who believed in the colour line down to his bones. 

Jeffries was racist more like your grandma, and had a misguided view that he was protecting the sport by drawing the colour line. 

Dempsey seems to have believed that the colour line was inherently unfair and outdated. 

It is interpret his true motives. 

He might have disliked the colour line, but bowed to the pressure of Tex Rickard. 

He might have felt more ambivalent about the colour line than his predecessors, but have decided to cynically use it to his advantage. 

I suspect that Dempsey was more the sewer than the sewage.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

I have never once seen where Dempsey repudiated the color line during his reign. In fact he willingly embraced it. He drew the color line before Rickard ever promoted a single bout of his. Dempsey drew the color line at least as early as early 1918. He drew it again in an interview (without Kearns present) just days after defeating Willard. Kearns and Rickard didnt want Dempsey to fight Wills, that much is true, but Dempsey was a big boy and could have pursued the match. He was more than happy to hide behind their apron. Whether thats more noble than being virulent racist Im not sure. Im not even sure he wasnt a racist (he did spend years trying to dig up a white hope).


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> I have never once seen where Dempsey repudiated the color line during his reign. In fact he willingly embraced it. He drew the color line before Rickard ever promoted a single bout of his. Dempsey drew the color line at least as early as early 1918. He drew it again in an interview (without Kearns present) just days after defeating Willard. Kearns and Rickard didnt want Dempsey to fight Wills, that much is true, but Dempsey was a big boy and could have pursued the match. He was more than happy to hide behind their apron. Whether thats more noble than being virulent racist Im not sure. Im not even sure he wasnt a racist (he did spend years trying to dig up a white hope).


THis thread is about the chances of Harry Wills beating Jack Dempsey and vice versa. That being so, is there any chance of the Wills supporters ,all [ltwo of them,] outlining how Wills would win?

Let them present their case and ,those of us that think Dempsey beats Wills can rebut it.

All we have had from the Wills fellatio boys is character assassination of Dempsey.
How racist he was, how he picked his feet in Kipsie.

IT'S TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT OF THE QUESTION POSED BY THE THREAD MAKER
What he did or didn't do regarding fighting Wills or trying to get the match made is absolutely IRELEVANT to the question posed by the poster who made this thread.namely.
WHO WOULD WIN IF THEY HAD FOUGHT?

So let the Wills fans explain how Wills wins, and those of us who think Dempsey beats him can reply.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Klompton said:


> I have never once seen where Dempsey repudiated the color line during his reign. In fact he willingly embraced it. He drew the color line before Rickard ever promoted a single bout of his. Dempsey drew the color line at least as early as early 1918. He drew it again in an interview (without Kearns present) just days after defeating Willard. Kearns and Rickard didnt want Dempsey to fight Wills, that much is true, but Dempsey was a big boy and could have pursued the match. He was more than happy to hide behind their apron. Whether thats more noble than being virulent racist Im not sure. Im not even sure he wasnt a racist (he did spend years trying to dig up a white hope).


He did verbally repudiate it, ahead of the Wills Fulton fight. 

The headline said:

Dempsey dissolves colour bar!

Dempsey made it very clear that he wanted to fight the winner. 

Whatever his motives, Dempsey likely didn't agree with the colour bar. 

Of course his resume is tarnished, but perhaps he had better intentions than his promoters?


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Oh missed where Dempsey actually defended his title against a black man...


Because if you draw the color bar before you champion. Then draw it again after you win the title. Then two years later say you want to fight a black man but spend the rest of your career actively ducking him... well, that kinda rings hollow to me. Maybe thats just me. Dempsey also said years later that Wills ducked him. Dempsey also said he never sparred with Greb in New York. Dempsey said a lot of things that were designed to make him look better in the publics eyes.


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> THis thread is about the chances of Harry Wills beating Jack Dempsey and vice versa. That being so, is there any chance of the Wills supporters ,all [ltwo of them,] outlining how Wills would win?
> 
> Let them present their case and ,those of us that think Dempsey beats Wills can rebut it.
> 
> ...


C, I agree with you 100%. I thought this forum is about boxing, and the relative merits of each fighter. Not reading into the
minds of fighters from a different age and timeframe. I guess I was wrong ...And Dempsey is the main target of many
noble minds on the forum, I have observed...So damn easy to take potshots on a man who can no longer defend himself..
Dempsey and others of his time were interested in getting out of poverty during those harsher times, and they were not prescient
to think what critics 90 years later thought...Good show C.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Oh missed where Dempsey actually defended his title against a black man...
> 
> Because if you draw the color bar before you champion. Then draw it again after you win the title. Then two years later say you want to fight a black man but spend the rest of your career actively ducking him... well, that kinda rings hollow to me. Maybe thats just me. Dempsey also said years later that Wills ducked him. Dempsey also said he never sparred with Greb in New York. Dempsey said a lot of things that were designed to make him look better in the publics eyes.




Well you've certainlly redressed that!

We've had several days of remorseless and relentless character assassination of Dempsey by you, both here, and on other sites.

NB Will's best wins during Dempsey's 7 years title reign were over recycled Dempsey retread Firpo ,who lasted the full route,
Dempsey took him out in under 2 rds
And five foot eight 176lbs Kid Norfolk.
At 213.75lbs.Wills had a six inches height advantage, and a 37.75lbs weight advantage over Norfolk.

Question. Did Wills draw the colour bar when he refused to fight George Godfrey?

p.s. Despite your dedicated, almost manic efforts to traduce Dempsey here, he still comfortably wins this poll.

Then again you can console yourself with the knowledge that you are the only one who knows anything about the subject, indeed you are the only one who knows anything about anything!

All Hail Lord Ty Klomp!!!


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Klompton said:


> I have never once seen where Dempsey repudiated the color line during his reign. In fact he willingly embraced it. He drew the color line before Rickard ever promoted a single bout of his. Dempsey drew the color line at least as early as early 1918. He drew it again in an interview (without Kearns present) just days after defeating Willard. Kearns and Rickard didnt want Dempsey to fight Wills, that much is true, but Dempsey was a big boy and could have pursued the match. He was more than happy to hide behind their apron. Whether thats more noble than being virulent racist Im not sure. Im not even sure he wasnt a racist (he did spend years trying to dig up a white hope).


Funny you say that Dempsey drew the colour line well before 1918 and yet in 1915 Jack Dempsey fought Emmanuel Campbell who was a black guy? In 1916 he fought Boston Bearcat who again was a black guy? In 1916 he also fought George Christian who was a black guy? And again in 1916 he fought John Lester Johnson who again was a black guy? He also had numerous gym wars with George Godfrey who was a black guy? Also sparred all the time with Big Bill Tate who was also a black guy? And also sparred with Jamaica Kid who was a black guy? Also had some tasty sparring session with (and was very impressed with) Baby Joe Gans who was a black guy?

Ps you say you're not even sure he wasn't racist based on the fact that he horrors of horrors (in your words) tried to dig up a white hope?? Again more belittling comments directed at white folk in general from yourself there - doesn't surprise me though (and in fact you talk about white guys there as though they are some inferior creature? WhyTF is that?) - why the hell does it make him a racist because he looked for white guys to train? 99% of the guys Manny Steward trained were black guys? Does that make him biased towards blacks? White guys in Dempseys day didn't feel obliged to endlessly side with black guys to pacify the politically correct and come across all intergrationslist etc. even if he had of done you'd just say he oh he trained that black guy coz he liked being his owner and slave master!? :lol:


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Funny you say that Dempsey drew the colour line well before 1918 and yet in 1915 Jack Dempsey fought Emmanuel Campbell who was a black guy? In 1916 he fought Boston Bearcat who again was a black guy? In 1916 he also fought George Christian who was a black guy? And again in 1916 he fought John Lester Johnson who again was a black guy? He also had numerous gym wars with George Godfrey who was a black guy? Also sparred all the time with Big Bill Tate who was also a black guy? And also sparred with Jamaica Kid who was a black guy? Also had some tasty sparring session with (and was very impressed with) Baby Joe Gans who was a black guy?
> 
> Ps you say you're not even sure he wasn't racist based on the fact that he horrors of horrors (in your words) tried to dig up a white hope?? Again more belittling comments directed at white folk in general from yourself there - doesn't surprise me though (and in fact you talk about white guys there as though they are some inferior creature? WhyTF is that?) - why the hell does it make him a racist because he looked for white guys to train? 99% of the guys Manny Steward trained were black guys? Does that make him biased towards blacks? White guys in Dempseys day didn't feel obliged to endlessly side with black guys to pacify the politically correct and come across all intergrationslist etc. even if he had of done you'd just say he oh he trained that black guy coz he liked being his owner and slave master!? :lol:


Go back and read my posts. I never said he didnt fight a black guy. I said he drew the color line at least as early as 1918. Not as you said "well before 1918". The fact that employed black sparring partners means nothing. How many racist southerners employ black people as "the help"? Indeed it gives them a sense of superiority over them. To me its the ultimate slap in the fact that Dempsey was willing to employ black fighters who were good enought to sharpen his skills but refused to actually defend against them.


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Funny you say that Dempsey drew the colour line well before 1918 and yet in 1915 Jack Dempsey fought Emmanuel Campbell who was a black guy? In 1916 he fought Boston Bearcat who again was a black guy? In 1916 he also fought George Christian who was a black guy? And again in 1916 he fought John Lester Johnson who again was a black guy? He also had numerous gym wars with George Godfrey who was a black guy? Also sparred all the time with Big Bill Tate who was also a black guy? And also sparred with Jamaica Kid who was a black guy? Also had some tasty sparring session with (and was very impressed with) Baby Joe Gans who was a black guy?
> 
> Ps you say you're not even sure he wasn't racist based on the fact that he horrors of horrors (in your words) tried to dig up a white hope?? Again more belittling comments directed at white folk in general from yourself there - doesn't surprise me though (and in fact you talk about white guys there as though they are some inferior creature? WhyTF is that?) - why the hell does it make him a racist because he looked for white guys to train? 99% of the guys Manny Steward trained were black guys? Does that make him biased towards blacks? White guys in Dempseys day didn't feel obliged to endlessly side with black guys to pacify the politically correct and come across all intergrationslist etc. even if he had of done you'd just say he oh he trained that black guy coz he liked being his owner and slave master!? :lol:


Well stated Rocky. According to the politically correct, racism today is one sided only. Dempsey as you posted fought black fighters, had mostly 
black sparring partners [and top one's] befriended and paid for John Lester Johnson's expenses in a nursing home before he died, financially 
helped George Godfrey years after Godfrey retired and was not the ogre that some posters claim Jack Dempsey was. How do the "noble" posters 
know today how they would have reacted to the less sophisticated times of 90 years ago. ? Truly they DON'T...They feel somehow cleansed by
putting a target on Jack Dempsey's back today...Why, because Dempsey and writers of the 1920s have long left this earth and cannot defend
themselves...Jack Dempsey was not a hater of blacks and he and his mentors were in the fight game so they could get the hell out of poverty
,support their family, and enjoy what money they earned...I have posted this before, but it can be said again. My favorite heavyweight Joe Louis
COULD HAVE if Julian Black and John Roxborough wanted to, have given a money shot to several black heavyweights of his time, who were 
much better than some of his white bum of the month club victims...Why didn't they help out a few black deserving heavyweights of his times ?
And the greatest fighter I ever saw ringside Ray Robinson, COULD have ,but didn't give a money shot to such great though past peak black
welterweights as Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid and of course the slightly heavier Charley Burley...I remember boxing people discussing this subject
in the early 1940s...I am not saying Ray Robinson was a "racist", but were he more compassionate he could have helped these great fighters
earn a bundle of money...But he and his adviser's never did this helpful gesture...So Dempsey get's all the flack by many ill advised posters who
love to show how wonderful they are today in more enlightened times...


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I love when people bring up the Robinson comparison because it misses the point terribly. It's not political correctness to say Dempsey should have fought Wills; it's common sense. Wills was the number contender for the title for a significant portion of his reign. How many of those guys were even in the same weight class as Ray (who fought plenty of his fellow African Americans, including defending his title against Cuban Kid Gavilan). I would say a better comparison is Roy Jones-Dariusz Michalczewski.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm pretty sure Klompton loves Dempsey, and just brutalises him to bring the moderates over to Jack's side.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm about as hard on Robinson as on Dempsey as far as fighter's missed out on goes...none of those guys Burt mentions was Ray's #1 contender of course.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

It's a bit different to Jones - Dm as DM could still claim to be a champ, could still defend his belt as a champ and could still make money as a champ.

Willa was and always will be, an outstanding contender. He never got his chance to be a champ. And the worst bit about it is when people give Dempsey a mythical victory because this would have been Dempsey's best victory, and would have solidified his claim as top dog as well as affording wills the opportunity he richly deserved. But he had the colour line to hide behind.

Even worse is Greb. He bested Jack when sparring and consistently beat up guys that Jack would defend against ahead of him. There is no colour line to hide behind here, it's a blatant duck.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Oh missed where Dempsey actually defended his title against a black man...
> 
> Because if you draw the color bar before you champion. Then draw it again after you win the title. Then two years later say you want to fight a black man but spend the rest of your career actively ducking him... well, that kinda rings hollow to me. Maybe thats just me. Dempsey also said years later that Wills ducked him. Dempsey also said he never sparred with Greb in New York. Dempsey said a lot of things that were designed to make him look better in the publics eyes.


Dempsey was a new departure from the previous champions, in that her did not say "no and never" to defending the title against a black challenger. 

He eventually came round to the position that he would do it under certain circumstances. 

What is not certain is whether he was taking a principle stand on the issue and was undermined by his management, or whether he was engaged in some elaborate game of smoke and mirrors.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Luf said:


> It's a bit different to Jones - Dm as DM could still claim to be a champ, could still defend his belt as a champ and could still make money as a champ.
> 
> Willa was and always will be, an outstanding contender. He never got his chance to be a champ. And the worst bit about it is when people give Dempsey a mythical victory because this would have been Dempsey's best victory, and would have solidified his claim as top dog as well as affording wills the opportunity he richly deserved. But he had the colour line to hide behind.
> 
> Even worse is Greb. He bested Jack when sparring and consistently beat up guys that Jack would defend against ahead of him. There is no colour line to hide behind here, it's a blatant duck.


If its any consolation, Wills ended up with more money thyan Dempsey.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> If its any consolation, Wills ended up with more money thyan Dempsey.


:lol:


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> It's a bit different to Jones - Dm as DM could still claim to be a champ, could still defend his belt as a champ and could still make money as a champ.
> 
> Willa was and always will be, an outstanding contender. He never got his chance to be a champ. And the worst bit about it is when people give Dempsey a mythical victory because this would have been Dempsey's best victory, and would have solidified his claim as top dog as well as affording wills the opportunity he richly deserved. But he had the colour line to hide behind.
> 
> Even worse is Greb. He bested Jack when sparring and consistently beat up guys that Jack would defend against ahead of him. There is no colour line to hide behind here, it's a blatant duck.




While I dont attach much importance to sparring stories ,[I only mention them for a bit of background].Greb certainly has a case, a better case than Wills during Dempsey' s reign imo.

He took on Dempsey's challengers ,often before Dempsey defended against them and he beat them.

Wills sat on his premier position during this time , no doubt he had earned his shot but Greb was out there taking on allcomers.

It's very difficult to refute charges of Greb not getting the title shot he deserved, he certainly displayed more bravado ,and took more chances than Wills

http://www.boxing.com/dempseys_bloodhound.html


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Really? Dempsey never said he would "never" fight a black man? Hows this:

July 8, 1921 while in Omaha Nebraska on his way back home from facing George Carpentier: "Jack Dempsey, world's heavyweight champion pugilist, who passed through here today on his way to Salt Lake City, said he was unwilling to fight Jack Johnson "or any other ***** fighter." "I will never fight a *****. There is nothing to this talk of me meeting Jack Johnson..." "I will meet anyone else that Kearns picks for me. Gibbons, I understand is a good man, although I have never seen him work. As I have drawn the color line, I am free to say that I think Harry Wills is a great fighter and who will whip the very best of them. As for Willard, I'll fight him any time -and lick him too."


So goes that theory apologists. Any others we want to explode? So Here Jack is drawing the color line a year after some of you seem to think he was pure as the driven snow in his intentions to face Wills. Then in the same sentence lauds Wills as being the best out there but offers to face a light heavyweight (Gibbons) after having just defended against another light heavyweight (Carpentier) and Willard who hadnt fought since getting destroyed by Dempsey two years previous. Yeah, he was really sincere about going out there taking on challenges...


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Really? Dempsey never said he would "never" fight a black man? Hows this:
> 
> July 8, 1921 while in Omaha Nebraska on his way back home from facing George Carpentier: "Jack Dempsey, world's heavyweight champion pugilist, who passed through here today on his way to Salt Lake City, said he was unwilling to fight Jack Johnson "or any other ***** fighter." "I will never fight a *****. There is nothing to this talk of me meeting Jack Johnson..." "I will meet anyone else that Kearns picks for me. Gibbons, I understand is a good man, although I have never seen him work. As I have drawn the color line, I am free to say that I think Harry Wills is a great fighter and who will whip the very best of them. As for Willard, I'll fight him any time -and lick him too."
> 
> So goes that theory apologists. Any others we want to explode? So Here Jack is drawing the color line a year after some of you seem to think he was pure as the driven snow in his intentions to face Wills. Then in the same sentence lauds Wills as being the best out there but offers to face a light heavyweight (Gibbons) after having just defended against another light heavyweight (Carpentier) and Willard who hadnt fought since getting destroyed by Dempsey two years previous. Yeah, he was really sincere about going out there taking on challenges...


I don't suppose there is any chance of you actually addressing the purpose of this thread and outlining, in as much detail as you like.

WHY WILLS BEATS DEMPSEY.
I'm sure the six of us that think he does not ,will be very interested to read your reasons why you have picked Harry.
It'll will certainly be more absorbing than this." stuck in the groove record" of Dempsey defamation that although it obviously consumes and enthralls you, is really beginning to pall on the rest of us.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I'm pretty sure Klompton loves Dempsey, and just brutalises him to bring the moderates over to Jack's side.


I'm pretty sure that Klompton, no best not go there.:bart


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Given the footage we have of both. How do you see a fight between these two going?
> 
> Wills:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM7vyvipYfQ#t=2m59s
> ...


I picked Dempsey , here's why.

I think Dempsey had appreciably better hand and foot speed.
I think Dempsey's bobbing and weaving skills make it difficult for Wills tag him consistantly.
I think Dempsey has a history of doing very well against taller, bigger men, getting under their arms and firing away.
I think Wills looks pretty open on film,open enough for a fast two- handed puncher like Dempsey to exploit those gaps ,as a slow crude Firpo could not.
I think Dempsey had a better chin than Wills.
I think Dempsey had better power, possibly not markedly better one punch power, but Dempsey punched in rapid combination.

I think Wills liked to hold with one hand and punch with the other, and he was not above hitting low or on the break, if he intiates that against the Mauler he gets his balls removed.
I think Wills appetite for the fray when the going got tough is "questionable", he effectively quit against Sharkey, and did quit against Jim Johnson, granted he broke his wrist in the 2nd rd, but he jacked it in when the round ended.

Compare this with a dissipated Jack Johnson, who had been out of the ring for a year and a half, breaking his arm against the same Battling Jim[ at 35 ,8 years older than Wills was when he quit ,] struggling on for another 8 rds to salvage a draw .

I'm not suggesting that Wills was a coward, that would be ridiculous, but I am not sold on him having the fortitude to"soldier on ,"when things got hairy.

Dempsey took two clinical and merciless beatings from Tunney, and never took a backwards step, he was getting his shit punched in by Sharkey but kept pressing the action.

Brennan tore Dempsey's ear adrift but Dempsey kept coming until he eventually nailed him

Dempsey got his arse literally torn open when Firpo belted him out of the ring , but his only thought was to get back in there and kill him.

If Wills was in the same position Dempsey was in those moments of danger and crisis ,I am not convinced he would respond in the same manner.

So if one of them is going to throw in the towel it will be Wills, not Dempsey.

I look forward to those who picked Wills giving their long delayed reasons why .


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

If I was to argue for Wills I would have to make two assumptions:
1) Prime Wills was quicker
2) Prime Wills was busier

Neither of which are outlandish. Wills has twice been knocked out by one punch against a fighter who was smaller, weaved his way in and landed a big hook when an opening presented. So his chin is unlikely to withstand a full Dempsey assault.

I'm going to assume, for the sake of the debate, that Dempsey won't demolish him in the first round. If that is true I believe Wills would present Dempsey with the best jab he'd have faced to date. Now whilst it wouldn't be enough to win the fight, it should be enough to occupy Dempsey and stop him wailing in. Where Wills best chance lies, is ironically where he is presented with the highest levels of danger - on the inside. What Wills needs to be able to do is land right uppercuts to the body as Jack comes in and initiate a controlled clinch rolling with any hooks Jack throws. Maybe he needs to wrestle Jack a bit to establish a level of dominance.

If Wills can frustrate and neutralise the assault of Dempsey, we could see Dempsey growing more reckless meaning his head movement becomes less of a priority and he is more focused on getting in punching range, at this point he becomes open to huge rights that Wills has in his arsenal and could find himself hurt to the head and body, getting dropped and maybe even stopped.

It is my hunch that the more likely scenario is Jack can land the hooks inside and would stop Wills. However if Wills can tie him up effectively it could become a very long night for Jack.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> His jab may land first though, his jab and grab hit and hold tactics could probably be pretty frustrating. Dempsey's head movement and footspeed could see him get past the jab to land the left hook but Wills has the best right and uppercut Dempsey would have faced as he comes inside.


Realistically, the styles favour Dempsey. 

Of course Wills had a way of doing the unexpected.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> If I was to argue for Wills I would have to make two assumptions:
> 1) Prime Wills was quicker
> 2) Prime Wills was busier
> 
> ...


Very good synopsis!
If I was arguing Wills case I would emphasise his strength and how adept he was at tying up strong men ,all the while digging in hurtful shots himself.

Wills ability to smother Firpo is apparent,and this is a past prime Harry. To balance this I believe Firpo was not in top shape ,[going only what I've read,]. Of course Dempsey was a quarter horse to Firpo's plodding Suffolk Punch,so the liberties Wills was able to take, and the relaxed mo that Harry employed against Firpo would not go against the dynamic ,all action in your face Mauler.
Bottm line, anyone Dempsey hit he hurt ,and badly. I think he is more likely to take Wills best shots than vice versa.

I don't see a snake like jab in the footage available of Wills, certainly nothing to compare to Tunney's face arranger, but Wills did have the bobber and weavers achilles heel in his arsenal ,the uppercut. Dempsey proved to be vulnerable to this punch against both Miske and Brennan, and, as Seamus has remarked , Loughran caught him time and again in sparring with it. The trouble with the uppercut is it leaves you momentarily exposed to the hook . Dempsey's was among the best.

. Wils also did not possess the fleet Tunney footwork, so he has to engage and smother Dempsey .Jack could take you out with a short hook and sooner or later I think he lands one on the Panther.Then it's say good night Harry!


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Here is a what if. 

Lets say that Dempsey had fought the fading Wills instead of Tunney?

Would he have lost twice?


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

janitor said:


> Here is a what if.
> 
> Lets say that Dempsey had fought the fading Wills instead of Tunney?
> 
> Would he have lost twice?


J ,you F****R, I've enough trouble trying to squeeze a rational argument for Wills chances out of the Dempsey haters can you not make this a seperate thread?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

janitor said:


> Here is a what if.
> 
> Lets say that Dempsey had fought the fading Wills instead of Tunney?
> 
> Would he have lost twice?


look at the footage we have of them both at this time. That wills seems to slow footed to beat the man who was schooled by tunney but was able to drop both Sharkey and tunney. I wouldn't pick that wills over that Dempsey.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> look at the footage we have of them both at this time. That wills seems to slow footed to beat the man who was schooled by tunney but was able to drop both Sharkey and tunney. I wouldn't pick that wills over that Dempsey.


I come in from the pub, expecting the Wills gang to be outlining how Harry has the answer to all Dempsey's strengths .
So far JACK SHIT.
Maybe Tomorrow?


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Cormac said:


> I come in from the pub, expecting the Wills gang to be outlining how Harry has the answer to all Dempsey's strengths .
> So far JACK SHIT.
> Maybe Tomorrow?


Ain't gunna happen Cormac - don't even think _they_ think Wills would've won it anyway in reality. They're just people with chips on their shoulders in a big way with white guys generally and Dempsey is someone they can throw darts at when they want to vent - somebody will come back with generic shit like uppercuts are small mans criptonite etc - what a joke yeah that's why Frazier structured his whole tactics against Ali for getting Muhammad _to throw the uppercut_ so he could counter over it with the hook himself?? And some will probably come back with Wills reach and jab - Wills had no jab!? Tunneys jab was a million miles better and Jack Sharkeys was better for my money? I personally would say a Willard-Wills fight would've been 50/50


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> I love when people bring up the Robinson comparison because it misses the point terribly. It's not political correctness to say Dempsey should have fought Wills; it's common sense. Wills was the number contender for the title for a significant portion of his reign. How many of those guys were even in the same weight class as Ray (who fought plenty of his fellow African Americans, including defending his title against Cuban Kid Gavilan). I would say a better comparison is Roy Jones-Dariusz Michalczewski.


LR, your opinion is your opinion. BUT you are blowing smoke when you respond to my claim that a Holman Williams or Cocoa Kid were NOT in the weight class of Ray Robinson...And even Charley Burley was about 152-4 pounds when he verbally challenged Ray Robinson to a match to decide who was the better man...Please don't distort the facts as I was around those days... Yes Harry Wills deserved a title shot at Dempsey's crown...He certainly did. But THEY did sign for a bout, but the 
Michigan promoter couldn't come up with the rest of the money...Wills did alright after his last bout when he was kod by the George Chuvalo of his time, 
Paolino Uzcudun. After he retired Harry Wills became a prosperous real estate owner in Harlem NY...I once stood a few feet away from Wills at Stillman's gym in the mid 1940s. Being young then I didn't understand his place in history ala Jack Dempsey...And even my dad would tell me about the fears those days about matching a black and white heavyweight title match as a result of the riots and deaths following the Jeffries/Johnson fight in Reno...What promoter wanted to risk another possible riot and deaths a decade or so later on...All these events were part of the reason that Wills never got his much deserved shot at the 
title...Though black fighters had title shots in the lower weight divisions...Why can't we TODAY about 90 years later on the boxing forum discuss 
the merits of who beats who and why instead of bringing up the MURKY past...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Ain't gunna happen Cormac - don't even think _they_ think Wills would've won it anyway in reality. They're just people with chips on their shoulders in a big way with white guys generally and Dempsey is someone they can throw darts at when they want to vent - somebody will come back with generic shit like uppercuts are small mans criptonite etc - what a joke yeah that's why Frazier structured his whole tactics against Ali for getting Muhammad _to throw the uppercut_ so he could counter over it with the hook himself?? And some will probably come back with Wills reach and jab - Wills had no jab!? Tunneys jab was a million miles better and Jack Sharkeys was better for my money? I personally would say a Willard-Wills fight would've been 50/50


mate, I'm white.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Ain't gunna happen Cormac - don't even think _they_ think Wills would've won it anyway in reality. They're just people with chips on their shoulders in a big way with white guys generally and Dempsey is someone they can throw darts at when they want to vent - somebody will come back with generic shit like uppercuts are small mans criptonite etc - what a joke yeah that's why Frazier structured his whole tactics against Ali for getting Muhammad _to throw the uppercut_ so he could counter over it with the hook himself?? And some will probably come back with Wills reach and jab - Wills had no jab!? Tunneys jab was a million miles better and Jack Sharkeys was better for my money? I personally would say a Willard-Wills fight would've been 50/50


Rocky, as you say the classic antidote for the uppercut is the left hook ,who had a better one than Dempsey?
It's Saturday, I await the Wills fanboys onslaught detailing in succinct, and discerning style how Wills beats Dempsey.

I'll even give them an intro.

For the thousands in attendance , and the millions watching around the world.Ladies and gentlemen.

This is how and why a prime Harry Wills beats a prime Jack Dempsey.

Lets Get Ready To Rumble !!!!!


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

Luf said:


> mate, I'm white.


Don't mean $h1t - all these guys are probably white aswell - which just goes to show the extent to which people have their minds twisted these days


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Don't mean $h1t - all these guys are probably white aswell - which just goes to show the extent to which people have their minds twisted these days


I don't think you need to really go with race here.

If Lewis had never faced Holyfield it would not have been hard to find numerous posters telling you Holyfield would have beaten Lennox. You know that. You also know they wouldn't all have been American, black or "twisted". Just huge admirers of an excellent fighter - and let's not forget, that second fight was pretty close.

The point is, and it's a point I respectfully suggest you have never been able to grasp, if you share an era with another top fighter and don't fight him there will always be speculation. That speculation will not end unless the fighter himself puts an end to it. This goes double if the fighter is your #1 contender, and treble if you spend years sitting on the title and not bothering to defend.

It doesn't matter what footage is revealed - it doesn't matter how good Dempsey looks. There will always, always be speculation about Wills (and Greb), for as long as there is interest in boxing history. That's just the way it is.

I personally think it's the way it should be.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I don't think you need to really go with race here.
> 
> If Lewis had never faced Holyfield it would not have been hard to find numerous posters telling you Holyfield would have beaten Lennox. You know that. You also know they wouldn't all have been American, black or "twisted". Just huge admirers of an excellent fighter - and let's not forget, that second fight was pretty close.
> 
> ...


 Personally, I've absolutely no problem with your thesis. 
What I want to see is for those who picked Wills to give their reasons.
This seems a reasonable request, after all I've given mine for picking Dempsey.

I suspect it must have come as an unpleasant shock to those who had not seen this unearthed footage to see a, slow, plodding, open, mauling Wills instead of the classic boxing stylist they had been led to expect.
I know it was a dissapointment to me.

I say this truly, I think a 41 years old Jess Willard who had not fought in 4 years looks as good if not better against Floyd Johnson, than Wills does against Firpo .
Going to a barbecue now ,when I get back I hope to see the Wills crusaders reasons for their pick on this thread.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> I suspect it must have come as an unpleasant shock to those who had not seen this unearthed footage to see a, slow, plodding, open, mauling Wills instead of the classic boxing stylist they had been led to expect.
> I know it was a dissapointment to me.


I haven't properly microscoped it yet but it yet but my initial impression was much better than yours.

But i've said it to you already - making a definitive pick based upon this footage is silly. Wills may never have been better than this or he may have been much better than this, we just don't know. I think he compares well, at thirty-five, with an inactive but younger Dempsey. I wouldn't make a pick if Wills and Dempsey were to meet _earlier_ off that footage of Dempsey. And I wouldn't make a definitive pick if Wills and Dempsey had met _earlier_ off this footage of Wills. Yes, I know Wills was more active than Dempsey.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

The argument of some seems to be that Wills would win because Dempsey was a wicked man.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Don't mean $h1t - all these guys are probably white aswell - which just goes to show the extent to which people have their minds twisted these days


there's nothing twisted about thinking Wills deserved a shot. Dempsey himself listed him amongst the best heavyweights and for a spell of approximately 7 years he was no less than the top 3 contender.

Yes given hype Fulton, carpentier and Firpo all could well have become the top contender, that's fine. But wills was always there or there abouts.


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

CHB


rockyssplitnose said:


> Don't mean $h1t - all these guys are probably white aswell - which just goes to show the extent to which people have their minds twisted these days


No truer words were ever said Rocky.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Burt Brooks said:


> LR, your opinion is your opinion. BUT you are blowing smoke when you respond to my claim that a Holman Williams or Cocoa Kid were NOT in the weight class of Ray Robinson...And even Charley Burley was about 152-4 pounds when he verbally challenged Ray Robinson to a match to decide who was the better man...Please don't distort the facts as I was around those days... Yes Harry Wills deserved a title shot at Dempsey's crown...He certainly did. But THEY did sign for a bout, but the
> Michigan promoter couldn't come up with the rest of the money...Wills did alright after his last bout when he was kod by the George Chuvalo of his time,
> Paolino Uzcudun. After he retired Harry Wills became a prosperous real estate owner in Harlem NY...I once stood a few feet away from Wills at Stillman's gym in the mid 1940s. Being young then I didn't understand his place in history ala Jack Dempsey...And even my dad would tell me about the fears those days about matching a black and white heavyweight title match as a result of the riots and deaths following the Jeffries/Johnson fight in Reno...What promoter wanted to risk another possible riot and deaths a decade or so later on...All these events were part of the reason that Wills never got his much deserved shot at the
> title...Though black fighters had title shots in the lower weight divisions...Why can't we TODAY about 90 years later on the boxing forum discuss
> the merits of who beats who and why instead of bringing up the MURKY past...


Burley challenged Ray in what '46. Burley was 160 by then. When Burley was a welterweight Ray was a lightweight, and when Ray was a welterweight Burley was a middleweight. I don't think this is 'blowing smoke' as you put it. And I don't think it's really an opinion to say that Wills deserved a shot at Dempsey. Hell at one point NYSAC demanded it.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I haven't properly microscoped it yet but it yet but my initial impression was much better than yours.
> 
> But i've said it to you already - making a definitive pick based upon this footage is silly. Wills may never have been better than this or he may have been much better than this, we just don't know. I think he compares well, at thirty-five, with an inactive but younger Dempsey. I wouldn't make a pick if Wills and Dempsey were to meet _earlier_ off that footage of Dempsey. And I wouldn't make a definitive pick if Wills and Dempsey had met _earlier_ off this footage of
> 
> ...


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> Burley challenged Ray in what '46. Burley was 160 by then. When Burley was a welterweight Ray was a lightweight, and when Ray was a welterweight Burley was a middleweight. I don't think this is 'blowing smoke' as you put it. And I don't think it's really an opinion to say that Wills deserved a shot at Dempsey. Hell at one point NYSAC demanded it.


For your information Charley Burley was fighting welterweights as Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid in 1942-43,whilst Ray Robinson in 1941-2 was
already fighting welterweights as Marty Sevo [2], Fritzie Zivic, Jake LaMotta [MW] etc. Robinson at almost 6ft. was a big welterweight always.
He certainly COULD have given Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, and Charley Burley a much deserved money shot...My point is RR never get's criticized for choosing who he wanted to fight, as well as Louis and others, but Dempsey is constantly reviled for not fighting Harry Wills, though they did sign for a fight...


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

I dont think its rocket science to see how Wills would beat Dempsey. Mcvey, hiding behind his new name, acts as if nobody can come up with a sane response to this. Fine, here are my thoughts. 

Wills would be the biggest combination of speed, power, strength, and athleticism that Dempsey ever faced. Yes speed I say as well because he was reputed to be very fast and had quick hands as well. You dont get a nickname like the Brown Panther by being slow. Wills was an excellent inside fighter who could tie up an opponent and render them ineffective while hammering home short punches on the inside. He generated a remarkable amount of power with inside blows that travelled inches. He broke three of Fultons ribs this way and lifted Norfolk off his feet, leaving him unconcious with his tongue hanging out of his mouth this way. The three best examples of Dempsey fighting anyone even halfway close to Wills ability are his fights with Brennan, Gibbons, and Firpo. Against Brennan Dempsey had a lot of difficulty getting past Brennan's jab and right hand. When he did Brennan tied him up and waited for the ref to break them, effectively limiting what Dempsey could do on the inside. This is a man who was outmuscled by the thirty pounds lighter Harry Greb. I dont think its a stretch to say that Harry Wills, who had absolutely no problems with the brute strength of Firpo, would be able to tie Dempsey up in the clinches and work him over. On the way in Dempsey is going to have to get past the artillery that is coming his way. If he was tagged effectively by Firpo, who had no skill to speak of, and Brennan, who was not on Wills level, then its not a stretch to suggest that Wills would get to him as well. Dempsey was accused of fighting dirty in the clinches but this was also a game Wills excelled at, and I think thats where this fight ends up. Just like the Gibbons fight this fight will be fought in close, in the clinches. The difference here is that Gibbons was a smaller, weaker man than Dempsey. How is Dempsey going to fair being taken into the late rounds by a bigger, stronger guy, who is always in shape. Wills went 10, 15, and 20 rounds several times. Dempsey went 15 rounds once against a guy who was naturally smaller in a lackluster fight. Wills was only knocked out twice anywhere near his prime (Im not counting his broken arm loss to Johnson) and those two knockouts came in fights he was at least even in if not winning and against one of the greatest all time punchers in history. Its a pretty safe bet Wills either had a good chin or knew how to protect himself given his level of competition. So basically, in my opinion, at any time they fought Dempsey's one real chance is to land a knockout punch. Thats not something I would want to bet on if I were a betting man. Is he going to out outbox Wills. Not in my opinion. Is he going to outfight him on the inside? Not based on what Ive seen and read. Another factor is the rules. Paddy Mullins was sharp enough that hes not going to allow some ref who is going to let Dempsey stand over Wills if Wills goes down (a big if) like he did against Firpo and Willard. On the other hand is Kearns really going to try to prevent fighting in the clinches? Another factor is Wills style of fighting. He was a master of shutting people down, particularly the older he got (not unlike Jack Johnson, and Bernard Hopkins) BUT he was also a guy who while happy to coast would punish a guy who tried to turn up the pace. In his fights with Norfolk, Tate, and Fulton he started out feeling those guys out and just when the audience thought they were starting to come on Wills knocked them out. Against Firpo and Madden, two fights he supposedly looked unimpressive in, he was content to take things slow but as soon as those guys tried to attack he punished them inside and out. He sent Madden to the hospital and just as Firpo attacked in the second round he buckled his legs with a jab. A jab. Watch it, its in the film. Before he ever knocked him down coming out of that clinch Firpo tries to rush in and runs into a jab and buckles back. You are talking about a big man for the day and one who was considered one of the strongest heavies alive. You really believe Dempsey's is going to get inside that easy and have success doing it? Because if he cant against Brennan, and cant against Gibbons, and cant against Firpo then he aint against Wills either. People are holding two dominant performances against Wills from 1924 and asking what he would have done against Dempsey but Dempsey wasnt even fighting in 1924. or 1925. In fact it was three years during his reign that what exactly he could do is completely up in the air. Wills wasnt even very active, averaging just two fights per year, but at least he had an excuse: His hands were in awful shape and waiting on a title shot that most admitted he deserved. People can hem and haw about how the Dempsey who fought Tunney would have beaten the Wills who fought Firpo and Madden but please, dont make me laugh. Keep in mind that both Rickard and Tunney admitted in private that the first guy who got to Dempsey in 1926 was going to be champion and thats why they fought so hard to keep Wills from it. Dempsey did nothing against Tunney. Nothing. He lost every single round of their first fight and could have lost every round of the second even with the knockdown. In those days they didnt score a round with a knockdown as an automatic win for the person who scored the KD and Tunney won about 2 mins and 40 seconds of that round before and after the KD. How did he do it? By working Dempsey over with a jab and straight right, punishing him with hooks when he was on his way in, then tying him up on the inside. How did that vaunted inside fighting work for Dempsey in those fights? Does he really look like a guy who would overpower a much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting man? I dont think so. There are so many question marks about Dempsey that I dont even know what version of him would have had the most success with Wills. One thing is for certain, Kearns knew something that you guys dont otherwise he would have accepted one of the numerous offers for that fight, made a fortune, knocked out his greatest rival, and walked away a bigger hero, instead of avoiding it for years. Its literally that simple. The problem here is a lot of people like Burt, who gets his information largely from the magazines he read as a kid (when these guys were being written about from a perspective of hero worship, not hard research), and Mcvey, who only looks for the scant information that supports his argument, dont have a clear and concise picture of the shell game Kearns, Dempsey, and Rickard played and all were complicit in, even Dempsey who history would like to paint as the unwitting hero who was led astray by men smarter and more powerful than him. These guys all conspired to keep Wills as far from Dempsey as possible. When one excuse failed they moved onto another, and then another, and then back to the first. But the bottom line is Wills showed he deserved the shot. He showed he was Dempsey's most dangerous rival, and they all gave him a wide berth. That in itself speaks volumes as to what Dempsey ACTUALLY would have done against Wills.


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

I agree that Wills should not be counted out here. Dempsey has to actually perform the feat to prove the point. Wills was an exceptional fighter. 

The fact remains that if this fight was going to happen tomorrow, few people here would pick Wills, and Dempsey would be the betting favourite. 

Does Dempsey's failure to fight Wills damage his historical standing?

Absolutely, yes. 

Would he have beaten Wills if they had fought?

We have to provisionally say that he probably would have.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

The betting odds can be funny where Dempsey is involved.

I know Carpantier was favoured to beat him - was any of his other title opponents made the betting favourite over him?


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> The betting odds can be funny where Dempsey is involved.
> 
> I know Carpantier was favoured to beat him - was any of his other title opponents made the betting favourite over him?


The further back you go through time, the shorter the odds on the dominant champions become. I think this is basically governed by economic factors. Less money on the overall pot probably made for shorter odds. The odds are based on what the punters think as much as what the bookmaker thinks. 

Even so, how the French connection UK did Carpintier ever end up a favourite over him?

I guess he shouldn't get too much stick for fighting Carpintier then.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

I think it was a combination of wartime sentimentality and the Rickard publicity machine in full affect.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Burt Brooks said:


> For your information Charley Burley was fighting welterweights as Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid in 1942-43,whilst Ray Robinson in 1941-2 was
> already fighting welterweights as Marty Sevo [2], Fritzie Zivic, Jake LaMotta [MW] etc. Robinson at almost 6ft. was a big welterweight always.
> He certainly COULD have given Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, and Charley Burley a much deserved money shot...My point is RR never get's criticized for choosing who he wanted to fight, as well as Louis and others, but Dempsey is constantly reviled for not fighting Harry Wills, though they did sign for a fight...


I'm well aware of that Burt. And I don't know what you mean that Ray never gets criticism on that front when there are many threads on Ray ducking Burley. So if Ray ducked Burley and Williams as a contender can we say then that Dempsey ducked Wills before he even won the title...


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

McGrain said:


> I think it was a combination of wartime sentimentality and the Rickard publicity machine in full affect.


Sounds like a formidable combination!


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

The more I learn about this era, the less the contemporary perceptions about who was the top fighter make sense!


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

janitor said:


> The more I learn about this era, the less the contemporary perceptions about who was the top fighter make sense!


Elucidate kindly.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

McGrain said:


> The betting odds can be funny where Dempsey is involved.
> 
> I know Carpantier was favoured to beat him - was any of his other title opponents made the betting favourite over him?


Carpentier was not the favorite against Dempsey. The odds were as high as 3 1/2 to 1 in favor of Dempsey but betting was very light, due in part to the fact that Carpentier was very much an unknown factor here in the states and made more so by the fact that he did his training in secret, ostensibly so people wouldnt see what a mismatch it was. There were even money bets that Carpentier didnt finish the fight. Odds of 5 to 1 against Carpentier knocking Dempsey out and odds of 6 to 5 in favor of Carpentier not finishing the sixth. Im not sure where the myth that Carpentier was a favorite got started. The odds stayed pretty much the same throughout the betting and on the day of the fight remained at 3 to 1 in favor of Dempsey. After watching them both train Greb bet a fair amount of money on Dempsey to win before the sixth round.


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> I'm well aware of that Burt. And I don't know what you mean that Ray never gets criticism on that front when there are many threads on Ray ducking Burley. So if Ray ducked Burley and Williams as a contender can we say then that Dempsey ducked Wills before he even won the title...


Yes, you can say that Dempsey's camp was not keen to fight Harry Wills anymore so than a Joe Louis was not thrilled to fight some deserving black 
heavyweights of his time who were better than a lot of his victims were for sure...And you could also cite that a Ray Robinson was not enamored to fight a past peak
though skilled Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Charley Burley as well...Contrary to some posters thoughts, I can be objective...
Having said all this, it doesn't mean that Dempsey, as well as Joe Louis and Ray Robinson ,were they of mind ,would most likely have
beaten those foes above...I when I choose who would beat whom in Fantasy matches go with the large consensus of opinions of
contemporaries of Dempsey /Wills, Louis, and Ray Robinson...After all favorites win most of the time. Fighters since the beginning are in it for the money, and they try to get the most with the least danger...The only angels are up in heaven...


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> Elucidate kindly.


You see a lot of trends in opinion during this period that simply do not correlate to what we would expect today. 

For example after the debacle between Harry Wills and Bill Tate, we would expect to see either a massive reduction in the standing of Wills, or a massive increase in the standing of Tate, indeed probably both. 

We would also assume based on ring results, that Bill Brennan would have been assigned to the tier of contenders below Harry Greb, Billy Miske, and Tommy Gibbons, but he seems to have been more highly regarded than them for a substantial period, and seemingly in the face of common sense. 

I also think that a win over a shot name fighter carried more weight back then, because they didn't have our rich history of shot name fighters getting dominated, to draw upon


----------



## janitor (Jun 28, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Carpentier was not the favorite against Dempsey. The odds were as high as 3 1/2 to 1 in favor of Dempsey but betting was very light, due in part to the fact that Carpentier was very much an unknown factor here in the states and made more so by the fact that he did his training in secret, ostensibly so people wouldnt see what a mismatch it was. There were even money bets that Carpentier didnt finish the fight. Odds of 5 to 1 against Carpentier knocking Dempsey out and odds of 6 to 5 in favor of Carpentier not finishing the sixth. Im not sure where the myth that Carpentier was a favorite got started. The odds stayed pretty much the same throughout the betting and on the day of the fight remained at 3 to 1 in favor of Dempsey. After watching them both train Greb bet a fair amount of money on Dempsey to win before the sixth round.


Those are still prety darn short odds.

I think the point stands that Carpintier was more highly regarded than he should have been.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> I dont think its rocket science to see how Wills would beat Dempsey. Mcvey, hiding behind his new name, acts as if nobody can come up with a sane response to this. Fine, here are my thoughts.
> 
> Wills would be the biggest combination of speed, power, strength, and athleticism that Dempsey ever faced. Yes speed I say as well because he was reputed to be very fast and had quick hands as well. You dont get a nickname like the Brown Panther by being slow. Wills was an excellent inside fighter who could tie up an opponent and render them ineffective while hammering home short punches on the inside. He generated a remarkable amount of power with inside blows that travelled inches. He broke three of Fultons ribs this way and lifted Norfolk off his feet, leaving him unconcious with his tongue hanging out of his mouth this way. The three best examples of Dempsey fighting anyone even halfway close to Wills ability are his fights with Brennan, Gibbons, and Firpo. Against Brennan Dempsey had a lot of difficulty getting past Brennan's jab and right hand. When he did Brennan tied him up and waited for the ref to break them, effectively limiting what Dempsey could do on the inside. This is a man who was outmuscled by the thirty pounds lighter Harry Greb. I dont think its a stretch to say that Harry Wills, who had absolutely no problems with the brute strength of Firpo, would be able to tie Dempsey up in the clinches and work him over. On the way in Dempsey is going to have to get past the artillery that is coming his way. If he was tagged effectively by Firpo, who had no skill to speak of, and Brennan, who was not on Wills level, then its not a stretch to suggest that Wills would get to him as well. Dempsey was accused of fighting dirty in the clinches but this was also a game Wills excelled at, and I think thats where this fight ends up. Just like the Gibbons fight this fight will be fought in close, in the clinches. The difference here is that Gibbons was a smaller, weaker man than Dempsey. How is Dempsey going to fair being taken into the late rounds by a bigger, stronger guy, who is always in shape. Wills went 10, 15, and 20 rounds several times. Dempsey went 15 rounds once against a guy who was naturally smaller in a lackluster fight. Wills was only knocked out twice anywhere near his prime (Im not counting his broken arm loss to Johnson) and those two knockouts came in fights he was at least even in if not winning and against one of the greatest all time punchers in history. Its a pretty safe bet Wills either had a good chin or knew how to protect himself given his level of competition. So basically, in my opinion, at any time they fought Dempsey's one real chance is to land a knockout punch. Thats not something I would want to bet on if I were a betting man. Is he going to out outbox Wills. Not in my opinion. Is he going to outfight him on the inside? Not based on what Ive seen and read. Another factor is the rules. Paddy Mullins was sharp enough that hes not going to allow some ref who is going to let Dempsey stand over Wills if Wills goes down (a big if) like he did against Firpo and Willard. On the other hand is Kearns really going to try to prevent fighting in the clinches? Another factor is Wills style of fighting. He was a master of shutting people down, particularly the older he got (not unlike Jack Johnson, and Bernard Hopkins) BUT he was also a guy who while happy to coast would punish a guy who tried to turn up the pace. In his fights with Norfolk, Tate, and Fulton he started out feeling those guys out and just when the audience thought they were starting to come on Wills knocked them out. Against Firpo and Madden, two fights he supposedly looked unimpressive in, he was content to take things slow but as soon as those guys tried to attack he punished them inside and out. He sent Madden to the hospital and just as Firpo attacked in the second round he buckled his legs with a jab. A jab. Watch it, its in the film. Before he ever knocked him down coming out of that clinch Firpo tries to rush in and runs into a jab and buckles back. You are talking about a big man for the day and one who was considered one of the strongest heavies alive. You really believe Dempsey's is going to get inside that easy and have success doing it? Because if he cant against Brennan, and cant against Gibbons, and cant against Firpo then he aint against Wills either. People are holding two dominant performances against Wills from 1924 and asking what he would have done against Dempsey but Dempsey wasnt even fighting in 1924. or 1925. In fact it was three years during his reign that what exactly he could do is completely up in the air. Wills wasnt even very active, averaging just two fights per year, but at least he had an excuse: His hands were in awful shape and waiting on a title shot that most admitted he deserved. People can hem and haw about how the Dempsey who fought Tunney would have beaten the Wills who fought Firpo and Madden but please, dont make me laugh. Keep in mind that both Rickard and Tunney admitted in private that the first guy who got to Dempsey in 1926 was going to be champion and thats why they fought so hard to keep Wills from it. Dempsey did nothing against Tunney. Nothing. He lost every single round of their first fight and could have lost every round of the second even with the knockdown. In those days they didnt score a round with a knockdown as an automatic win for the person who scored the KD and Tunney won about 2 mins and 40 seconds of that round before and after the KD. How did he do it? By working Dempsey over with a jab and straight right, punishing him with hooks when he was on his way in, then tying him up on the inside. How did that vaunted inside fighting work for Dempsey in those fights? Does he really look like a guy who would overpower a much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting man? I dont think so. There are so many question marks about Dempsey that I dont even know what version of him would have had the most success with Wills. One thing is for certain, Kearns knew something that you guys dont otherwise he would have accepted one of the numerous offers for that fight, made a fortune, knocked out his greatest rival, and walked away a bigger hero, instead of avoiding it for years. Its literally that simple. The problem here is a lot of people like Burt, who gets his information largely from the magazines he read as a kid (when these guys were being written about from a perspective of hero worship, not hard research), and Mcvey, who only looks for the scant information that supports his argument, dont have a clear and concise picture of the shell game Kearns, Dempsey, and Rickard played and all were complicit in, even Dempsey who history would like to paint as the unwitting hero who was led astray by men smarter and more powerful than him. These guys all conspired to keep Wills as far from Dempsey as possible. When one excuse failed they moved onto another, and then another, and then back to the first. But the bottom line is Wills showed he deserved the shot. He showed he was Dempsey's most dangerous rival, and they all gave him a wide berth. That in itself speaks volumes as to what Dempsey ACTUALLY would have done against Wills.


 I had a response to this virtually finished then inadvertedly wiped it I'll get back later, going out to Jazz, meanwhile here are some opinions on Dempsey .

"Ray Arcel, one of the greatest trainers in boxing history, worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. He was in the opposite corner from Joe Louis in 14 of his fights, and he also personally knew and learned from the great Benny Leonard. Arcel has stated that he considered Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey to be the three greatest heavyweights in history and hedged on picking between them, but here is what he said about Dempsey, 
"He should've been the only heavyweight anybody ever thought of when they thought about the greatest heavyweight champion. I mean he had everything. He could punch, he could box. He was mean and determined."
Jersey Jones concurs saying, "At his peak Jack Dempsey was the most dynamic and devastating heavyweight this commentator has ever seen&#8230;Manassa Jack had speed, strength, better than average boxing skills, lusty punching power and a blazing spirit. His bobbing and weaving style made him a difficult target to hit solidly, but when he was, he had the "ruggedness" to take it. Lithe as a panther and just as savage, Dempsey packed one of the most powerful punching combinations in the game&#8230;" 
Sam Langford, when asked how Harry Wills (whom he fought 18 times in his career) would do against Jack Dempsey, said in the June 5, 1922, Atlanta Constitution "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett."

Jack Dempsey was a sure killer. A fighter with great killer instinct and the ability and will to finish a hurt fighter. Dan Morgan, an old time fight manager who had three world champions said that Dempsey had the three qualities which produce greatness in the fight ring and make a man a fighter for the ages. These are: _ferocity_, _cold-bloodedness_, and _gameness_. He said, "There's no place for pity in the ring. Many fighters can't bear to hammer a helpless opponent in the ring. They don't want to hurt him. But look at Dempsey he was probably the greatest rough and tumble fighter who ever lived." 
Dempsey was not at all easy to hit because of his quick inside movement. John Lardner wrote that "Bobbing and weaving is a phrase that will probably be associated with Jack Dempsey until the end of time." 
Dempsey called "the bob", "a kind of artistic duck." And he described "the weave" as "a series of slight imaginary slips. As you shuffle toward your opponent, you roll your left shoulder slightly; then your right' then your left and so on&#8230;the genuine bob and weaver-and I was one of those-uses it fully. A deep bob and a side sway. I used to slip in under an opponents attack. Once in close I threw my left hook. I had a good one. I'd continue with a barrage of rights, hooks and uppercuts." 
Dempsey a master of the bob and weave.







It is a system designed to slip through an opponent's offense and make him pay for every single mistake he makes. Make him miss and make him pay! Imagine a perpetual motion of the bob and weave, slipping, side-stepping and taking advantage of an opponent's misses with punishing and countering power punches. At this Dempsey excelled. In his title winning effort against Willard Dempsey circled, circled, and Willard impatiently shot out a long left jab. Dempsey slipped underneath and weaved right, slamming a hard right to the body. It is the same punch that Dempsey used throughout his career (photo L) and Mike Tyson would later make his trademark punch. Dempsey then immediately exploded a left hook that broke the giant Willard's jaw and the onslaught was on. 
Once inside Dempsey was virtually a whirlwind of motion. Whirling left, whirling right, getting punching angles and delivering his devastating left hooks, right hands and uppercuts. Dempsey had excellent hand speed, not in the league of Ali, or Louis but just a notch below. With his speed, power, and explosiveness Dempsey was a force to be reckoned with. William Detloff wrote, "Dempsey threw so many punches in rapid succession that it often was difficult to identify the knockout blows." 
Dempsey had very under-rated boxing skills. He once described his snapping left lead, discussing the energy transfer that occurred when he sprang into his opponent and how the weight would transfer to the lead foot. He then described "a power line," running from his shoulder down the length of his arm to his gloved fist. To quote from his instruction book , "As you take your falling step forward, you shoot a half-opened left hand straight along the power line, chin high. As the relaxed left hand speeds towards the target, suddenly close the hand with a convulsive, grabbing snap. Close the left fist with such a terrific grab that when the knuckles smash into the target the fist and arm and the shoulder are frozen steel -hard by the terrific grabbing tension." This was Dempsey's very strong shotgun left jab. 
Dempsey also had pretty good footwork for his style. He circled and looked for openings, shuffled, then exploded forward, side-stepped left and right and was never off balance. Most people have only seen the opening barrage against Willard, but he was boxing the first half of the round, circling and searching for his opportunity to strike. He had excellent foot speed and was one of the fastest attackers in history. 
Dempsey's best punch was his exploding left hook.







It had two explosions, one from the shoulder that generated body force from the hip and one from the bicep that gave it whirling power. It was a punch that was so powerful that Grantland Rice described it as "tornadic." Many years later Joe Frazier would be described as having, "the best left hook since Dempsey." 
Dempsey had more than just a powering hook, he also had a strong right. He was a definitely a two handed hitter. Dempsey's right was short, straight and explosive. In many ways Dempsey resembled a slightly smaller version of a young Mike Tyson, aggressive, trying to destroy his opponent from the opening bell, a bobbing and weaving perpetual motion machine, with a better jab and better boxing skills and with more rounds of ring experience. 
Jack was a very hungry fighter. Hunger is what makes a man into a good fighter. It makes him fight when a rich man would quit. It makes him have to win just so he can have something to eat to live. That is why in the 20's and 30's there were a lot of Irish, Jewish, and Italian fighters from the ghettoes, they were poor and hungry and had a tougher character. Today most "whites" are from middle or lower middle class environment and not use to tough times. Dempsey lived in tough times and was a very tough character. Fighters like Tunney, Louis, Marciano were almost always main events and they all fought exclusively in scheduled fights in organized programs. Dempsey, like Jack Johnson before him, had to take what came-sometimes he rode the rails all day to get to a fight and fought without having slept or eaten. A different world. 
Today it is difficult for people to imagine the harsh times in which the great fighters of the past lived. Jack Dempsey said this in "The Ring Magazine", May 1956, 
"Nobody has to go hungry today. There is plenty of work for a man who wants to work. A kid can make plenty of dough for himself doing almost anything. I was hungry. I had to fight my way along. Freights and the like, fight, fight all the time. The life was tough, but it hardened you."
Grantland Rice quoted Dempsey as saying, "When I was a young fellow (he started fighting at 15 against bigger and older opponents) I was knocked down plenty. I wanted to stay down, but I couldn't. I had to collect the two dollars for winning or go hungry. I had to get up. I was one of those hungry fighters. You could have hit me on the chin with a sledgehammer for five dollars. When you havn't eaten for two days you'll understand." The Mauler had a great chin and was able to fight well when hurt and recovery quickly "


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

Cormac said:


> I had a response to this virtually finished then inadvertedly wiped it I'll get back later, going out to Jazz, meanwhile here are some opinions on Dempsey .
> 
> "Ray Arcel, one of the greatest trainers in boxing history, worked with 18 world champions including Barney Ross, Tony Zale, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes. He was in the opposite corner from Joe Louis in 14 of his fights, and he also personally knew and learned from the great Benny Leonard. Arcel has stated that he considered Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey to be the three greatest heavyweights in history and hedged on picking between them, but here is what he said about Dempsey,
> "He should've been the only heavyweight anybody ever thought of when they thought about the greatest heavyweight champion. I mean he had everything. He could punch, he could box. He was mean and determined."
> ...


Cormac, THIS SHOULD BE MANDATORY READING FOR EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM. THIS IS THE PRIME JACK DEMPSEY
WHO BECAME THE GREATEST RING ATTRACTION IN HISTORY...I PUT MY MONEY ON THE THOUSANDS OF BOXING
EXPERTS WHO SAW HIM FIGHT BEFORE HIS ILL_FATED LAYOFF FOR THREE YEARS... BRAVO FOR THIS !!! THE ROUGHEST
AND TOUGHEST HEAVYWEIGHT EVER...GAVE NO QUARTERS AND ASKED FOR NO QUARTERS...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Great respond be Klompton.

I do believe the fight will be fought on the inside and I think the question is whether you believe Wills can neutralise and shut down Dempsey's offence (something he was a master at) or of you believe Dempsey will get off first against his bigger,slower opponent (something he was a master at).


I personally think it more like the latter is true but I am not speaking with massive conviction since we never saw the two fight.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

janitor said:


> Those are still prety darn short odds.
> 
> I think the point stands that Carpintier was more highly regarded than he should have been.


I agree but again they are indicative of the fact that Carpentier had been seen ONCE in the United States against a fat Levinsky who had been getting beaten in ND fights for years (and who may have tanked the fight). There was also the massive wave of publicity about Carpentier that had been coming across the Atlantic for years. Its interesting because today we have seen more of Carpentier BY FAR than the vast majority of Americans had in 1921 so we can better judge his chances.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

janitor said:


> You see a lot of trends in opinion during this period that simply do not correlate to what we would expect today.
> 
> For example after the debacle between Harry Wills and Bill Tate, we would expect to see either a massive reduction in the standing of Wills, or a massive increase in the standing of Tate, indeed probably both.
> 
> ...


I think guys just fought so often that even a winless spell wasn't considered cause for alarm. As for Brennan, shit if I know. Maybe he was well connected. Maybe he looked impressive even losing.
@Cormac I think it was Grantland Rice who considered Dempsey the greatest offensive force he had seen in sports. And he had seen Ruth, Cobb, Tilden, Grange, and a ton of boxers.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Wills is something of an enigma IMO.

He was already 30 when he upset Fulton to distinguish himself as one of Dempsey's top contenders, so I think it's questionable whether he was ever in his prime at any point during Dempsey's reign. Most of his younger days had been spent fighting aging versions of the original "Murderer's Row" multiple times apiece - he typically lost or was held even in their earlier fights, when they still had some life left in them, and only began to dominate their series after they were much farther from their primes. Was his increasing success a result of their steepened decline or his steady improvement, or perhaps a combination of both? I don't think that can be answered conclusively without seeing some earlier films of him, although I would surmise from the reports I've read that he was probably at his peak in 1918, in his two stoppage wins over Langford.

To answer the original question, if the fight had taken place in 1923 as planned, before the NY Commission cancelled it, who knows? But based on the footage I've seen, I would favor Dempsey from 1924 onward.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton said:


> I dont think its rocket science to see how Wills would beat Dempsey. Mcvey, hiding behind his new name, acts as if nobody can come up with a sane response to this. Fine, here are my thoughts.
> 
> Wills would be the biggest combination of speed, power, strength, and athleticism that Dempsey ever faced. Yes speed I say as well because he was reputed to be very fast and had quick hands as well. You dont get a nickname like the Brown Panther by being slow. Wills was an excellent inside fighter who could tie up an opponent and render them ineffective while hammering home short punches on the inside. He generated a remarkable amount of power with inside blows that travelled inches. He broke three of Fultons ribs this way and lifted Norfolk off his feet, leaving him unconcious with his tongue hanging out of his mouth this way. The three best examples of Dempsey fighting anyone even halfway close to Wills ability are his fights with Brennan, Gibbons, and Firpo. Against Brennan Dempsey had a lot of difficulty getting past Brennan's jab and right hand. When he did Brennan tied him up and waited for the ref to break them, effectively limiting what Dempsey could do on the inside. This is a man who was outmuscled by the thirty pounds lighter Harry Greb. I dont think its a stretch to say that Harry Wills, who had absolutely no problems with the brute strength of Firpo, would be able to tie Dempsey up in the clinches and work him over. On the way in Dempsey is going to have to get past the artillery that is coming his way. If he was tagged effectively by Firpo, who had no skill to speak of, and Brennan, who was not on Wills level, then its not a stretch to suggest that Wills would get to him as well. Dempsey was accused of fighting dirty in the clinches but this was also a game Wills excelled at, and I think thats where this fight ends up. Just like the Gibbons fight this fight will be fought in close, in the clinches. The difference here is that Gibbons was a smaller, weaker man than Dempsey. How is Dempsey going to fair being taken into the late rounds by a bigger, stronger guy, who is always in shape. Wills went 10, 15, and 20 rounds several times. Dempsey went 15 rounds once against a guy who was naturally smaller in a lackluster fight. Wills was only knocked out twice anywhere near his prime (Im not counting his broken arm loss to Johnson) and those two knockouts came in fights he was at least even in if not winning and against one of the greatest all time punchers in history. Its a pretty safe bet Wills either had a good chin or knew how to protect himself given his level of competition. So basically, in my opinion, at any time they fought Dempsey's one real chance is to land a knockout punch. Thats not something I would want to bet on if I were a betting man. Is he going to out outbox Wills. Not in my opinion. Is he going to outfight him on the inside? Not based on what Ive seen and read. Another factor is the rules. Paddy Mullins was sharp enough that hes not going to allow some ref who is going to let Dempsey stand over Wills if Wills goes down (a big if) like he did against Firpo and Willard. On the other hand is Kearns really going to try to prevent fighting in the clinches? Another factor is Wills style of fighting. He was a master of shutting people down, particularly the older he got (not unlike Jack Johnson, and Bernard Hopkins) BUT he was also a guy who while happy to coast would punish a guy who tried to turn up the pace. In his fights with Norfolk, Tate, and Fulton he started out feeling those guys out and just when the audience thought they were starting to come on Wills knocked them out. Against Firpo and Madden, two fights he supposedly looked unimpressive in, he was content to take things slow but as soon as those guys tried to attack he punished them inside and out. He sent Madden to the hospital and just as Firpo attacked in the second round he buckled his legs with a jab. A jab. Watch it, its in the film. Before he ever knocked him down coming out of that clinch Firpo tries to rush in and runs into a jab and buckles back. You are talking about a big man for the day and one who was considered one of the strongest heavies alive. You really believe Dempsey's is going to get inside that easy and have success doing it? Because if he cant against Brennan, and cant against Gibbons, and cant against Firpo then he aint against Wills either. People are holding two dominant performances against Wills from 1924 and asking what he would have done against Dempsey but Dempsey wasnt even fighting in 1924. or 1925. In fact it was three years during his reign that what exactly he could do is completely up in the air. Wills wasnt even very active, averaging just two fights per year, but at least he had an excuse: His hands were in awful shape and waiting on a title shot that most admitted he deserved. People can hem and haw about how the Dempsey who fought Tunney would have beaten the Wills who fought Firpo and Madden but please, dont make me laugh. Keep in mind that both Rickard and Tunney admitted in private that the first guy who got to Dempsey in 1926 was going to be champion and thats why they fought so hard to keep Wills from it. Dempsey did nothing against Tunney. Nothing. He lost every single round of their first fight and could have lost every round of the second even with the knockdown. In those days they didnt score a round with a knockdown as an automatic win for the person who scored the KD and Tunney won about 2 mins and 40 seconds of that round before and after the KD. How did he do it? By working Dempsey over with a jab and straight right, punishing him with hooks when he was on his way in, then tying him up on the inside. How did that vaunted inside fighting work for Dempsey in those fights? Does he really look like a guy who would overpower a much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting man? I dont think so. There are so many question marks about Dempsey that I dont even know what version of him would have had the most success with Wills. One thing is for certain, Kearns knew something that you guys dont otherwise he would have accepted one of the numerous offers for that fight, made a fortune, knocked out his greatest rival, and walked away a bigger hero, instead of avoiding it for years. Its literally that simple. The problem here is a lot of people like Burt, who gets his information largely from the magazines he read as a kid (when these guys were being written about from a perspective of hero worship, not hard research), and Mcvey, who only looks for the scant information that supports his argument, dont have a clear and concise picture of the shell game Kearns, Dempsey, and Rickard played and all were complicit in, even Dempsey who history would like to paint as the unwitting hero who was led astray by men smarter and more powerful than him. These guys all conspired to keep Wills as far from Dempsey as possible. When one excuse failed they moved onto another, and then another, and then back to the first. But the bottom line is Wills showed he deserved the shot. He showed he was Dempsey's most dangerous rival, and they all gave him a wide berth. That in itself speaks volumes as to what Dempsey ACTUALLY would have done against Wills.


First of all,I'm hiding behind nothing. 
It was you who ,having been banned from another suite for abusive behaviour,crawled back calling your self Lord Tywin,and when questioned about you true identity, [there could only be one poster as arrogant and rude, ]repeatedly denied it.

Now you are back on there as Klompton 2, which did give me a bit of a start ,but then I thought no ,there can only be one being with such an overweening ego, it is Mr Steve Compton returning cap in hand. 
Now to the business at hand.
" Wills would be the biggest combination of speed power strength and athleticism".
Would he ? Bigger than Fulton, faster, and a harder hitter? Fulton had a 45 in chest 48" exp, stood 6' 6".5"and had an 84.5" reach, he had a terrific jab that busted the shit out of Langford and two fisted power that dropped, and stopped him , he was also very quick.

You talk as though Dempsey would be confronting a big man for the first time when actually the reverse is true.
Dempsey habitually gave away both height and weight.
He conceded at least 58lbs to Willard.14lbs to Firpo,9 lbs to Brennan, and a couple of lbs to Miske.

In short Dempsey was used to being the smaller man.
Wills in contrast nearly always enjoyed considerable physical advantages in his fights, his biggest scalp is over a 5'6" Langford who was fat at anything above the lightheavy limit.

You cite Wills nickname the Brown Panther as indicative of his speed. Fanciful rubbish. Johnny Nelson was called The Entertainer , a more boring negative fighter I never saw. Want more? Tony TNT Tubbs, Mike Dynamite Dokes, they are just names , and you should know about them Lord TywKlomp2. Iv'e never seen a report of Wills fighting that describes him as Panther-like. " Wills generated a remarkable amount of power with blows that only travelled inches" so you say, we dont see it on film Whereas we can see Dempsey generating precisely that remarkable power to ko men with short punches that did travel only inches,

It was Dempsey who was frequently described as" The Tiger Man" ,and as being , " lithe as a Panther", not Harry.

Wills would have been better described if he had adopted Dempsey's name The Mauler because thats what he was ,a mauler and a clincher.He was also a dirty fighter, warned in many of his outings for hitting low ,on the break and when a man was down he was also chucked out for backhanding ,engaged in several highly dubious contests,in a couple of which he was also tossed out with his fellow play- mates.

Against Firpo, Wills was warned several times for fouling , and Firpo protested several times Wills was holding and hitting in the clinches, he also employed the kidney punch repeatedly in this fight.
Start that shit with Dempsey and he gets his balls punched off.

To confidently state that Gibbons and Brennan were inferior to Wills is unproven since they never met.
Firpo was not in good shape for Wills he was 224.5lbs ,against the 216 he scaled for Dempsey. Firpo started strong against Wills, but his wind began to go around the halfway stage, nevertheless he did land consistantly with shots until he ran out of steam.

Here is a photo of them.http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE080745/harry-wills-boxing-luis-firpo

Does Dempsey look like he could overpower a bigger stronger man? ABSOLUTELY and he many times emphatically proved it, in fact with the possible exception of Joe Louis, no one is more proven in this regard.

Dempsey going 15 rds with a bigger man? Dempsey had problems with lithe, quicker, smaller men, he didn't go 15 rds with big men because he belted them out.

Whatever games Dempsey, Kearns, Rickard Wills and Mullins played are ----------

ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT WHEN IT COMES TO ASSESSING DEMPSEY & WILLS RESPECTIVE CHANCES AGAINST EACH OTHER WHICH IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS FOR.

Wills did not "supposedly look unimpressive against Madden and Wills , he was panned for his performances in both fights and there are numerous contemporary papers confirming it.
Burt and I are hero worshippers of Dempsey? How about Arcel, Rice,Runyon,Langford , are they too?

ps Both Langford and Johnson picked Dempsey to beat Wills.

Dempsey got two bad beatings from Tunney when he was only a faded simile of the man- killer he had been, but he took them and never stopped trying to win, never stopped coming forward hoping to land the big one Wills QUIT by fouling out in similar circumstances against Sharkey, and he sure doesnt look to be trying too hard to get up from Paulino's innocuous looking kd shot.
I think Dempsey had better power than Wills, a better chin, was a faster puncher, faster afoot and is more proven in the testicle department, no matter how much you punish Dempsey he is going to keep coming back till he nails you .

In 1926 I think Tunney boxes Wills ears off, and if he had him as groggy with his eyes nearly closed as he did Dempsey I think Harry either fouls out, or takes a nap.

Below is a report of the Firpo v Wills fight. This is the most favourable towards Wills that I have seen ,but it states it is Wills initiating the clinching and employing fouls for which he was warned, it can be seen that Firpo runs out of puff and though he sticks manfully to his task he becomes more ineffectual as the fight goes into the later stages. Early on Firpo has no problem landing on Wills.

My verdict is Dempsey ko's Wills . You say Kearns knew about Wills ability I think the unarguable expert in that field would be Sam Langford Here is Langford's opinion of a Wills v Dempsey matchup. " Dempsey could punch with anyone he never needed to have no fear of Wills, one round maybe two was all it'd take him".

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...JUfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QNQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1731,4619732


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Cormac said:


> First of all,I'm hiding behind nothing.
> It was you who ,having been banned from another suite for abusive behaviour,crawled back calling your self Lord Tywin,and when questioned about you true identity, [there could only be one poster as arrogant and rude, ]repeatedly denied it.
> 
> Now you are back on there as Klompton 2, which did give me a bit of a start ,but then I thought no ,there can only be one being with such an overweening ego, it is Mr Steve Compton returning cap in hand.
> ...


 No further response from Lord Ty Klomp?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Dempsey ko2


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> Great respond be Klompton.
> 
> *I do believe the fight will be fought on the inside and I think the question is whether you believe Wills can neutralise *and shut down Dempsey's offence (something he was a master at) or of you believe Dempsey will get off first against his bigger,slower opponent (something he was a master at).
> 
> I personally think it more like the latter is true but I am not speaking with massive conviction since we never saw the two fight.


Not only that but Wills inside punches from reports appear to be brutal, many of his KO's coming from brutal bodyshots, breaking ribs in the process


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Yes wills apparently had great leverage on his inside punches, I just think if he goes in there to exchange he'll come off worse against a more explosive, younger, quicker man.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> Yes wills apparently had great leverage on his inside punches, I just think if he goes in there to exchange he'll come off worse against a more explosive, younger, quicker man.


He doesn't need to come inside, Dempsey will be the 1 coming in, which may set up Wills inside counters. It depends how good Wills is, which no one really knows but if a big man has short punches and uppercuts he often gets the better of smaller left hookers, see Foreman-Frazier, Bowe-Holyfield and perhaps Margarito-Cotto whether that last one was on the level I'm unsure.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> He doesn't need to come inside, Dempsey will be the 1 coming in, which may set up Wills inside counters. It depends how good Wills is, which no one really knows but if a big man has short punches and uppercuts he often gets the better of smaller left hookers, see Foreman-Frazier, Bowe-Holyfield and perhaps Margarito-Cotto whether that last one was on the level I'm unsure.


holyfield and cotto also got the better of bowe and Margo though. Plus in both cases the smaller mam was the lighter puncher.

It's hard to be convicted in my belief given the evidence at hand but all in I do think I give jack the advantage. Certainly the toughest available match up though.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> holyfield and cotto also got the better of bowe and Margo though. Plus in both cases the smaller mam was the lighter puncher.
> 
> It's hard to be convicted in my belief given the evidence at hand but all in I do think I give jack the advantage. Certainly the toughest available match up though.


But both had to fight on the backfoot rather than brawl and it was against either vastly overweight or past prime versions. Even Frazier tried to box smart in the Foreman rematch from my recollection.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> But both had to fight on the backfoot rather than brawl and it was against either vastly overweight or past prime versions. Even Frazier tried to box smart in the Foreman rematch from my recollection.


that's true but again it's a result of them being outgunned. If wills could outgun Jack, catching him on the way in and out muscling him inside that's probably how jack would tackle a rematch.

it's certainly a debatable fight though imo I don't understand how some people can be so certain that Jack would have took him.


----------

