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

Because that opponent is probably the best quality fighter either one has ever beaten. Winning against a higher level of opposition is probably the biggest dent you could make into someone else's claim of "resume superiority."

No he doesn't. There's only a handful of fighters "locked" into that list, and way too many fighters over the whole course of heavyweight history that could claim a spot on it.

Sharkey has as good (if not better) a case for the top 40 as anyone Wills beat.

That's almost absurd. JACK JOHNSON had already beaten the same guys Wills did - why should Wills' resume be considered better than his? Furthermore, what makes Wills' resume better than a host of other heavyweights that have strong resumes, ie: Joe Louis?

Here's a comparison between Dempsey's and Wills' resumes:

Wills:
Langford (HOFer)
Jeanette (HOFer)
McVey (HOFer)
Norfolk
Ed Martin

Who else would you add on here? Tut Jackson perhaps? Jeff Clark?

Dempsey:
Willard (HOFer, reigning undisputed champion at the time)
Sharkey (HOFer, probably best heavyweight on either list)
Gibbons (HOFer)
Carpentier (HOFer)
Levinsky (HOFer)
Miske
Brennan

...and of course, there's the guys that they both beat, like Fulton, Firpo, and Gunboat Smith - though in each case there I think it's worth noting that Dempsey beat them first and when they were generally more highly regarded.

What are you looking at here that makes the top list standout as "clearly better" than the bottom one?

It does if he never beat anyone better than that opponent, and if the guy we're comparing him to(Dempsey) was able to beat that same guy at a comparable stage in his career.

 

Not really, as Wills was considered to have reached his peak at the age of around 30, and was performing consistently and impressively right up until being shockingly whupped by an up-and-coming Sharkey - all the while he had been considered the most highly rated and regarded contender in the division, right up until then. I agree Wills wasn't still at his absolute peak when he fought Sharkey, but he was still considered a very live top fighter, nowhere near washed up or anything like that.

By contrast, far more people felt that Dempsey had looked much more faded from his top form against Tunney, perhaps even washed up - and he KO'd Sharkey right after that.

Whatever their respective ages, Wills and Dempsey both reached their peaks at around the same time and declined at the same time. Their careers very closely paralleled each other, ironically enough. Wills was no more past his prime than Dempsey was when they both fought Sharkey, or than guys like Langford, Jeanette, etc. were when he started beating them.

I agree 100%.

However, that's a separate issue from who has the better resume, or even who was the better actual fighter.

 

Bill Brennan had to go to the hospital to get his brain checked after he fought Firpo. Another of Firpo's opponents was out for 10 minutes after he ate one of his right hands. I'm just saying things because I've been reading a lot of NY Times articles lately.

 

If wills is better then dempsey based on resume, then how come he isnt better then Johnson or jeffries for that matter?

 

I rate Wills several spots higher than Jeffries. I don't think much of Jeffries.

 

i don't rate him either.

 

"By contrast, far more people felt that Dempsey had looked far more faded from his top form against Tunney"

What is your evidence about what "far more people" thought?

 

Because unlike Jeffries he didn't have the luxury of being white, and unlike Johnson, he didn't get a shot at the title but was the victim of the most blatant duck job in the history of boxing for any weight division. Plus, he didn't have his best fights on film.

 

What those people from that time wrote and recorded.

 

I have never come across one observer who thought Wills looked anything but awful against Sharkey, or for that matter Uzcudun. That doesn't mean they might not exist, but I haven't seen them. Do you have examples?

The general drift of most comments I have read on this fight is it indicates that Dempsey might have fought the wrong man, Tunney, instead of the aging Wills.