Even if you love Dempsey, it is time for a generation to accept -

That's because it poses a very direct question to one of your primary arguments.

You've reiterated several times that you consider the 1914 version of Langford to be better than anyone Dempsey beat. That's a very questionable claim, and not wholly supported by the facts.

My question is not whether or not he was past his peak when Fulton got to him. Yes, he was indeed considered past his peak by 1917 - but he was also considered past his peak in 1914 as well. My question is, how much better is the past-peak version in 1914 than the past-peak version that Fulton beat?

Since you mentioned using losses to make that judgement, he wasn't losing with any more regularity at the start of 1917 than he had the previous two years. It wasn't until after Fulton beat him that the losses started really piling up.

 

Guys, anyone hear of styles making fights?

I don't think anyone is making an argument that Langford was the best heavyweight of all time. POund for pound best is another matter ...Fulton was 6' 4", had a huge reach, an excellent jab and was a stylistic nightmare for Langford ...

 

But Fulton had a glass jaw. Surely the Langford with two eyes of 1914 would break that jaw.

 

"Freak injuries like that happen in fights, and when you have as many as Langford did, the chances increase that you will be hurt in this way."

You've got me wondering what other injuries he suffered that you're refering to.

 

Both, actually.

Why?? Since when has inflicting major damage on an opponent while thoroughly whupping them somehow made the win "less credible"??

What kind of bizarre logic is that? I've never heard of that in my entire life.

Did Wills fail to prove he was better than Fulton then, because Fulton suffered serious injuries in their fight? Or do you give Wills credit for his fists breaking Fulton's ribs?

 

I would bet my house on it.

 

This is a briliant and in depth summary on K Smiths part.

I think we have to consider that Dempsey might to some extent have been the sewer but not the sewage.

He seems to have made some effort to arrange a fight with Wills.

The New York State Athletic comision told him to fight Wills on pain of loosing his liscence to fight in New York State, but at the same time refused to sanction the bout in that state for fear that it would cause race riots.

You can understand how he felt that he was getting it from both sides.

 

Well, I believe Dempsey has the most historically-impressive single win between the two in the Sharkey fight, in that he was past his prime facing an in-form future champion- and note that a past-prime Wills lost badly to Sharkey. In addition, Dempsey has the best streak of pure, concentrated dominance in his tear in the late teens through the start of the twenties. Wills was consistent for many years, but I wouldn't say he ever had a concentrated run where he ripped through practically everyone the way Dempsey did. Moreover, I do think it should be noted that the vast majority of their contemporaries did think Dempsey was the better fighter; I realize this was a racist era, but historically, sportswriters were actually generally quite honest and fair in their actual assessments of black fighters' ability, as, for example, in the case of many who passionately disliked Jack Johnson but nevertheless acknowledged his exceptional ability, or as with Langford.
I think either man can reasonably be ranked above the other, depending upon one's criteria.

 

I disagree with your statements on several levels.

First of all, how can you call Dempsey's work "concentrated dominance where he ripped through practically everyone" when he did not fight Langford, Jeanette, Wills or Greb? All of them were top contenders and he got in the ring none of them. You could say he dominated the white heavies of the time (Greb alone is excuseable).

Furthermore, on saying how honest the contemporary historians were, again i have to disagree. As far as i know, Wills wasn't even ranked in the top10's from the 20's until the 50's, and Joe Louis barely hit the top10 in most lists, even in 1954 after he retired, despite clear superiority to all of his predecessors. I can understand people ranking Dempsey higher than Wills, but realistically, based on resume they should be pretty close together. Yet Dempsey was often ranked in the top3 (and as high as #1) while Wills remained suspiciously absent from the entire top10 of the lists that i have seen.

Sorry, but i don't call that honest. Maybe they didn't know as much as we do now, and great popularity and promotion (the Flynn fight suddenly becoming a fix years after when Dempsey is popular) certainly helped Jack a lot more than Harry, but still....

 

"Freak injuries like that happen in fights, and when you have as many as Langford did, the chances increase that you will be hurt in this way. "

McGrain, it jus dawned on me that I misunderstood the above, I thought you were saying that Langford had "many freak injuries". You were obviously referring to "many fights". Sorry about that.