Harry Wills v Tommy Gibbons15rds?

I just looked up "journeyman" on Wikipedia and this is the definition there

"In boxing and mixed martial arts, a journeyman is a fighter who has adequate skill but is not of the caliber of a contender or gatekeeper."

Yes. That is what I always thought it meant.

"not good enough"

For what? Not able to beat an all-time great? Not able to win the championship? But Wills won the championship he was able to fight for.

I think Wills would have beaten Willard, and probably lost to Dempsey, but would have been Dempsey's sternest test at least until Tunney.

 

"A right hand punch delivered by Wills which landed back of Martin's ear."

"That in case you didn't know it is not a totally legal punch."

It was legal in the United States.

I remember a discussion of this issue after the first Johansson-Patterson fight in 1959. On the second knockdown, Johansson clearly hit Patterson with a right to the back of the head. Some fans raised an issue and it was pointed out that there was no rule against that in American pro boxing.

I think the bottom line was that it might be poor sportsmanship, but it wasn't illegal.

That Ingo-Patterson fight is on slow motion on you tube, and you can count how many times Johansson hits Patterson behind the ear. I lost count, but I would guess ten to fifteen at least. Patterson was reeling around and bending over and trying to protect his face with his gloves. Ingo looped his right from the side and hit Patterson again and again behind the ear. Referee Ruby Goldstein just counted.

Floyd got his shots in at the end of the third fight. Note on the British tape that the British announcer even notes that the two knockout punches in the sixth round were behind the ear.

I used a high visibility 1959 fight, but the rules were far looser in 1921 with Oregon probably not even having a state athletic commission back in those days. A viewing of the Dempsey-Willard fight shows how loose the rules were. Note on the fourth knockdown Dempsey walks behind Willard to deliver punches. Hard to see how those punches wouldn't have landed to the back of the head.

 

Good point, you're right about looser rules, and yes I do remember Patterson and Johansson. I didn't think it was fair then, mainly cos Patterson was one of my first boxing hero's.

 

Now you see why you cant go with articles alone, if there were one hundred writers seeing the same fight they would have different accounts. I have read where reports say Wills broke 3 ribs, 2 ribs, not mention it at all. I have also read it was what Dempsey said the last punches were three body punches and the finishing blow a clip to the chin. Willard was supposed to have had multiple bones broken, and they weren't true. Like I said you have to take these articles and reports with a grain of salt.

Step around like a LW, gimme a break.

 

Ed, you are confirming what I said in my post to Senya. thanks

 

Exactly what Wills did sit around and make sh it loads of money, going on his traveling road show, going from place to place fighting nobodies, old, faded, bloated guys and a bunch of way smaller guys, as "the guy who could give Dempsey a real fight".

I am not there yet, I am experienced enough to answer your silly one sided agenda filled posts.

 

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.[/quote]

Please your preponderance of counter-observations, that you posted are one sided and fit your agenda, I have and others have posted counters but you keep posting things and really you don't know what you are posting, like the press releases, please, hahaha see no emoticons.

I knew Burt Sugar and even worked with him at Ring magazine, and can tell you, he was no Nat Fleischer, who I also knew.

Can you be specific as to what tired old yarns you may be talking about, that you say I have posted?

 

That was a bit of trolling, regarding the LW remark)
But the thing is which reporters wrote next day that Wills was slow, other than Dempsey? I haven't seen any of them claim Wills was slow in that bout.
Also, if you look up Thomas Rice's report in next-day Brooklyn Eagle, he wrote in detail why he didn't consider Wills to be dirty fighter.

 

Senya, Robert Edgren, said it himself in a column I believe I posted a while back. If you look at his past fights there were plenty of reports that he used tactics that were considered fouls, it was even mentioned that one of his tactic's was to hit on the break, and there is visual evidence to that affect.

Was he the Fritzie Zivic of the HW? No, but he seemed to know a trick or two. About his speed there is also evidence of that, yes he was old but speed loss wouldn't be as dramatic more to do in my opinion with reflexes reaction to openings, to getting hit.

 

I'm talking about that particular fight, vs Fulton.
Charles F. Mathison of NY Sun and Herald: Wills "fought up to his best form, and won decisively and cleanly".
NY Tribune: "While the referee was tolling off the seconds Fulton tried to indicate in dumb show that he had been fouled, but the blow that made him drop and quit for the evening was absolutely fair."
W.A. Hamilton of Boston Herald: "Wills is the right type that will force Dempsey to show his best brand of fighting. He is fast, clever and packs a heavy punch for a fighter with his speed."

 

Daniel (Margowitz), two days later, in NY Sun and Herald: "Having promised to meet the winner of the Wills-Fulton match and having recanted on the color line, Dempsey now must fight Wills. The negro, in beating Fulton, showed that he is a mighty clever customer--no doubt the most scientific heavyweight now before the public. And he is a hard hitter too. If he meets Dempsey the champion will be a strong favorite, for he is too cyclonic a puncher for the ebony hued boxer. Wills is strong, but Dempsey is stronger. Wills is fast, but Dempsey is faster. ... Wills showed that he was a great boxer--second only to Dempsey at this time--but it is a question if he can take punishment."

 

As for Robert Edgren, he made some stupid remarks after that fight, that were not supported by any other sporting writer I read.
P.S. Oh... I forgot Vincent Treanor wrote for NY Evening World at that time, I'm taking my words back about Edgren. It was Treanor saying stupid things, not Edgren, sorry.

 

I love your posts cos you just lay them out there. That seems to be the prevailing point, Dempsey would have beaten Wills.

 

1920-07-28 San Francisco Chronicle (page 11)
Willie Meehan, who has boxed both men, showed no hesitancy in declaring that Wills will beat Dempsey if they meet.
"Why?" he repeated. "Because Wills hits the harder of the two; is the bigger man, and is the better boxer."