Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

Yes, Dempsey stated that the only man he feared was Sam Langford, BUT if they fought after Dempsey was Champion, I would favor Dempsey. I think Sam was past his prime at that time.

A couple of weeks ago they honored Joe Jeannette in his home town of Union City, New Jersey. They put up a plaque just outside of where he lived and also had his gym. I was the guest speaker and I told the story of the day Dempsey walked out of the ring on Jeannette at Madison Square Garden. They honored him on the 100th anniversary of his 49 round bout with Sam McVey.

 

Dempsey's prime was around 1919 -1923.You think he would have lost to Langford then?
Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford when he was still a young , hungry struggling comer a LH ,managed by John The Barber Reisler ,a notorious flesh pedlar.
No one doubts that many Black fighters were **** on big time , but being Black in that era ,or the Murderers Row era did not automatically make you a combination of Superman and Apollo Creed,Its time to change the record I think.
IMO. Prime Dempsey beats Prime Wills, Godfrey,Norfolk,Jeanette. Langford would be close.
Wonder how good Jack would have been if he was Black?

 

Well he'd still lose to Gene Tunney, but it would be because he was on the cuffs.

 

Gene Tunney never fought a black man. He drew the Color Line. he should be punished for that. His ducking of Godfrey was so obvious, I do not even need to go into that.

What does 1919-1923 have to do with anything? we are talking 1917. fact remains dempsey turned down a fight with sam langford in 1917 due to fear.

I believe prime for prime Dempsey would have knocked sam langford out. But thats not the point. the point is Dempsey DID NOT PROVE himself superior over these top black fighters who were better than the top white fighters of the era. He drew the color line, and ducked top fighters who happened to be black, and his legacy should take a hit for it.

 

Great stuff Henry. you do alot for the boxing community.

 

Fear of Langford's reputation as an elite fighter, or fear of Langford's negro-ness?

 

I absoluteley think they are better. Machen and Folley were both genuine HW top contenders for many years in a time where there was no colour line. And Patterson is just leagues above Willard. I actually think he would have done more or less the same to Jess (under those rules) that Dempsey did.

 

Fear of Langford and Jeanette beating him. It just so happens The black heavyweights of that era were better than the white ones, and dempsey did not fight any of the top black heavyweeights. he drew the color line. Just imagine if Joe Louis was kept out of a title shot for all those years because of a color line.

 

What proof is there of this? That Johnson beat a depleted Jeffries? Do you really think Jeanette was that good? All accounts I have read and his record leave me to believe he was only middling. McVea, likewise. Langford was great, but he is in another class entirely, black, white, whatever. Johnson was very good but in my opinion extremely over-rated. His legacy is inflated by an unconscionable amount excuses for a rather lengthy list of underwhelming performances. Furthermore, he was smart to handpick his opponents once he had the crown, which is exactly what Dempsey did. Yet, Johnson gets no real blame for fighting (are barely defeating) middleweights and hasbeens, while Dempsey gets excoriated. Furthermore, why is it that the estimation of one group of fighters is raised and that of another group is lowered merely by the fact they rarely fought one another?

 

Thanks, that night I gave a Eulogy for another former boxer.

My heart is heavy right now as I am still in Florida and my brother-in-law, Larry Kohan, who is more like a close brother, is on his death bed back in New Jersey. His son and daughters told me to stay in Florida because he doesn't want to see anyone. I will return late Monday BUT my heart wants to be with him.

Two years ago, my sister, his wife passed away and I again gave the Eulogy.

He is a self made man, as he was in foster homes, like myself and had no education, BUT he was one of the founders and owners of the 1st eyeglass department in the world. He owned Pearl Vision, Eyelab and Eyes BUT now at the age of 69, he only has days to live, if that.

Sorry, about telling you this BUT I think I owe it to him.

 

Nothing you've said here actually MAKES one group of fighters better than another. You're just making a generalization about one aspect of them, and using that to make an indirect assumption about their overall quality.

Folley had much more developed boxing skills than Henry Cooper and Doug Jones, but that didn't automatically make him better.

Machen was much slicker and more polished than Johansson, but he couldn't even last through a single round with him.

Bob Satterfield simply walked through Valdez's jab all night long and pounded him with right hand swings. Not much science there.

Sure, I suppose Williams could have "cleaned" Fulton's chin with a hook - unless Fulton cleaned Williams' chin with a right hand first.

Gibbons and Brennan do not look "primitive" at all on film. They show excellent technical ability, easily on par with many fighters of the modern era.

That's not something that can be seen just by looking on film. Just because a fighter "looks" better than another doesn't automatically make him better.

Besides, some of Dempsey's better opponents aren't even on film anyway. How do you know Patterson looked better than them? Or are you just assuming he looked better based on your earlier generalizations about fighters in different eras?

Well guess what, it was better than Liston's or Johansson's too. Didn't prove anything.

 

Exactly. He was only a couple years into his pro career then, basically just a clubfighter still on the way up. Why should he be expected to fight someone with all the experience that Langford had over him?

Once he had come into his own, he went after guys like Fred Fulton who were far better and more highly rated than Langford at that time.

 

nothing I can say will make them better, everything is speculation. You have to make up your own opinion. I have made up mine from watching film. If Willard, Firpo, Brennan walked into a gym today with there styles, they would be laughed out of the gymnasium. If machen and folley walked in today and boxed with there same styles, they would be classified as master boxers.

What did dempseys opponents have over Listons then? absolutley nothing in my estimation. Outside of Jack Sharkey, I dont see how any of Dempseys victims can compete with Machen, Folley, Williams, Patterson and even Valdez. For the most part, Heavyweight boxers in the 1920s did not know what combination punching was, they did not know what a high gaurd was, they did not know what a long stiff educated jab was, they did not know how to hook off a jab, they did not know what head movement was. I just can't see any of them outside of Jack Sharkey competing against the best of Listons era.

 

Where is your source that Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford in 1917?.Dempsey turned down a fight with Langford and Gunboat Smith in 1916,while he was managed by John Reisler.Dempsey agreed to fight ,John Lester Johnson instead.In his auto biography Dempsey states that Johnson cracked some of his ribs,"some thought I won ,some thought he won ".Dempsey hooked up with Kearns in 1917,Dempsey stated that when he met Kearns he weighed a skinny 165lbs, and was very run down,his first fight under Kearns management saw him lose a 4 rounder to fat Willie Meehan, why should Dempsey have taken on a still very dangerous Langford in 1916? It made no sense at all.Yet you castigate him for it.Have a pop at him for not fighting Wills but to take on Langford in 1916 would have been madness,Dempsey was a skinny ,struggling ,raw youngster.Woud you have put Chris Arreola in with Klitscko 2 years ago?

 

Sam Langford used to promote himself as "Willing to take on all comers, except Jim Jeffries."

What does that tell you?