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

I took issue with you because you stated
"Wills would have been champion if he were white"
"Wills was the greater heavyweight"
Both those statements are personal opinion ,not proven facts.

 

How Wills and Dempsey are rated is a great example of how popularity (skin color), charisma, an exciting style and good promotion can make the difference even among "boxing historians" when resume-wise there barely is any.


For all intents and purposes, Dempsey could just as well be called half-champion of the world. Because black guys were excluded from competing, even when he was coming up in the ranks. His last fight with a colored man was a 10 round, rib breaking draw in 1916 against Lester Johnson which no doubt didn't make him too happy about boxing the better black contenders; and he never did.

 

Right you are.

The first problem we have is that Dempsey's opposition is unfairly slated because Jack never fought his outstanding challenger, so this creates something of an agenda against his resume already.

Langford & co are notorious for not getting a shot 'cause they were too good so they naturally get the sympathy vote.

These first two ingredients are perfect for a full blown trail of Dempsey without neutral consideration.

Every time someone has said something poorly of Dempsey on here they have always been poor judges and I've been here since 02'.

Wills possess' some great victories over Langford, Jeannette and McVea early in his career, but they would soon grow old and Wills would begin to beat on the shells of his colleagues.

Another point is I'd have to say Langford's real prime was before 1914, more like 1910-11, so although Wills beat a damn good version he cannot get full credit.

I except that Langford is the exception in terms of quality of opposition, but I also realise that he was on the slide when they locked horns and that Wills certainly was not his master. This is important to note - Gunboat Smith owns a legitimate victory over Langford in 1913 - does that make him greater than Dempsey?

Wills would begin to tame Sam as he crept into his 30's with his sight and natural vigour flaking away.

How good were Joe Jeanette and Sam McVey and how do they compare to Tommy Gibbons and Jack Sharkey for instance? They get a special badge of honour for hanging out with Langford, but I doubt they were genuinely better than the said guys.

At the time Dempsey beat Sharkey he was an excellent fighter and Gibbons had always been first rate.

Dempsey owns the more impressive performances by a big margin, which is part of your resume - how well you cope with your opponents. Levinsky (people forget that one), Brennan, Fulton, Willard, Carpentier, and Firpo were all taken out convincingly. Sure a few hiccups in there, but Dempsey always ended matters.

Fulton is the measure to use with Dempsey getting in there and ending matters quickly whereas Wills had to search a bit and do some scrapping before he overpowered his opponent.

Miske was a tip top fighter also and Dempsey has been credited with getting the better of him before he fell ill.

Unsurprisingly, people have now begun to realise that men like Miske, Gibbons and Carpentier are underrated. The 1924 fight between Wills and Firpo displays that Firpo was not a complete joke as many would have you believe. The guy could fight.

It is my will schooled opinion that Dempsey has a deeper resume; between crunching Brennan and upsetting Sharkey there is just more going on in there. Wills has his good victories and then he has his own little recession with a lack of fighters either in prime or noteworthy.

Without Langford, Wills' resume falls apart and no supposedly great resume should have to rest on the laurels of one man. Dempsey took care of business in better fashion and fought a wider range of styles.

 

The argments by those discounting Wills here are simply innacurate. When he lost to Jack Sharkey he was 37 years old. When he lost to Uz he was 38. To use this as any argument against him is pathetic.

Heres the bottom line. Jack Dempsey, great legend that he was, is the only champion I know even considered an all time great who did not fight the far and away # 1 contender for his entire championship run. He has a major asterik next to his legacy , period. It is inexcusable. Rickard and Kearns clearly knew Wills might flatten him and that is why they used every angle imaginable to avoid their meal ticket taking the fight.

AS John L. himself said many years earlier, ironically enough, "Whenever a white man draws the color line, there is a black fighter he is afraid of ." Dempsey was not afraid but to fight Wills but he allowed his management to allow him to aviod him and to me it seriously hurts his legacy as Wills was a far more dangerous challenger than anyone Dempsey ever fought.

Imagine Floyd Patterson simply never fighting Liston ...

 

How is this an "agenda"? Is not ranking Bowe highly because he ducked Lewis having an agenda against Bowe, or perhaps just facing reality?

Which:

A) Takes nothing away from when he beat them when they were still good
B) Is still more than Dempsey did

This is a silly strawman argument. Needless to say, those who are making the argument that Wills is greater are doing so because of his entire resume, not a singular win.

Sharkey was an excellent fighter and Dempsey's best win, but at the same time, he was ahead on all cards and Dempsey beat him with a foul, low blow, for which it appears Sharkey tried to get a DQ win, but failed.


As for Gibbons, he had been a first rate... lightheavyweight. Going into the Dempsey fight, his record against Miske and Greb (another man Dempsey ducked, but couldn't hide behind the color line) is 1-1-1. There is no excuse for him not fighting Wills or Greb instead of Gibbons, after a full 3 year layoff while being champ.

Dempsey was knocked down three times in two rounds by Firpo, and may well have lost by DQ, while Wills dominated him and knocked him down twice to a decision win. Dempsey was more spectacular, but we both know which performance is more assuring of how good a fighter did.

Willard was 37 years old, as good as inactive for 3 years and overweight. Dempsey won tons of fans by that spectacular performance, but Wills would've dominated him as well, just that he wasn't given the chance because he was born with a different skin pigment. Dempsey beat Carpentier, but Wills beat Norfolk.

Dempsey did beat Brennan and Miske whom Wills never fought, but then again, no way those are impressive wins than Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey. Especially given that Dempsey's superiority over Miske isn't that clear to me. When Miske was still healthy, he fought Dempsey to a 10 round draw and later lost a 6 round decision, but a 6 round fight is a joke. Then when he's so sick that he's a 10-1 underdog, he knocks him out in 3, well big deal.


By the way, any idea why Carpentier took a full 5 year layoff between '14 and '19? Was he serving in WWI?

So? If you go by this argument, then Ali, Holmes, Young and Johnson would end up very low in the rankings because they weren't that agressive nor big punchers like Dempsey. What matters is how convingingly you beat a man.

Yeah, over a 6 round fight, which is a joke. You can say that Langford was past his best, but the circumstances surrounding the Miske fights are much less flattering by comparison.

Firpo is a complete joke and anyone who watches him on film can see this for himself. In any gym he'd be laughed at with those skills, amateurs or pros. His size and strength (for the time) compensated somewhat for it, but he was pretty horrible.

And i must have missed those people who think Gibbons, Carpentier and Miske are underrated. The only ones who think so are Dempsey fans. Carpentier and Gibbons don't break anyone's top10 LHW list. Maybe you think that's a high standard, but plenty of other great HW's have wins over really great LHW's, like Spinks, Moore, Foster, Charles, Lewis, etc.

Miske was a heavyweight, but like i said, Dempsey didn't really prove to be that that superior to him.

And how the heck does this matter? Without the Ali win, Frazier's resume isn't all that either, does that mean we should exclude him from the top10? The REALITY is that he DID beat Langford, a man who Dempsey wanted no part of (but according to you he was fading?).

You're making it out asif Wills' entire resume rests on Langford, which it just as much as Dempsey's does on the Sharkey win. There are plenty of good wins on Wills is resume, like Jeanette (another man Dempsey avoided), Mcvea, Norfolk, Smith, Weinert and then there's the guys that Dempsey also beat, i.e. Firpo (without nearly losing like Jack), Fulton, etc.

 

An agenda against a guy that never fought his greatest challenger? That's rich Jimbo :hey

 

Maybe you should think about dropping Frazier from your top ten?

 

Darn, Wills was a damn good heavyweight for a long time, 1913-1925 more or less. I don't much care what his exact age was when he slid, if you've put up the record he did for a dozen years, it's no disgrace to then loose to the likes of J Sharkey and Uzchudun.

 

Think Wills deserved at shot,but I don't think he beats Dempsey.Wills takes Willard,but not a prime Dempsey.Like one poster already stated,Dempsey koed Sharkey.From what i heard Wills didn't foul Sharkey,he didn't fight Sharkey.The referee was red with rage when he pulled Harry off Sharkey for the last time,and DQed him for not fighting.Wills case is no different from guys like Machen,Williams and Folley during the fifties early sixties.They didn' get a title shot,while in their primes.

 

Sam Langford.
Wills beat Langford for the first time when Langford was 32, in their next fight he was kod, Langford was 32.he beat Langford next fight Sam was 33, next one Langford kod him,Sam was 34.After this Wills starts to dominate as Langford fades.
Sam Mcvey. Mcvey beats Wills first fight Sam is 30 . Sam beats him again when he is 31 . Wills beats Sam when Sam is 31 , again when Sam is 34 and their last fight is a No Contest ,when both are thrown out for not trying.
Joe Jeanette.
First fight is a draw Jeanette is 34. Next fight Wills wins, Jeanette is 35 . Wills again beats Jeanette, Jeanette is 40.
So against the trio Wills generally loses the early fights ,then begins to win consistantly as the others deterioate,through age.
KId Norfolk .
Wills beat Norfolk but Norfolk is 36lbs the lighter man.
Jeff Clark .
Wills beats Clark whose only heavyweight scalps of note are two wins over a 33 and 35 year old Langford and he has lost to Langford 4 times.
Denver Ed Martin .
Wills beats a 40 year old Martin in Martin's last fight.
Mexican Pete Everett.

Wills beats a 39 year old Everett who hadn't fought in 3 years ,and had lost 3 of his last 4 fights,kod in 3 of them .

Fred Fulton .
Wills stops Fulton in 3 rds.but Dempsey had kod him in 1 rd 2 years earlier.
Luis Firpo.
Wills comfortably beats Firpo by dec, Dempsey kos Firpo in 2 rds.
So Wills best wins are over the Black fighters who are slightly past their sell by date. IMO.
Does that make his resume better than Dempsey's?

Wills was stopped 5 times , Dempsey once.