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

[Webbiano]

It's a shame Houdini decided to bring up such an uproar on this thread. I don't think there's been a good analytical response to this thread that i was looking for in about 5 pages.

[HOUDINI]

Ed...All historical events must be looked at within the time period they occurred in order to logically understand how and why they occurred. If you don't you get idiots looking at a fight between Wills and Dempsey as a "unification" bout. Once again looking back on the early to mid 1920's in the minds eye of 2012. Just plain wrong to do so if the intent is to understand what and why things occurred the way the did. Dempsey was not greatly popular with the lay public until after he lost to Tunney. It would not surprise me or anyone that he was hooted at any one specific event. Once again....Wills HIMSELF did not lay any blame on Dempsey for the fight not coming off...why are you?

[Webbiano]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Ed...All historical events must be looked at within the time period they occurred in order to logically understand how and why they occurred. If you don't you get idiots looking at a fight between Wills and Dempsey as a "unification" bout. Once again looking back on the early to mid 1920's in the minds eye of 2012. Just plain wrong to do so if the intent is to understand what and why things occurred the way the did. Dempsey was not greatly popular with the lay public until after he lost to Tunney. It would not surprise me or anyone that he was hooted at any one specific event. Once again....Wills HIMSELF did not lay any blame on Dempsey for the fight not coming off...why are you?

So in other words your saying we can't question things that have occurred in the past, as it doesn't fit your agenda. Your also suggesting that Wills knew exactly what was happening behind closed doors with Dempsey and his team. That in itself is so unlikely and I'm 99.9% sure that isn't the case. Now can you please drop the subject and post something constructive for once.

[HOUDINI]

No...your the one trying to change history not me. Dempsey was one of boxings all time great fighters. So say the finest trainers and historians in boxing history. But on here they are all wrong and what the heck let's rewrite history? That's ok with you? Should not be if your a serious student of the game.

Wills stated he knew Dempsey would have made the fight if he could. He was there and he was involved in the day to day historical record. But no....let's ignore what Wills himself stated and rewrite history. That's ok with you? Should not be if your a serious student of the game.

Now if you want to ignore what Wills himself stated Dempsey backs up what Wills stated by saying he did all he could to make the fight and that Rickard who controlled boxing in those days did not want to make the fight. Again both Wills and Dempseys statements fully jive.

Now let's say you don't believe either Wills or Dempsey. Can't understand why you would since it's all about Wills and Dempsey is it not? But let's say by some magic spell both fighters are wrong about what they themselves went through. The leading boxing writer and historian of the day backs up 100 percent of what both men say did happen! What more do you want?

If your goal is to make things up for some crazy reason then that's just great....just don't call it in any way historically accurate.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

Ed...All historical events must be looked at within the time period they occurred in order to logically understand how and why they occurred. If you don't you get idiots looking at a fight between Wills and Dempsey as a "unification" bout. Once again looking back on the early to mid 1920's in the minds eye of 2012. Just plain wrong to do so if the intent is to understand what and why things occurred the way the did. Dempsey was not greatly popular with the lay public until after he lost to Tunney. It would not surprise me or anyone that he was hooted at any one specific event. Once again....Wills HIMSELF did not lay any blame on Dempsey for the fight not coming off...why are you?

Wills was the coloured champ, jack was the white champ. Call it what you want but given wills longevity at the top it was far from undisputed.

[Webbiano]

Originally Posted by HOUDINI

No...your the one trying to change history not me. Dempsey was one of boxings all time great fighters. So say the finest trainers and historians in boxing history. But on here they are all wrong and what the heck let's rewrite history? That's ok with you? Should not be if your a serious student of the game.

Wills stated he knew Dempsey would have made the fight if he could. He was there and he was involved in the day to day historical record. But no....let's ignore what Wills himself stated and rewrite history. That's ok with you? Should not be if your a serious student of the game.

Now if you want to ignore what Wills himself stated Dempsey backs up what Wills stated by saying he did all he could to make the fight and that Rickard who controlled boxing in those days did not want to make the fight. Again both Wills and Dempseys statements fully jive.

Now let's say you don't believe either Wills or Dempsey. Can't understand why you would since it's all about Wills and Dempsey is it not? But let's say by some magic spell both fighters are wrong about what they themselves went through. The leading boxing writer and historian of the day backs up 100 percent of what both men say did happen! What more do you want?

If your goal is to make things up for some crazy reason then that's just great....just don't call it in any way historically accurate.

I'm not rewriting history you absolute tool, I'm forming my own opinion on it, which is what everyone else does, every day of their lives. Just because Dempsey said he did all he could to make the fight happen, doesn't mean he's telling the truth. In fact it's quite obvious he didn't do everything he could to make the fight happen because if he did, he would have left Rickard and no matter who wants to argue against this it is a fact, Dempsey did not do all he could to make the fight with Wills. It's like Arum, Pac and Maywether right now saying they're trying to make this fight happen. Doesn't mean they're telling the truth does it Houdini? But wih your logic it's already been said suppose so we can't rewrite history and all 3 have told the truth.

Now I've spelled it out infront of you, as to how ridiculous you sound, do you finally realise how much of a massive bell end you've been?

[HOUDINI]

History has already been written....tool.....

By taking little snippets here and there like you are doing you are forming a false conclusion....tool.....

The historical truth is what I have been posting...no more...no less. If you dont believe it too bad...you now have a distorted viewpoint concerning boxing history.

[burt bienstock]

Look, I entered ESB about 2 years ago..I am by nature a counterpuncher who was
disappointed at many posters who whenever Dempsey's name came up in a H2H
contest with another Hwt always mentioned he AVOIDED black fighters as Harry Wills, Langford etc, and yes using the word "racist" time and again...So if I who feel that Dempsey did sign to fight Wills ,as shown in tons of articles of the time and photos
of the signing try to defend Dempsey, I am considered a pain in the arse by some on ESB. Am I to remain silent everytime Dempsey was called a racist who never fought a black fighter even though I feel along with great boxing figures of that era that
Dempsey was willing to fight Wills but circumstances prevented their match from
taking place ? Why should I not rebut some posters who I KNOW take delight in
targeting Dempsey time and again. I NEVER started this debate, others have constantly
brought up Wills every time Dempsey's name is mentioned on ESB...Why am I the bad guy cause I try to give my point of view AFTER Dempsey's name is mentioned followed
by his failure to meet Wills ? If someone posts 2 and 2 is 5, why am I the bad guy
trying honestly to give what I believe is the correct answer ? Sure Harry Wills deserved a shot at Dempsey and didn't get it...But times were different than today and Dempsey was NOT the villain he is made out to be by some posters today 90 years later...
And as with Gibert and Sullivan I say, "the punishment don't fit the crime "...Finito I hope.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Look, I entered ESB about 2 years ago..I am by nature a counterpuncher who was
disappointed at many posters who whenever Dempsey's name came up in a H2H
contest with another Hwt always mentioned he AVOIDED black fighters as Harry Wills, Langford etc, and yes using the word "racist" time and again...So if I who feel that Dempsey did sign to fight Wills ,as shown in tons of articles of the time and photos
of the signing try to defend Dempsey, I am considered a pain in the arse by some on ESB.

You've said this already. Twice.

I've asked you, thrice, to provide an example from the thread.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by McGrain

You've said this already. Twice.

I've asked you, thrice, to provide an example from the thread.

Mc I have read Dempsey hated to fight black fighters many many times on ESB threads and not on this particular thread. Are you denying that Dempsey has a target on his back by many on ESB . I have lost all my damn posts and threads in hurricane Sandy along with everything i held dear to me Mc and I am not on trial with you as the presiding judge...
If you truly believe that Dempsey has not been a target lo these recent years on ESB, well that is not my problem...ESB has become more of a
"social problem" forum than a boxing forum i fervently believe and I abhor politics...And what I experienced recently is a helluva lot more important to me than political correctness issues.
P.S. Remember Mc I might be on the right side of this thread...

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

The facts:

1. Dempsey turned down 200k to fight Wills, the offers were coming from London making the American commision irrelevant
2. Wills had to take the NY Commisson and Dempsey to the Supreme Court to force his status as mandatory challenger after Dempsey wouldn't agree to a fixed fight contract
3. Wills looked to force a fight by having an injunction against the Firpo fight.
4. Because of this Dempsey says he'll never fight Wills
5. Rickard says Dempsey will fight Wills the following October, nothing happens, Dempsey doesn't fight that year
5. The NYC Commission demands Dempsey to sign a contract after Wills successfully sues them
6. Kearns says Dempsey will only fight Wills if the commission financed the fight
7. Dempsey signs to fight Wills with his friend Floyd Fitzsimmons but renegades on it, it turns out the whole fight contract is a sham and there is evidence Dempsey. Dempsey instead fights Tunney who was the second opponent the commission would accept, yet Rickard was planning this fight before Wills-Dempsey fell through
7. No other attempt by Dempsey or his management is made to make the fight

Doesn't sound like the actions of someone wanting to fight Wills, it sounds like the opposite. If that isn't a duck I'm not sure you could accuse any fighter of ducking an opponent in history

Call it a duck if you like.

But the $200,000 dollars wasn't really much of an offer. Got any better ones ?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Oh come on, the Tate DQ was a fluke and effectively a NC after Wills had beat him how many times? Not to mention DQs/retirements didn't tend to see a passing of a title in these days and hence the rematch, it is pretty much a ND. Tate was a decent fighter too, probably with an incomplete record and a win over Langford

Whether the 'Afro Amercian' is biased or not has to be weighted against racial perceptions and biases from the white press. It doesn't change the facts that Wills successfully took the New York Commission and Dempsey to the Supreme Court

Anyway as requested and as posted earlier


200k offer

[URL]********news.google.com/newspapers?id...+dempsey&hl=en[/URL]

More on the 200k offer

[URL]********select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D9405B828EF1D3[/URL]

I believe this is for a bout in London, so no need to worry about race riots, yet it still didn't happen for some reason....

These links give me an alphabetical list of newspapers thats all. I don't believe any UK promoter had the dough , or would be willing to put this fight on . only a few years previously the UK governmant vetoed a proposed title defence by Johnson against Wells.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

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.

This is bollocks, imo.

Just as you stress that "alphabet" titles are today usually meaningful in so far as they are usually the titles that all the fighters are competing for, then Dempsey's title was the only meaningful title in his day.
No one designated it "the white championship". In fact, it was the same championship that Jack Johnson had held (and lost - to the man Dempsey was to beat).

The "colored championship" was actually quite a demeaning title, and shouldn't been much to a truly ambitious black fighter such as Wills or his management. They knew Dempsey was the champion. In fact, isn't that what the issue is ?
Dempsey was champion. Wills the most deserving challenger. That's where the controversy lies, isn't it ?

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by NoNeck

Where did I even give my opinon? The "expert" opinions consist of a bunch of white guys and a fighter who got his ass kicked by the man he picked against. I'm pointing that out and it's a legitimate.

Is this what it's come to ?
Everyone concerned is probably either black or white ... so unless they favour the fighter who is the 'other race' to themselves, their opinions can be disregarded as biased by racial prejudice ?
And even when they do, there's some ulterior motive to undermine it.


The old "bunch of white guys" standby. Last time I checked, it was the proverbial "bunch of white guys" who told us Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson are boxing legends too.

Sadly, the world is full of white guys who can write, feverishly typing shit.
I should know.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Mc I have read Dempsey hated to fight black fighters many many times on ESB threads and not on this particular thread

His hating to fight black fighters wouldn't make him racist, and is supported by historical evidence - in that he fought only one.

It was normal for his time. I think Dempsey avoided fighting black fighters. I think it's almost undeniably true.

. Are you denying that Dempsey has a target on his back by many on ESB

I'm saying you are far more likely to accuse someone of being racist than someone is of accusing Dempsey of being racist, furthermore, people who go on and on about Dempsey being racist tend to be removed from the forum

In this thread you've levelled accusations of self hating whites juding Dempsey based upon racial guilt. But when asked to provide an example, you can't do it, because it didn't happen.

So don't do it.

ESB has become more of a
"social problem" forum than a boxing forum

You are the single greatest offender in this regard, by distance.