I saw some very mixed opinion about him. Some say he was the uncrowned champion for a certain period of time, and then there is others, who think his resume is overrated, consisting of ATG that were well past their peaks. They also take the footage of the Uzcudun fight and use it as evidence, to call him overrated and nothing special, when it comes to H2H comparisons. What are your opinions about Wills? How good was he? Would he have beaten Dempsey back then? How high can we rank him?
He certainly is a historically significant figure, but I must say that he finds his way just a nudge above my top 50 I would imagine.
I think Dempsey rates higher for me but I believe Willis would defeat him, did you feel Willis resume is enough to rate him higher than contemporaries like Dempsey and Tunney as well?
Put it this way: I like that at a similar point in their careers, Dempsey ducked Langford and Wills fought him. Then, slowly, mastered him. I think that Langford is the best heavy either man met and I think that only Tunney lies between McVey and Jeanette. So I think overall Wills beat marginally better guys, yeah, at the very top. After that, it becomes how you weigh multiple wins over Langford or McVey versus beating Brennan. Arguments either way are possible. Then it becomes about what you feel about someone maintaining their number one contender status for so long verus holding your title for so long without fighting your number one contender. Either way round is fine, I don't insist on Wills being above Dempsey (or anything really except for Ali and Louis being above everyone) but I do think Wills is elite ATG material.
No heavyweight from that era would be able to compete with any modern skilled heavyweight. So H2H he wouldn't rank high. The same thing as ATG. I don't think people get what that means. ATG doesn't mean historically speaking or was he considered good doing whatever era they boxed in. ATG means would whatever person you are talking about still be great in any era. So Wills wasn't a all time great, he was just a fighter who was "good" doing his era.
Wills had an extraordinary run which, other than him not getting the world title shot he deserved, is comparable to the ledgers of those heavyweight greats, who find themselves in the Top-10. He's inside my Top-15. Anything outside of the Top-20 would be truly unfair, imo.
Wills is #13 on my HW list, 1 spot above Dempsey. I could see Wills below Dempsey, but not outside the top 20.
The problem with your definition is that it's just impossible to verify which fighter would be great in any era. It's your guess, not a fact that Wills wouldn't do well in other eras.
Very insightful and something I'm going to consider, I was aware Dempsey ducked Langford, and that Willis fought him numerous times. After further looking at Willis resume I am also inclined to rate him above Dempsey, as much as a Dempsey fanboy I have become. Resumes don't lie and Willis remained active during a solid period in history. Thanks for your post McGrain
I know what we have of him on film is an older version. I'm not impressed. Arcel didn't seem to think he had a chance against Dempsey. Not sure where I place him yet but it's definitely not top ten
