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

Eh? :huh Dempsey wasn't the champ yet in 1917 (Willard was). Moreover, the first clip I posted indicates that Langford was, in fact, still considered in the mix of possible title contenders by the end of 1917 (although it wasn't my intention to show that when I posted it).

But you could equally make that claim about him anytime from 1914-1917 as compared to previous years. Are you? Do you believe Langford in 1914 wasn't anything like the fighter he had been in 1908-1912?

Why? Why should I just fabricate an opinion on something factual that I can't verify? It's not something that's open to debate. There was either a big difference in his form, or there wasn't. Why should I just take a guess about something that already happened and is true one way or the other?

Again, what I've stated on the matter is merely in line with the facts. Fulton BEAT Langford in the ring (twice, in fact), and was more highly rated when Wills beat him than Langford was at any time that Wills beat him. There's nothing I have to "argue" or "defend" about Fulton being a bigger win than Langford. It's up to YOU to prove that Langford was, contrary to all these facts, better than Fulton at some point here. Thus far, you haven't done that.

What exactly did Langford have in 1914 that was sorely missed in 1917? What could/would a 1914 Langford have done differently with Fulton that he wasn't able to do in 1917? What exactly had he lost, how exactly had he slowed down? Why is it so clear that Langford in 1914 would've surely beaten a guy who dominated and stopped him just a couple years later? These are questions you haven't yet answered.

They all should be of interest to you, if you're seriously looking to take into account as much information as you can before making a judgement on something. Every one of them indicates that the Fulton win was Wills' biggest up to that time and elevated his status far more than any previous win - including any of his wins over Langford. None of his many wins over Langford (or Jeanette, McVey, etc.) were big enough to make him a leading contender, the win over Fulton was.

Probably. I'd say either Fulton or Firpo.

It's my position that there's been no evidence (either from you or elsewhere) to show Langford of 3 years earlier was better, and I'm not going to take it upon myself to just assume he was.

If I had to pick who was better, I would say the guy who won their two fights decisively deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Why? It's only ONE more loss than he had in each of the previous three years. Why is that such a big deal?

That could be indicative of any number of things - or absolutely nothing at all.

If that's your logic, then what's your view on Langford losing more times in 1914 than in the previous seven years combined?

It's my position that I don't know what, if any, kind of slide he might've had in that span of time, and haven't seen anything from you or elsewhere that shows there was a clear cut slide.

Moreover, assuming for a second that there was a noticeable slide, I haven't seen anything from you that shows Fulton wouldn't have still been better regardless, given how decisively he owned him when they fought.

It contradicts your claim that an increase in the number of losses indicates that there was a decline. If there's other factors that can just as well cause an increase in the number of losses (such as his opponent's improvement) then you can't simply assume it's from a decline.

 

Sam Langford 5'7 185-190 born 1883 debut 1902
Harry Wills 6'2 205-215 born 1889 debut 1911

1914 Langford KO14 Wills
1916 Langford KO19 Wills

 

Missed this thread the first time around.

That's quite a bold assessment.

I think if we compare results/performances against common opponents, Dempsey doesn't come out badly at all against Wills.

 

BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF BOXING PEOPLE FELT THAT
JACK DEMPSEY WOULD HAVE BEATEN THE STRAIGHT UP HARRY WILLS WERE THEY HAVE MET....and I have more faith in the
boxing acumen of contemporaries of respective fighters then any of today's posters, political correctness aside...And furthermore Sam Langford who fought Harry Wills about SEVENTEEN times
picked Jack Dempsey to beat Wills were they to have fought each other. Langford called the prime Dempsey the greatest heavyweight he ever saw, and who should I believe knew better,
Sam Langford or the naysayers on this site 90 years later ?

 

:good I met him when he was old and he still looked very formidable

 

It's perhaps worth noting that Wills was sparring Jack Johnson back in 1912 so he was probably a lot more experienced than his record would indicate. And he'd already fought Jennette once.

Dempsey, on the other hand, knew his hobo fights and most of the fights out in Utah, however numerous, were not quite of value or up to the standards of the real contenders in 1916.
And maybe Wills had little choice. Dempsey protested the plan to fight Langford and got given an "easier" fight, which he struggled in.
Yes, I think Wills had better longevity, getting in with the top fighters sooner and fighting contenders for many years later.

 

I rate Dempsey higher based off who he did beat and how he beat them, the guy was explosive and fast and vicious. I guess the shame with Harry Wills is that he was shut out until he was old against Paolino UZ and did not fight some of the better white guys of his day. The black guy he fought were great and he did well but he should have been given the right to fight everyone

I personally think Dempsey had the style to beat Wills who was stand up and slow but it could have gone the other way

still I have to rate Dempsey on his victory's leading up to the title, the domination of Willard, the war against Firpo and even the comeback after inactivity KO over Sharkey and the long count with Tunney and for that he stood out in his era and fits in with the the greats IMO

So I guess Harry's legacy suffers from the fact that he was shut out and did not get the chance to prove his greatness

 

I respectfully reject your premise, on pretty much every single point.

 

Wills was briefly a sparring partner for Jack Johnson and engaged in many battles with Sam Langford.

Both rated Dempsey above Wills,was that because of racial politics?

Jewish Ray Arcel rated Dempsey far above Wills ,was he racist? You can argue Wills has a better record, but I think head to head Dempsey takes him out.

 

The same people who lauded Sam Langford in the same way as Dempsey, were often somewhat skeptical of Wills.

You have to ask why.

 

I have a hunch Wills did not have the appetite for it when things went against him.He surrendered tamely to Uzcudun and fouled out to Sharkey to save himself a beating, he also quit against Tate with an arm injury, others continued in similar circumstances. Just a hunch.

 

So how do you compare Dempsey to Wills?

The best way to look at it would be to imagine that the primes of Mike Tyson and Larry Holmes had overlapped, but that they had never fought, and Holmes had never held the title.

In this scenario Holmes would be eclipsed by the more exciting Tyson, but his greatness would become more apparent in hindsight.

Of course sice Holmes has never held the title in this scenario, he doesn't eclipse Tyson even in hindsight.

 

It really is just the fact of Dempsey having a title hold and that difference is down o politics of the day, like Mac said.

..and Suzie is right, film plays a part.

I mean, us, on here, we can say that Wills is greater and that's fine, the same way most of us say Burley is greater than LaMotta, but your average Tom/Dick/Harry on the street is just never going to know that. Not in this generation, not in any generation.