In the Ring With Jack Dempsey - Part I: The Making of a Champion

There are tons of documents with contradictory dates of birth for Wills.

From what I remember 1892 is more prominent in earlier ones (including his marrage certificate), and 1889 is more prominent in later ones. But there are other documents with different dates of birth from those two as well.

 

On Wills it does strike me as pretty absurd that he was DQ'd (and considered to have fouled out) in his fight with Sharkey, for some fairly mild, all be it repeated, bending of the rules, which apparently Sharkey wasn't above in that fight either.

Meanwhile Dempsey gets the win for throwing combos at Sharkey's groin.

Hard not to wonder about some racially motivated refereeing, but maybe someone else can shed some light on that.

 

The best evidence is the US census of 1910. Wills was listed as 21 then.

One of the reasons for the confusion is that Harry Wills is not an unusual name among over 100 million people. You can find quite a few. The 1889 census Wills was living in New Orleans.

And one thing for certain. The gravestone is dealing with our Harry Wills.

 

Ok, you and the KasmirKid have made yourselves clear and I agree with you both: by the time Dempsey had run though his main (white) contenders, he had achieved a status in life way beyond that which he grew up in. He married a movie star. He'd had plastic surgery to improve his looks. Money. Cars. Houses. Etc. So he avoided Wills....and let's be honest here...and everyone else for three full years between Firpo and Tunney.....in order to keep what he had gained.

All sounds good to me. Personally I can't blame the guy for wanting to enjoy his new life, but as a boxing fan yes, I wish he had fought Wills and Greb.

 

There are plenty that are clearly the same person with different birth years listed, especially the 1892 birth year, which also matches the age often reported in papers. Especially ones that mention him with his wife.

 

Ironic that instead of taking on Wills, whom Dempsey would likely have defeated, he took on Tunney who he couldn't defeat. But, as he later admitted, it didn't turn out so badly because the Long Count turned out to be one of the most dramatic moments in boxing history.

 

Nothing to argue about that much, but why put the date 1889 on your tombstone if your weren't born that year, or at least think you were? I can't think of a good reason. And if Wills went through life believing 1892, when did he start believing he was born in 1889 and why? Also, the census is the best evidence.

 

Given how inconsistent the dates are, I think the best explaination was that it wasn't known.

Why is the census better than his marrage record?

 

I looked up the 1890 census and there was a 1 year old Harry Wills in New Orleans. Any of these records could have mistakes, but if he appears in the 1890 census, the issue is over. I have been going through the internet, and May 15, 1889 is on every single source I could find. I even found a photo from a Harlem paper of Wills in his casket in December of 1958, and it listed his age at death as 69, consistent with an 1889 birthday.

And for me the bottom line is why put a phony date on your gravestone?

 

Ray arcel. On wills, "he didnt hit anywhere near as hard as dempsey"

 

In hindsight Dempsey would have been wiser to avoid Tunney, and take the fight wit Wills.

You do hear the occasional quote from the guys that Wills hit, that make you think that his power was pretty good!

 

This content is protected

 

Unfortunately can't see the fight but supposedly Sharkey dominated all though .. thru or not I don't know but Wills was getting old ..

 

The book is amazing .. I am devouring every page ..