Jack Dempsey's Ranking

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mrkoolkevin, May 7, 2016.



  1. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,512
    Apr 26, 2015
    It's interesting that Arcel who was mentored under Wills trainer terms Wills "a good journeyman". Maybe Arcel was not too far off the mark here and surely he should NOT have been that far off the mark.
     
  2. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
     
  3. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    Your argument here is with the guys who did the ranking, which seems to have been Rickard, with Fleischer helping.

    But here is the 1924 rankings--

    1--Champion--Jack Dempsey
    2---Harry Wills
    3---Tommy Gibbons
    4---Charley Weinert
    5---Quinton Romero Rojas
    6---Jack Renault
    7---Luis Angel Firpo
    8---George Godfrey
    9---Jim Maloney
    10--Erminio Spalla

    *Just my own opinion, I don't consider Wills the unbroken #1 contender for the whole 7 years of Dempsey's reign, but he was viewed, and has to be viewed, as a top contender all the while, and the #1 man more often than not.

    As for Weinert, in fairness he was on a roll, beating Firpo and Sharkey.

    And Tunney was ranked at light-heavyweight. Greb at middleweight.

    "Was he more deserving than Greb."

    Yes, I think Wills was, as he was also beating the big guys,

    but isn't it a moot point as Greb didn't get a shot either.
     
  4. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "he was content as top contender as he made a good living without being champion."

    In all fairness, he was seeking a fight with Dempsey, seemingly any way he could including using the law.

    "he probably understood he was not getting a title shot."

    If he was realistic.

    I would note that if making a living is his goal, a fight with Dempsey would have brought him really big money, even if he lost.
     
  5. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    69,970
    23,858
    Feb 15, 2006
    I will tell you the facts as I know them:

    Langford lost the sight in one eye after his fight with Fulton in 1917

    Sam Langford advised Jack Sharkey in his fight against Harry Wills in 1926, and served as his corner man. He bet all of his meagre savings on Sharkey.

    By 1935 it was said that he could see only shapes and shadows.

    In the same year he had an operation to correct his detached retina in his right eye, which he declared had been a success.

    After the operation he watched Louis Carnera from ringside, and was granted a front row seat.

    He watched Louis training for his fight with Max Baer, and confidently picked Louis to win.

    By 1944 he was said to be nearly blind again.

    So in summary, I think he saw Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera Joe Louis, and probably others.
     
  6. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "He fouled out against Sharkey to save himself from further punishment."

    Wills said this?

    Anyone else saying it is just imposing motives where one don't know what the motives were. Wills might have just been trying to turn the fight around, or he might just have been so weary he was getting sloppier and sloppier.

    "Lamotta fought with a broken hand"

    And quit on his stool against Nardico.

    As for Wills and Battling Johnson, my memory is that he suffered a broken arm. Broken bones can vary a lot in the severity of the injury. Unless we know the severity of the break, we can't truly judge.

    Also, how much was Wills being paid? Probably a rather meager sum. An important consideration for a professional athlete.

    "Ali kept trying against Holmes"

    Ali didn't in fact last to the 13th round.

    "He was usually the bigger guy punishing the smaller fellow."

    I don't really see a point here. He was a big man for his era, but he fought men as big or bigger (Tate, Firpo, Fulton) and generally did well against them. I don't think it fair to imply criticism of a heavyweight for being big.

    "speculation he could have gotten up against Paulino"

    He did get up once and then was hit by several punches. It looked like a KO to me, but I'll re-watch the film.

    *I did re-watch it. It appeared to me Wills was hurt very badly by the first overhand right. He got up at nine. He was then hit by three or four hard punches. He went down hard and looked like he was out of it. He tried to get up, and did just after the count was completed.

    All I can say is that to me it looked like a knockout.
     
  7. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    69,970
    23,858
    Feb 15, 2006
    I am going to flat out say that Arcel was wrong here.

    It is abundantly obvious that Wills was an exceptional fighter.

    Perhaps not the most pleasing on the eye, but no real weaknesses.
     
  8. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    I'll take your word that he saw well enough to see a fight in 1935.

    So what quote do you have from Langford on Louis compared to Dempsey?

    If there is none the point is moot unless you simply want to dispute with me.

    But seeing something doesn't mean you can see well. Believe me, with my cataract problems right now, I know, and I probably have very good sight versus what Langford probably had.

    (I have to be very careful typing, and must reread and reread as I make so many mistakes typing through the cloud)
     
  9. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "It is abundantly obvious that Wills was an exceptional fighter."

    I second this.

    Wills might not have been as good as Dempsey, but "journeyman" is over-the-top.
     
  10. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    95,062
    24,777
    Jun 2, 2006
    Firpo had also stopped Weinert.
    Wills didn't beat:
    Brennan
    Tunney
    Gibbons
    Renault
    Miske
    Rojas
    Greb did.
     
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    69,970
    23,858
    Feb 15, 2006
    I merely want to constrain the issue as tightly as we can.

    We can’t say exactly how good Langford’s sight was after his operation, but he seems to have seen Louis in action.

    I am not aware of Langford making any comment on the Dempsey Louis question, but it seems that he thought very highly of both.
     
  12. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    And Greb didn't beat Langford, McVea, Fulton, Firpo,

    "Brennan"

    Why is he important when he was KO'd by Firpo, whom Wills beat.

    "Miske"

    Lost twice to Norfolk, whom Wills KO'd easily.

    "Renault"

    Wasn't rated as highly as Weinert, and Wills KO'd Weinert.

    "Gibbons"

    Got a shot at the title coming off a loss to Greb. What had he done to earn a second shot?

    "Tunney"

    Right after the Dempsey fight he publicly drew the color line. I question if this fellow would ever have stepped into the ring with Wills, public posturing to the contrary.
     
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    95,062
    24,777
    Jun 2, 2006
    Have you ever known a fighter say he fouled out to save himself a beating ? **** Richardson did it against Cleveland Williams do you seriously think he would admit it? Reporters said it and I've
    read it in a couple of books.

    Wills fouled Sharkey all night and was warned several times by the referee,he was under bombardment and blatantly back- handed Sharkey how would you interpret it?
    Ali didn't choose to foul out did he?
    My impression of Wills is that under pressure he was not as courageous as some examples I have given ,that's just my opinion,it doesnt mean he was any less deserving of a title shot but since some one raised the issue I thought I could legitimately give my opinion.
    You cut him all the slack you want.:good
     
  14. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    My major point is that unless he commented on Louis compared to Dempsey, the question of his sight is moot.

    A 1922 statement praising Dempsey has nothing to do with Louis.

    As for Sharkey and Carnera, no one, or at least very few, would consider them candidates for the top ten or top fifteen,

    so Langford seeing them to the extent he did doesn't matter.
     
  15. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    Wills probably wouldn't admit it if it were true, but that doesn't make it true either.

    My major point is that it is hard to make judgments and assign motives in a fight I have never seen.

    Max Baer backhands on film all the time, but I don't think he was ever DQ'd for it, at least in a major fight. I don't know. Was Baer trying to foul out in the 10th against Schmeling whom he blatantly backhands.

    *My second point--and I am saying this as someone who grew up in America and remembers pre-Civil Rights America--is that I apply a great deal of skepticism to criticism of black fighters by white reporters, especially the "lacks courage" "lazy" "isn't really trying" "is a quitter" type of put-downs. You can disagree with me, of course, but I have to go with my experience about what the country and its prejudices were like.