Of the Black heavyweights of the 1920's could any defeat Dempsey?

By the same token, little research is needed to decipher the shift in Wills success when Langford & co got a little long in the tooth.

Without being unfair, a decent portion of a resume that many feels bests Dempsey's is littered with spent forces whereas the vast majority of Dempsey's key victories where over men at their peak.

Miske was previously bested, Fulton was beaten before Wills, as was Firpo etc. The holes that supposedly occur in Dempsey’s record aren't as criminal as some people make out.

Dempsey did not need to hide behind anyone, but he really was at the mercy of his manager who he greatly respected until money disputes ensued. Kearn's had the mouth and ballsy attitude to get the right fights and Dempsey was memorised by his conduct to the point he dressed exactly the same as the guy.

Dempsey self-proclaimed to have two left feet when it came to socializing, so it's understandable why he let somebody else take the drivers seat.

Tex Richard had this idea of 'preserving' Dempsey to squeeze all the financial potential out of him. Ploys like this ended up eroding much of what Dempsey really was, a gritty fighter who would fight anyone to get his head above water.

Wills was never revered by observers as the second coming as Jack Johnson or Dempsey was simply because he was not as good.

No amount of record nit-picking, which almost always steers clear of objectivity and rests upon bias can dispute the fact that Dempsey, as a fighter, had a fair bit more going for him than Wills. Newspaper reports are not in love with Wills; the favoured phrases of past to denote skill like 'possessing a greater science' are not so prevalent with Wills who hit his stride when his best challengers faded.

-Comparatively, Wills was very good, Dempsey was superb.

-Historically speaking, if you came to make an impression on Dempsey he had the dynamic to put an end to it. Wills liked to wrestle and pressure fighters, again without any bias, that should be considered a bad idea against Dempsey.

-Chronologically speaking, Dempsey rode with and saw out Wills prime. Had the 1924 title fight came off, this conversation may be about a fight in 1919.

Wills more than deserved his shot, for that there is no question, but this subject usually, unrightfully goes down the path to undermine Dempsey’s career, to which he happily let others dictate.

 

Excellent post!

 

You could easily argue the same about Dempsey given that he was fighting smaller men with knocks against them or bigger, slower, underskilled men. It wasnt until he faced Tunney that he met a guy who had the combination of size and skills that had been lacking in Dempsey's previous challengers. And the fact remains that Dempsey's people (and it cant be blamed on Kearns this time because he was gone by now) picked Tunney because they felt he was a light punching, overcautious light heavyweight who would wilt in front of the terror that was Dempsey. In short, they had begun to believe their own myth. When the rubber hit the highway Gene and Jack had almost identical measurements and what no Dempsey fan EVER wants to hear is that Dempsey was still only 31 and in his physical prime. He looked bad in his final three fights because he was finally facing guys who were in their prime, in shape, and had skills to go along with their other intangibles. I have always found it funny that Dempsey gets a pass for losing to Tunney at 31 and yet a 37 year old Wills who had been fighting three years longer than Dempsey at least is called to the carpet for losing to Sharkey. Which brings me to another point, one can argue all they want that Wills preserved his status as a contender by fighting retreads much like Dempsey preserved his championship in the same manner (I dont agree but...) but the fact is that Wills has the moral high ground in this argument. It is Dempsey who proclaims to be the best as champion who is supposed to fight the toughest guys around and prove hes the baddest man on the planet. Wills had that position and he deserved the fight but was ducked for any number of reasons you can invent. You cant just keep a challenger waiting around for year after year in hopes that he gets old and beaten (which is exactly what Dempsey wanted and what happened) without people wondering why you wanting other fighters to do what you should have done.

 

Dempsey only faced smaller men or bigger slower men without skill?
What about Fulton in1918 ? Fulton was 6 6" with an 84 reach and had wins over
Jim Flynn ko
Porky Flynnko
Frank Moran ko
GunBoat Smith ko
Weinert ko
Cowler x2 ko
Pelkeyx2 ko
and wins over Weinert,Morris

Dempsey looked bad against Tunney because he hadnt had a fight in 3 years.
Tunney a LHVY? Tunney was 1/2 a pound lighter than Dempsey.
Tunney light hitting?Tunney had 48 kos in 80 fights with stoppages over Madden and Gibbons the only man to accomplish this.Plus he kod Heeney.To suggest that a 31 year old Dempsey who had not fought in 3 years was prime is laughable.There are Frazier fans on here who will tell you that Joe was washed up at 29 the same age as Ali was for the FOTC .Swarmers like Dempsey, Frazier, Armstrong ,age quicker than pure boxers.

 

After he lost the title Dempsey stated that he wanted nothing to do with Tommy Loughran but had no problem with fighting Uzcdun, Stribling, Heeney or Sharkey as eventualy happened.

After Tunney retired Dempsey said that he thought George Godfrey was the best heavyweight remaining.

 

Dempsey was in million dollar gates do you think he would have got that for fighting Loughran a great boxer ,but hardly a crowd puller?

 

He could probably have got a million dollar gate fighting coco the clown.

Even so he would probably not have bothered with any challenger who didnt further his ambitions of regaining the title.

 

Some excellent arguments being made on both sides here. I still say that Wills was custom made for Dempsey but of course in HW there are no guaratees. Wills certainly should have gotten a shot at the title but I am certain it was not Dempsey who prevented this from happening. For what I have read it might have been Wills & Co.'s fault. More likely, it was management & politicians- as was stated afterward- wanting to avoid a Johnson-Jeffries type reaction.

 

Jeannette called out Dempsey for more than a year in various ways, including substituting for one of Dempsey's opponents. When he climbed into the ring (yes, a 38 year old man), Dempsey left the ring, was booed on his way out (so much for the supposed support of the color line) and gave boxing a black eye, according to a reporter.

And we all know he didn't want to fight Langford. At least Wills fought Langford.



And odds on a fight do mean a lot. They show how the fighters are perceived and they don't lie (or they wouldn't make profit). Clay being 8-1 against Liston shows exactly the reality of the situation: based on the fact that Liston was seen as invincible and that Clay nearly got his head taken off by a "lesser fighter" in Cooper, down against Banks and nearly beaten by Jones, he'd be chanceless against Liston.

And Miske was considered just as chanceless, only for the reason that he was terminally ill. This is a wildspread fact. The Brennan fight was a fake.

I don't think he drew the color line, he just drew the "good fighter" line, which explains why Greb didn't get his shot either.

 

:good I was unaware of the March 12, 1922 NY DAILY NEWS full page article of Wills & especially the PUBLIC poll/survey about the best contender to Dempsey. I have been refuting the garbage by some(a few here) that Jack Johnson was the reason that Blackas weren't allowed a title shot for 22 years after his reign. It is obvious that the public for the most part had NOT held WILLS or other BLACKS responsible for any behavior they deemed disagreeable by Jack Johnson . Less than 7 years after Johnson the PUBLIC is DEMANDING a Wills-Dempsey fight so those nonsensical arguments DON'T fly.
In the book "BEYOND THE RING" by Jeffrey Sammons it reads:

"(Nat)Fleischer persisted ,using the Ring Magazine to genrate PUBLIC support for a Wills-Dempsey ..Bout. By 1925...Wills manager had moved his fighter in position as a logical contender, & on the strenght of Wills record & "PUBLIC DEMANDS", the NY State Athletic commission by ,a 2 to 1 vote ruled that Dempsey would have to face WILLS" (pg/76)

NY DAILY NEWS has an article referring to the March 12 1922 article here
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/09/12/2003-09-12_the_man_who_didn_t_fight_dem.html

The article Daily News article on 1922 ends: "The clean life led by Harry Wills commends him to every respectable citizen. Surely a credit to his PROFESSION, & there ought NOT be any opposition to a meeting between him & the great White Champion, Jack Dempey. What do you say, boxing fans?" (The FANS say they wanted the fight). :happy

Now how can anyone still foolishly blame Johnson for the dodging done by Heavyweights, After Johnson? The color line excuse didn't even fly as early as '1922' with the PUBLIC. The Heavyweight belt was very very valuable & Dempsey & his handlers were not keen on risking it during his reign just like Johnson before him. Only with Johnson he had fought his tougest challengers 13 times with 1 loss(DQ) before he gained the belt . He beat every logical contender of his era except the younger Wills who only came into prominence after beating Langford for the colored belt in 1914(?)(Johnson was a 36 year old international fugitive by then & a year from losing his belt)

Amazing that people refuse to see that Dempsey was probably more business savvy than Racist & could really care less about the color line ,but instead used it as an EXCUSE to DODGE. PERIOD. Had only Firpo, Carpientier or the Spanish Uzcudun(sp?) had won the belt I truly believe at least one would have given a Black a title shot as early as the 1920's .

 

He didnt want to fight a prime Langford when he was 21 years old ,which is when his then manager John" the Barber" Reisler , proposed the fight,he turned down Gunboat Smith at the same time ,and for the same reason,so Reisler matched him with John Lester Johnson instead.Does that make him afraid of Langford?
On the subject of Dempsey you resemble Mendoza on Johnson ,Chris.Dempsey can do no right he avoids Greb who when Dempsey was Champ got the worst hiding of his life from Tunney ,then still a LH, he avoids a 40 year old Jeannette,I bet he dodged Peter Jackson too didn't he?

 

Strange I dont remember Dempsey defending his title against ANY of these guys. Oh wait, once he won the title he wasnt interested in defending it against people who had a snowballs chance in hell.

As for the supposed Tunney hiding (which is exaggerated) that came in 1925, just one year before Tunney faced Dempsey. what about the other six years of his reign? Furthermore, Im not arguing that Greb deserved the shot (although he certainly deserved it far more than anyone else who got it up to Tunney) Im arguing that Wills deserved it and didnt get it because Dempsey wasnt interested in facing someone who could beat him.

 

You would have to alow that Tommy Gibbons was a dangerous challenger.

 

Not in my opinion.

 

I think Gibbons was Dempsey's best challenger of the lot he faced but i also think the only reason he fought Gibbons was because Gibbons had been easily beaten by Greb in the elimination bout. I mean who attends an elimination bout and then decides to fight the loser!?