Harry Wills biggest wins come pre-Dempsey, should Willard have fought him?

To be honest Wills doesn’t seem to have been seen as a standout during this period.

Willard drew a lot more flack for not fighting Fred Fulton.

 

In a word, yes.

Willard defended his title in 1916 against a fighter who had already had his shot and lost to Johnson,

and then sat on the title for three years.

Dempsey was an outstanding challenger.

 

If Moran was good enough for Johnson the year prior, it's not a bad defense for Willard. Not all that good, either. In 1916, Moran was a legit top 10 guy - but like with Jack before him, Moran shouldn't have been the ONLY defense.
What could be considered a solid elective in more recent times.


Willard didn't sit on the title for three years really did he?

I mean, the title was frozen for most of that time due to ww1?

That being said, a lot of time between March 1916 and us entry in ww1 (April 1917?).

 

World titles were frozen during World War II, but I never found any indication that they were during World War I. Moreover, I thought that such titles were frozen during WWII for only titleholders who went into the service. Since Willard didn't go into the service during WWI, a frozen title provision probably wouldn't apply to him if it was in effect at the time.

In fairness to Willard, it was very difficult to stage a world heavyweight title bout after his successful title defense against Frank Moran in New York City during 1916, especially after professional boxing was banned in the state of New York for three years starting in 1917. It also didn't help that World War I was taking place during most of Willard's reign. After the U.S. entered the war, both boxing and baseball seemed to take a big hit at the professional level.

- Chuck Johnston

 

I suspect Wills deserved a shot at Willard as much as he deserved a shot at Dempsey.
He's either established as the #1 contender before 1919, or he isn't ?
I don't know.
People are so sure he was #1 contender for the entirety of Dempsey's reign so they should know whether he was #1 contender from 1915 or 1916.
I suspect that's exactly how he should be seen.

I'm fairly sure that Jack Johnson's leading contenders are said the be the black trio Langford, McVey and Jeanette, and it seems that Wills took over from them by dominating them in series fights. But I'll have to re-check the record.

 

Robert Edgren's write-up on Dec 4, 1915:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1915-12-04/ed-1/seq-8/

 

In October 1916 there were rumors that a syndicate of Boston sporting men was going to offer Willard $40,000 to box Wills, but Willard and his managers drew the color line.

 

Most would disagree with that statement.

Willard wasn't very active as the champion.

After knocking Johnson out, he fought a 10 round match with Moran in 1916, had no matches in 1917 or 1918, then was blasted out by Dempsey at age 37, 3 years inactive.

The fights that were offered to Williard in 1916 and 1917 are something I'm unaware of. Who can fill in the blanks?

 

Thanks for this post.

It serves as a good antidote to the Wills was a "journeyman" chorus that seems be dominating this board.

 

On the "frozen" title,

Others know it, I'm certain,

but I thought there was pressure on Willard to defend against Fulton, and Willard was widely criticized and increasingly unpopular for not fighting Fulton.

As Dempsey eliminated Fulton before the end of the war, the whole Fulton controversy had to have been during WWI.

*As for Wills, after Johnson he was out of luck,

and Willard openly drew the color line.

There probably wasn't a lot of conversation about a Willard-Wills fight in the press as everyone knew that fight would never come off.

 

Well, the same writer Robert Edgren is one of the sportswriters who has been condemned on this board for stating that Wills wasn't up to Dempsey's standard (in 1922, '23 or '24?).
Usually the charge against writers like him is that they were biased, racist and being paid by 'Rickard' or 'Kearns' or 'Dempsey' to downgrade Wills.

Possible.
I think an alternative explanation is that Wills was much better in 1915 than he was in 1924.

I think it was Ray Arcel who used the term "journeyman" about Harry Wills. I wouldn't necessarily call Wills a journeymen but then I haven't seen much of Wills. But you know I don't dislike the term or consider it disparaging. I think it's a relative term and a loose term and there's really no need to get offended by it because we can all use terms differently it seems. :good

 

"Arcel"

He was so quoted, but the quote is w/o provenance.

"journeyman"

After reading quotes that describe the Frazier of 1971 just prior to the Ali fight, and also George Foreman, as "journeymen"

I think the term has been drained of any useful meaning.

"Wills was much better in 1915 than in 1924"

This is certainly logical. Most fighters (although not all) are better in their mid-twenties than in their mid-thirties, and considering that Wills could rarely secure a fight with top men to keep his skills sharp, regression seems likely.

But Wills' performances in 1924 and 1925 were not nearly as bad as his critics seem determined to claim. He won nearly every round with Firpo.

He blew out Weinert impressively.

Weinert is of course trashed to drag Wills down, but Rickard rated him the #4 heavyweight in 1924 behind only Dempsey, Wills, and Gibbons,

and he was on roll. In 1924 and 1925 he defeated the #5 heavyweight, Romero Rojas, and the #7 heavyweight, Firpo, handed the #5 light-heavyweight, Ad Stone, his first defeat,
and defeated the then top prospect, and future heavyweight champion, Jack Sharkey twice.