It's not, it's still better than the dross Dempsey or anyone else was facing during this time Arguably Dempsey's 2 best wins, and Dempsey didn't beat Fulton in his title reign. The speed of KO doesn't necessarily indicate a better win, is Benn's win over Barkley better than Toney's?? I'd say no To suit your agenda, it's well known and accepted most white contenders drew the colour line, read up on it Some of those fighters are gate keepers anyway, why are you listing Brennan who beat who exactly? Or Carpentier who didn't beat anyone? Or Miske who was on a losing streak going into the Dempsey fight? No we don't, Wills said Tunney avoided fighting him. Tunney via Dempsey's management who didn't want Dempsey to fight Wills engineered Tunney as a contender partly by making it seem like Tunney wanted a Wills fight. How many black fighters did Tunney fight again :huh Godfrey I think he may have avoided though while holding out for a title shot, AFTER FIGHTING 2 ELIMINATORS It's a riduculous agenda driven argument from you, which is a shame given you can There is a possibility that he may have turned down fights holding out for his title shot, possibility. I don't think it's proven he By who Rickard or Dempsey's mum? If Wills was feeding on a diet of well chewed meat was Dempsey feeding on a diet of well chewed baby food?
Not only do you want to speak for me ,you want to think for me too. Dont tell me what my intent was ,all you have to do is answer the questions that threads ask. SIMPLE. NO, CAPS NOT STUCK. I'm beginning to think you are dyslexic. I've never called you Klompton, though I'm gratified to see you regard it as an insult. I said I thought for a moment Klompton had come back ,because of one patronising post on another thread that had his trademark sneer on it. "Far more awesome than any other challenger of the Dempsey reign". Please expand on this. Please show how beating a 37 to 40 years old half blind Langford and a 40 years old Jeannette qualify? Wills best two scalps during this period had already been brutalized by Dempsey in a 5 minute blitz. Some of Dempsey's contenders resume's during his reign. Bill Brennan Bartley Madden x3 Luis Firpo Floyd Johnson Bob Roper Jack Dempsey Harry Greb x2 Tom Gibbons Gene Tunney Jack Dempsey Bartley Madden x4 Soldier Jones Porky Flynn Harry Greb x3 Bob Roper Billy Miske x3 Kid Norfolk Georges Carpentier Billy Miske Bill Brennanx3 Tom Gibbons x3 Fred Fulton Homer Smith Jack Renault x2 Charley Weinert Kid Norfolk Bob Roper x3 Battling Levinsky Jack Dempsey Harry Greb Bill Brennan Battling Levinskyx2 Bob Roper x5 Tom Gibbonsx2 GunBoat Smith Jack Renault x2 Soldier Jones Kid Norfolk Charley Weinert Homer Smith Gene Tunneyx5 Quentin Rojas Maxie Rosenbloom Tommy Loughran x7 Bartley Madden x2
Agreed. I'd wager and I think most would agree Dempsey would've taken out both Wills and Langford. The versions he would've realistically fought anyway.
Dempsey did beat him previous to Wills, ditto Firpo. That was my point . You seem to be very vociferous defending Wills, whom I have not attacked. I have always said Wills deserved his title shot and described him in my opening thread as Dempsey's leading contender. Where is the agenda in that? I've been " reading up on it", for half a century actually . Tunney was asked, by Rickard to fight an eliminator with Wills the winner to face Dempsey, he accepted, but said it would have to be Wills and not Godfrey. Wills declined .I certainly dont blame him for not risking his status at that stage of his career. Paddy Mullins gambled that public pressure vis a vis The Ring who championed Wills case would force Rickard to make the match, he lost his gamble, but parlayed Wills into a compensatory cheque. The quote about the well chewed meat came from Westbrook Pegler I believe, sarcasm is not your strong point. How many black fighters did Tunney fight ? NONE and that has to do with this thread precisely what? I've gone into the major fights Wills had during Dempsey's reign and found them respectable but not awe inspiring , and it appears several other posters agree. You don't , fine, I'll still sleep tonight. If you think Wills beating up a half blind 37/40 years old Langford and a 40 years old Jeannette is noteworthy , good on you. No need for you to slash your wrists because we differ. Now ,get down off that box before you get dizzy.
I think we must be careful when assessing wills worth during these years because whilst he did compile a resume befitting his greatness and status, not once did the public ever perceive him as better than jack. He always fought for the right to fight jack never to prove his superiority over him. Modern perspective is a great tool but we must be careful not to rewrite history.
Agreed. But modern perspective cannot change the ages of the fighters that Wills met during this time can it? imo. Wills record is better pre Dempsey's title reign ,as is Dempsey's. In 1922 a poll was made to determine who was the most popular choice to challenge Dempsey, Wills won it, but Gibbons was a close second,Brennan third and Bob Martin 4th. http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=2866,5569898&dq=dempsey+harry+wills&hl=en
It could be argued the best men he faced during dempseys reign were Fulton and Firpo. Would have been interesting had wills beaten tunney and Sharkey but alas age finally caught up to him.
I think you prove my point better than yours but lets examine more closely instead of just name dropping shall we: Bill Brennan: Bartley Madden Human punching bag. He was considered such a poor challenger that when Kearns tried to get Dempsey a title defense against him it was banned in Boston. With that in mind Brennan only went 3-1-1 with him. Luis Firpo Lost Floyd Johnson Lost Bob Roper Lost, finge contender who lost almost as many as he won. Jack Dempsey Lost Harry Greb x2 Lost four times actually, not two. So basically you are bragging on Brennan's contender status by stating that he lost every fight he had at the top level but against the least threatening person on the list he actually managed to win 3 out of 5. Kudos for mediocrity. Tom Gibbons: Gene Tunney Lost Jack Dempsey Lost Bartley Madden x4 They actually only fought twice. One was a NC when both were thrown from the ring for putting on a poor performance and the other a ten round ND that came right in the middle of Gibbons puffed up KO run. Despite Madden's vaunted durability it made Gibbons look bad to go the distance with him and he never fought the guy again. Soldier Jones Seriously? Porky Flynn Seriously? When these two guys make the list it says something about how shallow it is. Harry Greb x3 They fought four times, splitting the series but the one that counted was the 15 round elimination bout for Dempsey. Gibbons lost that in dominant fashion. Nuff said. Bob Roper A fringe contender at best who lost nearly 40% of his fights. Billy Miske x3 He went 3-1-1 against Miske, these are admittedly some of Gibbons better wins although I think Miske is overrated today. Kid Norfolk Norfolk was blind here and completely finished. He had absolutely nothing left. Georges Carpentier Carpentier was done as well. Billy Miske: Bill Brennanx3 3-0-1 Their last fight was considered controversial. Some thought it was a fix but Brennan should not have been fighting anyway after nearly dying against Firpo. Tom Gibbons x3 1-1-3 Fred Fulton Good win the second time, but they drew when both were in their prime. Homer Smith Another extremely fringe contender. Not sure why he makes the list. The only win he has over anything even resembling a fringe contender himself is his victory of Siki who was done at the time and who was a much smaller guy. Jack Renault x2 Decent win, particularly the second one when Renault was just hitting his stride. Charley Weinert Another decent win although Weinert was coming off a brutal beating suffered at the hands of Greb. Kid Norfolk Lost both of these in fairly easy fashion Bob Roper x3 See above. Battling Levinsky fought him four times losing two. Jack Dempsey at best Miske got a draw in their first fight. At best. So he did no better than 0-1-2 Harry Greb: Dempsey didnt even fight Greb so why is his name on this list? He was a contender but he didnt get a shot either so I dont see what that has to do with Will's record vis-a-vis his title shot. There is no denying that Greb deserved a title shot as well, particularly in light of the various elimination bouts he, like Wills, won but I dont think he deserved one ahead of Wills.
I reckon everyone is in agreement just from different angles. Wills compiled a great resume and was the leading contender. He never did enough to surpass Dempsey. At any point in their careers Jack would have been a big favourite. there is debate as to who beat the better men during the championship years with valid arguments on both sides.
Despite the size difference Norfolk was a terrific win. Gibbons avoided Norfolk for years. Dempsey refused to spar with him. Miske lost two fights in dominant fashion to him. Does anyone want to venture a guess how Carpentier would have done against him? That would have been a slaughter, especially in light of how Norfolk brutalized Siki. He also cleaned up several of the old guard white hopes (Cowler, Pelkey, Smith) and some of the old guard black dynamite (Joe Jeanette, Jim Johnson, Jeff Clark) He beat Bill Tate several times, beat Harry Greb and even after Wills blitzed him he went on to have a good career. He may have been short but he was in the same weight range as most of Dempsey's opponents so why the double standard?
After he won the title, the average weight of Dempsey's opponents was 190.5lbs. Norfolk scaled 176lbs for Wills ,conceding 36lbs. Got any more jokes?
What double standard? I said Fulton and firpo were arguably the two best victories of wills during jacks reign.
I didnt say anything about an average weight, I said MOST. Cant you read McVey or is your head so far up Dempsey's ass that you cant make out your pc screen? Norfolk was a rock hard 176 for Wills. He typically weighed right around 180. Miske 187 (a very high weight for him, he was 175 before his layoff) Carpentier 172 Gibbons 175 Tunney 189 (again, a very high weight for him) So yes, Norfolk was right in the range of those guys, beat one, was avoided by one, would have massacred another, and considering Tunney never fought a black man we can assume Norfolk would have been pigmentally challenged. I say double standard (and I was not referring to your comments Luf, I actually agree with most of what you say. You seem very well reasoned and sensible on the subject) because its ok for Dempsey to defend against those guys but its meaningless when Wills actually beats someone more highly regarded than them who is in that size range. And make no mistake that when Wills defeated Norfolk he was more highly regarded than Miske, Carpentier, and Brennan at the least. Its a double standard plain and simple to say Wills win wasnt quality when Norfolk was an undeniably great and undeniably highly regarded lhw/hw who would have been a champion given a title shot (he could have beaten Levinsky and Carpentier on the same night) and who was successful against large heavyweights himself, not the least of which was Bill Tate who was as big or bigger than Wills. Its a double standard because you think Dempsey is a monster for battering smaller, obviously overmatched, fighters and yet when Wills beats a better fighter who is smaller its a mismatch. So I can only assume in a backwards way its a compliment because you acknowledge that Wills was not a standard contender like the other guys and actually had something special that made it a mismatch. Let me phrase it another way: Wills crushing Norfolk in 1922 is much more impressive than any victory Dempsey had as champion. Its a better victory than Miske, who Norfolk beat twice easily. Its a better victory than Brennan, who Dempsey was behind against, nearly got his ear knocked off against, was wobbled against and who was handled easily in sparring for that match by Norfolk. Its a better victory Carpentier, who would not have fought Norfolk. Its a better victory than Gibbons, who dodged Norfolk from 1917 until Norfolk was blind and completely shot seven years later. Its a better victory than Firpo, who was nothing and still had Dempsey down 2 or 3 times, nearly out, and forced Dempsey to use every dirty trick in the book to win. And thats it because as champion Dempsey didnt win another fight.