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

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

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 ?

It was only meaningful due to racism. Had black heavyweights not been so feared there's no need for the black championship.

We can call the titles whatever we want, that's not the issue.

The issue is that for 7 years the 1&2 reigned unbeaten with one chasing the fight and the other hiding behind management.

The issue is that he who hid is rated higher than he who chased.

The issue is that in some eyes jack has been granted a default victory because some trainers picked him back then.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by McGrain

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.

He fought more than one.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

It was only meaningful due to racism. Had black heavyweights not been so feared there's no need for the black championship.

I don't know about that. I think the "black championship" was just a way to market black-v-black fights.

Dempsey's title was meaningful because people rated Willard, Johnson, Jeffries, Fitz, Corbett and John L. Sullivan as real champions.

The issue is that for 7 years the 1&2 reigned unbeaten with one chasing the fight and the other hiding behind management.

They were both chasing money. The man with the championship could make money without even risking the title. Managers were there to make the business decisions.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

I don't know about that. I think the "black championship" was just a way to market black-v-black fights.

Dempsey's title was meaningful because people rated Willard, Johnson, Jeffries, Fitz, Corbett and John L. Sullivan as real champions.




They were both chasing money. The man with the championship could make money without even risking the title. Managers were there to make the business decisions.

It was the only way to promote them since the white champs weren't giving them title shots.

Well it stopped being totally meaningful when Johnson took it into deep freeze and avoided the top 5 contenders. I guess Willard and jack were carrying on tradition.

Well we aren't ranking them in fukin business legacy are we? We're discussing pugilistic greatness.

Despite what nostalgists try to say, wills has more than an argument.

I personally have Dempsey 1 spot higher because I've seen footage of him on his prime and not wills.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

It was the only way to promote them since the white champs weren't giving them title shots.

Well it stopped being totally meaningful when Johnson took it into deep freeze and avoided the top 5 contenders. I guess Willard and jack were carrying on tradition.

Everyone at the time considered it meaningful.

Well we aren't ranking them in fukin business legacy are we? We're discussing pugilistic greatness.

I dunno. You're talking about "hiding behind management".
"Pugilistic greatness" is largely a product of shrewd management anyhow.

Despite what nostalgists try to say, wills has more than an argument.

Sure he does. But that's nostalgia too.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by McGrain

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.



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.



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

Oh Mc, now I have a target on MY back...So be it ...Peace and tranquility

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Everyone at the time considered it meaningful.



I dunno. You're talking about "hiding behind management".
"Pugilistic greatness" is largely a product of shrewd management anyhow.




Sure he does. But that's nostalgia too.

Everyone at the time was demanding he fight a top 5 man after he dispatched jeffries also.

I don't even know what you mean there.

It's the opposite of nostalgia, it's hindsight and record keeping that allow us to make a better jugenebt of wills career worth.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Everyone at the time was demanding he fight a top 5 man after he dispatched jeffries also.

I doubt everyone was, nor that they even had a consensus top 5.
The title was valued just as highly as ever. It certainly retained its meaning.

I don't even know what you mean there.

Well, you brought up 'hiding behind management'. I pointed out that managers existed to decide all the decisions such as when, who, where and if to fight ...

As for this notion of "pugilistic greatness", you must understand that 99% of great fighters became great largely due to the way they were managed.

It's the opposite of nostalgia, it's hindsight and record keeping that allow us to make a better jugenebt of wills career worth.

Well, he was rated highly at the time. It's just as nostalgic to talk up Wills and it is to talk up Dempsey.
I don't see an awful lot of scrutiny of his record, to be honest.
I'm not saying you haven't, but I've noticed that a lot of the postors who have used Wills as a yardstick of the era against Dempsey, seem to give Wills an easier ride or simply don't have a clue.

Both great fighters, imo.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by McGrain

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.



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.



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

Gene Tunney had 68 fights and never fought a black man , though he was prepared to fight Wills in a final eliminator to challenge Dempsey.

Tommy Loughran in 128 fights , never faced a black man, coincidence?
I don't know.

In answering the question to this thread I said no, but I think on reflection I should have said yes ,it's feasible but I personally place Dempsey higher.

[LittleRed]

To answer the question...

You could. For all the crap Dempsey gets no one mentions that Wills didn't start to consistently beat Langford, Jeanette, McVea, Etc. until they had started to slip. Hell a pudgy, 30 year old Langford knocked him out a couple of times.

On the positive side he beat Willie Meehan something Dempsey could not do in umpteen tries. You could argue who did better vs common opponents (Firpo and Fulton mostly, but John Lester Johnson too) an edge I give slightly, and with no conviction, to Dempsey. As someone said: jiff you give extra.credit for multiple wins in excess of a trilogy, then you could have.Wills up front.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Oh Mc, now I have a target on MY back...So be it ...Peace and tranquility

More you are responsible for your actions. You've been asked to stop levelling accusations of racism repeatedly and in an unspecific manner. If you consider this as "having a target on your back", so be it, but that seems a paranoid and weird response to what I'd consider a polite request.

Originally Posted by mcvey

Gene Tunney had 68 fights and never fought a black man , though he was prepared to fight Wills in a final eliminator to challenge Dempsey.

Tommy Loughran in 128 fights , never faced a black man, coincidence?
I don't know.

Black fighters were a matter of choice, usually, for white fighters. Corbett, a horrible racist (by modern standards) famously fought the era's best. Dempsey, who famously provided money and food for broken down fighters, black or white, and was happy to have black men in his camp, avoided his. It's business, I think, birthed of a racist climate. It's a shame that Dempsey didn't just fight Wills. It certainly would have enhanced his legend greatly for a "more enlightened" generation, but it clearly wasn't a matter of racism IMO.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by McGrain

More you are responsible for your actions. You've been asked to stop levelling accusations of racism repeatedly and in an unspecific manner. If you consider this as "having a target on your back", so be it, but that seems a paranoid and weird response to what I'd consider a polite request.



Black fighters were a matter of choice, usually, for white fighters. Corbett, a horrible racist (by modern standards) famously fought the era's best. Dempsey, who famously provided money and food for broken down fighters, black or white, and was happy to have black men in his camp, avoided his. It's business, I think, birthed of a racist climate. It's a shame that Dempsey didn't just fight Wills. It certainly would have enhanced his legend greatly for a "more enlightened" generation, but it clearly wasn't a matter of racism IMO.

I agree . I think Bert is being, shall we say ,somewhat overly protective of Dempsey's reputation.

I love the Mauler, my favourite fighter, ,but we have to be objective. There are no targets on either Jack's ,or Berts backs, just honest discussion.

[Nightcrawler]

the term racism here imo is almost arbitrary.

did the fighter not fight top contenders, regardless of race? in dempseys case yes

i don't care if dempsey was racist in his personal life in this regard. there were at least two fighters that deserved shots that didn't get them. one white, greb and one black, wills

in terms of resumes, i don't know enough about either fighter or the context of the times to make a clear statement. but dempsey did what many did and avoided the best. he just shouldn't get a pass on it and if wills fought (and beat) the better competition, he should be ranked higher

a championship does not make the fighter, the fighter makes the championship. what kind of championship did dempsey make?

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by mcvey

I agree . I think Bert is being, shall we say ,somewhat overly protective of Dempsey's reputation.

I love the Mauler, my favourite fighter, ,but we have to be objective. There are no targets on either Jack's ,or Berts backs, just honest discussion.

Speaking of which, where is Pachilles these days ?

[edward morbius]

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?

"within the time period . . . how and why they occurred"

In this case the obvious answer is racism and racial politics.

Does anyone doubt Wills would have gotten a shot if he were white?

In fairness to Dempsey, I think the big shot politicians and Rickard were more responsible for the fight never coming off than Dempsey. It is also true that Dempsey drew the color line in his first public statement after defeating Willard. He later retreated from that stand, however, when criticized.

"unification bout"

Others might be talking about that? I'm not. Wills, though, was widely viewed as the outstanding contender during Dempsey's entire reign

"Wills HIMSELF did not lay any blame on Dempsey for the fight not coming off"

Wills was from an era when a black man knew that to get along you went along. Wills did business with white folks (and astutely).

All this is beside the point, though, of this thread, which is about historical ranking of Dempsey and Wills.

Your position is that the ancient opinions that have come down to us that Dempsey would win must rule, although largely the same group of experts picked both Burns and Jeffries to defeat Johnson.

Didn't even Langford pick Jeff?