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

And likewise, Langford suffered his facial injuries from Fulton's punch. Exactly my point.

But do you actually know that he was faster/sharper in 1914, or is that just speculation?

And even if he possibly was, would it have been enough to completely reverse being overwhelmed/outclassed the way he was by Fulton?

 

If there was a way that the injury came from legally punching the fighter in the ankle, then yes we would.

Tell that to the shitloads of fighters that regularly suffer detached retinas, orbital fractures, or other severe eye injuries - ie: Ray Leonard, Harry Greb, Kid Norfolk, Pete Herman, Fidel LaBarba, Henry Armstrong, Eddie Booker, Kid Gavilan, George Chuvalo, Leotis Martin, Mauro Mina, Victor Galindez, Jeff Chandler, Julian Jackson, John Mugabi, Juan Roldan, Danny Romero, Fernando Vargas, Lamon Brewster, etc., etc., etc. - just to name a few.

They might not think your claim is so "obvious."

They do when they're completely outclassing or pummeling their opponent right from the opening bell.

Think of Frazier-Chuvalo, Cotto-Abdullaev, DeLaHoya-Vargas, or even Khan-Barrera for much better examples.

 

The "discredit" Lewis gets comes mainly from the people who thought the stoppage was bad, or that Vitaly could've at least been given another round. Those who thought the stoppage was timely and just gave Lewis full credit

Nothing unusual about debating a rematch either, when the first fight was competitive.

 

But what is your point in regard to this fight, exactly?

Earlier, you insisted you were not trying to take any credit at all away from Fulton. Now, you're saying he shouldn't get full credit taken away, but implying, perhaps, that he could get less credit? :huh


In any event, Fulton does appear to have gotten full credit for the win - no talk of being "lucky" or a "fluke" - if that's what you want to know. Even Langford himself has been quoted afterward as praising his talent and his performance.

 

No, the bottom line is that when Fulton and Langford actually met in the ring to decide matters, Langford was completely overmatched and got the hell beat out of him. Moreover, most people at that time generally considered both Dempsey's and Wills' wins over Fulton to be bigger than any of Wills' wins over Langford - and quite sensibly and understandably so, I'd say.

I did not "pass" the burdon of proof, because the burdon of proof has been on you right from the start to explain why both the facts and contemporary views should somehow be "disregarded," and that Langford should, despite all that, be considered a bigger win than Fulton.

I have not given any personal opinion either way on how different Langford was between 1914 and early 1917. I've only stated what I've known and read on the matter - I haven't seen him fight in that time period, and I've never seen anything from that time that describes a drastic drop-off in his form or rating between those years. Rather, I've asked you to explain to me the apparent difference you seem fairly certain was there, that makes you feel absolutely certain that Langford in 1914 would've succeeded where he failed horribly just a couple years later. Basically, if I'm not mistaken, you've said that you've only indirectly inferred that he might have been markedly different from looking at the W/L column on his record, and that this difference, you speculate, would be enough to reverse the outcome of the Fulton loss - correct?

There's a lot of kinds of injuries that cause blindness, and they aren't "freak" any more than cuts, broken ribs, etc. They're unfortunately fairly common. All the fighters I listed above suffered eye injuries that caused blindness, and either required surgery to correct or left permanent damage. And there's many, many more fighers that have suffered the same. Sadly, it's one of many risks fighters take when they put themselves in a position to be hit.

No, what led to the injury is the pertenant factor, not the injury itself. What led to this injury was him being completely thrashed by an apparently superior fighter he had no answer to. He was pounded and pounded until his flesh and bones just couldn't handle it anymore. Nothing "freak" about that - that's boxing. That's exactly what can and does happen when one fighter is superior to another.

Isn't that the whole point of boxing, to reduce your opponent's chances of winning to nill? Fulton achieved that by keeping Langford at a distance and continually driving his fists into his face until his body just couldn't take it anymore. That's what a better fighter does to an inferior one. In fact, it's essentially what he's supposed to do. A fighter's flesh and bone giving way under intense punishment is no different than his chin giving way.

 

Jeanette and especially Langford (the guy was 37, going blind and suffering multiple losses a year to run-of-the-mill journeymen) were pretty far past their primes by 1919-1920. Wills, yes. Greb, not so much- yes, he was fighting a heavyweight contender and beating them once every couple dozen fights, but he was almost exclusively a middleweight/light heavyweight insofar as his major career was concerned.

Wills wasn't ranked in the top 10, but are you serious about Louis?!? I think you need to examine this issue more closely. Nat Fleischer, founder of the RING, ranked Jack Johnson #1 of all time, Louis #6, and the very black Sam Langford #7. He considered Johnson almost incomparable; he clearly had no compunctions about ranking black men or giving them their dues as fighters. Charley Rose ranked Langford #1, Johnson #2, Louis #4, and Sam McVey #7! How's that for white supremacism? Johnson was a regular in top threes and regular #1 pick, Louis was a mainstay of the top 10, sometimes top 5 or #1, and even Langford made regular appearances in these lists. However, I've seldom seen any contemporary rank Wills near these heights. Obviously these lists seem strange to us, I think in part because the writers back then ranked more on "gut feeling" than on any especially careful scrutiny of fighters' careers, but they're still informative data nonetheless. Anyway, I don't believe the contemporary writers' rankings are a be-all, end-all, but they do tell us a fair deal about what the people who actually saw Wills fight in his heyday thought of him, and that should be taken into account.

See above- your perception here is clearly distorted. And the Flynn fight didn't "become" a fix years later; it was decried as a fix by the audience the very night it happened, and writers in immediate accounts reported things like Flynn's blows looking "suspect."

 

18 pages Mcgrain, my congratulations!

 

If they were walking corpses then why didn't Dempsey just fight them? Jeannette even jumped in the ring with him but he refused and while being booed (so much for the color ducking line) he left the arena.

As far Greb, he was beating most lightheavyweights who also were heavyweight contenders during that weak era. He was also rumored to have handled Dempsey in sparring. Regardless of whether that's true or not, the fact that we still hear about it nearly a century later tells me there was plenty of interest in the fight. Especially since back then fights between different weight classes were much more common.

Fleischer's rankings are badly biased. Of a top60, 50 boxers were from before 1930 and only 10 after.

Here are some lists:


Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Jim Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schemling
10. Rocky Marciano

Bob Fitsimmons at #3 higher than Dempsey and Louis at #6, are you ****ing kidding me?

I think the way you put it, "they rank by gut feeling" is right on point and the most flattering you could say about this joke of a list.

Here is another one:


Charley Rose, 1968

1. Sam Langford
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Joe Louis
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Gene Tunney
7. Sam McVey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Jim Corbett
10. Max Baer


Now i'm not sure if it's racism or not (as you say: Johnson is being ranked highly), but clearly, they knew **** all about records and resumes, or they wouldn't have Louis that low.


Now i guess i choose the wrong words in calling them "not honest", because i think "honest" is exactly what they were. However, that's something else from an objective, argued case.

If you can post a, or better, multiple (since even legit fights tended to have screams of FIX!) sources stating that Dempsey-Flynn looked like a fix, then i'd be happy to read them. All that i've seen thusfar is "interviews" with spectators, made 3 or 4 years after, which is a joke of course. No one can remember how it went down after so long when you can miss the punch with the blink of an eye and have no slow motion replay, let alone a clear view of the ring and multiple angles.

During some of the Morris fights there were also cheers of FIX! and things looking "suspect", doesn't immediately make them fixes.

 

You get off here ! You Dutch Dempsey Hater:fire

 

I've come across plenty of sources over the years, both contemporary and modern, that affirm what I've said on this matter. If you want specific examples, I can give you what few I happen to have off-hand:

I have a NY Times clipping from the end of 1917 that lists all the "name" heavyweights currently throwing out challenges at then champion Willard - Fulton, Langford, Carl Morris, Frank Moran, Bill Brennan. It then says: "Foremost among the aspirants to a match with Willard stands Fulton. He has been conceded the place of importance in heavyweight ranks next to Willard, and in boxing circles throughout the country is generally regarded as the only logical opponent for the champion."

Press billings for the Fulton-Wills fight all described Fulton as being the "leading contender" or "leading challenger," or that ilk, for Dempsey's title.

A NY Times article on the Fulton-Wills fight card from the day before, notes:
"Speculation seems to be particularly keen with regard to the possibilities of the Fulton-Wills meeting, which will go far toward determining whether the clever colored boxer is to become a contender for a bout with Champion Jack Dempsey."

The news bulletin the day after the fight reads:
"Harry Wills, Negro heavyweight, knocked out Fred Fulton, contender for the title held by Jack Dempsey."

I have another Times article from June of 1922, lobbying for a fight between Dempsey and Wills, which reads:
"Wills has been regarded as Dempsey's most dangerous rival since the champion polished off Carpentier. The New Orleans negro, called the "Black Panther," because of his remarkable speed for a man of his size, has battered his way to the position of Dempsey's leading rival through a series of battles against such of the country's heavyweights as did not fear him. His most significant ring triumph was his knockout of Fred Fulton in three rounds at Newark, on July 26, 1920. His latest ring victim in a local match was Kid Norfolk, redoubtable Baltimore negro."

In James P. Dawson's eyewitness account of Wills' loss to Sharkey that I have, Dawson points out that Wills had been considered the leading challenger for Dempsey's title for close to seven years - which would be since the year he beat Fulton.

As for more modern sources, if you happen to own The Boxing Register, turn to the section on Wills and you'll see it reaffirms, "this victory [over Fulton] thrust Wills into the status of top contender for Jack Dempsey's heavyweight crown."

Certainly in and around this time, I'd say he was.

No he doesn't, he has exactly ONE more loss in 1917 than he has in the previous years:
1917 - 4 losses (only one prior to the Fulton loss)
1916 - 3 losses
1915 - 3 losses
1914 - 3 losses

In 1913, he has only one loss, no losses in 1912, one in 1911, and then none from 1908-1910.

If you're going to make a judgement on when there was a marked difference in his form based on the number of losses he suffered each year, shouldn't it be between 1914 and previous years, rather than between 1914 and 1917? That's where the marked difference in the numbers is.

Either way, if you're making a judgement about his actual form based solely on the number of losses he has, it's still only an assumption, even if it may seem to be a fairly reasonable assumption.


Regardless of all this, you had said earlier in this thread that Langford's increasing rate of losses post-1914 should not simply be assumed to indicate a declining form, as it could just as easily be the result of Wills having improved. But your argument here appears to contradict that.

In how many of those "many withdrawals" that you're referring to was the winning fighter kicking the other guy's ass right from the start? BOTH examples you listed showed the losing fighter to be ahead at the time of the stoppage, and it was THAT that led to the dissatisfaction. Moreover, the Lewis-Vitaly fight was not a retirement, but a doctor's stoppage that was disputed by many people.

There doesn't appear to have been any dissatisfaction with the outcome of Fulton's win over Langford, from those who saw it or were around at the time, so I don't see why bringing up the fact that there have been other occasions when injury retirements led to dissatisfaction should have any bearing on this.