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

At first thought I wasn't sure about this statement. Maybe it is debatable.

I do think Dempsey fought the best verison of Sharkey, who coming into the had won 11 matches in a row including wins over Risko, Godfrey, Wills, and McTigue.

 

Wills should have gotting that title shot, 7 years ago. He was number 1 for Dempsey's entire rein. Just because Wills "Finally" lost should not exuse the fight from not happing.

Even if Wills did beat Sharkey, Wills would not have goting the shot. He was promise samething in 1923, Wills won the fight, and it was Tommy Gibbions and Firpo that got title shots.

 

I would love to respond to this thread, but i got banned last night {for nothing, absolutely no idea what i done wrong ?} so i am walking on egg shells on this site at the moment, if i say anything about any American boxers i fear i could be banned again, portraying this sites home boxers in a bad light is the only reason I can think of that caused the ban, I only made out that perhaps some current American boxers have question marks about their greatness and I get banned :roll:, no swearing no rudeness, no links to other sites, nothing and i got banned :-(}

 

I wouldn't say his career on the whole was "insanely difficult." Frustrating, yes, but that's not the same thing. He did have a rough time in his earlier years, when he was fighting more experienced fighters like Langford and that ilk, but after that he spent much of his career blowing out has-beens and second- and third-raters, interspersed with wins over higher tier contenders. By today's standards he'd be criticized for tomato picking.

Holmes coming out of retirement makes that comparison completely incomparable. The period from around 1920/1921 to 1926 (when he lost to Sharkey) is when Wills was distinguishing himself as the outstanding contender and when a fight between him and Dempsey was on the table. This is the time frame in which Dempsey is being criticized for not fighting him. It's the time when Wills was considered at his most impressive and the most highly regarded by his contemporaries, and that's where the bulk of the attention should focus on him.

Gibbons or Carpentier aren't considered great or near-great?

Gibbons certainly was one of the most respected fighters of his day and is often mentioned as one of the best never to win a title, alongside the likes of Langford.

What is the basis for rating McVey and Jeanette so highly? They fought most of their careers within the same exclusive circle of fighters, and rarely (if ever) saw their talents tested/proven outside of that circle. They came off as clear second bests in their rivalries with Johnson, Langford, and Wills. Their legacies are based as much on their reputations and who supposedly "ducked" them as anything they actually did and proved in the ring.

One of the few times that either of them fought outside their circle, when Jeanette fought Carpentier, he only won by close, disputed decision, despite having a roughly 20 pound weight advantage. Compare that to the way other HOFers like Billy Papke and Frank Klaus had already whupped Carpentier just before that, or how decisively others like Dempsey, Tunney, and Gibbons beat him afterward - with only Dempsey having a weight advantage similar to Jeanette's.

I don't know, but I wouldn't give Dempsey any more credit for beating Gibbons another 8 times after the way he dominated him the first time. Nor do I sense many people would give him additional credit either (especially given that most people don't even give him credit in the first place).

But that's exactly what a RESUME is, the names on a record.

The number of different names on a record is what makes a resume, more than the number of times you fight what names are on there.

Dempsey proved himself against a broader range of quality opponents, including HOF-quality opponents.

Actually, it isn't "factual" because technically, whether or not a fighter is great is an opinion.

However (and more to the point) many times that Wills was fighting one of the fighters listed above, he was not considered to have a great fighter in the ring with him by any standards.

For example, Fred Fulton twice beat Sam Langford at around the same time when Wills was only just beginning to distinguish himself from him. When Fulton fought Langford a second time (following his KO loss to Dempsey), the fight was generally considered a set up for him and dismissed as a joke. Yet this was the same Langford that Wills was fighting another 10 times or so in around this time and through years afterward. Beating Langord all those additional times didn't do anything for his standing in the division. When Wills beat Fulton in 1920, it was considered his biggest win up to that time and against his highest rated opponent thus far - not any of the wins he had scored prior to that. Beating Fulton is what made Wills a standout top contender, not any of his wins over Langford and that ilk.

What about their respective "styles" am I dismissing? If anything, Dempsey was at a much bigger stylistic disadvantage than Wills was vs. Sharkey, as Dempsey had just been outboxed clearly by Tunney, and had previously struggled with a boxer like Brennan even back at his peak. Conversely, from what I understand, Wills' style forced Sharkey to be uncharacteristically aggressive and take it to him much more. That Dempsey won and Wills didn't does not alter what the stylistic match-ups were in those fights, it's merely an argument for Dempsey being the better fighter regardless of styles.

 

This isn't accurate at all.

The only time Wills was fighting at a higher class was around 1914-1917, which were Dempsey's first few years as a pro.

In 1918, the consensus top contender was Fred Fulton, not any of the guys Wills was fighting. Dempsey blew through him in about 20 seconds. Dempsey also beat a few other guys that were rated at least on par with, if not better than Wills' opponents, like Miske, Brennan, Carl Morris, etc. He also KO'd the "unknockoutable" Battling Levinsky, who had the distinction of being the universally recognized light-heavy champ.

In 1919, the undisputed, universally recognized champion of the world was Jess Willard, and Dempsey toppled him that year.

In 1920, Dempsey defended his title against a well-regarded leading contender in Miske, and lesser regarded but still rated Brennan. That same year, Wills scored what was considered his biggest win up to that time against Fulton, which was probably on par with either of Dempsey's wins that year - but Dempsey had already crossed that bridge two years earlier.

In 1921, Dempsey beats the highly regarded Carpentier, considered the reigning light-heavy champ and a legitimate HW contender, in one of the biggest fights in history up to that time. Meanwhile, Wills spends the year beating on dead horses like Gunboat Smith and Ed Martin.

After that, Dempsey beats Gibbons and Firpo who are both considered legitimately rated contenders. In around that same time, Wills also beats Firpo (after Dempsey already had) and Charlie Weinert (who had only just broken into the ratings), but Gibbons was generally the most highly regarded of any of the fighters either one fought in that time - as evidenced by the fact that The Ring had him rated the highest contender in the division outside of Wills, when it first debuted its rankings around that time.

Tunney then enters into the picture by beating Gibbons, and then tries to make a match with Wills. Wills nixes the fight, and instead chooses to fight a lower rated fighter in Sharkey while Dempsey defends against Tunney. After each man loses, Dempsey fights Sharkey (now one of the highest rated contenders in the division) and then goes after Tunney (the undisputed world champion). Meanwhile, Wills fights Uzcudun, just a rising prospect at best.

 

But his win over sharkey was controversial since he hit him in the balls twice in a row with hard left hooks reminiscint of bowe-golota

 

The only reason tunney's camp challenged Wills in 1925 was because they were petrified of George Godfrey and wanted no part of him, so they went after a poor 37 year old Harry Wills instead. Kevin Smith author of unforgiveable blackness said it was also a decoy and tunney had no plans of fighting Wills either.

 

Because it directly addresses and disproves your claim that Wills fought at the higher level of comp. throughout their careers.

What "angle" did you look at to arrive at that conclusion?

 

"there is no avoiding it. Wills defintley has the better resume. He beat 3 guys Sam Langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea who were clearly better than anyone dempsey beat outside of Jack Sharkey. The top white fighters Fred Fulton and Luis Firpo, Harry Wills had his way with them too. Not to mention He blasted out Kid Norfolk, another top man Dempsey should have fought, but didn't."

These facts, more than anything, prove that The Brown Panther does indeed have a better resume than the Mauler. You beat these guys, you were the best - period. No arguments whatsoever.

Dempsey said he was eager to fight Wills "Because it would have been an easy fight. He was slow, I was fast, it would have been over quickly." I tend to disagree with this... Wills would have given him a TOUGH fight.

 

The left hook that kod Sharkey landed on his chin.

 

Billy Gibson,Tunney's manager said we will fight Wills ,and the winner meets Dempsey,Wills declined.If Kevin Smith said otherwise he is wrong,and he did not write "Unforgiveable Blackness",it was written by Geoffrey C Ward. The film was directed by Ken Burns ,with a hell of a lot of input from Randy Roberts author of" Papa Jack"