Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

:good

 

"How come black fighters didnt draw the colour line?"
How many black promoters where there?
Don't you know the Golden Rule?
" Them thats got the gold ,makes the rules"

 

its virtually impossible to argue with these modern "experts" who accuse him of being a coward.

 

So who then would you consider top 5 heavyweight in the world 1918-1919? Please provide a list. It seems Dempsey beat ONLY fulton and no one else worthy top 5 spot. He did not beat Harrry Greb who was top 5.

You are totally relying on this one win over Fulton as though dempsey did not need to accomplish anythign else just by beating fulton. I disagree and so does history, considering fulton was not a good fighter and got beaten up by harry wills.

Doubt it. After this fight Jeanette went on a 17-0 winning streak with multiple wins over Sam Langford

You know what I am going to take a different approach


Take a look at 1928 Ring Magazine ratings.

1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcuden
4. Jack Sharkey


THATS 3 out of the top 4 challengers HALL OF FAMERS...No exuse for tunney to leave without fighting one of them. Especially sharkey who was beating up dempsey just as badly as tunney was before getting fouled out, or godfrey a man he had been ducking since 1925. Tunney never fought a fighter as big as godfrey. Tunney drew the color line, never fought a black fighter. this is a punishble offense.

Wills resume is much better. He beat very good versions/ near prime versions of Sam langford Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvea all when Wills was a novice and the latters were much more experienced. These 3 were considered the top contenders for johnson crown when Wills beat them. these 3 are arguebably better wins than anything dempsey has on his resume. 1914 langford is better than 1917 langford that fulton beat. How bout the way Wills dominated knocked down twice Firpo winning every round, while dempsey was knocked down 3 times once out of the ring and had to be saved by typewriter. Wills also dominated and knocked out kid norfolk in 2, which is better than demspseys win over billy miske. Wills dominated both top black fighters and the top white fighters WILLING to face him. dempsey only beat top white fighters.

2ndly, comparing jack sharkey result is irrelevant. Wills was 37 and way over the hill when he fought sharkey. Dempsey was much younger and still was getting the **** beaten out of him and lost nearly every round before hitting jack inna balls and fouling him. this win has some controversy.


Bottom Line: we look at the quality of there wins. Fulton cancels out. the only very good fighter Dempsey beat was jack sharkey. Wills beat Sam Langford Sam Mcvea and Joe Jeanette. Sharkey is the only fighter dempsey beat(that wills didnt) on there level. But thats only one win. Wills has a 3 to 1 edge here.

 

No, some highly rated white fighters using it to avoid taking certain high risk/ low reward fights. That's not the same thing. Again, you're taking one thing and making an inference about something else based on it.

Why? You've featured no shortage of "sensationalism" throughout your posts.

You ASKED me why Fulton's win over Langford was or should be considered more impressive than Wills'. I simply gave you the answer to your question.

By the time Wills was finally able to stop Langford, Fulton had already moved on and was distinguished as the top contender.

He only had to survive four rounds in order to do that. I don't think Wills ever stopped him in that short a span either.

It means much because those five wins alternated with getting KO'd or being held to a draw with Langford. And it especially means much because Wills failed to get more than a draw the month prior to Fulton completely outclassing Langford.

Although I sorta see your point, your scenerio doesn't fit in with this one. Fulton was never floored by Langford, or reportedly given any trouble with him (and in fact floored him), unlike Dempsey against Firpo.

According to Sam himself and the people around him, among other reports, his eyesight problems didn't start until after the first Fulton fight, and probably as a result of it.

I thought you just said you don't like "sensationalism." :think

You JUST said that Langford's eyesight was made much worse by his loss to Fulton. How is it that Wills KO'd the "same version" of Langford that Fulton did in your book, even though you just said Langford was "made worse" by the Fulton fight?

If you're going to speculate, wouldn't you guess that the Langford that drew with Wills a mere month before being crushed by Fulton, was much closer in quality/form to the one Fulton beat than a version a full year (plus several fights and one horrific beating) afterward?

Why?

And how do you know Morris "didn't know how to fight"? Did you ever actually see him?

They apparently didn't know it too well, as a majority of them picked him to beat Valdes.

But regardless, you're saying that you don't actually know any of this yourself, and are simply going by someone else's personal opinion/assessment of the matter, correct?

And yet you can find people who felt the same way about each of those fighters he was beating then as Garfield did about Jackson. Heck, you could probably find people who thought that way about Valdes himself at the time he was upset by Powell - a shot or badly faded fighter just waiting to be "re-exposed." Certainly, most people generally felt he was used up by the time he was thrown in with Liston.

Because he quit boxing and joined the army for roughly a year-and-a-half after getting that #3 ranking.

More to the point, you're saying that you don't actually KNOW whether he was a contender or not at the time he fought Valdes, correct? You looked at something else and then made an assumption off of that, correct?

You already have "proof" because you own a copy of The Boxing Register and you know it shows that Valdes was not a contender at the time Liston fought him. Moreover, I don't see why I need to dig up "evidence" for something that is truth and which you should've researched youself before making your own claim in the first place. On top of that, you've been in debates about Valdes before and other posters have also pointed out to you that he wasn't a rated contender at the time he fought Liston, so this isn't the first time you've heard that. Yet despite all that, you still persevere in claiming he was a contender at that time.

I'd like to know, where did you get the notion that Valdes was a contender at the time Liston fought him, and what has made you steadfastly stand by that despite evidence/suggestions to the contrary?

But you claimed the London fight showed he was still a dangerous puncher. What is the indication that he was still a dangerous puncher in this fight in which he won by cut stoppage rather than any kind of KO?

No, merely pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Why do you say it was close? Have you seen it?

I've never seen or heard of anything saying it was a close fight. All accounts say Valdes beat him decisively. Even Charles himself has said on numerous occasions that he took a "licking."

The NY Times reported that Valdes' camp made on offer to Marciano's team in late '53, when he was the #1 contender. The Times also closely chronicled the efforts of Valdes' team and the IBC to make the fight from mid '54 (after Valdes KO'd Jackson) onward. Ultimately, Weill decided against it and went with Cockell instead, who was lesser rated, lesser regarded, and even lesser known in the US at that time.

And incidentally (seeing as you wanted to know "all" the times) Marciano was also offered a big money fight with Valdes in Havana, after Valdes stopped Cockell.

No, it's called stalling. Whether it's justified or not, whether it's really a bad thing or not, or whatever other opinion/spin you have on it, that doesn't change what it fundamentally is.

When other fighters have done similar, you've criticized them for it, without looking at or giving any regard to anything else involved. But here, you look to try to justify it and put a positive spin on it. How come you don't extend the same courtesy and objectivity to all fighters, instead of just certain ones?

No, Valdes was considered a viable challenger even earlier than that, in July of '54 after he KO'd Jackson. Marciano's team chose to rematch Charles instead. Following that 2nd Charles fight, in autumn '54, the NBA issued a statement declaring that Valdes was the only standout challenger for Marciano. Despite all that, Weill made his first defense of '55 against Cockell instead, even though he rated lower than Valdes in the rankings, and was far less thought of by the American public and media.

 

Yes, I've read that article by Encinosa, he used it as his obit for Valdes I believe.

So in other words, you're acknowledging that there indeed was criticism for Marciano not fighting Valdes, and you're taking one person's word for why that criticism is either unwarranted or inaccurate, correct?

Even assuming that's true, it still doesn't substantiate your earlier points that he was
1) still held in the same regard as in the early '50s, and
2) still a rated contender at the time he fought Liston.

What do you mean "only"?? You just named three other fighters he turned down, one of whom was rated in the bottom 10 at the time - and that's not including Liston, who he turned down as well.

What are the standards for making rankings that are supposed to encompass an entire 2-year stretch? It contradicts the whole point of rankings, which is to continually change to reflect the continually changing landscape of the division.

No, "history" acknowledges that Dempsey did beat several contenders in his rise to the top and was far and away the clear cut #1 challenger for Willard's title at this time. He accomplished as much as Liston did in earning his top ranking, and was every bit acknowledged as the consensus #1 as Liston was.

But you don't actually know, correct? You're just making an assumption?

Why? Why is it your objective to find "approaches" to discrediting a fighter? And why wouldn't you make it a point to learn the information BEFORE you formed an opinion on a fighter, rather than forming the opinion first and then learning what things actually were as you go?

No, this is the FEBRUARY 1929 rankings. It says on the top of that ranking that the title was already vacant by this time, correct? This is how the rankings looked 6-7 months AFTER Tunney had already retired and vacated his title.

Since when is it the champion's responsibility to wait around for prospective challengers to maybe, someday earn their shots??

No he wasn't, he was getting roughed up on the inside and having increasingly more trouble keeping Dempsey off of him, whereas Tunney did progressively better as the fight progressed.

Moreover, Tunney had already given Sharkey three chances to get a shot at him (vs. Dempsey, Heeney, and Risko), and he blew them all. Earlier, you excused Marciano for not fighting Valdes because he eventually lost an "eliminator" to Moore, and put all the blame for that fight not happening on Valdes; yet you expect Tunney to have fought Sharkey in spite of three straight failures??

No, a man that he had bypassed for bigger fights and more highly rated contenders since 1925. "Ducking" is purely your own spin on it.

You have no basis for saying Tunney "ducked" Godfrey if Marciano not fighting Valdes does not constitute ducking in your book.

Fighting Harry Wills would've fulfilled both of those, but Wills kept turning him down. Why is it you give Liston credit for pursuing fighters who turn him down, but not Tunney?

No it isn't. The quality and the stature of a fighter's opposition is what matters when judging him. What the color of their skin happens to be doesn't.

No, Wills FAILED to beat Jeanette and McVey in the time that they were considered contenders for Johnson's title. It wasn't until after Johnson's reign was over that Wills started to beat those two.

No, they aren't even "arguably" the best wins on Wills' resume.

How much so? Have you actually seen him in that time, or are just assuming that?

And likewise, Dempsey's win over Gibbons must be far better than Wills' win over Norfolk.

Seeing as the majority of the top fighters in general were white at this time (including the champion and #1 contender when Dempsey came up) and through Dempsey's reign, how much of a difference is that supposed to make?

Wills had a notorious reputation in his time as a rough/dirty fighter, probably much moreso than Dempsey did. Why would you look to make an issue out of fouls in a Dempsey win but not do the same for Wills?

Why do you say that?

For example, Gibbons clobbered Norfolk, who you gave Wills credit for beating; also twice beat Clay Turner, who twice beat Norfolk that same year (at a time when you tried to claim Norfolk was a leading HW contender); he decisively whupped Carpentier, who Jeanette only got away with a close and highly disputed decision over at a time when you said Jeanette was a leading contender for Johnson's title; decisively beat Greb once, who you claim was a "top 5" HW contender at that time; also beat Billy Miske a couple of times, and was rated #2 in the division when the Ring debuted its rankings not long after Dempsey beat him. Certainly you've touted other fighters with less credentials than that. So what "disqualifies" someone like Gibbons from being at least on par, if not better than Jeanette or McVey?

 

"Langford and Jeannette were often mentioned as prospective challengers for Jack Johnson"

But not for Willard. ANYONE would have been viewed as an improvement over Johnson. Willard drew the color line immediately after winning the title. Do you have a single shred of evidence that any black fighter was considered as a title challenger for him?

In 1939 or so, Joe DiMaggio would have been "universally recognized" as the "consensus" greatest baseball player in the world, except by the black press and black fans who would probably have championed Josh Gibson. Most of the white press and white fans would not even have considered Gibson.

In the same way, Fred Fulton and Jack Dempsey were "univerally recognized" as the "consensus" top contenders. Most of the white press and white fans probably did not even consider Wills.

One fact I would like to know. When Fulton and Wills were matched in 1920, what were the odds? If you are right, Fulton should have been the overwhelming favorite.

 

Printed in the NY Times, December 20, 1917.

Headline: "Challengers for Willard"

"Jess Willard, world's heavyweight champion, brought forward a flock of challengers with his announcement the other day that he was willing and ready to defend his championship laurels in a bout, provided the match was held for the benefit of the Red Cross.

"Challenges are being issued by all and sundry heavyweights who have been striving since Willard won the title to get the Kansan's consent to a meeting. These include Fred Fulton, the Minnesota heavyweight; Bill Brennan of Chicago; Frank Moran, Pittsburgh's blonde boxer; Sam Langford, the veteran colored boxer of Boston."


Given that the black contenders like Langford, Jeanette, etc. were considered at the peak of their powers during Johnson's reign, it shouldn't be considered a surprise that they received more attention/acclaim then than they would several years later.

Believe I remember reading Fulton was the favorite, don't know the odds though.

 

Dempsey shouldnt be anywere near 3 all time .. Im as much a fan of Dempsey as anybody, but he could not handle boxers. Its a little too convenient to suggest that Tunney came way past Dempsey's best. Tunney virtually won every round in both fights, but everyone remembers 'The Long Count' round ..
Dempsey always struggled with boxers, he'd lose badly against Ali and Holmes specifically .. I also think he'd get beat by Louis and Lewis. We already know he wouldnt take on Greb and he got beat twice by Tunney.
I personally think he'd get done by Frazier and a pre-Ali Foreman .. I also think Ezzard Charles would beat him but im not so certain on Walcott, Marciano or Liston ....
Im a Dempsey fan but he should be at 7 or 8 at the highest, any higher and thats a fan's emotion talking .. Nobody will convince me that Dempsey beats Jack Johnson ..

 

appearently being knocked down by middleweight stanley ketchel or losing to marvin hart may convince you.

 

better than being knocked out COLD in the first round for SEVERAL seconds by a 37 year old journeyman and losing to a fat willie meehan

 

You'll cry to the moon that George Godfrey was "on the cuffs" any time he got his ears boxed but you'll stand here with a straight face and flog this bunkum like it's gospel?

 

Willard done won a decision over Moran in 1916. Its a shame, really, that Willard wouldnt defend the title until 3 years later, but then again, he did get a $150,000 contract with a circus and he boxed exhibitions. The position, imo, is more ideal promoting yourself safely as the HW champion doing exhibitions than risking the title.

I think, though, Jess more than made a gross mistake when he took on Dempsey. The matches with Morris and Fulton, other fellow giants, should have been a dead give away to Willard that the 'little man' could throw down.

 

dempsey took a dive vs Flynn and you know it.

Dempseys real record vs meehan should be 2 wins, 1 loss, and 2 draws. Dempsey was robbed in his final fight with Meehan despite fighting with an injured hand. Besides Meehan held victories over Langford and one more hall of famer i think

 

exactly, lol Godfrey was always on cuffs according to suzie , atleast whenever he lost