Was Wills Record In Dempsey's Reign That Awesome?

And this has what to do with my post?

I said Greb was not given a shot at Dempsey because he was too small. I didnt say I agreed with that.

So clarify for me: Are you saying Greb was as big as Norfolk? Because he wasnt. Norfolk could comfortably weigh 180 pounds.

Or are you saying Norfolk shouldnt have been a serious contender because Greb supposedly wasnt? Fine, Im arguing for Wills, not Greb or Norfolk.

My point in relation to those two is that if Gibbons, Carpentier, Miske, and Brennan warrant a title shot then Greb (who beat Brennan, Miske, and Gibbons) deserved one first and so did Norfolk (who beat Miske, had Gibbons refusing to fight him, and handled Brennan easily in training).

I believe once again you creating a double standard which only proves my point.

If Greb and Norfolk are too small, as you seem to imply, then it stands to reason that of those two elimination bouts the one which featured a heavyweight doing what would be expected of a heavyweight in that situation should have put a punctuation point on his standing as the legitimate challenger.

That heavyweight was Wills. The next biggest man lost miserably to the smallest fighter of the four. So if Greb and Norfolk are too small and Gibbons cant even beat them it leaves only one fighter.

This is all besides the point though because my point was that the Bill Tate "debacle" did absolutely nothing to curb Wills' standing. Since you cant really refute this you chose to focus on the least important point of the post, for what? Just to argue. Pointless.

 

McVey, of all the posters on my occasional visits to the Classic, I probably concur most with your logic, opinions and posting manner. I agree with you as regards the sometimes dismissive attitude of Klompton/Lord Tywin type of poster, I care not a whit if they are the one and the same or not and in general I find them informative and very knowledgeable but at times too agenda driven. However on this one you are in danger of falling into the same trap. I, for one, think Wills pretty overrated but his credentials as the out and out number one challenger to Dempsey for all of his reign is undeniable IMO.

 

Your points are solid, Will's post 1919 resumee was not awesome I agree. But it doesn't need to be for him to be Jack's obvious opponent. Fulton, Greb, Norfolk, Miske and Gibbons were the top guys till Tunney came along. Firpo, Brennan, Carpentier were just about acceptable as stocking filler. i had these personal ratings, they might need a little tweaking but here they are;,
1918

Champion Willard
2 Wills
3 Dempsey
4 Fulton
5 Gibbons
6 Greb
7 Miske
8 Meehan
9 Madden
10 Jeanette

1919

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Fulton
4 Greb
5 Gibbons
6 Carpentier
7 Miske
8 Johnson
9 Norfolk
10 Brennan

1920

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Fulton
4 Greb
5 Gibbons
6 Carpentier
7 Miske
8 Norfolk
9 Tunney
10 Weinert

1921

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Fulton
4 Gibbons
5 Tunney
6 Carpentier
7 Miske
8 Greb
9 Beckett
10 Brennan

1922

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Greb
4 Gibbons
5 Miske
6 Tunney
7 F.Johnson
8 Brennan
9 Beckett
10 Carpentier

1923

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Firpo
4 Tunney
5 Carpentier
6 Miske
7 Gibbons
8 Greb
9 Renault
10 F.Johnson
We had Godfrey and Sharkey coming along at the tail-end of Dempseys reign and it is obvious that Wills fought very few of these top contenders but in truth that was hardly his fault. BTW some people thought Norfolk went into the tank v Wills, I have no opinion either way but interesting.

 

True.

 

I agree with every word McVey. It's easy to get lost in the name value.

During these years I don't think he did more than Dempsey once both are equally scrutinised.

I still think his best two victories were against Fulton and Firpo who had been beaten by Jack already.

 

I think what you dont like is being hammered by facts that you cant refute. I didnt resort to getting personal until you started name calling and insulting.

I would say that makes you sound more like Klompton than me except he at least bolstered his argument with sound logical reasoning.

You seem to have a problem with the idea that Norfolk was touted as a challenger for Dempsey. If so take it up with Tex Rickard who promoted that elimination bout, not me. I just reported on it and its outcome. If you cant accept that then find another sport to debate.

I wont be dragged into the argument because its another example of you tiptoing around the obvious which is that Wills not Norfolk, or Gibbons, or Greb deserved the shot at Dempsey and yet somehow of those two eliminations Gibbons (who lost his miserably) got the plumb. Yet while denigrating Norfolk you laud Gibbons as possibly Dempsey's best win and completely ignore that at this point Gibbons had been avoiding a match with Norfolk since 1917.

Its pretty hard for Norfolk to have a quality heavyweight win (if you consider guys like Gibbons heavyweights) when they wont fight him. But like I said, class told and it was Wills not Norfolk who deserved the assignment while Dempsey fought no-hopers.

As a follow up I would urge people here interested in how Tunney got his spot as Demspey's challenger over Wills to research the 1930 lawsuit against him by Tim Mara who was hired by Tunney to peddle influence among politicos in order to circumvent Wills' standing. While Billy Gibson worked on the press.

Mara explains very clearly, and is not refuted by Tunney, that Tunney advised him to try to make a fight with Wills in order to get the shot at Dempsey, who Tunney basically states would lose to the first person who got the shot, yet withdrew the offer almost immediately when Rickard became interested in him.

Then prior to winning the championship Tunney publicly drew the color line adding that if he won he would not fight Wills because Wills had "avoided" him.

There is no doubt that Wills was bypassed each and every time Dempsey defended and was ill used throughout.

Whether Wills record is "awsome" during this period is beyond the point for the fact that it is at least as awsome as anyone else in the division including the champion.

As Matt said you have an obvious agenda here, whether its motivated by race or by rose colored goggles for Dempsey I dont know and dont care. I have an agenda as well and Im happy to admit it. Im trying to defend a man who continues to be wronged today by you and people like you.

As far as your insults go I could care less. They mean nothing to me and reflect more on you than they do me.

 

Good ratings. Im curious about 1921. Why the sudden drop of Greb and inexplicable rise of Tunney, Gibbons, and Miske?

Tunney had done nothing 1921 and was not very highly regarded outside of New York. He would not get much national recognition until defeating Levinsky and losing to Greb. In fact he had fought very few heavyweights at all at this point in his career, a handfull really at most.

The only thing I can see in Gibbons resume that might be used as an argument for why he should be rated above Greb is the fact that he defeated Wiggins twice, while Greb defeated Wiggins twice and drew with him once. Beyond that Gibbons record doesnt seem far and away better enough to raise him four places past a man he had lost to the previous year.

Grebs only defeat in years was to Gibbons but he had avenged that.

Miske is bumped up high as well despite doing nothing dramatic over the previous year since losing to Dempsey. He beat Bill Brennan in his hometown but even that win doesnt seem enough to jump him above a man who had defeated both he and Brennan.

Im just curious, Im sure you have a good reason.

Its a good list though. Have you done any more for other eras or other weight divisions?

I recently stumbled across a top five contender list that Jack Kearns made out in 1922. I'll just say you did a much better job than he did.

 

1921

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Fulton
4 Gibbons
5 Tunney
6 Carpentier
7 Miske
8 Greb
9 Beckett
10 Brennan

Looking at your critisms of the rankings for 1921 I find some of them valid and all of them reasonable. A few points, firstly these were compiled some years ago and I forget some of my own reasoning! Also they are year end so as to keep them in line with the later Ring ratings rather than year performance. The biggest difficulty is to keep hindsight out of the picture as well as natural biases and also one must try and transport oneself back to the revelant time.
Gibbons split a duke with Greb in 1920, losing the last one which put him behind Harry but I felt he out-performed Greb in 1921 a la Wiggins etc and also the Smith fight holds Harry back-but this is purely a matter of opinion, a close call-I called Gibbons.
Carp I'm happy to hold high as Euro and L/Heavy champion who had did as well as could be expected v Dempsey. Miske had a good year in 1921 but I'm inclined to go with your view than Greb should still be above him. Tunney had started to dip his toe into the Hw waters but here I concur with you, hindsight has bumped up his ranking.
Maybe this is more accurate?

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Fulton
4 Gibbons
5 Carpentier
6 Greb
7 Miske
8 Tunney
9 Beckett
10 Brennan

I have done year end ratings from the 1890's up to circa 1924 as a balance to the Ring ratings and I'll post them on a seperate thread if I can find them. I have posted them before here but I'm open to new views and criticisms because I originally put a fair bit of time into them.

 

Well, let's compare them year by year

1919-Dempsey destroys Willard

Wills beats Langford, Jeannette, Clark, John Lester Johnson

Dempsey's year--but Wills did well

1920--Dempsey ko's Miske and Brennan

Wills ko's Fulton, beats Langford

I rate this year even as it is difficult to judge Miske due to his illness and layoff. Brennan I don't see as that good. I rate Wills' strong ko of Fulton above Dempsey's two wins.

1921--Dempsey ko's Carpentier

Wills ko's the giant Tate, beats Jack Thompson and Jeff Clark, and ko's the washed-up Gunboat Smith and Denver Ed Martin each in the first round.

Wills year--I know some might disagree, but I'm not that big on Carpentier as a heavyweight.

1922--Wills year by default with impressive ko of Norfolk

1923--Dempsey beats Gibbons and ko's Firpo

Dempsey wins this year big.

1924--Wills year by default--beats Madden and Firpo

1925--Wills year by default--ko's Weinert and Johnson

So I give Wills the edge on balance with Dempsey not fighting in 3 of these 7 years.

 

some reactions to comments

"1919 Langford W 8--Langford was 37"

Or perhaps 36, but in fairness Langford was younger than Willard.

"1922 DQ 1 Tate, Draw Tate"

I don't see how we can consider a DQ very important considering how Dempsey got away with fouling against Firpo. The draw is interesting, but the fighters were not paid, leaving a bad aftertaste. Did Wills try?

"Dempsey was considered superior." "Langford picked Dempsey"

Burns was considered superior to Johnson. And I think Langford picked Jeffries over Johnson.

"Wills was 29 lbs heavier than Weinert, and 36 lbs heavier than Norfolk."

So what? This is heavyweight boxing. It is not so much that these men were so small by the standards of the time as that Wills was big.

"poll has Wills, Gibbons, Brennan, and Martin as publics top contenders in 1922"

Shows how weak the division was. Gibbons and Brennan were beaten by the middleweight champion. Martin was mediocre. I would say Wills pretty much stands alone as a formidable contender.

"Dempsey beat Fulton and Firpo before Wills did"

I don't see this as important as you do. Dempsey was the white champion. He should have been able to defeat the white fighters. Most top white fighters avoided Wills, and the few who didn't--Fulton, Firpo, Weinert, etc--lost. Wills was undefeated against white opposition until he fought Sharkey at 37. Dempsey simply didn't fight top black opposition, so it is difficult to judge how he would have done.

The bottom line here--Wills cleaned out the black fighters--mostly aging as there was no future for young black fighters in a segregated sport--and beat all the white fighters who would get in the ring with him.

"Norfolk was a dirty fighter"

In contrast to Greb?

 

My take would be that neither Dempsey nor Wills had really impressive resumes after 1919.

Wills because he couldn't compile one against the men who would fight him. Dempsey because he didn't compile one, avoiding his toughest available challenger, Wills, and not fighting Greb, who proved himself better than most of the guys Dempsey fought.

These two men stood out in a weak era, and did not fight each other, which I think pulls both down in historical evaluation, but Wills does have the argument that this was through no fault of his own.