Wills was just a big, strong guy who came forward; the kind of style that Dempsey craved and destroyed. Wills in truth would jab and throw a right cross, that was essentially all he did in the ring. The bulk of his "greatness" comes from the fact he faced Langford 18 times, winning 11 of the matches; but when you consider Langford was only 5'8" (if he was lucky) and started out as a lightweight that isn't hard to imagine, even though Langford had plenty of success against big heavyweights. Dempsey sincerely wanted to fight Wills, but Kearns and Rickard made sure it didn't happen ("A negro fighting for the world championship isnt worth a bucket of ****"). The only man Dempsey didn't want to fight was Langford.
Excellent suggestion.:good You would have thought that someone would have had the wit to ask Tate about it.
I think Wills had a few more strings to his bow than being a" big strong guy",he was a good boxer. But I definitely agree with the gist of your post. Langford was 5' 7". Jim Coffroth , one of the premier promoters stated in an interview with, La Boxe in 1911, that it would be impossible to match Johnson against one of his black challengers like Sam langford ,or Joe Jeannette."It would be a great fight, the two negroes would not miss the opportunity to inflict the necessary and sufficient hiding, that we would be entitled to expect from them. But the problem is that in America, they would not stand a chance of success. Why? For the only reason that the Blacks are hated in America. A fight that would put two of them face to face would not attract big crowds ."
A couple of points. Although the black dynamite fighters that Wills was fighting during this period were washed up, the sheer number of these fights given the time frame has to count for something. Wills was itching to get fights with the top white contenders by the way. Despite his recent loss to Jack Dempsey, many people still saw Fred Fulton as the top contender in the division when he fought Wills, and some argued that his loss to Dempsey had been a fluke. The media coverage surrounding the fight suggests that it was to sort out who was the #1 challenger in the division. Dempsey said that if the fight ended in a draw, he would fight both men. This is is good win. The Firpo win is also good, because Firpo was also regarded by many as the biggest threat in the division. While there were no Ring Magazine rankings at the time, Firpo continued to be ranked in the top 10 even after he had lost to Dempsey, Wills, and Weinert. We must also judge the #4 rated Charlie Weinert to be a good scalp. 1. Jack Dempsey, Champion 2. Harry Wills 3. Tommy Gibbons 4. Charley Weinert 5. Quintin Romero Rojas 6. Jack Renault 7. Luis Angel Firpo 8. George Godfrey 9. Jim Maloney 10. Erminio Spalla
I gave Wills his props for defeating Weinert, though he was 29lbs the heavier man. By the way, I don't think Firpo was in the kind of shape for Wills that he had been for Dempsey. You think Wills was busy with 41 fights in 6 years? Langford started that time line at the age of 37, during it he had 108 fights.
It makes my skin break out in rashes when I see the.. Dempsey REALLY wanted to face wills... or even Sam L. That is a complete lie and gets annoying at times.
Oh H. H ,I missed that , and I replied to his post. Not me though. Langfrod was 37 when Dempsey won the crown I pick Jack then, but no way , for the reasons given ,would it happen.
No body was being condescending. Your intent behind this thread was obvious and garnered the response you should have expected. From now on please come up with a more original insult than calling me klompton. Thats your third or fourth time now and its getting old. AND IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION: YES, IT WAS AT LEAST AS AWSOME AS THE CHAMPIONS, BETTER IN FACT, AND FAR MORE AWSOME THAN ANY OTHER CHALLENGER OF THE DEMPSEY REIGN. DO YOU DENY THIS? Oh my caps lock got stuck, just like yours did Im sure.