Yeah, most one-sided thrashings tend to be...the things is, you haven't answered my point at all. You've completely avoided it. But you'll be back, on the forum, in three months claiming that "Wills was no threat after 1919" and "there were much bigger fights to be made."
We have different views obviously. The best I view, from top of my head, John l 82-88 Jackson 88-92 Corbett 82-86 Fitz 86-89 Jeffries 89-05 Hart 05-06 Johnson 06-10 Langford 10-15 Willard 15-16 Wills 16-18 Dempsey 18-24 Wills 24-26 Tunney 26-28 A couple of dates might be off but it's pretty much that. My view on johnson is under review and both mcvey and jeanette deservn an honourable mention in langford's reign as best. So as you see there is kind of a flow of succession as well as times the best got overwhelmed. Today I do view wlad as the best. I think a key difference in viewpoint is I believe at any given time there's a man who's the best hw.
Luf... I'm really confused on how you can give lanford credit as the top HW for 5 years that Johnson was actually THE champion. Especially considering Langford said.. at no point did he believe he could beat Johnson and he was easily beaten in their fight. To give him 5 years of Johnson's actually title reign is a little.. suspect to say the least. I could see giving him maybe the later two years of jonnson reign.. but all 5.. no way no how.
I agree with you mcgrain they should have fought. just saying before 1919 wills was a more serious threat to Dempsey than he was after that point. wills being less of a serious threat as the years passed by is based on my assumption that wills was getting older and that his results on paper were less inspiring than they had been. wills became overshadowed by the publics fascination with exciting international threats to the HW throne rather than capable known quantities that had been around a long time, found a level and looked older by the year. wills wrongly went on the back burner for a later date and was passed over. it is disappointing. By 1926 wills v dempsey was about as relevant as ali v machen in 1965, a fight that could have been made but not the biggest or most exciting fight out there.
Compare the opposition langford was facing during that 5 years to the opposition johnson was facing during that 5 years.
I think it's hard to argue that Dempsey (or anyone else who this applies to) was "the best fighter in the world" even during periods where he was inactive for a year, or two, or three. How inactive a dominant fighter can be and still be regarded as the best is a controversial area, and Dempsey certainly stretches the concept. Whether Harry Wills can rightfully be regarded as the best in Dempsey's late-reign absences is debatable too, since he too was an old guy feasting mostly on easy pickings. Of course, the default position is that "the best fighter was undetermined, undecided, the position was vacant." Maybe. It would be refreshing if some of the Dempsey-knockers would actually have a look into Wills' career with the same scrutiny and critical reasoning as they apply to Dempsey though. Wills gets credit for fighting Langford a zillion times, but several of those fights seem to be farcical in that Wills and Langford were just pawing at each other on some sort of chitlin' circuit tour. His several fights with Jack Thompson are an even worse case of the same thing. These black fighters of that era get a free pass for that - and rightly so, they needed to earn a living - but we have to wonder whether it's right to base an ATG reputation off of it. IMO, I feel it's safe enough to call Dempsey the best heavyweight in the world for 1918 - '19, but after he became champion the inactivity he demonstrated sitting on the title erodes that firm claim.
Fantastic Thread...makes a welcome change from the normal prime Tyson-prime Klitbot threads or Vitali greatest of all time Threads. Back to the business at hand..... H2H Liston Holyfield/Frazier..(Can't split them) Dempsey I just imagine Liston's piston Jab giving Holyfield all sorts of problems, Holyfield Frazier...cannot split at all...Holy had no real dominant Heavyweight period at all...his dominance at Cruiser is without doubt but picturing him on Jelly legs against the Ropes v Bert Cooper and his wars against Bowe and even Big George Rocking him...nope liston for me! I even see Frazier's left hook giving Holy problems but then again Frazier came forward in straight lines so Holy probably would've boxed his way to a points win...I agree that Frazier's chin seemed to be suspect...Foreman bouncing him around the ring springs to mind. Dempsey overated full stop. Although his win against Jess willard is a highlight reel finish, Willard was an old man at this point...a Boxer such as Gene Tunney schooled Dempsey..although it could be argued that Jack's 3 yr lay off and film career contributed to that...He annihilated Carpentier but I see the other 3 KO-ing Slacker Jack. He also didn't fight black Top fighters...FACT!
so what did you make of listons effort against ali in the ali rematch? wasnt he bounced around the ring too? how many great fighters did Liston beat? Did floyd try hard enough to count as a good win? Too manny unanswered questions about mystery man liston. He had a good year in 1960 though, I give him that.:good
I would say but couldn't prove that the mafia men told Sonny to bounce around the ring! Lol Zora Folley was a notable win as was Cleveland williams...both fringe world class..Sonny's stand out win was against Patterson and Floyd was just blown away rather then not try hard enough....granted alot of Liston's wins were against B-level fighters but he destroyed them in a fashion that suggests he would have despatched the Holyfield and Frazier in the same fashion...Holy was no Cassius Clay, he could be hit and when he was launched war and left himself open...I just don't see Holy standing up to Sonny's punishment...Frazier ditto with his straight forward bend at the waist bobbing style Holyfield and Frazier's resume is way better than all infact Holy has the most accomplishments of all four but head to head Liston beats all...Holyfield/Frazier = toss up....Dempsey 4th:good
Pretty damn god mate in my humble opinion although I would argue that Holyfield's legacy is above Dempsey's and Liston was crazy dominant in my view.:happy
So in 1919, when he was 28, he was a threat, but in 1920, because he was 29, he wasn't a threat? He won more fights than Dempsey, and in '23, '24 and 1925, Dempsey was less impressive than Wills on paper. I think what you are saying is basically baseless. Wills was perpetually referred to as the biggest threat to Dempsey's throne during this period, and had the two met, it was a given that they would have met in the outdoors because no indoor arena could hold them. So what are you basing this upon? That is perhaps the single most ridiculous claim I have ever heard you made, which is saying something.
I can't believe it. I can't believe I have to reproduce the same newspaper articles proving the same **** in the same debate again.
All from 1926: SARATOGA SPRINGS, Aug. 18. -- Jack Dempsey issued a public challenge tonight to Harry Wills for a battle any time before Jan. 1, 1927, if the champion retains his title against Gene Tunney, and posted a forfeit of $150,000, which he demands that Wills or his manager, Paddy Mullins, cover, the winner to take all. - New York Times. Saying that he wanted to fight Wills since he wonthe title in 1919. "I will fight Wills or I will know the reason why. I want everyone to know that I am open to bids for a Wills bout...if we cannot get the fight in the United States we will take it Tia Juana." -Youngstown Vindicator "I will fight Jack Dempsey for free just for the pleasure of knocking him out." - Evening Independent. "Rickard named Tunney as the challenger. He will tell you I wanted Wills, not Tunney." Jack Dempsey in the Lewiston Evening Journal. "The [New York] State Athletic commision had refused to grant Jack Dempsey a licence to Dempsey before he had agreed to box anyone other than Wills." - The evening Independent. What I would like you to do chocklab, is justify your remark that this situation...has any relationship at all to four-times beaten Eddie Machen's chances at meeting Muhammad Ali in 1965, when Machen was on a traumatic comeback for the most part about money having endured a complete nervous breakdown the previous year? He went 0-1-2 that year.