I always see debates on how Dempsey and Langford would perform in different eras, but what about their common 'rival' (somewhat in Dempsey's case) in Harry Wills? Do you think Wills could've became champ in a different era?
Hard to say with such little footage of him. I suppose most guys from his era could have been competitive on up through the 30s and early 40s.
The closer you get to Wills, the taller he looms over the heavyweight division. Take away the color bar, and I think it quite plausible that he could have held the title before Dempsey.
Wills was overrated. On film he is crude. He used his size advantage to win his biggest fights. Relied a lot on grappling, clinching and wrestling, leaning his weight on smaller opponents. Ray Arcel ranked him as a good journeyman.
The surviving fragments of film are from late in Wills' career. As early as 1922 Robert Edgren was writing that he was losing or neglecting his skills and relying on his strength (which was, anecdotally, exceptional even for a man of his size) to wrestle and maul his way to victory. Earlier reports paint a very different picture of a quick, agile, straight-shooting boxer who we'll probably never get to see. https://ibb.co/SfXpRVH
Then I guess you rate Dempsey by the footage of him sparring Kingfish Lewinsky and getting slapped around because that is the comparable version of Wills that lost to Sharkey and Uz .. I'm not sure Arcel made the statement or is reported to but it was always interesting to be it came from him as so many others with first hand accounts rate him as top notch .. I see no reason why he could not have been a force through the 20th Century with his size and skills ...
