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

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Mar 28, 2009.


  1. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    93
    Aug 21, 2008
    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?
     
  2. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    93
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  3. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    93
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  4. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    93
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,422
    48,849
    Mar 21, 2007
    The bottom line would be this:

    You've implied that Langford is as good in 1917 as he was in 1914. This is in spite of the fact that the reverse is generally acknowledged. You've then passed the burden of proof.

    It was pointed out to you that Langford's record indicates he was not the fighter in 1917 that he was in 1914. You've then moved the goalposts and suggested that Langford was the same fight at the beggining of the Fulton fight as he was in 1914. This is because you feel that this would prove that Dempsey has a better resume than Wills.

    My position is that Langford was not the same fighter at the beggining of the Fulton fight that he was at the beggining of 1914. It is also my position that


    a - a fighter generally gets less credit for a retirement due to injury, any era

    b - this is the same injury that handicapped Langford in matches afterwards.


    You are saying that because the injury inflicted in this match was done so by a punch, you will provide full credit. Very well. That is not my view. It is my opinion that a freak injury - and we are not talking about a cut here, but an injury that inflicted blindness upon a fighter - inflicted on one fighter by another is not the same thing as inflicting a cut.

    Langford had absolutley no chance to win in this fight after the injury was inflicted. His chances of winning were as close to zero as it was possible for his chances to be. Whether the injury was inflicted by laces or a thumb or an amazing punch the likes of which has never been seen again, the injury is the pertenant factor, not the mode.

    I hope that is clear.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,422
    48,849
    Mar 21, 2007
    In a universal sense, Lewis recieves less credit for the Vitali fight than he would have done if he had knocked Vitali out.
     
  7. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    93
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,422
    48,849
    Mar 21, 2007
    Two things about this.

    One, i've never heard of anybody, contemporary or otherwise, rating Fulton above Langford at HW. So i'd be interested in any sources that you've encountered that are indicative of Wills's win over Fulton being bigger than any single win of Wills's over Langford.

    Also, if you think this is sensible and understandable, is it your position that Fulton is a better HW than Langford?


    Well as stated above, I feel the burden of proof is upon you for the opposite reason - i've never heard of Fulton being rated as a better fighter/scalp than Langford - if asked I would have said that there was consencus, both retroactively and contemporary, that Langford was the better fighter, and that it was your position which was contradictory. I'll reserve judgment until i've seen your sources etc.

    Yes, you have, it's his boxing record. We've already seen that Langford has many more losses in 1917 than previous years. Surely this is indicitive of a very big difference, is it not?

    I think that Langford was not as good in 1917 as he was in 1914, that is correct.




    Blindness is more "freak" than cuts by virtue of the fact that they are obviously and inarguably rarer.




    When I originally pointed out to you that Langford's record for 1917 was much worse than Langford's record in previous years, you pointed out that Langford suffered these losses after the Fulton match, seeming to suggest that Langford was a different fighter after he sustained his injury. I agree that he was. My point is that he sustained that injury during the Fulton fight, not after. In other words, just as has been the case with many other withdrawls due to injury there is dissatisfaction with the completeness of the result, in the sense that rounds following the retirement may have led to something different had Langford not sustained his injury.

    I am in general agreement with you as far as crediting a win goes. But as far as Langford's ability to win the fight goes (Which is the pertenant point), he was handicapped against Fulton in the same way that he was handicapped against the fighter's he fought after Fulton, if it is your position that Langford was the same fighter that he was in 1914 before the first bell against Fulton.

    If you wish to hand out additional credit to Fulton for his having inflicted the injury, that is fine, but the above is still true.
     
  9. Marciano Frazier

    Marciano Frazier Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,935
    56
    Jul 20, 2004
    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."
     
  10. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    97,857
    29,315
    Jun 2, 2006
    18 pages Mcgrain, my congratulations!
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,422
    48,849
    Mar 21, 2007
    :lol:

    Put Dempsey in the title...
     
  12. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,404
    278
    Oct 4, 2005
    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.
     
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    97,857
    29,315
    Jun 2, 2006
    You get off here ! You Dutch Dempsey Hater:fire
     
  14. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    93
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,422
    48,849
    Mar 21, 2007
    :lol:

    You do know that we are in near total agreement? It is MY position that Langford wasn't a "Contender for Dempsey's title" in 1917. It is MY position that "in and around this time" Langford isn't anything like the fighter that he once was. You have stated that you have offered no personal opinion as to whether or not Langford was as good in 1917 as in 1914. It might be time you do so.

    There is ONE arcitlce of interest to me here (speaking specifically about the problem at hand), a line that claims that Wills' "most significant ring triumph was knocking out Fred Fulton".

    Is this your position? That Wills' best win is over Fulton?

    Is it your position that Fulton, in 1917, was a better HW than Langford in 1914?



    This seems to support my position. I will withdraw the word "Many" or whatever it was i used.

    Langford lost more in 1917 than in previous years which would seem to be indicitive of a slide.

    Is your position that Langford did not slide as a fighter at all between 1914 and 1917?

    I think it may be a little of both. Is that unreasonable? Wills ages and improves as a fighter, meanwhile Langford, a veteran of many years and many hard fights is becoming worse. This is problematic for you in some way? No contradiction exsists.



    I don't really care about this any more. I think we have to agree to disagree.

    A - There is generally less credit given for a technical stoppage

    B - Langford suffered the injury that caused problems with his eyes in this statment according to many.

    I see no problem with either one of these statments, and if you feel differently, that is fine.