What was so bad with Dempsey vs Gibbons?

Again, you are completely trying to rewrite and mischaracterize the situation. Show me where during that time period everyone thought it was a disaster. Im sitting here waiting.

Thats the game Rickard played just like Dempsey and just like Kearns. He talked out of both sides of his mouth to appease the commission and the large portion of fans that supported Wills. He tried to make it look publicly like he was working toward a Wills fight when he wasnt. Dempsey did the same thing and so did Kearns. They also did it with Greb. It was the old bait and switch. Just like signing to fight a bogus contract to face Wills over a year later while you were already deep into negotiations to face Tunney within a week of the same proposed fight date (which Rickard had nothing to do with) or signing a contract to fight Wills which had no date, no dollar amount, no venue, and generally no specifics other than to say he would fight Wills if a promoter made him an offer to his liking (and this was Rickard) then when offers start rolling in your ignore them and say you dont like them. The whole situation was a joke. But you go on believing what you want. In the meantime Im going to be sitting here waiting for all that evidence that Wills' reputation was totally shattered by the Tate fights and he was suddenly completely embarrassed and knocked from the ratings only to be rehabilitated by Rickard. :-(

 

I know he showed the press all the lumps on his head and said "Don't let anyone tell you Dempsey can't box". Gibbons agreed to the intrepretation of the rules with the emphasis on "protect yourself at all times ,",
There was later some speculation that Dempsey would not have agreed to such a liberal interpretation if he had fought Wills who as known to hit and hold and who was stronger than Gibbons.
Dempsey went into a fight prepared to do anything he would be allowed to getaway with,and he never complained if he got stick in return.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...yEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pMcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4324,4636402

 

And who was doing the "allowing" in the Gibbons fight?

Look, fights are rough and tumble. It's not ballet. I understand this. And all objections aside, Dempsey gets credit for the Gibbons victory, possibly his best victory, tho not his finest performance. Furthermore, the sleaze ball shenanigans pulled on Shelby cast a pall on the significance of the actual fight which, from our perspective, should not be overlooked.

So, Dempsey could have fought better, more deserving contenders, but just a couple. He could have fought cleaner with a more impartial ref but he got the job done as many did before and have done since and with no controversy about the results.

 

He could have done with a more impartial referee against Tunney in their second fight.

 

Wills was not knocked from the ratings, but his status as the outstanding contender was thrown into serious doubt, as was the notion that he posed a threat to Dempsey.

I lean towards the idea that Rickard did not want Wills, to challenge for the title, but we are seeing a mixed picture. Here he had a heaven sent opportunity to bury Wills, and he did the opposite. He had a number of options open to him:

He could have tried to block Wills from fighting any of the top contenders, and matched the two best white contenders, knowing that the winner of that fight would have been catapulted over Wills.

He could have matched Tate with the best white contender, knowing that a win would slingshot them over Wills.

He could have simply given Tate a title shot.

Instead of doing any of these things, he gives Wills a fight that will rapidly restore his position, if he wins. Even if Wills had lost, he would have been left with Norfolk as a title challenger.

 

True. But didn't the commission also change its tune often as well ? Wasn't it the commission that actually barred the fight in the early 1920s, or at least made statements to that effect ?

 

On paper Dempsey's best win, stylistically an easy win though. Gibbons was an in fighter who was quite a 1 handed left hooker while being around 22 pounds lighter. It was made to measure opponent for Dempsey stylistically while much better and harder bouts against Wills and Greb were out there.

 

Dempsey's camp went into print saying they didn't need any more sparring before Norfolk got anywhere near the training camp,
I've read the news cutting
.Dempsey was frightened to spar with Norfolk but happy to beat the **** out of Godfrey every day?

Maybe Jack didn't want to risk his eyesight sparring with the notoriously dirty Norfolk?
Be honest,you hate the ****ing man why not just say so?
I'll accept anything you write on Greb, but for Dempsey,Tunney and Carpentier. I keep a salt cellar handy.

 

What are Wills's best wins during Dempsey's reign?

Langford 37 years old.Half blind
Jeannette 40 years old.
Fulton whom Dempsey had wrecked in 23 seconds.
Norfolk a light heavy who was conceding 6 inches in height and 36lb s in weight.Seven months earlier Norfolk had lost to 161lbs Greb.
Four months after Norfolk was beaten by Wills he could only draw with 14-9-7 Jack Taylor and middleweight Tiger Flowers
Mcvey 36 years old ,both thrown out for faking.
Clark who had won one of his last six fights ,and that over Jim Hosic 7-2-1
Clark two more times, Clark now 36 years old,had lost 4 of his last 5 fights
Langford now 38 years old and still half blind.
Martin 39 years old.
Weinert a good win.
Madden a decent win.
Wills had 28lbs on both Madden and Weinert.

Firpo a dreary decision that saw him panned in the press for not stopping a fat version of the man Dempsey had floored 7 times and ko'd in 2rds.
He deserved his shot but let's not pretend he was setting the world on fire,during Dempsey's title years.

Why didn't Wills fight Gibbons,Tunney, Godfrey,Brennan ,Miske or Greb?

Were they all afraid to fight him?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...91VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6232,5772233

 

Your intellectually dishonest hate of Wills to protect your hero is never ending McVey. Langford was prime or near prime when Wills started beating him easily, yes he also dominated him when Langford was older. Norfolk is a bigger man than Gibbons and was completely destroyed.

It's well documented all the white contenders were afraid to face Wills. Research it a bit if you're interest, which I doubt you are. Wills had his mandatory position and was gunning for the title, fighting eliminators, which is why the Godfrey fight didn't happen. Dempsey said he'd never fight Wills and retired to avoid the fight until the commission let him cheat the system.

You can spin Wills competition anyway you like, it's better than the opponents Dempsey faced.

 

I would say that you are looking for a simple answer to a number of complex questions.

 

There are simple answer Dempsey fans can't accept. Having said that what do you dispute?

 

What you call a simple answer, is a complex series of decisions, by a number of different people, on a number of different issues.

We know what Dempsey did and what Rickard did, but it is open to interpretation what their motives were, and indeed whether their motives remained consistent.

Wills was playing his own game at the same time, and he is not above criticism over this period.

There were white contenders who wanted to fight Wills, especially when he looked ready to be taken.

 

?

Some of the white contenders DID fight Wills.

 

Towards the end of Wills run at the top, Gibbons and later Tunney seem to have viewed him as a potential steppingstone to the title.