How good was Dempsey's title reign?

We've been through this at length on this forum and the quetsions "who?" and "when?" tend to prove this statement a falsehood. That is, at no time were any of these fighters the#1 contender, and the timeline tends to show they were elininated. So you name a fighter, I say "when?" and it throws you off, is how it will tend to work.

On the other hand, Wills was basically Dempsey's #1 contender for his entire reign.

You say this, but Louis fought more top 3 contenders than any champion ever, many of them the #1.

So, the comparison doesn't hold, at all.



Still, as a question it's an interesting one. If Dempsey is being persecuted, why? So far the only answer I can see that you guys would see is his failure to fight Wills and a sort of indignant anti-racism stance. But that doesn't feel right to me to be honest.

 

OK, let's hear it.

 

Fulton was clearly eliminated before Dempsey even lifted the title.

I haven't seen those, but I have seen articles written in 1925 where Dempsey names Wills "the only fighter" he wants to fight (#1 contender in any other language), articles that describe Dempsey signing articles with Wills in 1925 for a fight in 1926 and last but not least details of a proposed fight between Gene Tunney and Harry Wills with the winner of the fight being matched with Dempsey in 1925 - this may indicate that Wills had slipped to the #2 spot with Tunney regarded as #1 but it as likely indicates the reverse.

To me, Wills status seems as nearly cemented as the champions. He needed to be eliminated and wasn't. There are exceptions in the papers, but most of these appear as Wills began to fade towards the end of Dempsey's career - still, he was the near universal choice to meet the champion.

This was written in mid 1925 -

"A few months ago, Tunney would have been considered no match for Wills, but since Gene knocked out Tom Gibbons he has commanded more respect."

This seems rather typical to me. If Wills, having not matched anybody really good for some time in early 1925 was regarded as being to good for an emerging Tunney, AND is being perpetually linked with the champion for fights, what other way is there to describe him but #1 contender?

 

You may see it that way, the press of the day seems mostly to disagree, I think:

"Speaking of possible opponents there is only one in sight currently with a ghost of a chance...Harry Wills. Many ring followers regard Wills as the best of the surviving heavyweights, Dempsey of course, being the notable exception."

That's a Newark paper in July of 1919.


The Evening News of around the same date mentions Carpantier as a fighter who would draw a gate but says that "of American fighters none of white blood seem to have a ghost of a chance. Harry Wills, the black might give him an argument but there is the colour line."


It's hard to find articles that mention Fulton as a contender, and Wills is repeatedly mentioned as the only fighter capable of extending Dempsey.

And the calls got louder and louder.

Let's say you are right and Wills is not the clear #1. He is still very much in the argument.

He was, and no it didn't.

Forgive me Janitor, but this is nonsense. The following is exclusively press from 1922, only after the Tate debilces:

"It is taken for granted in boxing circles that if Wills knocks out Norfolk he will be matched with Dempsey...next labour day."

The Evening Day, July


"Harry Wills stands out as the most formidable contender for Jack Dempsey's heavyweight championshipt."

The New York Times, August.


"Dempsey doesn't seem troubled by a fight with Wills and he shouldn't be. Wills might be, and perhaps is the best contender for the title in the heavyweight ranks but he doesn't stand a chance."

Even this very negative slant taken by the Daily Herald doesn't question Wills's status as #1. This is from September.


"Who will be Jack Dempsey's next opponent? Harry Wills has already qualified as a contender."

Meridan Daily, March (after the DQ loss before the draw)



"Jack Dempsey will sign articles to meet Harry Wills, the New Orleans negro, who is conceeded to be his foremost title contender."

New York Times, July



It goes on and on and on in this vein.

Tate did not affect Wills standing.

At all.

He was qualified, and locked into the spot.

 

He was hammered in the press, but how you can say he did not remain #1 contender once the dust had settled is a little beyond me. Mere weeks after those fights he was being labelled the #1 contender once more.

Your suggestion that he was not seen as the #1 contender until 1924 is not correct in my opinion, and the opinion of writers for The New York Times, The Evening Day, The Daily Herald and The Meridan, amongst others.

But I will conceed that Dempsey was not the #1 contender in the days immediatly following the SECOND Tate fight and that he was only one of several contenders (all be it the man regarded as the most dangerous) in an unclear picture for the first few months of Dempsey's reign.

I think the overall point regarding Wills being compared to black heavyweights Louis "avoided" still stands.

 

As to Fulton-Wills, I think it's hard to imagine the loser going on to fight Dempsey (or the winner in retrospect!).

 

Ray came to the rankings in earnest in 1946. He was ranked behind Mauriello and Conn and then Bivins at the beggining of that year. In 1946, Louis fought Mauriello and Conn, his top 2 ranked contenders.


In early 1947, Walcott beat Ray.

Then Louis fought Walcott.

At what point Louis meant to fight Ray? The only opportune moment was to fight him instead of men who were ranked ahead of him.