Aside from Wills and Langford, who are the best men of his day Dempsey never fought?

I find yours a very odd take on these Wills-Tate fights.

Off what I have read, and I don't know how accurate it is, Wills KO'd Tate in the first round, but was DQ'd for hitting on the break.

I don't how much "redemption" one needs for such an outcome.

Five days later the two men fought again, supposedly for no pay. As there was no sanctioning body, I might question if this second fight was actually a fight. If no one was paid, it sounds more like a sparring session the two put on as a favor to the promoter and the fans.

I must point out though that in 1918 when Dempsey was the hottest white contender out there he lost a four round bout to Meehan and fought a draw with Miske. These didn't eliminate Dempsey, and he never actually got "redemption" against Meehan. My take is neither a four round decision defeat nor a DQ defeat in which the opponent won while on the floor should or did matter that much to the public.

"Rickard could have seen Wills off as a contender" "All he had to do was match the two best white contenders,"

That is what he did. He matched Gibbons with Greb, the aim apparently for a victory over Greb to fully establish Gibbons as a heavyweight championship contender. But Greb won, so the top white contender was in fact a light-punching middleweight.

"Block Wills from getting a couple of key fights"

Did Rickard control Wills or other black contenders? If not, how could he block them from fighting each other?

"But he doesn't do this. He matches Wills against Norfolk in another title eliminator."

It was a title eliminator? If so, this is another one Wills wins but which doesn't mean anything. I have never read it was a title eliminator.

"therefore throwing him a lifeline"

This assumes Rickard could stop Norfolk from fighting Wills. If he couldn't, he might as well promote a fight that was going to come off anyway and rake in the profits.

"Rickard basically bailed Wills out."

This is an assumption. Rickard might have felt that Wills was ripe for the taking and promoted this fight to ELIMINATE Wills once and for all. It would be far easier to draw the color line against the light-heavyweight Norfolk. Norfolk might also have felt Wills was ready to be had and have wanted the bout to push himself into the top contender position whether Rickard was involved or not. And if Norfolk wanted to fight Wills, I don't see how Rickard could have prevented the fight. Rickard was only the top promoter, not the all powerful tsar of boxing. I don't believe Rickard promoted the Dempsey-Miske or Dempsey-Gibbons fights among Dempsey defenses.

Also, it seems odd to me that if folks thought Tate did so well against Wills, there wasn't more of a push for a rematch to clear the air. Wills just moved on as the ignored number one contender, and Tate went his own way also.

What stands out here is how weak the white heavyweight division was. The best contender out there in 1922 was Greb, a middleweight. The next best were two light-heavyweights, Gibbons and Tunney.

I think Wills and Norfolk were very serious contenders indeed, and soon so would be Godfrey.

 

I don’t know, something about that opinion just seems so feeble to me. It’s like because Wills beat him so badly, you feel the need to downgrade Norfolk as a fighter rather than recognize Wills greatness...

And for some reason, you completely overlook Norfolk’s dominating wins over Miske which I think clearly prove Norfolk was the superior fighter

 

Some of which were fixes to help the dying man

 

Great post

 

"It's like because Wills beat him so badly, you feel the need to downgrade Norfolk"

That is how it strikes me also.

I get the impression that if someone does well against Wills, it proves Wills is not so hot. If someone doesn't do well against Wills, it only proves that fighter isn't much. Kind of neat circular reasoning with Wills always ending up being put down one way or the other.

 

Spot on

 

I haven't read the details of Norfolk's win over Miske so cant comment on it.

 

How am I refusing to give Wills his just due?
I'm not downgrading Norfolk as a fighter ,I'm questioning his credentials as as top tier heavyweight!
Norfolk's next move was a risky one. He threw all of his marbles into one basket and challenged Dempsey's most qualified and persistent challenger, Harry Wills. Wills was an awesome physical specimen and in hindsight, it was suicide for Norfolk to challenge him. But the Kid had faced much larger men before and to him Wills was just another giant for him to slay. Wills and Norfolk met in New York on March 2, 1922. When the two battlers met in the middle of the ring the mismatch was apparent to all that surveyed the two men. The disparity in size was alarming (Wills 6'2" 230 and Norfolk 5'9" 185). Wills stood almost a full foot taller that Norfolk and looked as if he could sweep him away with one stoke of his long ebony arms. The fight itself was little more than a public beating with Wills plastering the helpless Norfolk for a full round and a half before depositing him on the canvas with a vicious right hand midway through the second. Norfolk gamely tried to rise but could not find his footing. The fight was waved off when the Kid rose stumbled and then fell back into the ropes.

The loss to Wills was a crushing blow for Norfolk. He was sure that he could beat the big man and asked for a rematch. When he approached Paddy Mullins,( Wills' manager), the pugnacious manager laughed in his face.

Norfolk moved back down to his own weight division and again found success. In what was probably the best year of his pro career, Norfolk knocked out Tut Jackson(3), Jamaica Kid(2) and Tiger Flowers(1) successively. He rounded out the year by ruining the American debut of one time Lightheavyweight Champion Battling Siki, by busting up the Singular Senegalese in 15 rounds. But even his great success did little to advance his championship aspirations. He did manage to secure a rematch with (now) Middleweight Champion Harry Greb, but the title would not be at stake. Norfolk would not have his great advantage in weight when the two met for the second time in Boston on April 19, 1924. They would share a distinct disadvantage however -- both were fighting with only one good eye. Greb had been fighting with only one eye since his last bout with the Kid and Norfolk had lost the use of his left eye in 1921 when he was thumbed by Lee Anderson in a bout in Arizona. Nevertheless, the two warriors put on a fantastic show, which was cut short when Greb hit Norfolk after the bell sounded to end the sixth round. The action had been so hotly contested up until that point that the Mechanics Hall crowd nearly rioted when the fight was discontinued because of Greb's foul.

His battle with Greb would prove to be Norfolk's last stand at the World class level. After the Greb affair he would muster up a few more wins before being stopped in six rounds by Tommy Gibbons in December 1924. The Kid would fight until 1926, when after being knocked stiff by Ted Moore in San Francisco, he finally retired. "

According to some Norfolk had 12 lbs on Greb the first time they fought.Kevin Smith says 17lbs, Klompton might say different.

I ask again, who did Norfolk beat during Dempsey's reign that should have put him in the frame as a challenger for the champion?

1920. Norfolk lost to John Lester Johnson.
1921. Norfolk lost to Lee Anderson.ko9
1922. Norfolk was blitzed inside 2rds by Harry Wills, being well overmatched.
1923.Norfolk lost to Wolf Larsen and Battling Jim McCreary.
1924.Norfolk lost to Bob Lawson and Tommy Gibbons.
1925.Norfolk lost to Bob Lawson ,ko'd in 1rd.Lost toFloyd Johnson,and was kod in4rds by Frank Moody.
1926 lost to Ted Moore ko'd in 4 rds

In which of those years did he deserve his title shot?

 

Now I sit back and wait for your PROOF! In your own time!!!

 

You can answer me directly. Come out from behind the curtain!
Have you ever read a post by me saying Wills wasn't much? Not so hot?
Have you ever read a post by me saying Wills did not deserve a title shot?

FYI. This has jack **** to do with Wills ,it's all about whether Norfolk was a deserving challenger for Dempsey during his title reign.
I've asked 3 times who did Norfolk beat during Dempsey's reign to merit a title shot?

Now I'm asking YOU directly ,not via someone else, for your answer!
YOU---- Ed Morbius/Old Fogey
Which year of Dempsey's reign1919 -1926 did Kid Norfolk get the win that should have merited a title shot?

 

Have you read the accounts of these " dominating wins "over Miske? Yes or No?

 

Found fight reports of both Miske v Norfolk fights, courtesy of Clay Moyle and Senya.Norfolk clearly won both fights,no arguments about the results.Here is the link.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/billy-miske-and-kid-norfolks-fights.123869/

 

My post was about Harry Wills.

It wasn't about you, although I see Suzie was responding to you. My response was more directed to Janitor and generally to threads about Wills in which wins over Fulton, Norfolk, Firpo, and Weinert are minimized.

I am not accusing you of anything. I agree almost totally with your defenses of Johnson and Louis.

I think you make good points against Jeff, but carry the critique beyond where I would take it.

We differ the most on Dempsey.

As for Kid Norfolk, I think he would have been a worthy contender in 1920. He was on a 34-1 run. His one loss was via DQ to John Lester Johnson, whom he defeated several times both before and after. His second win over Miske came about a month before Dempsey won the title. That makes it technically before Jack was champ, but I also don't see the point in downgrading it on that basis.

The two men Dempsey did defend against in 1920? In his last five bouts, Miske had lost to Norfolk, fought draws with Gibbons and Brennan, lost to Levinsky, and then, after a long layoff, KO'd Jack Moran (5-13-3) before challenging Dempsey.

Brennan, like Norfolk, was winning more often than not, but had some losses, and had lost earlier to Miske.

In fairness to Dempsey, he and Miske had unfinished business because of the draw in 1918. Dempsey had KO'd Brennan back then, though, so a rematch with Brennan doesn't seem a necessity to me.

I think Norfolk in 1920 would have been a more worthy opponent than either Miske or Brennan.

As for 1922, Dempsey didn't defend his title that year, so anyone would have been better than no one at all.

 

In the light of his two clear wins over Miske I have to say Norfolk has gone up in my estimation.
1920 is the only year I think Norfolk was a realistic challenger for Dempsey imo.
Being floored twice before being sparked out by a half blind Langford in1917 doesnt convince me he was anything special and he dropped fights to journeymen during Dempsey's reign.
I'll concede that in 1920 he was viable,after that no.

Jeffries? I think he was great for his time, a man of iron,I have my doubts he would fare well against a precision puncher like Louis and I think prime for prime Johnson was his better but it would be a real good fight, maybe the Ali Frazier of its era.
Wills losing on a foul to Tate doesn't mean anything to me he was clearly several levels above him.

 

Which organization ranked Johnson in 1920?.I ask this because Johnson surrendered to the authorities in July of that year and was imprisoned!
ps Johnson was in Mexico from April1919 until he crossed the border into the USA in July1920, he hadn't been in France since 1914 ,6 years earlier!