The other thread was getting too big and veering off track and I wanted to get these questions answered. So here we go. 1. Which would you consider had the better 5 wins and please explain. Wins over Fulton, Willard, Gibbons, Miske and Sharkey or Wins over Fulton, Langford, Mcvea, Jeanette, and Norfolk 2. Should Jack Dempsey be punished in his historical ranking for sitting on his crown without defending it for 3 years? 3. When Wills defeated Sam Langford, Sam Mcvea, and Joe Jeanette 1914-1915, were these 3 not the 3 top contenders for Johnsons crown thus making Wills the new coloured heavyweight champion and clear # 1 heavyweight contender by 1917? 4. With no adequete Film on Harry Wills...what makes anyone think Dempsey would just steamroll through Wills? I think its very fair statement for me to make that Harry Wills was SIGNIFIGANTLY better than any of the other big fighters dempsey defeated like willard, fulton, firpo. 5. Who had the better win resume prior to 1918 Harry Wills or Fred Fulton? 6. Besides Jack Dempsey, Who was the # 1 heavyweight contender in 1918 Harry Wills or Fred Fulton? whom do you think deserved the # 1 spot more coloured heavyweight champion Wills or white sensation Fulton? 7. Should Jack Dempsey be punished for drawing the color line and not defending his title vs Black fighters while future White Heavyweight champions defended there title vs Black fighters? 8. Why did Jack Dempsey never fight any of the colored heavyweight champions/coloured contenders 1917-1927? 9. Should Jack Dempsey recieve at least a little bit of the punishment to his historical ranking for never fighting his # 1 contender for 7 straight years Harry Wills nor the # 2 consensous heavyweight Harry Greb? 10. If we go byaccomplishments and win-resume, who has the better one Harry Wills or Jack Dempsey.
Willard was not one of Dempseys five best wins. Willard was a tough fighter with a big punch, however he was past his prime and truly lacked skill. Dempseys five best win were against Sharkey, Gibbons( Whom id consider the equal of Norfolk), Fulton(who also lost to wills so it cancels out), Miske and Levinsky/Brennan, depending on whom u think was better between Levinsky and Brennan. Wills wins were better overall since Langford is generally regarded (as well as he should be) a top 20 atg heavyweight. Sharkey had the talent to be top 20 but was rather inconsistent and an underachiever overall but i still rank him among my top 25. I dont know how good McVea or Jeanntte were due to no footage, however they would make most peoples atg top 30. Wills has the edge here. Dempsey like Jack Johnson came from a poor background, so when he had alot of money he enjoyed the easy life the way Johnson did. They didnt want him to fight to often because when he did fight there was a lot of money made. (Personally i wish his ******ed handlers would have kept him more active with more title defenses and he could have had a better reign). Sholud he be punished for this? It depends on what is your criteria for rankings. Whether u beliueve in a) ranking on accomplishments only, b) ranking head to head and based on ability, or c)a combination of head to head, ability and accomplishments. If you rate fighters on accomplishments only,then yes it does punish him. If u rank fighters with a combination of head to head, ability, and accomplishments then it damages his legacy but not quiet as badly. It also depends on whether u give greater weight to head to head/ability or accomplishments. Personally for me head to head/ability holds more weight so it doesnt damage as badly overall. Yes he was the best black heavyweight and arguably the best overall hw by 1917. Wills, from the reports i have read, was a big man who could move well for his size. He clearly was better then any other big heavyweright at the time. With no film on wills, i nor anyone else can make an accurate prediction for this However wills wasnt considered such an amazing figher by those that saw him. Many of these same (white) experts thought Jack Johnson could beat Dempsey in his prime or Joe Louis could beat a prime Dempsey (as Nat fleisher said), yet not many seriously though of wills as a great head to head fighter. and they knew who he was, they had seen him fight after all. Wills after Jack Johnson lost his title, it would be another 22 years before another black fighter would get a shot. Future heavyweight champions did not fight in such racist times. Rickard wanted no part of this match , he simply didnt. There were people who who died in the race riots following the Johnson-jeffries match. If u dont think thats serious then i dont know what is. Dempsey did not draw the colour line on Wills, personally advertising in the newspaper to fight him, ( Dempsey said in the newspapers in 1922 "If I have to do that to get fights, then that's the program. Meanwhile, I'm hoping some promoter can come up with the right guarantee for a match between Harry Wills and myself."). Dempsey agreed to meet him but because of the racist times the match never came off. Not entirely his fault. Wills was a victim of his race, which is a shame since it leaves alot of question marks on both fighters legacy, and regardless of why the fight didnt happen it does hurt Dempseys legacy and always will. a) His manager did not want him to fight any blacks after he met Kearns, b) alot of top black contenders were his sparring partners. for wills- yes Greb- i dont see where u r coming from. Greb never fought anyone who could hit as hard as Dempsey could. And shouldnt Wills legacy too take a hit since he never fought Greb? Who says Greb was the consenseous #2 hw? Was he ever mentioned as a serious challenger for Willard? No, Greb may have fought and beaten heavier men, but his aim was to win the world middleweight title. Tunney, when he weighed like 185lb hammered Greb, so if Dempsey wasnt afraid to fight Tunney and Sharkey who were both better hws then Greb, why in the world would he duck Greb? Wills. But Wills also has a better resume then Johnson or Jeffries. Infact Wills arguably has the best resume of any heavy pre Louis. So why not rank Wills as the greatest heavyweight before Louis came?
This would depends on how much Jeanette, McVea or Langford had left when Dempsey fought them. Harry Wills pretty much owned older versions of McVey and Langford while Dempsey was Champion. On paper, I would say Langford, McVey, Jeanette and Norfolk look better, but from 1917 to 1923 Willard, Gibbons, Sharkey, Miske, and Fulton were in more in their primes for the most part. Yes, but only if you apply the same standards for other champs. Johnson did not defend his title one year. Louis did not defend while he was in the army giving boxing exhibitions, Ali also took three years off. I think it is clear that Willard who beat Johnson in the ring by KO was the #1 guy to fight, and Dempsey smashed him. While Wills deserved a shot, Dempsey was not the only champion not to fight a #1 contender while he was champion. Again, do the same standards apply for Jack Johnson who skirted the top three contenders when they were in their prime as Champion? There is some clips on Wills, though clearly past it, he doesn't look very tough. Wills vs Fripo was an ugly fight. Dempsey floored Fripo 7 times in round one, and stopped him in two. Wills did not floor Firpo more than once, and took him the distance. I think its clear that Firpo would have whipped the Wills who fought Fripo, or Sharkey. Regarding Dempsey, it seems his best performances came vs bigger and slower fighters such as Willard, Fripo, and Fulton. Wills was not fast ( so say the papers ) , had a dentable chin, and might have lacked some toughness as he quit in a fight the second he hurt his arm. Wills for sure. Wills. Outside of Wills, the was not en eliete level black heavyweight while Dempsey was champion. While we all know that Wills was #1 rated, Johnson skirted the top 3 contenders when he was champion, Joe Louis avoided more top level colored fighters, and Marciano did not meet #1 Ring Rated Nino Valdez either. So yes--hold this against Dempsey, but be sure to play fair and not use double standards vs fighters you are fond of who are just as guilty, or on some cases even more guilty of doing the same thing. We have already been over Wills. Greb vs Dempsey would have been nice. Dempsey has a much better legacy. Wills had the better win resume, but he also lost a lot more too. Most boxing historians view Dempsey was the better.
Suzy, i really am struggling to see how Wills could possibly be considered the number one contender by 1917. By 1917 he had split his series with Langford 2-2 (not counting the draws). But, Langfords 2 wins were both by KO and Wills only wins were on points. I dont see how this can possibly place him above Langford as a contender. And when you consider that around this time Fulton KOd Langford, when this happened you surely have to rank Fulton ahead of both of them, dont you? In fact, i am not sure whether or not i have misread Wills' record, but it seems to me that in 1917, Wills was actually ko d in 2 rounds by battling Jim Johnson. If this is correct, then surely all thoughts of Wills, as the no 1 contender would have been destroyed by Jim JOhnson. It wasnt really until 1918 that Wills overtook Lanford in the standings when he started to beat the aging Langford. But by this time, Fulton already had the jump and had fought Dempsey and lost. After this loss, Fulton continued to win regularly and it wasnt until 1920 that Wills fought and beat Fulton. Surely then Wills does not really become a chance of becoming the no 1 contender until 1920 when he actually defeats Fulton and starts a very impressive run for the next couple of years. It would seem that these years of 1920-1924 or even until he was beaten by Sharkey are the only time he can be said to be the no 1 contender. Even then though, it is tough to imagin how one could overlook his knockout losses to Sam Langford. Surely it would take a while for this "Glass chin" stigma to pass (as it does often today), so, Wills it would seem while very, very unlucky not to get his shot (far worse have andd did), it also wouldnt seem to be the blatant 10 year duck that many seem to suggest.
Louis defended his title against Buddy Baer in1942 he donated his purse ,less expenses to the Navy relief fund,.Louis then enlisted in the Army 3 days later ,Louis defended against Abe Simon that same year, and again donated his purse, this time to the Army relief fund.Baer donated one sixth of his purse to the Navy Fund I dont know if Simon did likewise.Louis was actually doing basic training when he defended against Simon.In effect he defended his title twice for nothing.
I would not add Louis or Ali to inactive champs. Ali was force to be inactive, right or wrong its up to you. And Louis join the army for the war effort. Dempsey went and did Hollywood movies of his own FREE will. He should be held for setting on his title.
This is directed at Suzie but if I could, 1. The official decisions between Wills and Langford were 2 and 2, but Wills had dominated Langford in several ND bouts. Wills seems to have been a good and reasonably fast boxer with a strong jab. 2. Wills had beaten McVea twice in 1915. 3. The only losses Wills had after 1912 were to Langford and McVea, and to Battling Johnson. 4. The Battling Johnson loss seems to have been a fluke with Wills retiring after 2 rounds with a broken wrist. 5. Fulton was hardly spotless either during this time. He lost three fights in 1914, including on a foul to Morris and by ko to Al Palzer. I don't think many thought Palzer was in the same class with Langford or McVea. 6. Early 1917 was a difficult time for all the men who would emerge as the top contenders for Willard's title: Feb 13, 1917---Fireman Jim Flynn ko's Jack Dempsey in one. Feb 17, 1917---Battling Johnson stops Harry Wills in two when Wills breaks his wrist and retires. April 4, 1917---Fred Fulton loses on a foul to Carl Morris. According to the New York Times Fulton was getting the worst of it before he fouled out. April 27, 1917---Jack London ko's Fred Fulton in nine. Who was Jack London? This is the only listed win of his career. If Boxrec is correct about this fight, this is a very embarressing defeat, much worse than Dempsey's to Flynn or Wills' to Johnson. I would say Wills' loss to Johnson is by far the least embarressing, coming as it does due to an injury. Evaluation--I don't know who should have been the #1 contender in 1917 and 1918. Wills had been in against the toughest men. Fulton looked strong against Langford but had his share of poor performances. It is clear in retrospect that Wills was a much better fighter as he launched a series of victories, including eventually a crushing ko of Fulton. After the Fulton fight in 1920, Wills is clearly the outstanding contender.
maybe off top but I find it interesting: boxrec on fulton-morris fight 09 03 1917 The bout was ended after Morris had fouled Fulton so often that Referee Hinkel was obliged to disqualify the Oklahoman. The contest was to have decided which of the two was the better qualified to meet Jess Willard in a heavyweight title match. Newspapers reported that Morris "violated every rule of boxing and of good sportsmanship." Once in the fifth and again in the sixth, Fulton wanted to stop fighting because of Morris' constant butting and the ref's seeming indifference to it. At one point, Fulton started to leave the ring but was stopped by Harry Wills who was working his corner.
I mean that is a pretty unrealistic expectation DMT considering 8 different people have responded with long posts. I dont have the time in my life to sit here for 2 hours responding to each person. I will respond to the few comments left by everyone I feel are debate worthy though.
I pretty much agree with Janitor, just to save the time. Dempsey's biggest foul up was his inactivity, which was no one's fault but his.
of course no one has the time to respond to everything, i just said responding to a few relevant posts.
Generally I don't believe Dempsey ducked anyone he was always a fighting man both Johnston and Willard had sat on the crown for a number of years this was not unusual. Racism was at this time was widespread Dempsey would probably have been vilified if he had lost the Title to Wills and the fact is that unless Wills had knocked out Dempsey he would have not have won anyway, and this would have been unlikely to happen, there is no way Wills or any other colored HW would have been allowed to win a decision in the racial climate of the time.
Johnson won the title in 1908 on Boxing Day,he defended it 5 times in 1909,once in 1910,missed out 1911,defended it once in 1912,,once in 1913,once in1914,and lost it in 1915 to Willard. So title reign ,7 years , defences 10 ,9 successful, that is hardly sitting on the title,by the standards of those times.imo.Going only one year without a defence.