Even if you love Dempsey, it is time for a generation to accept -

And there's no question that Langford wasn't what he once was by the end, i'm also clear that there are diminishing returns. A lot has been said about only providing credit for "a few" win over Langford, arguably the greatest fighter of all time, top 25 HW on my list. Let's look.

In May of 1914 Wills beat a Langford who is between wins over Jim Johnson and recently beat Joe Jeanette, recently unbeaten. Wills beat Langford again at the end of 1915. Langford was still beating the best having recently beaten Jim Johnson again, and drawn with McVey. He would soon beat Wills in a revenge match, but not before Wills has again beaten Sam Langford. Do you give full credit for all of these wins? Or not? He is still beating the best in the division, and Wills is beating him. The following year, Wills would beat Langford again, a Langford who was beating men of the calibre of Jeff Clark, who had just fought Johnson to a draw and beaten Norfolk (but lost to McVey).

I think some posters are trying to downgrade Wills' achievment in dominating Langford at this time by suggesting that the man was past his prime and there to be taken. Results do not reflect this, at all. Langford is still very active, still beating (and losing to) the best men in the division, but being beaten over and over again by a peaking Wills.

I think full credit should be provided for no less than six, and arguably more, wins over Sam Langford, who I personally rate higher at HW than any fighter Dempsey ever faced, never mind beat. Having said that, I don't think it is unreasonable to rate Sharkey over Langford, but it's not my position - and i don't think my position is unreasnoable.

Even if we only consider Wills' wins over Langford in comparison to Dempsey's best wins, Wills' best wins are superior In my opinion.

Now let's look at McVey. When McVey was beaten by Langford had been beaten by nobody aside from Sam Langford since 1909. That's a period of five years, including a draw with Sam, victories over Jim Johnson. He would pick himself up after the Wills loss and go on a run including victories over Johnson and Langford, fighting a draw with Jeanette and then defeating Wills in a rematch. He would then lose to Wills in a rubber match. In short, he was in his prime, and Wills beat him twice. He would fight and lose to Wills one or two more times, but this was a more washed up version.

So add two Mcvey Wins to however many Langford wins you are giving credit for.

Jeannette. The first time Wills beat Jeannette he was a few months removed from a win over a lighter Carpantier, a draw and a loss against Langford. He had victories over Lanford and Jim Johnson in his immediate future as well as a two year unbeaten run ended by Sam. In short, Jeanette was at or near his prime. Wills beat him again when Jeanette was winding down.


So let's say 8-11 wins over fighters that make my top 30 list, which is far from infallable, i'm sure, but I am confident is not unreasonable. They are three of the best fighters of Wills' generation.


Before we even get into the second tier of Wills' competition he has swamped Dempsey's resume. Surley this is nearly inarguable?

 

Thank you I was beginning to think I was alone in this world.

 

Very fair and true. All I can say is that Dempsey himself would probably answer that he would truthfully and honestly expect to lose a couple to Sam if he mixed with the man as many times as Wills did. But your point stands.

 

I think this is invalid. Langford proved himself a slayer of bigger men throughout, I would suggest that only the very, very best big men would be matched 15 times with Sam and not expect to be toppled more than once. I think Sam proved what he could do at HW.

This is interesting though. I hate to misdirect what has been a pretty decent, concentrated and mostly civil discussion, but where do guys think Wills lies head to head? It's interesting to be because I think he has one of the best resumes at HW AND there is no film of the man at his best in popular circulation - what sort of area do you put Wills in this area?

 

Fair enough chum.

About the Jeanette thing, he was getting on, but look what he did AFTER Wills beat him.

Green W TKO3
Johnson W10
Bill W KO9
Johnson ND
Tate W KO6
John Johnson W10
Tate KO2
Williams KO5
Hawkins W10
Pelkey W KO8
Langford W12
Brooks W KO4
McVey D
Johnson ND
Cotton W KO2

And finally Langford beat him, the first man to do it in two busy years. It's not bad.

 

I tend to agree with the Dempsey pick.

The point is, it's a bit of a desperate fall-back position for those wishing to rank Dempsey above Wills - and agenda position, if you like. I can see using head to head and skillset to seperate two fighters who are really close in terms of resume. But those who are claiming that Dempsey and Wills are close in this regard are not absorbing the reality, in my opinion.