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

What I replied to was your categoric, statements that.
"Wills would have been champ if he was white"
"He was the greater heavyweight"
If you had said" I think that " I would not have replied,after all your opinion is as valid as mine.[ well, nearly]
My contention is that Wills rep rests on his wins over three Black men who were past their best ,very much so in Jeanette's case.Noticeably so according to reports in Langford's case ,[ I am thinking of his eye troubles].And significantly in Mcvey's case ,as he won their first two encounters.If wins over these puts Wills high ,where does it put Johnson
who,when both were still maturing beat Langford ,flooring him , beat a prime Jeanette multiple times, and beat Mcvey , once koing him.?
Johnson ,by the way had Wills as a young sparring partner, he recounts in his auto biography that he had to let Wills go as he proved unable to stand up to the punishent. Which is probably jealous bull****. on Johnson's part,as when the book was written wills was the more famous of the two.

The reason I mentioned how many times Wills was stopped [5] to Dempsey's [1] was to put the case that perhaps Wills was not as durable as Dempsey.Dempsey's stoppage by Flynn,[Jacks brother Bernie threw in the towel] might have been a fix ,but I'm inclined to think it was on the level

 

I don't think beating Sam Langford 19 times is a huge accomplishment since most of those wins came when Langford was way past his prime. What's important are the early wins Wills has over Langford. Also, it should be noted that Wills had a huge size advantage and possibly a stylistic advantage against Langford. I think Will's early wins against Langford are the best thing he did in the ring, but he lost to Langford also. He never proved himself clearly superior until Langford was way down-hill. Prime for prime I see them as about even. So aside from those early wins over a still slightly past his best Langford, I don't put any stock in Will's dozen plus victories over Sam. Wills best win is over a slightly past-prime Sam Langford when Wills himself was a bit green. Dempsey's best win is against a prime Jack Sharkey when he was past his own prime. Maybe the whole reason we don't see eye to eye on Wills resume is because I don't really care that he beat up Langford's corpse 10 times. And I also rate Sharkey over Jeannette and McVey. I'm sure there are a lot of factual errors in this post, I'm really just trying to get a general point across. It's 3am and I took one to many ativans. I'm going to call it a night. Plus Jack Dempsey would totally pwn Wills if they ever fought in the past times.

 

It would be had Wills gone onto dominate till the very end like Lewis did. They have different career flows.

 

But the actual significance of the wins lessens as the years roll on. There is a small time period when the wins have some real merit and then winning losses its purpose, having already bested a superior version of Langford.

This is where performances come in; Dempsey convincingly contained Gibbons, no need for multiple fights. Wills should have stopped fighting Langford when it hit 1917.

Dempsey gets little credit universally for beating Gibbons anyway, had he bested him numerous times he probably would have been slated.

 

Flynn was 44 years old and had won only one of his last 7 fights a retirement of Flowers a middleweight ,who had broken his hand.
Bearcat Wright ,when he lost to Langford was
1-10
5-4-1
5-4-2-
Like Tate he was only a glorified sparring partner.
It shows how much Langford was slipping that a year after besting Wright he was kod in 9rds by him,,this is the time of some of Wills victories over Sam ,[around 1922]

 

Beating fighters multiple times isn't a reason for greatnees.Wills and Dempsey both were outstanding fighters.If Dempsey slaughtered Willard nine more times,I wouldn't rate him any higher than I do now.

 

I think a couple of points people are making are simply not true:

1. Sharkey was the best heavyweight either man fought--I don't think I have seen one poll or rating which puts Sharkey above Langford as a heavyweight. Certainly the major ones don't. Langford was #9 on the heavyweight end of the century poll by the AP. Sharkey was not listed. Langford is #17 on the IBRO poll. Sharkey is not listed. Wills did have some victories over an over-the-hill Langford, but the Langford of 1914 would probably be judged better than the Sharkey of 1927 by most.

The RING Magazine ratings of 1998 had Langford 17th and Sharkey 28th, with Joe Jeannette 25th and Sam McVey 30th.

Wills defeated three men usually ranked in the top 30 or 40, Langford, Jeannette, McVey. Sharkey is the only Dempsey victim that generally squeaks into such rankings.

2. Dempsey did better against common opponents--Sharkey, Fulton, and Firpo were not the only common opponents. There were also Charley Miller and Homer Smith. More significantly, there were John Lester Johnson and Willie Meehan. Wills did better against both of them than Dempsey did.

3. Wills being criticized for fighting Langford and other black fighters over and over--What is he supposed to do? Not fight at all and starve. Top white fighters generally ducked the top black fighters like the plague.

 

Of course when you count Wills wins over Langford yuo also hqv eto factor in his two ko defeats to him.
Jeff Clark was badly on the slide by the time Wills got to him as his record shows.

 

one thing thats not being mentioned is jack dempseys win over sharkey is controversial. sharkey hurt jack badly in the first round and IMO came close to knocking him out...then the next 5 rounds sharkey outboxed dempsey, and dempsey got frustrated so he hit him low two flush shots in the balls before hitting him with the left hook. you can argue sharkey should have been granted 5 min recovery from those low blows and maybe even a DQ against jack.........sharkey was clearly lying on the canvas in pain grabbing his balls.

 

It is certainly time for a generation, once and for all, to release Wills along with fellow early black greats Langford, Jeannette, Jackson and McVey from the limbo of their uncertain status over the decades. They must be rated as fairly as possible, so I personally welcome this debate.

a) I personally believe Dempsey would take Wills, though it would be excitingly competitive. Dempsey hit harder and could also box, in addition to having a chin and stamina. Too many tools.

b) Dempsey not taking on Wills can never be compared to the flagrant yellow behavior of Bowe vis-á-vis Lewis. The racial prejudice of a time robbed Wills. Bowe trashed a belt rather than face the Lion.

c) The Sharkey win for Dempsey proves his durability, heart and overall greatness. Over the hill, he never wilted in the face of a talented, game opponent who was besting him. In fact, I personally believe Dempsey's consistency simply made Sharkey decide to quit, using a routine low blow as an excuse for some over-the-top playacting. The final Dempsey left to the face was just what the Boston Gob needed to take a dive.

d) With his size advantage over Langford, it would seem to me Wills should have had enough to keep him successfully at bay, yet was toppled more than once.

e) Wills makes my top 20 head-to-head heavyweight list. Dempsey is in my top 5.

 

The contemporary view of some of Wills later wins over Langford.

This content is protected