Dempsey kos Wills in 2 rounds 1924

I'd already put Dempsey in the top 3-5 so I dont know whether.the Wills victory would make a massive difference.

Wills was clearly a very good fighter who deserved a shot. Wills record suggests he might have been a great fighter in his own right.
BUT there is no footage of Wills in his prime or in a winning effort, has far as I know.

Maybe if a 1924 Dempsey whipping of Wills was caught on film you all would be decrying Wills as another big clumsy washed-up bum, like is said about Willard and Firpo.

That's why I dont attach too much significance to the Wills issue in assessing Dempsey.
Wills deserves his recognition but we have the footage of Dempsey which will suffice in making an assessment of Dempsey.

Dempsey's one of the top 5 most impressive heavyweight fighters I've seen on film, and he had a good streak of results (mostly quick KOs) against numerous fighters who were at least considered contenders of the time. His reputation was built in the ring. He was a fine athlete and a uniquely animalistic fighter, with a complete array of assets.
In my opinion he's top 5 and any defecits and doubts in his career are mere sidenotes.

 

Definite top 5

 

If he beat Wills that easily then Wills could be labelled a bum and a has-been.

Besides, he'd be accused of ducking Gene Tunney and Harry Greb.

 

Until Jeffries came back to fight Johnson it was assumed by everyone except the gamblers that Jeff would beat Johnson easily. So in retrospect Jeff's worst move was breaking that mythical belief. Because only the most smallest, most extreme element of bibliophiles argue today Jeffries would beat Johnson. Since Dempsey never faced Wills, fans of Dempsey can delight in their imagination

Dempsey didn't suffer from that stupidity. Where Jeff fell for the delusion of the public Dempsey played it smart
lol
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROUiZnnFfAw[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndqOzDUUYsI[/ame]

www.youtube.com/eslubin

 

Here we go again. Like the oldtime adage,"the world is flat ",this myth that
still permeates boxing today,the myth that Jack Dempsey as champion from 1920 on, didn't fight the best contenders,is a fallacy. Aside from Harry Wills,
and sign for a bout ,they did],Dempsey fought the best contenders of that era.Sam Langford was about 36-37. Sam Mcvey, was almost retired, and Joe Jeannette,WAS RETIRED. So aside from Harry Wills,pray tell me, who the hell,
that was a viable threat, Dempsey avoided? The three black fighters I mentioned such as Langford, McVey, Jeannette,were OLD or retired in the early 1920s, but this damn bias against Dempsey stills persists. Dempsey
fought ,aside from Wills,whoever fighters available at that time. HE was not
responsible for being born in 1895. None of us can pick our time of birth.
But of course todays sceptics,somehow know better than A Sam Langford, who called Dempsey,"the greatest heavyweight, I have ever seen,and if he fights harry wills, my money is on Jack ". Or Ray Arcel, Whitey Bimstein, Damon Runyon, Hype Igoe, Max Schmeling [who as a youngster,sparred with Dempsey],and a majority of boxing experts,who raved about the prime Manassa Mauler.For these sceptics today, ninety years later, I ask the question.Why read about boxing's rich history ? You don't heed it. Cheers...

 

And lest we forget.Joe Louis, my favorite heavyweight, didn't fight the most
dangerous black punchers of his reign, such as Lee Q murray, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo,Jimmy Bivens etc. Guys that were a helluva a lot better than
MANY of Louis's victims...Why does Joe get a pass but Dempsey,gets reviled?
Just asking...

 

I can not blame Dempsey for not fighting Wills and by the time Jack fought Gene he was rusty as hell. Jack did show his power and speed in the battle of the long count but he was not his best. Dempsey was also rusty in his battle with Sharkey would badly beat an older Wills but Dempsey still prevailed with a one-punch KO over a tough Sharkey

Dempseys win over Willard,Firpo,and his long streak to get to the title show him to be dominant for the time. Remember Jack Johnson only fought one black man in defense of his title. That being said if Dempsey fought and beat Wills, he may be rated top 3 by some and bottom 10 by others.

I rate Dempsey from top 4-10 and hold him responsible for not fighting the best even if he had as good a reason as Johnson but I also hold Holmes responsible for missing a few of the best of his era, not rematching hard fights and never unifying.

The thing with Dempsey is that he was extraordinary for his time. His hobo, tough man, coal miner tough time fights along with his raw professional ruthlessness and killer instinct combined with speed and power make him a phenomenon for that period and this talent was not seen again until Joe Louis

 

Bummy, well stated. But aside from not eventually hooking up with Harry Wills,who besides Wills,[they did sign], and a smaller Harry Greb,,who did
Dempsey not fight in the heavyweight division from 1920 to his three year
layoff ? The great trio of Langford, McVey. Jeannette were in their twilight of their career in the 1920s, and were no longer viable candidates, just as
Jack Sharkey in 1936, at 34 years old, was no longer a threat to Joe Louis in 1936. To say Dempsey did not fight the best contenders realistically available
in the 1920s,aside from one, Harry Wills is not factual and does a great disservice to a great fighter ,who while ring rusty lost with great humility to
a prime Tunney, and in retirement, was a gentleman until his death.
B, you fail to address my question of why Joe Louis, is not chastised for never
giving a match, with the likes of these great black heavyweights of my youth,
Lee Q Murray, Harry Bobo, Lem Franklin etc, while giving title shots to so
many inferior heavyweights, to the trio above . I hate to sound like a nag,
but it galls me to see great fighters like louis, Ray Robinson, who AVOIDED
many more VIABLE contenders than Dempsey, but somehow escape the
barrage of criticism,that poor Dempsey gets today. T'aint fair, T'aint fair.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, I say...Cheers B...

 

Dempseyyyyyyy Hooooooooook!

 

A dominant Dempsey win would undoubtedly have de valued Wills as a scalp because:

A. It would have shortened Wills tenure as the No1 contender.

B. It would have brought forward the period when Wills was deemed to be past his best.

C. It would have lent weight to those who said that Wills was never any good in the first place.

D. It would have terminated any doubts that Wills was a level below Dempey as a fighter.

If you want to get credit for your top wins its best to let your opponents stay a few rounds.

 

Good point.

 

BB I see a lot of revisionist picking hairs about fighters of the past and don't want to join the bandwagon...In order to get a full perspective you have to understand the world at those times, which I know you are best equipped to do.

It can be argued the Wills - Dempsey fight should have happened in a perfect world but if we look at an era and the era before we can have an understanding of the times.

I would have loved to see Wills and Jack fight

I would have loved to see Marciano KO a Nino Valdez or Bob Baker type in his 50th fight even though both men were soundly beaten by smaller better men, it may have shut up a few who pick hairs

As far as Joe Louis he defended more than any heavyweight champ and Pastor and Galento did beat some of the Black Murders row guys but it would have been nice if Joe gave them a shot at the title. Louis did that with Walcott who beat a few rough ones.

Holmes was the worst of the bunch, he never unified, gave up a title not to fight Page and never rematched a tough fight and there were many co-champs in his era that he never fought for so many reasons, yet I see guys rate him at # 3 and that is something I can not do but I rate him in my top 10.

Louis,Marciano and Ali were almost perfect and Louis was a great example but I think Dempsey was the best example of a heavyweight champion and an explosive, exciting puncher with fast hands and rock hard and mean and one of the best examples up until that point in time and until Louis.

Remember he fought Tunney who was a tough opponent and fought a rough Jack Sharkey to get back at the title, he also dominated Willard who was not a slouch. Despite the KD, he dominated Firpo and beat some good challengers while being a huge media star ( something that did not happen again until Ali....Dempsey was Huge.

 

B, good post :good. I do not mean to demean Joe Louis, who I Loved the most
as a heavyweight since Dempsey. There has never been a Champion like him
before or since. He and Alexis Arguello of my time,were the 2 fighters I admired the most.They had class and dignity. Having said that, the fact remains that Louis's brain trust, would not risk his title belt against truly
dangerous black threats like LeeQ Murray, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo ,who
were much superior,than a Harry Thomas, Jack Roper,Johnny Paycheck,
and other inept Louis opponents. This is a fact B. So why are todays darn revisionists, reviling Dempsey's legacy while, conveniently forgetting that
their true favorites get a pass.? Why ESB ? I ,have no axe to grind, but the
truth. Dempsey from 1920 on, as champion fought whoever was on the
horizon and at their best, except the aformentioned Harry Wills,though
the two SIGNED for the fight which was CANCELLED, when the promoter
could not come up with the dough. And Harry Wills pocketed the deposit
money of $50,000. Not a total loss for Wills, who would have been a big underdog for that fight with the prime Dempsey. Let the Mauler rest in peace.
We will never see his likes again, methinks...:good

 

Louis never passed on fighting his number 1 contender.

 

He did in some cases where they held the distinction for verry short periods e.g. Lem Franklin.

To be fair though, Walcott is clearly the Harry Wills figure of that era.