Been a long time since I did a heavyweight list, pretty sure I had him as high as 13, I was always cautious rating Wlad before he retired, but I think he's rightfully overtaken him. Top 20 at the very least, but then again you could argue a few others above him if we take into account H2H abilities, something I try not to rely on to heavily when rating fighters because it's just not that fair on the guys from yesteryear. Maybe that unhinges a bit of bias on my part, but in my eyes it doesn't really seem that fair. I'm far more interested on how fighters did in their respective eras and Wills literally did all he physically could without getting a crack at the title.
Like Webbiano I rate on historical accomplishment, not h2h. Different times and different worlds. Only the record is fair to judge. Wills definitely rates in the top 20 historically.
Currently at 17 for me. I've updated recently. This is the kind of company he keeps on my latest list: 15. W Klitschko 16. V Klitschko 17. Wills 18. Tunney 19. Langford 20. Walcott
Just outside for me. The film on Wills is not good enough. Charles, Patterson, Walcott look better. I also think Peter Jackson, not on film was better and rate him over Wills. Legendary referee George Siler, who wrote a good book called Inside Facts of Pugilism, said Jackson was better than Jack Johnson by long odds and hit much harder. Jackson must have been something. I pretty much place the current super heavyweight champion around 17 after a few title defenses. Time has pushed WIlls back over the years. While Wills was shafted by Dempsey, he did, in fact, avoid Godfrey which would have been a very interesting match
