In What Year Of Dempsey's Reign Did Wills Most Deserve His Shot?

This is an attempt to fully address the issue posed in this thread, which to my mind has been leapfrogged by everyone's eagerness to resurrect all the old arguments which have been hashed over again and again in prior threads.

Fred Fulton was on a 19-bout winning streak against the best white fighters in the heavyweight division when Harry Wills stopped him in three rounds on July 26, 1920. By that time, Wills was already generally recognized as the best Black heavyweight in the world, most notably by defeating Sam Langford on April 14, 1918 for the so-called "colored championship." So, I would say that Wills was indisputably the most deserving challenger for the title from July 26, 1920 at all times until his defeat at the hands of Jack Sharkey on October 12, 1926. By that time, Jack Dempsey was no longer champion, having lost the title to Tunney two-and-a-half weeks earlier. To put it into perspective, Wills was indisputably the leading challenger for the heavyweight title throughout Dempsey's entire championship reign except for the first year, that is, for six full years. And a good case can be made that he was the most deserving challenger for that first year as well, with the Fulton victory merely serving to seal Wills' claim beyond debate.

As Jason Thomas points out, Wills was about 6 years older than Dempsey. His best chance to defeat Jack would have been "the sooner the better." I'm guessing that after 1922, Wills' window for competing with Jack would have been pretty well on its way to being closed. Klompton was entirely correct in pointing out in another thread that is currently under discussion ( https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...black-challengers.697457/page-9#post-22120252 ), that Dempsey was a free agent in 1925, unencumbered by any contractual obligations to either Kearns or Rickard. If Jack had had the sense to pull a Mayweather and agreed to fight the aged Wills rather than Tunney in 1925 or '26, he would have had a relatively easy time, secured and even gilded his legacy, and we wouldn't be talking about it right now. But he didn't, and we are.

 

FFS can we just all agree that AT SOME POINT IN HUMAN HISTORY Dempsey should have given WIlls a title shot?
We could then stop having this discussion over and over and over again, like deja vu all over again.

 

"Was Norfolk a top heavyweight contender in 1922 when Wills beat him?"

Well, Norfolk had KO'd Gunboat Smith back in 1916. He beat Billy Miske twice, in 1917 and 1919. The weights in the 1919 fight were 182 for Norfolk and 180 for Miske. Norfolk had also KO'd Bill Tate. When he beat him again by decision in 1920, the weights were 182 for Norfolk and 235 for Tate. Norfolk also had a couple of wins over Jeannette.

Norfolk was stopped by Langford as well as Wills.

Norfolk was one of those guys who could always make 175, but quite often fought in the low 180's. Would he have been considered a "heavyweight" contender, or any kind of contender in the color line era? I don't know. But he beat Miske at weights which put both in the heavyweight division in 1919, with Miske getting the shot at Dempsey in 1920.

 

"can we just all agree"

Obviously not, as there are those who still defend Dempsey's actions on one basis or another. Wills wasn't that good. Society was at fault. Dempsey tried his best to give Wills a shot, but it was just one of those things. And anyway, we all know Dempsey would have blown out Wills if they had indeed fought. etc.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a poster stating that Will should NOT have been given a shot; the arguement is always about the timing.

 

To be honest, I could live with Dempsey taking a gimme defense against Miske, provided that Wills got the next one.

 

Dempsey ducked the man and was more notable as a fighter-turned-socialite than a fighter itself. His myth, his footage, and his post-career success define his memory more than his in-ring performances. He ducked Wills the whole time and it's obvious and it mars his already thin paper legacy and that's why he's been free falling through the bottom of every top 10 list since Nat Fleischer died.

 

Stop shouting you old buzzard!

 

"You must believe Norfolk beating Smith in 1916 is relevant to his status in 1922?"

Not exclusively. It is also relevant to Smith's status in 1917 and 1918 when he fought Dempsey, and therefore to Dempsey's status.

As for Norfolk, I don't understand why anyone would try to claim there is a statute of limitations on his status. He was better than Gunboat Smith in 1916 & Billy Miske in 1917 & 1919. When did he become "un better" as the implication seems to be. He was able to beat big Bill Tate in 1920. He was able to give Greb what reports say was hellacious trouble. After fighting Wills he was still able again to give Greb a very tough fight in a rematch, winning on a foul, and to beat all kinds of guys, including former light-heavy champion Battling Siki.

"the 176 lbs. Norfolk"

Which means Norfolk was heavier than Carpentier or Gibbons when they challenged Dempsey for the title.

"Wills was 36 lbs. heavier"

So. The issue is how big Norfolk was and he was heavier than Levinsky, Carpentier, and Gibbons. all "names" on Dempsey's resume.

Wills does not merit left-handed criticism for being a big heavyweight. That is not relevant for heavyweight boxing.

Norfolk was big enough and good enough.

"In 1922 Norfolk beat one heavyweight, a nobody"

He beat John Lester Johnson at heavy in 1922. Is he the nobody? It is true that Norfolk tended to stick to the light-heavy class after getting blown out by Wills, although there were occasional fights with heavies such as Tut Jackson.