Harry Wills v Tommy Gibbons15rds?

Ed, this is your opinion and you are being stubborn, but as stubborn as you are you are still entitled to your opinion.
That quote comes from a guy who actually seen both Dempsey and Wills.

What you seem to want is impossible to provide, cos you'll come with, did he say it to a reporter? Who was the reporter? Was he sober? Was the reporter anti or pro Wills? Does he have a recording of him saying that? Cos the reporter might have misunderstood what Arcel said and on and on and on.

Arcel was a pretty reputable guy so I would take him for what he said. That coupled with reading fight reports and actually watching him in the four minutes and seeing him, I would tend to agree with Arcel. Wills was a journeyman, nothing special.

I would suggest you look at his record and see for yourself when it was that he fought all those guys and how old they were when he fought them.

After Fulton who did he beat that wasn't old, faded, smaller or bloated?

You seem to be biased and have an agenda, I believe that's what's driving your car.

 

Dempsey1234

"What you seem to want is impossible to provide"

No. It is just providing the provenance of a quote. It is basic historical technique. That's why a history book has footnotes.

"did he say it to a reporter? Who was the reporter? Was he sober? Was the reporter anti or pro Wills? Does he have a recording of him saying that? Cos the reporter might have misunderstood what Arcel said"

Exactly. These are all questions an historian will ask.

And on "Was he sober." A good historian should ask this question both of the reporter and of Arcel. A man might go overboard when in his cups.

"Arcel was a pretty reputable guy"

So was Lincoln, for example. But if you come up with a quote by Lincoln, you better expect questions about where the quote came from and if Lincoln really said such a thing, especially if the quote is controversial.

"I suggest you look at his record"

I first began looking at Wills' record back in the early sixties.

"when it was he fought all those guys"

Wills first fought Langford when Langford was 31, and first defeated him at 32--the same age Gibbons was when Dempsey defeated him.

Wills first fought McVea when McVea was 30. He first defeated him at 31.

He knocked out Fulton at 29, and Norfolk at 29, Firpo was probably 29, Weinert just short of 30. All these top men in the 1920's were younger than Wills.

"After Fulton who did he beat that wasn't old, faded, smaller, or bloated?"

"Smaller"

Pointless as almost everyone is smaller. The subject of this thread--Gibbons--was probably a half a foot shorter and around forty pounds lighter.

"old"

Norfolk, Firpo, and Weinert were all several years younger than Wills.

"faded"

hard to see Norfolk, Firpo, or Weinert as really faded, other than your spin.

"bloated"

I guess this is supposed to refer to Firpo?

"You seem to be biased and have an agenda"

A nonsense ad hominem. An opinion doesn't equate to bias, and by the way, an advocate being biased in itself doesn't prove the argument wrong.

An argument stands on its own. Rebut it with a good rebuttal, not with a position that you are objective and the other fellow biased.

 

Nonsense

 

You might be right but it will lead to more questions that to me make no sense, as if the guy was sober or not. Who really has that info? Or cares to dig up the info, if the guy was sober or not. I just put it out there to show that he is digging for anything he can hang his hat on.

I would be more then happy to answer each and every question he has but to what end?

Just to prove a point I will answer each and every question he had.

 

This is really a dumb question if you are so interested in finding out when, where and how, dig up the quote yourself it's out there. It's not that complicated, in fact it's in an article that you have read and don't seem to understand.
Here is the quote from that article:

A Panther in Winter

In Roger Khan’s excellent biography of Jack Dempsey, he observes that while the skills of Georges Carpentier have dimmed over the decades, the skills of Harry Wills have grown. He also quotes Trainer Ray Arcel in describing Wills as “a very good journeyman.” Arcel, who had apprenticed with Wills’ trainer Dai Dollings, also told referee Arthur Mercante, “Wills was big and none too fast. It was a terrible injustice that Wills never got a title shot, but those big, slower guys were made to order for Dempsey.” The sportswriter James P. Dawson, who wrote for The New York Times, testified after Wills’ loss to Sharkey, “None who saw last night’s battle can doubt that Dempsey would have annihilated Wills four years ago, three years ago, or a year ago.”


References:

Roger Kahn “A Flame of Pure Fire”
Jack Cavanaugh “Tunney – Boxing’s Brainiest Champ”
Arthur Mercante “Inside The Ropes”
The New York Times
Time Magazine
The Times Daily
Alton Evening Telegraph
The Evening Independent
The Milwaukee Journal
The Quebec Daily Telegraph
The Telegraph-Herald
Rochester Evening Journal
The Border Cities Star

 

The quote wasn't controversial at all so really no further digging into the historical significance is needed. Arcel was reputable.

 

From the Portland Oregonian, Nov. 16, 1921

There are the observations on Wills prior to his meeting with Denver Ed Martin...

"Tar Baby Shows Real Speed
Every corner of the gym was packed by fight bugs eager for a glimpse of the only man conceded a chance with the champion, Jack Dempsy.

He is fast on his feet and shoots in his left or right like lightning from any angle. It would be a real battle of the century if Wills and Dempsey could only be brought together.

Wills fight cut loose with his right. The punch was so fast that no one saw it coming, but the poor sparring partner felt it land..."

 

Since we are talking about the Wills of the Dempsey era 1919-1927. Maybe I should have been more specific with you. Now I repeat who did Wills beat during those yrs that made him # 1 for as you claim 7 yrs.
again the small, the old, the faded and the bloated dot his record, from 1919 to 1927.
Now tell me how old was Jeannette, Langford, McVea and were they still relevant?
Ok now for his biggest win, Fulton, Dempsey ko'd him in 18sec and thats including the count. Weinert was ko'd 8x out of 10 losses. Norfolk was a LHW. Firpo was destroyed in two rds by Dempsey, firpo weighed 216, for that fight, when he fought Wills he weighed 224, does that tell you anything?

 

Let me ask you a question you should be able to answer easily. How old was Denver Ed? Another smoking gun turns out to be a pop gun. So you are saying your cherry picked report was saying that he was a speedster, yeah I guess to a 40-43 yr old Denver Ed, who must've been slow as molasses if this reporter saw the great difference in speed. Why don't you mention that Denver Ed, was on a comeback after being out for 7yrs, he returned in Sept 1921, he retired after the Wills fight 2 months later. Great find

 

I think we would have to install wills as a favourite here, but I would not be shocked if Gibbons pulled off the upset.

Their results vs common opponents:

Kid Norfolk, Wills KO2, Gibbons TKO6

Bartley Madden, Harry wills W15 Gibbons ND10

Looks fairly even on paper, but it belies the fact that Wills had more quality wins at heavyweight.

 

The argument was wrong, the bias confirmed, since nothing seems to convince you that any rebuttal is good enough for you.

 

I think I would take Arcel's POV word for it, that he was a journeyman cos he actually saw him. He was a contender no doubt that we talk about him here is cos people were saying that Dempsey was afraid, ducking him and the colorline. Otherwise why would we even mention him?
Besides Fulton who did Wills fight that posed any danger to him?
His big wins were in the mid to late Teens, and the champion was Jess Willard. After that he seemed to be very selective about who he fought. For instance his fight with Mcvea, in 1920.
Which we got into.
Also in 1920, he fought Jack Thompson who he had fought multiple times and what happened, "After their loudly booed performance, both fighters purses were withheld by the promoters." They fought again 11 days later.
In 1921, he again fought Jack Thompson, and what happened? "The referee stopped the fight without rendering a decision after Thompson fell to the floor claiming a foul had been committed".
In 1922, he fought Bill Tate, and again controversy, "Wills was disqualified for knocking Tate down after the referee's call to break; Both fighters agreed to a rematch four days later, at no cost to the fans."
From 1923 to 1925 Wills only fought 2 fights in each of those yrs.
This doesnt speak well for a #1 guy, but it does speak to Arcel's quote.