Is it feasible to rank Wills over Dempsey in an ATG list?

[HOUDINI]

Champion was not in any way disputed! Dempsey was the champion and everyone was very aware of the issues that prevented Wills getting a shot at that title. Unlike today where there are potentially 5 champions in every division and fans are used to that idea (incredible) there was a keen understanding back in those days that to be a champion you must beat the champion. Dempsey nearly killed Willard and he was and was considered the champion until he was beaten in 1926 by Tunney. Certainly you can find progressives during the 20's that felt for Wills and wanted the challenger to get his title shot and may have been saying all sorts of things to try to make it happen. That movement at that time was not strong enough to make the men who controlled hwt boxing to change their mindset.

Also to call Langford a cop out is really insulting. He was possibly the greatest pound for pound fighter ever and he knew Wills better than anyone....don't forget that closer to his prime he knocked Wills cold several times. Sam stated that he would pick Dempsey if they had fought and this was said in 1922 not many years later. He also stated that Dempsey was the greatest hwt he had ever seen....harder punching than Jeffries and faster than Corbett. You need to know boxing history to understand the strength of that endorsement. It's a great testament to just how great Dempsey was as a fighter.

We all know racism was everywhere back in those days and really that's what we are saying prevented Wills from getting his shot. Rickard called the shots and controlled hwt boxing in those days and he was not going to let Wills or any black fighter have a chance at the title. He saw what happened when Johnson was champion and the aftermath of his bout with Jeffries. Dempseys job was to fight...not to manage himself or promote fights

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Champion was not in any way disputed! Dempsey was the champion and everyone was very aware of the issues that prevented Wills getting a shot at that title. Unlike today where there are potentially 5 champions in every division and fans are used to that idea (incredible) there was a keen understanding back in those days that to be a champion you must beat the champion. Dempsey nearly killed Willard and he was and was considered the champion until he was beaten in 1926 by Tunney. Certainly you can find progressives during the 20's that felt for Wills and wanted the challenger to get his title shot and may have been saying all sorts of things to try to make it happen. That movement at that time was not strong enough to make the men who controlled hwt boxing to change their mindset.

Also to call Langford a cop out is really insulting. He was possibly the greatest pound for pound fighter ever and he knew Wills better than anyone....don't forget that closer to his prime he knocked Wills cold several times. Sam stated that he would pick Dempsey if they had fought and this was said in 1922 not many years later. He also stated that Dempsey was the greatest hwt he had ever seen....harder punching than Jeffries and faster than Corbett. You need to know boxing history to understand the strength of that endorsement. It's a great testament to just how great Dempsey was as a fighter.

We all know racism was everywhere back in those days and really that's what we are saying prevented Wills from getting his shot. Rickard called the shots and controlled hwt boxing in those days and he was not going to let Wills or any black fighter have a chance at the title. He saw what happened when Johnson was champion and the aftermath of his bout with Jeffries. Dempseys job was to fight...not to manage himself or promote fights

Ofcourse it was disputed that's why they had the coloured championship. Jack never once unified with the coloured champion.

He also took 3 years off so calling him a champ during that time is a bit worthless.

Yes he beat Willard who was inactive as hell and pretty shit, but he never fought the fellow champion of his day which was wills.

[HOUDINI]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Boxing in those days can't be looked at as you are from today's perspective. Dempsey was the worlds hwt champion...Wills was the black champion...that was that...no question of uniting anything because they were considered separate and distinct from one another.

You cannot lose the hwt championship or any true boxing championship unless you lose it in the ring. Not fighting for long stretches was very common and In those days making money via exhibitions and appearances. Corbett did theatre, Dempsey went to the movies.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Boxing in those days can't be looked at as you are from today's perspective. Dempsey was the worlds hwt champion...Wills was the black champion...that was that...no question of uniting anything because they were considered separate and distinct from one another.

You cannot lose the hwt championship or any true boxing championship unless you lose it in the ring. Not fighting for long stretches was very common and In those days making money via exhibitions and appearances. Corbett did theatre, Dempsey went to the movies.

Why should the white champion be held in greater esteem than the black champion? especially when that black champion has beaten better men than the white champion.

The point is moot, two champs who didn't fight each other. Neither was undisputed.

Yeah like I said, call him the champ all you want during Hollywood but it's just a notional title that's worhtless.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

no question of uniting anything because they were considered separate and distinct from one another.

No question? I can post about 50 articles from major periodicals of the time that raise more than a few questions regarding this issue.

[HOUDINI]

The hwt championship that Dempsey held was considered totally separate vs the black title. You are looking at this historical situation from the eyes of today's boxing scene. It was not looked upon in that way back in those days. That title was looked upon as continued from Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, hart, burns, Johnson, Willard and finally Dempsey. There was no thought of unification as you are implying from today's standards. As mentioned you can find progressives that were writing all sorts of things but that does not change the absolute fact that the title Dempsey held was considered undisputed and separate from the black title....like oil and water. There was a push to give Wills a title shot but not for the purpose of unifying titles. Wills was leading contender and the progressive movement in the us was clamoring for the black man to get his just due.

[HOUDINI]

More evidence that this is the worst boxing board on the Internet. Tremendous mis information and miss interpretation of history.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

More evidence that this is the worst boxing board on the Internet. Tremendous mis information and miss interpretation of history.

So, actual quotes from contemporary documents is misinformation and name calling in intelligent, cogent discussion.

I would love to get a gander at some of these elite boxing boards.

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

More evidence that this is the worst boxing board on the Internet. Tremendous mis information and miss interpretation of history.

Fucking leave, then. Are you getting pissed off because we don't blindly agree with your bullshit theories?

At the end of the day, Dempsey never fought the #1 contender, he fought lesser opponents. He didn't make that fight, instead, he fought the likes of Tommy Gibbons (LHW) and Luis Firpo (shit).
Why did Jack never fight Wills? When he could have done so?

Ah, because Nat Fleischer, a man so great and true that he holds no bias whatsoever, said so.

One man's opinion > what actually happened.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by Seamus

So, actual quotes from contemporary documents is misinformation and name calling in intelligent, cogent discussion.

I would love to get a gander at some of these elite boxing boards.

Nice work.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Which English promoter offered Dempsey $200,000 to fight Wills?

I've never heard of it.

I have posted the newspaper source in the thread

Originally Posted by mcvey

Jeannette was a couple of months shy of 40 when Wills beat him.

Fulton had been demolished in 23 seconds by Dempsey 2 years before Wills beat him. The newspapers, reporting after the Firpo Wills fight ,stated that Wills had eliminated himself as a threat by his lack lustre showing.
Norfolk was conceding nearly 37 lbs, and 6 inches in height to Wills.
Wills lost to near prime versions of McVey, and Langford, and drew with Jeannette 3 times, he only beat Jeannette when Joe was near 40. Wills also drew with Dempsey's sparring partner Bill Tate, and refused to fight his other main one, George Godfrey.

Yes Wills has some losses, they aren't actually as bad as Dempsey's, such the losses to meehan and Flynn. Both fighters were pretty much pre-prime when they picked up these losses though. Wills still beat a near prime Langford anyway you spin it. Some of Wills wins may have been past prime, like Dempsey's, such as Willard who was 37 and 3 years inactive or Miske who was dying from Bright's disease

Overall Wills fought a much tougher schedule against opposition that is overall better, I don't think there's much dispute in that. Who was better and who would of won, we honestly will never know

Originally Posted by NoNeck

...so what were the opinions of blacks involved with boxing? That question has gone thoroughly unanswered (other than the Langford cop-out).

I posted an article from 'The Afro American', from the 1920s, likely with black journalists who were none too impressed with Dempsey avoiding the fight

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

What you just posted is a complete distortion of what actually occurred.

What I posted is a timeline of the facts, dispute anyone of them if you wish, they're pretty much all sourced if you could be bothered to read. The only question is why Dempsey and his management avoided the fight to the N'th degree

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

What you just posted is a complete distortion Dempsey himself had no issue fighting Wills...

He's on record as saying he'd never fight him

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Fleischer wrote extensively about this and he was friend's with both men.

You keep quoting Fleischer, he's not the be all and end all in boxing knowledge, he's said many things that few would agree with. MaybeI've likely researched it further than Fleischer or perhaps Fleischer was just a hack who made a buck glorifying the champion of the time? Maybe he was pandering to the champion or fans, journalists motives are not solely the honest truth

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Huge distinction between what Dempsey wanted vs what Rickard and those managing Dempsey wanted.

Well Dempsey said he'd never fight Wills

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

What you need to do is study a bit as to what those who saw Dempsey live, expert opinion, said of him. Fleischer is a great source and he wrote extensively on the subject. Unlike you and I he knew both men personally. He stated factually that Dempsey had no issue fighting Wills and it was Rickard who called the shots in this regard. If you want to make things up, go ahead, in the end you just get less educated concerning boxing history.

So Dempsey had no say in who he fought, the press were calling him a ducking coward but he had no control of pushing for a fight with his biggest rival of the period OK so I'll take that to mean Rickard et al were worried Wills would win then

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Langford who knew Wills from a boxing perspective like no other felt Dempsey would win and win handily, so did Fleischer.

Langford lost 16-2 to Wills and continually looked to ingratiate himself to the racist white society of the time, so much so he would cross the road when whites were coming in order to not offend them. This was the American society of the 1920s, blacks with common sense didn't look to challenge the status quo for fear of discrimination

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

If you want a great trainers opinion Arcel who knew both men and watched them both from ringside termed Wills a "journeyman" and felt Dempsey would win easily.

If Arcel called Wills a journeyman he was ignorant or biased but I'm not convinced he said that as you don't source many of your quotes. All the same he was a teenager wet behind his ears at the time and hence his opinion is moot anyway

And did Arcel even watch Wills ringside, I'm not sure he did

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Wills actually was offered a fight with Tunney in 1925 with the winner to fight Dempsey and in fact Gene challenged him. Wills turned the fight down.

Did Wills actually turn Tunney down though? Even if he did though why would Wills fight Tunney when he had legally got an order to fight Dempsey for the world title through the supreme court? He'd already fought Fulton/Firpo and every black contender of the time. Tunney with his views on racial supremacy never actually fought a black man did he?

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

You are just sadly mistaken. It's called revisionism. Taking events that have already happened and twisting them to be something they are not. What Dempsey was is written in stone.

It's not called revisionism when the papers of the time lay the blame at the feet of Dempsey as you've even posted yourself, it's called a differing view. Revisionism if later evidence is found adds a greater hindsight anyway. But that matters little to your biased intellectually dishonest outlook

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by Seamus

So, actual quotes from contemporary documents is misinformation and name calling in intelligent, cogent discussion.

I would love to get a gander at some of these elite boxing boards.

I wish I could express myself in the same fashion as you do without all the insults.

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I have posted the newspaper source in the thread



What I posted is a timeline of the facts, dispute anyone of them if you wish, they're pretty much all sourced if you could be bothered to read. The only question is why Dempsey and his management avoided the fight to the N'th degree



He's on record as saying he'd never fight him



You keep quoting Fleischer, I've likely researched it further than Fleischer or perhaps Fleischer was just a hack who made a buck glorifying the champion of the time?



Well Dempsey said he'd never fight Wills




So Dempsey had no say in who he fought, the press were calling him a ducking coward but he had no control of pushing for a fight with his biggest rival of the period OK so I'll take that to mean Rickard et al were worried Wills would win then



Langford lost 16-2 to Wills and continually looked to ingratiate himself to the racist white society of the time, so much so he would cross the road when whites were coming in order to not offend them. This was the American society of the 1920s, blacks with common sense didn't look to challenge the status quo for fear of discrimination



If Arcel called Wills a journeyman he was ignorant or biased but I'm not convinced he said that as you don't source many of your quotes. All the same he was a teenager wet behind his ears at the time and hence his opinion is moot anyway

And did Arcel even watch Wills ringside, I'm not sure he did



Did Wills actually turn Tunney down though? Even if he did though why would Wills fight Tunney when he had legally got an order to fight Dempsey for the world title through the supreme court? He'd already fought Fulton/Firpo and every black contender of the time. Tunney with his views on racial supremacy never actually fought a black man did he?




It's not called revisionism when the papers of the time lay the blame at the feet of Dempsey as you've een posted yourself. Revisionism if later evidence is found adds a greater hindsight anyway. But that matters little to your biased intellectually dishonest outlook

[lufcrazy]

Houdini, spout the shit all you want but you cry about how fractured boxing is today when your idle never fought the other title claimant from his era. A claimant who ruled just as long as jack himself did.

[lufcrazy]

Pp is putting this shit to bed.

Well played squire.