Dempsey's vaunted run to the Title

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

I think that is more in retrospective view though.. I don't believe the people at the time thought he was a garbage champion.

Why do you think this, have you studied the papers of the time? Dempsey was mocked for his level of competition, I think Willard would be if they held him to any standard whatsoever, he would be criticised for facing worse defences than Dempsey

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Why do you think this, have you studied the papers of the time? Dempsey was mocked for his level of competition, I think Willard would be if they held him to any standard whatsoever, he would be criticised for facing worse defences than Dempsey

you could be right but based on the cursory reading I've done he was inactive because until Dempsey beat Fulton there wasn't perceived to be a standout champion.

He was considered too bid and durable from what I can gather.

is there any suggestion at the time he was ducking wills or Fulton?

[Nightcrawler]

Im.curious about the newspapers of the time as well. My wife is researcher, i asked her to investigate darcy/fulton. Ill get her on this to...

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Why do you think this, have you studied the papers of the time? Dempsey was mocked for his level of competition, I think Willard would be if they held him to any standard whatsoever, he would be criticised for facing worse defences than Dempsey

Yes, on some of the reading I've done, I haven't noticed some abundance of writings on how crappy a champion he was. I'm sure there were negative press, but you're saying that was the norm, which is where I disagreement is. So, if you want to produce the overall consensus on him being viewed as a crap champion.. I would change my mind.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

you could be right but based on the cursory reading I've done he was inactive because until Dempsey beat Fulton there wasn't perceived to be a standout champion.

He was considered too bid and durable from what I can gather.

is there any suggestion at the time he was ducking wills or Fulton?

Langford, Fulton and Wills were stand outs for sure. Wills went to Willard-Johnson to challenge the winner but was not allowed to do so.

Fulton-Willard was talked about allot, just type in 'Fulton Willard' into google newspaper archives between 1917-1918 (and before 1917 for that matter) to read some of that. Many consider Fulton number 1 contender from 1917 when he beat Langford, although there's a racial element to that given Wills had already beat Langford numerous times

I'm not sure Willard ducked Fulton, as I know he talked about them fighting and donating the proceedes to charity, but he didn't fight him either and he didn't fight anyone of note either. So I don't think he can be called a dominant champion on that basis, especially given his lacklustre pre-title form

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

Yes, on some of the reading I've done, I haven't noticed some abundance of writings on how crappy a champion he was. I'm sure there were negative press, but you're saying that was the norm, which is where I disagreement is. So, if you want to produce the overall consensus on him being viewed as a crap champion.. I would change my mind.

I never said he was 'crappy', I said he wasn't a dominant champion because he didn't fight anyone of note as champion and was semi-retired, I also noted he was also old when Dempsey fought him. I can tell you haven't read the papers of the time to form your opinion

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Langford, Fulton and Wills were stand outs for sure. Wills went to Willard-Johnson to challenge the winner but was not allowed to do so.

Fulton-Willard was talked about allot, just type in 'Fulton Willard' into google newspaper archives between 1917-1918 (and before 1917 for that matter) to read some of that. Many consider Fulton number 1 contender from 1917 when he beat Langford, although there's a racial element to that given Wills had already beat Langford numerous times

I'm not sure Willard ducked Fulton, as I know he talked about them fighting and donating the proceedes to charity, but he didn't fight him either and he didn't fight anyone of note either. So I don't think he can be called a dominant champion on that basis, especially given his lacklustre pre-title form



I never said he was 'crappy', I said he wasn't a dominant champion because he didn't fight anyone of note as champion and was semi-retired, I also noted he was also old when Dempsey fought him. I can tell you haven't read the papers of the time to form your opinion

I didnt mean dominant like Louis was. I meant in terms of he was viewed as a level above his peers based on what I've read. I don't believe I've ever seen any questioning his status until he lost to Dempsey.

Dempsey was constantly hounded for not fighting Greb and wills. Both were seen as on his level and when he went Hollywood it could be argued his status as best in the world went with him.

I'm trying to say I dont think willards championship worth was ever questioned at the time.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I didnt mean dominant like Louis was. I meant in terms of he was viewed as a level above his peers based on what I've read. I don't believe I've ever seen any questioning his status until he lost to Dempsey.

Dempsey was constantly hounded for not fighting Greb and wills. Both were seen as on his level and when he went Hollywood it could be argued his status as best in the world went with him.

I'm trying to say I dont think willards championship worth was ever questioned at the time.

How much have you researched it though because I think those in the know probably would question this. He won the title in conditions that suited him down to a T, losing most the rounds and didn't provide a rematch. Then never fought the top guys in Langford, Wills or Fulton. I'm not sure why a rationale person would therefore conclusively consider him the best of this time

I can't remember but doesn't Langford make your 'premier HW' at some stage? Because Willard doesn't fight him or his successor in Wills.

Or Fulton for that mater, who I think was considered the number HW of the time according to some around here, that I don't really trust due to their agendas

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

How much have you researched it though because I think those in the know probably would question this. He won the title in conditions that suited him down to a T, losing most the rounds and didn't provide a rematch. Then never fought the top guys in Langford, Wills or Fulton. I'm not sure why a rationale person would therefore conclusively consider him the best of this time

I can't remember but doesn't Langford make your 'premier HW' at some stage? Because Willard doesn't fight him or his successor in Wills.

Or Fulton for that mater, who I think was considered the number HW of the time according to some around here, that I don't really trust due to their agendas

not massively thoroughly at all, surface reading at best. I've just not seen anything questioning his worth as champion yet.

Yeah at one point but I've altered it since then. I dont think Langford was ever regarded as better than Johnson. I'm unsure on the Willard thing though I don't want to judge him bases on retrospect in terms of his status.

Btw where have ya been man? Not seen ya post for ages, good to have ya back

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Langford, Fulton and Wills were stand outs for sure. Wills went to Willard-Johnson to challenge the winner but was not allowed to do so.

Fulton-Willard was talked about allot, just type in 'Fulton Willard' into google newspaper archives between 1917-1918 (and before 1917 for that matter) to read some of that. Many consider Fulton number 1 contender from 1917 when he beat Langford, although there's a racial element to that given Wills had already beat Langford numerous times

I'm not sure Willard ducked Fulton, as I know he talked about them fighting and donating the proceedes to charity, but he didn't fight him either and he didn't fight anyone of note either. So I don't think he can be called a dominant champion on that basis, especially given his lacklustre pre-title form



I never said he was 'crappy', I said he wasn't a dominant champion because he didn't fight anyone of note as champion and was semi-retired, I also noted he was also old when Dempsey fought him. I can tell you haven't read the papers of the time to form your opinion

Errr do you even understand the argument.. The argument isn't whether or not I believe Willard was a great champion or even a good champion. I believe he was a piss poor champion and the main reason Dempsey is so overrated (that win) That isn't the argument.. Luf claimed that many believed there were no rightful challenges to Williard and that nobody was viewed as being better than him during much of his reign. THAT is the argument... and what we were talking about. You claimed that williard was viewed in his own time as being a poor champion.. Those are the sources I want to read more on. Should I make a snide remark about you not being able to grasp the argument at hand?

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

What if before that year, he lost by first round knockout to Allan Green?

It's irrelevant.
Well, if anything, it would make it even more amazing !
And maybe he'd avenge that loss with a KO1 win too in the process.

[Unforgiven]

I think the idea that Dempsey's 1918 run was not impressive is a ridiculous notion. People, YES, please go out and do the research in the newspapers of the time.

More than one writer was saying that Dempsey was virtually the champion of the world (there was serious doubt over whether Willard would fight again), and it was just a case of Willard relinquishing the title. Dempsey's KO of Brennan, the manner is which he beat him, made people sit up and take notice that Dempsey had developed beyond a run-of-the-mill contender, but the 23 second blow-out of Fulton put Dempsey into a league of his own. Loads of other KOs over journeymen and experienced veterans confirmed his ability, speed and brute force. Even his nemesis Willie Meehan, who nicked a 4-round decision, was dumped on the canvas and had to run for his life.

It's like arguing that 1986 wasn't a good year from Tyson.

[lufcrazy]

I do honestly think that as overrated as Dempsey is, his pre title run is easily one of the best in the division, I really do.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I do honestly think that as overrated as Dempsey is, his pre title run is easily one of the best in the division, I really do.

it is...on paper, on statistics and the (few) quality opponents he fought. the problem is there isn't enough to dempsey beyond that year or so

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

it is...on paper, on statistics and the (few) quality opponents he fought. the problem is there isn't enough to dempsey beyond that year or so

I agree but the thread is specifically about his pre title run isn't it? Not many heavyweight guys have done better pre title.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I agree but the thread is specifically about his pre title run isn't it? Not many heavyweight guys have done better pre title.

you asked the question before and i have to answer the same way: nope, very few if any do. i tried to think of some but MAYBE tyson, louis, liston compare. foreman and ali don't. frazier yes, depending on when you considering him the champ

this may be more reflective of how quickly some fighters get title shots than anything...really, who the hell did foreman beat??