This is ridicolous, Wills was 6 years older than Dempsey and was about 100 ring years older with all his years of hard fights. Not objective their janitor
I dont think it is a ridiculous comparison. Wills was the No1 contender going into the Sharkey fight and had been active up to that point. Dempsey was coming off a long period of inactivity and a loss to Gene Tunney when he fought Sharkey.
Wills was 37 and very visably declined, Dempsey was 31-32, without too many ring years. Whats your reasons for excluding Dempseys post title defeats?
Dempsey never recovered his previous form following his three year layoff. You could make a case that he was further gone than Wills in real terms when he fought Sharkey. Yes Wills was a lot older but he aged verry well while Dempsey burned out very quickly. It is hard to judge because Wills went from bing verry good to an empty shell between the fight presceeding the one with Sharkey and the Uzcdun fight.
BULL****, how do you know that Wills aged slower, Wills may have aged far far worse than Dempsey but you give Dempsey every the benefit of the doubt. As you say Wills was a shell against Uzcdun so for all intents he could have been a shell against Sharkey. We know he was 37 and no HW has been near their prime at that age and at around 150fights How do we know Dempsey had aged, because he looked worse against the 2 best fighters he ever faced, which he would do anyway Sorry pure Bias, Wills fought better overall against common opponents. This doesn't necessarily mean he was better. We don't know if WIlls was better and we never got to find out in the ring. In legacy Wills and Dempsey are very close with Wills having the better resume
That was not what I was saying. I meant that he was at his absolute peak at the age Dempsey was when he fought Sharkey e.g. 31. Weinert was probably ranked at the time. Johnson was shot. It wasnt that much earlier that he beat Firpo. I think I acknowledged that point. Wills went into the tank somwhere between the Johnson fight and the Uzcdun fight. No no no. I am saying that the Wills that fought Sharkey might have been equivalent to the Dempsey that fought Sharkey. But Dempsey performed better against common oponents when they were both fighting at a world level. This would seem to be a pretty good argument that he was going back, yet you maintain that Dempsey got old while Wills did not. I think that is about as biased an argument as you could make.[/quote] They both got old. The diference is that the old Dempsey found a way to close the gap on Sharkey.
They both got old. The diference is that the old Dempsey found a way to close the gap on Sharkey.[/quote] Yes, but the old Dempsey was the same age of Wills was in 1921, five years before he fought Sharkey. You could argue that Wills just didn't go downhill as fast, but I could equally argue that Wills was still a top man in 1924 & 1925 at 35 & 36 because he was simply better to begin with and was still able to get by even when he had gone back. We don't know and never will. *I changed my post from biased argument to poor argument. I think it is a poor or weak argument, but biased was a poor choice of words and I regret it and withdrew it even before you posted. I see that I misunderstood completely your point that Wills was at his peak at 31 and Dempsey past his at that age. I don't really understand why this should benefit Dempsey, though. Wills was simply much older and in the normal course would have been expected to go further back. You are right that not everyone follows the normal course, but I think the evidence that Wills had in fact not slipped that much is weak. He did not look as good against Firpo as he did against Fulton. Johnson and Weinert were second-tier fighters who lost consistently to the top men. Dempsey still had enough left to beat Sharkey, in my opinion the biggest win of his career, and also to catch up with Tunney. The evidence that he had gone back that much is not convincing. Or I should say that the evidence Dempsey was a great deal better in the early twenties when he struggled with Brennan, is not overwhelming.
It is a shame that Wills never got a title fight, I think it is a shame when the best don't get a title fight. I dont think the blame should go to Dempsey, I think after Johnson, the goverment did not really want to see another Johnson. Also the $$$ vs black fighters was not worth the risk for the promoters and that why Jack Johnson only fought 1 black challanger. Anyway I think Dempsey is underated on this site. I would consider the Sharkey fight because not only was Dempsey rusty and not active, one thing that we don't take into consideration is that Dempsey was one of the meanest fighters with complete killer instinct. He showed it in the Sharkey fight. the Tunney fight, the Firpo fight, the Willard fight and others. Ketchel,Dempsey,Duran,Tyson were all mean guys...Marciano and Louis were Killers and mean but they did it with kind words and a smile but on the inside the fire raged...look at Louis Schmeling...look at Marciano/Walcott II, now that was killer...look at Duran/Lampkin/Moore/Cuevas/DejesusII & 3
A fight between Wills and Dempsey would be a classic but Wills would not be a sure bet to win...In fact I lean towards Jack based on the Willard fight....Wills had a long reach, was solid but was also there to be hit but he would be a tough fight for Dempsey, just Wills was not as fast or as powerfull a puncher
I disagree, even though dempsey knocked him out badly in 2 rounds......Dempsey was floored 3 times(not 2) including getting knocked out of the ring, and he would have been counted out if the sportswriter didnt push him back in the ring. Did firpo ever come close to having harry wills in this much trouble? i dont think so. Also wills floored firpo twice in their fight, and won every round.
