It wasn't me who brought up Langford. If his comments about Dempsey being the greatest heavy ever and picking him to beat Wills are to be thrown around, then it's only fair to bring up other things he said that weren't as positive about Dempsey.
So you quote Fleischers book and it's a legit quote. I quote the same book and you discount it? Yes ****ton you are a liar and twister of facts to suit your own agenda.
God forbid there be more than one person who disagrees with the claptrap you three routinely discharge. Don't get mad because like everything else you got proven wrong when you called me a liar. Don't shoot the messenger: This content is protected "Its significant that the same tactics which our own Jack Dempsey has pursued for several years in AVOIDING a fight with his negro nemesis, Harry Wills, were followed by one of Wills' own race, Jack Johnson in refusing to give Langford a chance at the heavyweight title." -Nat Fleischer, April 30, 1926 This content is protected "The best man in the field at present is the negro, Harry Wills who would probably would knock out Dempsey and Carpentier. All the top notch heavyweights have barred Wills because the negro outclasses the field in cleverness and heavy hitting. He undoubtedly would score a knockout over Gibbons." -Nat Fleischer, 1921
Kr aptoon, this is one guys opinion albeit a famous historian who is human and has made many mistakes and miscalls. In this case Fleischer was wrong IMO. Unlike you I don't have to see a bunch of fights to have an informed opinion. What I saw of Wills, wasn't impressive at all, no jab, no great boxing skills, if he was a heavy hitter I didn't see it. Cleverness where? Madden fought an 186 Gene Tunney in 1925 and was ko'd Madden, even a 169 pd arm punching Harry Greb dropped him. And he went 15 rds with wills. He probably had some power but nothing like Dempsey, and apparently not like Tunney. So don't make a mountain out of a mole hill out of what one man said.
All this is well known boxing history. Fleischer was doing all he could to push the bout to occur via his typewriter. Nat in no way shape or form felt Dempsey would lose to Wills nor did he believe Dempsey ducked or was afraid to fight Wills. In Fleischers work where he discusses the greatest hwt fighters in boxing history Wills name is never mentioned. Langfords name is mentioned but even Langford is rated below Dempsey.
Chapter 56 of The idol of Fistania: "In the meanwhile, Dempsey was beseeching Rickard to get him some work because he had become property poor and needed ready cash. Harry Wills was knocking at the champion's door. Rickard, however, wanted no part of the Brown Panther." Note the final sentence. Does it say Dempsey Ducked or was afraid to fight Wills? No. As what has been the known history for 90 years. RICKARD did not want the bout to occur.
Perry, I wonder why? I don't see Wills as a threat to Dempsey. Could it have been the race thing? Something I came across that seemed plausible was that had Dempsey and Wills fought there was a chance that Wills would foul out cos he was known to dog it when the going got rough. That would cause a major riot if the foul was blatant.
Re: Wills-Madden. It depends whether you believe Wills' explanation that he didn't want to injure his hands again. Nobody had knocked Madden out prior to that bout anyway.
Well, since NYSAC had exonerated both boxers, I decided not to use that argument. Did they exonerate Tunney and Italian Jack Herman too, on the same charge, I'm not aware?
Rickard was heavily involved in the Johnson Jeffries fight and its aftermath. Secondly Rickard was very old school and was strongly in favor of the color line in the hwt division. Another point regarding Greb was that Dempsey fought Tunney who mastered Greb. Why wasn't Dempsey unafraid or ducking Tunney? Tunney by 1926 had blossomed into a real hwt. Greb was always a 5'8 middleweight.
For exactly the reason that Rickard admitted: Because they thought a relatively light punching ex light heavyweight would be an easier opponent Harry Wills.
It is well known why Rickard did not want a mixed bout and that had nothing to do with Wills being an easy or hard opponent. This was widely known by Arcel, Fleischer and the boxing writers and public of the day.
K, I cant believe Rickard would say that Tunney was "a relatively light punching ex light heavyweight would be an easier opponent". It don't make sense, first off Tunney had the worse possible style for an aggressive, inactive fighter. He was younger, had sharper reflexes, was active and had pretty good pop in his right. I don't see how Rickard would think that Tunney was the easier guy. And you are saying that Rickard said that, I aint buying it. If he said that, did he come back the next day, and say, "I was lying yesterday, today I am telling you the truth". FYI even Dempsey once upon a time fought at lighter weights, MW, LHW as he grew, so are supposed to now say, ex MW, LHW when referring to Dempsey?
