Dempsey kos Wills in 2 rounds 1924

A, you are correct ,Louis did fight most of the number "one" contenders'while champion, but he passed on all of the black fighters,who were as dangerous as the ACCEPTED #1 contenders. You are following the popular mantra, that
Louis fought the best fighters of his REIGN as champion. WRONG. I know
from the scuttlebut of those long ago days, that the black boxers I recall
such as LeeQ Murray, Harry Bobo,Lem Franklin, Curtis Sheppard, Elmer Ray, Turkey Thompson,etc, were as good or better than all of Louis's # 1 opponents,with a couple of exceptions. Number 1 ,in Louis's reign did not imply the best contender of those days, but the best "WHITE CONTENDERS",
with a few possible exceptions. Dempsey truly when champion from 1920 on
til Hollywood, never hooked up with only one VIABLE contender in Harry Wills
who was 31-32 at the time, and still on the verge of on the way down.
Truly just Wills, and Dempsey and Wills did sign for a bout...
Joe Louis truly could have fought and DID NOT fight,a slew of greater boxers
who happened to be black. I am not implying that Louis would have probably
lost to the black murderers row, but they were far more dangerous than 90%
of Louis's bum of the month club. So in conclusion ,why is the long dead
Manassa Mauler reviled today for not finally hooking up,with a 32 year old Harry Wills, whilst louis truly avoided, some of the very, very best fighters of his time,in his ELEVEN year reign.? Avoiding the likes of a Lee Q Murray, Harry Bobo, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Curtis Sheppard, Elmer Ray, Turkey Thompson,a prime Jimmy Bivens, all of whom the Brown Bomber never
tackled,is a HELLUVA,lot to be a source of criticism, than Jack Dempsey not hooking up with ONE contender of his time Harry Wills ,[though they did sign
for a bout]...It hurts me to be critical of Joe Louis, because in my heart of hearts, I believe it was his BRAIN trust who STAYED CLEAR of the black
murderers row, and NOT Joe Louis. And I truly believe that Jack Kearns and Tex Rickard ,guided Jack Dempsey's career also. Dempsey riding as a young hobo,with no damn food in his stomache, rode underneath the carriage of
trains,holding on for dear life,a slip meant instant death for young Jack.
Fighting a Harry Wills, would and did not cause any fear to this former
Western bar fighter. No sir, I say. Any of todays Dempsey naysayers, who give a pass to Joe Louis for avoiding the black Murderers Row entirely,
while pissing on the memory of Jack Dempsey who is accused of not
fighting a Harry Wills, are dead wrong and are marinated in poltical correctness today ! damn it , now for the super bowl...

 

True...it is quite enlarged(Wills/Dempsey) but the same guys will put Larry Holmes on a pedestal and Larry missed fighting co-champs of his era and top contenders such as Pinklon Thomas,Greg Page (who he gave up a version of the title not to fight) Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, Big John Tate, and Holmes never rematched Mike Weaver,(togh fight over the underdog with a 19-8 record) Tim Witherspoon (controversial), Truth Williams.....not all of these are Holmes fault although quite a contrast to Joe Louis as far as fighting the best

While I do wish Dempsey fought Wills (who I think he had the style to KO) I think Wills would have been a good test and deserved the chance but Dempsey is not at fault and like you said BB, Dempsey was fearless

 

Thanks B. I feel like i am talking in a void,stating my case. What I post on
ESB, trying to make my case, falls on deaf ears. Maybe, i should just fold my cards,and avoid tilting at windmills. Just watch the paint dry on my walls
and enjoy the fighters I have seen and read about,all my life in silence.
Let Dempsey's heirs defend his legacy from some of today's closed, and biased minds today. Damn frustrating for me...I am not versed in political correctness. cheers b...:good

 

Just because not everyone thinks Dempsey is the greatest ever doesn't mean they're biased. Jesus Christ. He has a patchy record and looks quite good on film. It's not worth salivating over.

 

None of the black fighters you named were "great" nor did they legitimately make it to the top of the rankings like Harry Wills (a man who arguably went unbeaten for a decade). They won and lost some, and failed to force a fight with Louis when it came down to it (for example Franklin in an eliminator against Bob Pastor, after which he went onto lose time and time again). I've gone through this so many times that it's a wonder someone still blames Louis for "ducking" these men. Not to mention he spent time in the army when most of these men were at their best, one surely cannot blame a man for serving his country. Jersey Joe Walcott proved to be the best of the lot, and Louis fought him twice.

Louis did defend against some inferior boxers, but he defended his title 25 times. We can give him a break, as he fought all the top men as well. Dempsey on the other hand defended his title but 5 times in 7 years, and not once against the top contender until Tunney. There's a lot to criticize about that.

 

very true, its very hard to critisize louis's record, dempsey on the other hand...

 

I want to put this subject to rest, but i have to respond. You say "none" of the black contenders were "great".Maybe so, but EACH one were far more dangerous than MANY of Louis's opponents.Far more DESERVING of a shot at Louis than a Red Burman, Johnny Paycheck,Harry Thomas,etc..Even before Louis went into the Army there were many black fighters,though not "great",
were better than some of Joe's opponents. This cannot be denied. Was it a
COINCIDENCE that Louis ,aside from his pal, Light Heavy JH Lewis, never fought a man of color .The record says NO.At that time,this fact was whispered scuttlebut. Dempsey on the other hand is accused today of not
boxing just one black PRIME contender, Harry Wills,though they did SIGN
for a fight,which was cancelled through no fault of Dempsey.
Joe Louis had the greatest reign of any heavyweight champion in length oif time he DOMINATED his division.He was my hero, but his braintrust
never tackled some very, very superior fighters,to the Louis bum of the month club,and that is a fact. Dempsey in all honesty,never hooked up with just one
black viable contender from 1920 on.Thesubjectof this post is not who had
a better heavyweight reign,but why is there double standards for one and not the other,after all these years ?:good

 

They're not double standards. Louis abandoned the "color line" and did fight the best black contender around, while Dempsey didn't for the 7-8 years he spent as champion. Sure Louis fought some bums in between but you cannot expect him to have fought the best each time around. The difficultiess with an all "black" heavyweight title fight were also obvious so it's not like Louis was chasing to fight a Harry Bobo or Curtis Sheppard, they had to make a case to fight him like Jersey Joe Walcott did. Louis for the most part bounced around these men in public boxing exhibitions so he hardly had any fear of their abilities, it's just that the fights didn't make enough sense.

A Wills vs Dempsey fight did make sense, but Dempsey didn't exactly push for the fight to happen, he was happy to hide behind his managers and promoters and enjoy the Hollywood lifestyle he was living. Louis on the other hand kept defending the title at a rapid pace aside from the time he spent in the army. One was a prime example of what a champion should be, while the other was a prime example of what a boxer can become when the money and fame gets into his head.

 

100% with you on everything you say Burt :good Don't even waste your fingers typing responses to GreatA (his name is pretty apt I'm thinking)

Dempsey would've flattened Wills anyway - Wills was flattened by Paulino Uscudun on film he doesn't look great - and he got flattened a couple of times by a virtually blind Sam Langford - Dempsey would've anihiliated him. But then he was black so the fact that this fight (that Dempsey would've won fairly easily IMO) never went ahead - and he was black - means that Dempsey slides all the way down and out of the top 10 :bart:deal what's so silly about that? :think

 

Discussing a boxing matter in a boxing forum is not a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. I respect burt and his opinions and I'm sure he does likewise. This doesn't need to be another classless trading of insults which you admittedly very much excel at, so take your campaign elsewhere.

The key matter here is that he didn't. Sonny Liston flattened Floyd Patterson twice but we wouldn't know if they never fought. At the same time we've seen great fighters thought to be invincible lose to inferior fighters.

Wills was near 40 against Uzcudun and a young man when he first faced Langford, a lot of stuff happened in between. Having some objectivity would make people treat you with more respect.

 

Well, I know which one ended up the best.

 

Great A.
1 Louis, aside from his pal,JH Lewis, who was apporoaching blindness,never fought any
dangerous black challengers until 1947,when louis gave Joe Walcott,a shot at his crown.
2 There were many viable black contenders at all stages of Joe's illustrious career, who were far more superior fighters than the likes of a Harry thomas, Red Burman,Al McCoy, Jack Roper, who Louis did fight. Was this a sheer coincidence,or carefull planning to take the least risk, for the most money ? I am not saying that Joe Louis personally was reluctant to engage with a Lem Franklin, Curtis Sheppherd, Harry Bobo, Lee Murray etc.
who I believe might have been a champion in these tepid heavyweight times.Theses babies
could hit ! But his braintrust avoided these guys. This cannot be denied.
3 Dempsey,as I posted did sign for a bout with Harry Wills, that was cancelled, and Wills
pocketed $50,000 deposit. So Jack for whatever reason,never hooked up with the ONE viable black contender,as as stated by 1920-21 the great trio of Sam Langfoird, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey,were in their twilight of their careers, and Jeannette was retired.
So why is Dempsey villified today for not hooking up with Wills, and Joe Louis is given
a pass ,for never tackling a slew of dangerous black contenders til Joe Walcott, when
Louis was already 33 years old.? The Louis team did what they thought woulkd bring the most money to Louis with the least amount of risk.Nothing wrong with that...After all to
them boxing was a business. But Dempsey, as TOUGH and rugged as any fighter who ever
lived, is condemned to scorn today, by close minded posters, because of truly not hooking up with one fighter Harry Wills,though they DID SIGN.
4 The fact that Dempsey had relatively few title defenses,could be understood if you started
your young boxing career as a hobo, while bouncing from town to town underneath train carriages,looking to make money fighting in bars, for food. Then you catch a break, fibnd a Jack Kearns, ko your way to the title, finally making money. After a couple of years and making dough,Dempsey now an idol saw Hollywood beckon, and starlets waiting with open
[ whatever ], Jack gave into the lure of La Dolce Vita. After so many years of deprivation,
who can blame him ? I. can't ...

 

People do treat me with respect generally - its just the GreatAholes that don't so stick your advice up your greatA so to speak (only joking but have always wanted to use that line, childish I know but hey)- ps it's strikes me as funny that you think Burt respects your opinions when he spent his last few posts slating them (and you likewise his)

PPS its also funny that you bring up Liston-Patterson as an example of a time when we wouldn't have known what would've happened had they not fought - I can't think of a more predictable outcome?? Everyone I've spoken to who was around at the time said the same thing - they predicted a quick blowout 1 or 2 rounds at most with that one but I accept it was just a poor pick from you

PPPS IMO Wills should've been young enough to beat a decrepid and near sightless Langford - Fulton could (and look what happened to him at the hands of Dempsey?) - fact is Wills got flattened to many times times for it to have been a fluke - unless you got a really really really great chin you aint going to survive for long in there was a raging Dempsey - Willard had one of (if not the) best chins of all time and look what happened to him and he may have been old against Uzcudun but - he really did get flattened by him - a fighter with a great chin wouldn't have gotten sparked that badly against someone like Uzcudun - infact I think he looked pretty easy to beat just stylewise against Uzcudun - I don't think it was so much age - he just had a stationary and unspectacular method - he didn't look at all like he'd be able to handle Dempsey - he just looked very open and very fragile to for his height and weight

 

You're mistaken. We had a disagreement, but neither of us insulted each other for it.

There were plenty of people picking Floyd Patterson, including Jack Dempsey. I guess he didn't know what he was talking about. The point is, if Liston didn't go onto knock Patterson out, all we could do is talk whether he could have done this or that. But he went and did it, and so it is. Dempsey can't claim imaginary wins over Harry Wills or Harry Greb or Gene Tunney.

You're getting your facts wrong again. Langford's sight didn't go until after the Fulton bout. Langford never won a fight against Wills after that. Wills was only legitimately stopped 4 times, twice by Langford (in the 19th and 14th rounds), once by Uzcudun (when Wills was 38 years old) and once very early on in his career.

Basically you're going by a film of Wills when he was simply put ancient for a boxer of those times. A late 1910's/early 1920's Wills would have been a different proposition.

 

A,just when I want to leave this subject, "you pull me right back in again ".
You claim that the Harry Bobos, Lem Franklins, Curtis Sheppards, Lee Q Murrays, had to "prove "THEMSELVES, [as if their ko records weren't enough]
whilst a Red Burman, Harry Thomas, Jack Roper, Johnny Paycheck, Al McCoy,
all white bums of the month club,did PROVE themselves. How did these guys
prove they were contenders ? Simply, by avoiding the likes of the black
murderers row...
You then state A,it didn't make sense for Louis to fight a black heavyweight,because of "obvious" reasons !.What are these "obvious" reasons
you imply ? Really are your "unstated" reasons for Louis not to give at least one of those feared black punchers, a title shot, more VALID than the great
FEAR that Rickard and Jack Kearns believed that a reccurence of race riots'
all over the nation following the Jeffries- Johnson fight in Reno, just a decade before, might ensue. ? If you were the promoter those days,wouldn't you be concerned . You sure would A. So truly Jack Dempsey's braintrust had a helluva a more valid reason to risk a Dempsey/Wills bout,for fear of violence
than Joe Louis's ,avoidance of the black challengers, because as you so aptly
stated," it didn't make sense ". Why Not ?
Another thing A.You stated that Dempsey fought as a champion 7-8 years.
How so ? As the champion Dempsey fought from 1920 to 1923 when he kod
Luis Angle Firpo.From then on he was INACTIVE for over 3 years. IUn the 3 years Dempsey was an active champion he defended his title,five times, or almost twice a year.He kod Billy Miske, Big Bill Brennan, Georges carpentier,
Decisioned Tommy Gibbons, and flattened Firpo. So A, from 1920 to 1923, while active,before the Hollywood starlets beckoned, who did Dempsey flee
from.? Louis in my opinion gave less opportunities to fight dangerous black fighters than a Dempsey did. Of course Joe Louis fought much more contenders than Dempsey did. But not worthy black contenders, which is what this thread was supposed to be about...take care...