Harry Wills v Tommy Gibbons15rds?

"who did Wills beat during that made him #1 for 7 years as you claim"

I don't remember every claiming it. There were no ratings for most of this time, but what is obvious is that many, and probably the majority, of observers thought of Wills as the best contender available for most of Dempsey's reign. I posted on another thread that I didn't think he would be the unbroken #1 contender during all of Dempsey's reign if there had been ratings. But I also think he would have been the #1 contender more often than not.

Once the ratings were begun by Ring Magazine in 1924, Wills was rated the #1 contender in 1924 and 1925.

Those Ring Ratings are not my opinion. They were the judgment at the time.

"Fulton" "Firpo"

I really find it an odd argument that Dempsey beating Fulton and Firpo somehow reduces them, while at the same time arguing that Dempsey is the greatest, or one of the greatest, of all time. Under those circumstances, did you expect these men to beat Dempsey?

If they had, they would have been the champion.

"Firpo was destroyed by Dempsey in two rounds."

Although he also knocked Dempsey down and out of the ring. But what is your argument? Losing to Dempsey proves Firpo is no good? But you are claiming Dempsey as being one of the greatest ever.

"Weinert"

Also had some big wins. In fact he was the highest rated heavyweight contender out there who hadn't lost to Dempsey.

"Norfolk"

Was as big or bigger than Gibbons and Greb, and held two wins over Miske.

 

"Dempsey threads"

But this is supposed to be a Wills-Gibbons thread, isn't it?

Sorry if I sounded snarky about Mencken--I didn't mean to--but I was really looking forward to his boxing comments, so it was a letdown.

 

It is extreme that you question everything since you are into historical research do some on your own. Dig for the correct answer to fit your POV just like everybody else does, you see it's not that complicated.

 

Here we go again. I don't think anybody mentioned Dempsey's sparring on this thread just you. If sparring is mentioned it's usually that Greb beat up Dempsey.

Sigh, Denver was mentioned cos that's what the fight Wills was preparing for.

Your last statement is funny cos the one who does what you are saying I do is exactly what you do.

But let's say you are right, please point them out and we can discuss it.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You say you question that Arcel would use a term like that, WHY?
It's a common term used to describe fighters who were good but not good enough and that is what Arcel was saying, it seems you lack basic knowledge when it comes to boxing.

About who would be champ, if there was no Dempsey, I would say not Wills. He would have had to fight Willard and in my opinion Wills would lose. Wills window of opportunity would be 1920-1923, after that it would all be downhill.

Meantime Wills was doing his best to maintain his ranking and as the man who had the most chance to give Dempsey a fight by fighting has beens, never was's, old, smaller men and building this awesome resume. But really fighting guys who had little or no chance to beat him. When he was given a chance to shine by fighting Firpo, a guy bigger man he was way less than awesome. Here was his chance to show his stuff, and what did he do wrestle, grab and hold and hit on the break. In fact Firpo was quoted as saying Wills was more a wrestler then a fighter.

 

How many first hand accounts do you need that attest to Wills' speed?

Willful ignorance doesn't win arguments, but it certainly seems to satisfy your shortcomings.

 

I don't know... could be having had over 100 documented fights and being 35 years old? Where was Dempsey at 100 fights and 35 years of age? Oh, retired and wisely so. But then he was given every opportunity to utilize his talents and didn't have to wait around while the champion's dance card filled up with less qualified partners.

Christ almighty, what robbed you of your logic when you hit 70?

I am putting forth a preponderance of counter-observations that you can't counter with anything but with same tired, old yarns I would expect from a Burt Sugar (GRHS) type.

 

Ah shamoo, your first hand accounts are press releases to excite the fans, but a pretentious intellectual like yourself posts only what fits your agenda, I cant believe that a historian such as yourself doesnt know the difference between a press release and facts as they are, since you are blind and cant see for yourself that those posts are full of tripe, when you have actual clips of this "speed demon", uh oh here it comes :

Here is one you might like: Jack Dempsey on the Wills - Fulton fight.

The evening world., July 27, 1920

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

1920-07-27 Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA) (page 16)
By ROBERT W. MAXWELL
Sports Editor Evening Public Ledger
Wills is a great fighter; at least he looked great against Fulton last night. He is as good as his press agents said he was. He is a powerful, fast piece of fighting machinery, hits hard with either hand and can step around like a lightweight.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045211/1920-07-27/ed-1/seq-16/

 

Here is the AP description of the third round of the Wills-Fulton fight.

"Wills rushed his opponent in the third round and landed rights to the jaw, followed by rights and lefts to the head and body. They came into a half-clinch and Wills shot a short right uppercut under the chin. When they broke away Wills landed a hard right jolt over the heart and then followed with a swinging right uppercut to the jaw, knocking Fulton on his back. He had to be helped to his corner."

Somewhat different description, isn't it? Why don't you tell me what the AP's agenda was?

 

Dempsey1234

No one has ever posted as anti-Dempsey a bit as the one you just did.

He starts by saying he is rooting for Fulton, and makes it clear Fulton would have gotten a shot if he won,

then launches one of the most vicious verbal attacks I have ever seen from one fighter to another. Fulton was not just beaten, but a gutless coward. This line especially interested me,

"They said afterward that the doctor examined him and found two ribs broken. They should have looked at his heart. Maybe that was broken too."

Gees. I guess the physician(s) have an agenda also. I would consider broken bones prima facie evidence that Fulton was hit hard.

Apparently the irony of questioning Fulton's courage when Fulton had the courage to get into the ring with Wills--something Dempsey never did--didn't occur to him.

Of course, Wills "poor" showing eliminates him as a contender or something,

but why isn't Dempsey just honest about it. He had drawn the color line when he won the title, and he drew it publicly again after the Carpentier fight.

It is clear he was planning on fighting Fulton after Fulton eliminated Wills, and it didn't turn out that way, but no way he fights Wills, although of course he claims he will if the public demands it. They did and he didn't.

*The only exculpatory thing about this damning quote is that I doubt that Dempsey actually said it. I think the comments attributed to him actually came from Kearns or from one of Rickard's flacks. The language really doesn't sound like Dempsey,

and the viciousness doesn't sound like him either. He was usually a gentleman.

 

It is for the person who uses a quote as evidence to provide its provenance.

I don't consider this quote worthwhile evidence.

"Dig for the correct answer to fit your POV"

What I was taught is that one sifts evidence to find the truth, not to merely seek something to back up your point of view, which is sort of a definition of a closed mind.