Harry Wills fought 43 fights from 1919 to 1925 who really had a chance

Who in the f*ck is saying he made that much, some senile Internet poster 95 years hence?

Wills himself stated he was barely getting by in 1923 but you are going toss sh*t numbers around based on nothing?

 

Hitting on the break must have been allowed for that fight then.

 

Exactly. I've been saying this for years. Even in the era of crytal-clear televised fights, newspaper reports and depictions are full of slants and opinions that don't square with what we saw.
So I don't know why people hang so dearly upon the reports of a bygone age where things are even more corruptable.

I mean, I'm not saying we should throw it all out. And I understand it's often all we have. But it certainly should be read or presented as gospel. Far from it.

 

As I said before if Wills was fighting under a pull how come he took advantage of Firpo dropping his hands at the order to break and sneaked over a big shot? I believe Wills retired quite a prosperous man.

 

I see no point debating with you any more. You have no idea who the reporters I read were or how much experience they had or how many thousands of fights they attended in New York city area and the neighborhood up that time . You are saying BS here.

 

He beat Ernie Terrell and drew with Eddie Machen.
Was Sam McVea really much better than them ?
As for Sam Langford, the significant wins over Langford happened 3 to 5 years before Dempsey was even champion.

We're talking about Harry Wills betwen 1919 and 1925 on this thread. I think Langford was seriously damaged goods by then.

The comparison with Cleveland Williams was inspired by all the posts here defending Harry Wills because "the top contenders were avoiding him!" ..... but when the same thing is suggested as a possibility for Cleveland Williams, it's dismissed out of hand.
By some of the very same posters.

Yes, he sometimes did.

He deserved a shot.
Whether he was the best, I don't know. I don't think his record proves it outright.

 

Actually this is very true. Wills was well off when he retired. He was known as a frugal man.

 

Harry Wills was reportedly paid $150,000 for the Firpo fight.

 

I reckon the same group of posters have had the same debate about this topic well into double figures now.

How many change their stance? I don't know.

I have changed my opinion a few times but now I'm settled on the idea that Dempsey wasn't scared of Wills. He just had an excuse to not make the fight (race riots) and took easier options. Like Johnson wasn't scared of Langford, he just had an excuse (two blacks can't draw a crowd worth of my purse) and took easier options.

Both are ducks. But both would have won imo had the fights been made.

Today Canelo is ducking G. I again don't feel he's scared but he has an excuse to hide behind (I'm an A-Side and we'll only fight on my terms) that's worse imo.



Ducking happens a lot throughout history and sometimes the ducks can be explained but never should they be excused imo.

If Dempsey wanted to, he could have forced through the fight. Some say he has no reason to do that, some say he should. Either way his best challenger wasn't allowed to challenge him.

 

"Cleveland Williams" "contenders were avoiding him" "dismissed out of hand."

I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. But I think it valid to ask how it was that these contenders were willing to get into the ring with a then contender Sonny Liston, but were unwilling to get into the ring with Williams.

At least this raises questions about such as Nino Valdes and Zora Folley and Mike DeJohn, for instance.

And in all fairness, Wills was in the color line era and Williams was not.

Most of the top contenders of the Williams era were black.

"The significant wins over Langford happened 3 to 5 years before Dempsey was even champion."

I don't think this is valid. The championship changing hands doesn't wipe victories off the books. That Willard refused to fight Wills is no real excuse for Wills not getting a shot in the 1920 to 1922 era for me.

If Patterson had defended against someone other than Sonny Liston in 1962, and lost, would it be okay for the new champ to say,

"Liston has to go to the back of the line. His big wins were years ago."

 

And it's valid to point out that Williams fought Liston twice too, so he wasn't avoiding the best either !

I'm not saying that.
Harry Wills deserved a shot. Even based on wins from years ago or whatever, Harry Wills deserved a shot.

I'm simply saying maybe he wasn't the best around, or at least maybe he wasn't clearly the best around. Based on his record, there are a lot of years there where he's not clearly proving himself the best around.

 

there isn't much film of this fight, but what there is certainly shows both fighters throwing punches with mean intent.

I think it valid to perhaps question Wills' punching power to an extent.

As for reporters claims of a fix or somebody wearing cuffs, I noticed reading archived papers from that era and earlier that if you read different papers you get different takes on any given fight,

and almost always there are claims of a fix. One SF paper made a big pitch for the Jeffries-Fitz fight of 1902 being a fix, despite the hellacious facial damage Jeff suffered.

Many US papers were on the ban boxing side, which was strong, and that most fights were fixes and/or the public was being cheated all the time was part of the sustained attack.

 

"Williams fought Liston twice"

Good point for Williams.

"there are a lot of years there where he's not clearly proving himself the best around"

Between years when he does.

Wills record is simply better than any other heavyweight (other than Dempsey) over a very long period of time. He loses only to Langford and McVea, but ends up defeating both and proving himself superior to them.

His only losses for over a decade and a lot of fights were on a freak injury and a DQ in which his opponent was apparently out on the floor in the first round.

Everyone else was losing a lot worse and more often than that.

With the possible exception of Greb if he is considered.

And how often do you have to re-prove yourself?

Did beating Harry Thomas prove Schmeling was the best out there in 1937?

Did beating King and Westfall prove Liston was the best out there in 1961?

Personally, I think Wills was slipping through the twenties, but the guys judged as having the best chance of beating him and who were willing to get into the ring with him lost badly to him.

 

The rules were pretty lax.

Look what was allowed in the Dempsey fights with Willard and Firpo.

 

The entire idea that Dempsey himself ducked anyone as champion is inheritly a highly flawed concept. Fighters do not make fights. Promotors, managers and the demand from the populous make fights. That's it. If promotors don't want to make the fight it does not happen. If managers don't want the fight to occur it does not happen. If the lay public does not want to shell out the dollars to make it happen the fight won't happen. In this case the managers, promotors AND the powers who controlled boxing did not want the fight to occur. There is no fault whatsoever of Dempsey here in fact he should be applauded for setting a historical president unheard of in boxing history by acting as his own manager in trying to make the bout happen.