Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

RockysSplitNose · Dec 22, 2011

McGrain said: ↑

The manner of the execution helps to define the fighter's quality.

The value of the scalp is what is considered regarding the fighter's greatness in resume.

There's nothing twisted about it.
Click to expand...

I think you really are looking too deeply into this - it's much simply than that - and plus that's not actually THE WAY IT IS - that is simply a way that you are misguidedly and very restrictingly making your assesment - you seem to think everyone in the planet thinks exactly in those terms - trust me most real fight fans just watch a fight and go actually yeah I think that guy is just phenominal and would obliterate almost anyone once he got them going - it's very simple haha

Seamus · Dec 22, 2011

RockysSplitNose said: ↑

But the nature of the win matters most? I don't get this now - people on this board just twist and change everything round again and again to arrive at whatever agenda they've misguidedly started out with - look you bunch of bleeping bleepers fact is it was a total massacre a brutal pulverisation by a 180 pound man over a 250 pound man which is astounding in any terms that's end all of this - the fact that certain people are questioning this most brutal win of all time is just farcical - basically if that fight had happened in this day and age it wouldn't have gone beyond the first knockdown - the rest of the barbarism just displayed just how brutal and vicious Dempsey could really be in pursuit of the finish and just how ferocious and damaging he could be
Click to expand...

Classicist rose-tinted mythology etched into the tablets for eternity, growing in magnitude with every passing year. I get it.

If the fight were fought under modern rules, Jess would have been allowed to rise from the first KD without being hit on the way up, been given a review by the ref, and then have defended himself for the next onslaught. He would certainly not have been KD'd so many times, certainly not have been battered while only the ropes supported him and Dempsey would have done what he did that day, get worn out by the 2nd round.

If Dempsey was such a good finisher, why did Willard stick around for 2 more rounds while Dempsey was allowed so many free, undefended shots at him while he was down? This hardly speaks of great finishing power to me. As it was, I still maintain Dempsey should have been DQ'd for leaving the ring between rounds.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

McGrain · Dec 22, 2011

RockysSplitNose said: ↑

I think you really are looking too deeply into this - it's much simply than that - and plus that's not actually THE WAY IT IS - that is simply a way that you are misguidedly and very restrictingly making your assesment - you seem to think everyone in the planet thinks exactly in those terms - trust me most real fight fans just watch a fight and go actually yeah I think that guy is just phenominal and would obliterate almost anyone once he got them going - it's very simple haha
Click to expand...

What you're talking about is head to head.

And most people on the forum, at least, understand the difference.

janitor · Dec 22, 2011

Vic-JofreBRASIL said: ↑

I agree !

Johnson was a shot ATG, and especially with all the advantages Willard had (better shape and great stamina, the long duration of the fight was especially to favor him), it isn´t a significant victory in my opinion....Johnson would have won a 15 or 20 round fight I guess.....

Click to expand...

This is about the most silly comment I have ever read on this forum.

A significant victory, is a win over any world class fighter with two hands.

Johnson was still the champion, and would still have beaten prety much any contender out there.

Winning a fight on durability is not actualy cheating you know!

Johnson could have dictated a 15 round fight if he had so chosen.

Berbick had wins against Thomas, Greg PAge, Mitch Green.....very good wins.....
Click to expand...

But he was still never close to being the top heavyweight of the day, at any stage of his career, or even the second best.

Willards resume is far more impresive simply because he was the undisputed champion.

As for the names you bring out in suport of Berbicks resume, they are only big names if you were there at the time. It would be like sombody in Willards day saying that he was great because he beat Frank Moran.
Click to expand...

janitor · Dec 22, 2011

Seamus said: ↑

Again, the lineal title means nothing to me when the holder has been avoiding his best challengers, as Johnson was.
Click to expand...

But the WBC title does?

We might as well give Berbick the same credit for beating Ali as we do Willard for disposing of Johnson.
Click to expand...

We might, but a closer inspection will show us that Johnson was still a live body, while Berbik was just a shell.

But when you add Berbick's victories over Tate, Pagea and Thomas, he certainly has a deeper resume, and one of more imposing heavies.
Click to expand...

They are only big names if you were there at the time.

It would be like sombody in Willards day saying that he was great because he beat Frank Moran.

The bottom line is that they are just good contenders who fell short at the top level.
Click to expand...

Vic-JofreBRASIL · Dec 22, 2011

janitor said: ↑

This is about the most silly comment I have ever read on this forum.

A significant victory, is a win over any world class fighter with two hands.

Johnson was still the champion, and would still have beaten prety much any contender out there.

Winning a fight on durability is not actualy cheating you know!

Johnson could have dictated a 15 round fight if he had so chosen.

But he was still never close to being the top heavyweight of the day, at any stage of his career, or even the second best.

Willards resume is far more impresive simply because he was the undisputed champion.

As for the names you bring out in suport of Berbicks resume, they are only big names if you were there at the time. It would be like sombody in Willards day saying that he was great because he beat Frank Moran.
Click to expand...

Janitor, I never mentioned cheating, robbery or something like that....
He earned the win, of course......against a past prime ATG....

What I´m saying is Willard was given a lot of advantages, and a 45 rounds title fight was a good advantage in his favor....and why did Willard get a title shot and others better fighters don´t ??
Especially against Johnson who simply didn´t have the power to stop a durable guy like Willard, the 45 round bout was a fight made for him to win....

ps-I´m sorry if there is english mistakes, was a very quickly done post....
Click to expand...

Bugger · Dec 22, 2011

janitor said: ↑

This is about the most silly comment I have ever read on this forum.

A significant victory, is a win over any world class fighter with two hands.

Johnson was still the champion, and would still have beaten prety much any contender out there.

Winning a fight on durability is not actualy cheating you know!

Johnson could have dictated a 15 round fight if he had so chosen.

But he was still never close to being the top heavyweight of the day, at any stage of his career, or even the second best.

Willards resume is far more impresive simply because he was the undisputed champion.

As for the names you bring out in suport of Berbicks resume, they are only big names if you were there at the time. It would be like sombody in Willards day saying that he was great because he beat Frank Moran.
Click to expand...

Now your starting to confuse me :huh

If Willard had the same resume but was not attached to a belt would you then consider it far more impressive.

Tend to agree with Seamus here, the term certainly doesnt mean he was the best HW at the time. In this case your using the term lineal champ as a pedistal to put Willard on.
Click to expand...

janitor · Dec 22, 2011

Vic-JofreBRASIL said: ↑

Janitor, I never mentioned cheating, robbery or something like that....
He earned the win, of course......against a past prime ATG....

What I´m saying is Willard was given a lot of advantages, and a 45 rounds title fight was a good advantage in his favor....and why did Willard get a title shot and others better fighters don´t ??
Especially against Johnson who simply didn´t have the power to stop a durable guy like Willard, the 45 round bout was a fight made for him to win....

Click to expand...

The main reason Willard got the title shot, was that his manager (Jack Curley) was able to come up with the money Johnson wanted. Even so, Willard was probably the best that could have been had apart from Wills.

It is easy to see the fight being waited towards Willard in retrospect, but Johnson could easily have dictated more favourable conditions. He could vetoed the fight altogether. He simply underestimated Willard.

Perhaps we only see the conditions as being weighted towards Willard because he found a way to pull it off.

janitor · Dec 22, 2011

Bugger said: ↑

janitor said: ↑

Now your starting to confuse me :huh

If Willard had the same resume but was not attached to a belt would you then consider it far more impressive.

Tend to agree with Seamus here, the term certainly doesnt mean he was the best HW at the time. In this case your using the term lineal champ as a pedistal to put Willard on.
Click to expand...

You can make a case that Wills or somebody else was a better heavyweight, but Willard had beaten Johnson and they hadn't.

Beating Jack Johnson by knockout, actualy represents one of the more clear cut claims for a fighter to be the #1 in the world, based on what they did in the ring.

That if nothing else means that Berbick can never be in the same zip code.
Click to expand...

burt bienstock · Dec 22, 2011

Seamus said: ↑

Classicist rose-tinted mythology etched into the tablets for eternity, growing in magnitude with every passing year. I get it.

If the fight were fought under modern rules, Jess would have been allowed to rise from the first KD without being hit on the way up, been given a review by the ref, and then have defended himself for the next onslaught. He would certainly not have been KD'd so many times, certainly not have been battered while only the ropes supported him and Dempsey would have done what he did that day, get worn out by the 2nd round.

If Dempsey was such a good finisher, why did Willard stick around for 2 more rounds while Dempsey was allowed so many free, undefended shots at him while he was down? This hardly speaks of great finishing power to me. As it was, I still maintain Dempsey should have been DQ'd for leaving the ring between rounds.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Click to expand...

And let us abandon distaste for a fighter {Dempsey} and disparaging the facts!
1-The rules were what is was then. Dempsey in the first round hit the 70 pound heavier Willard with a tremendous left-hook that dropped big Jess for the first time in his career...
2- There was no neutral corner rule then.
3-Dempsey ,on the other hand dropped Willard SEVEN times,and the brave referee let the slaughter continue. Today Dempsey would have been awarded a tko after 3 knockdowns...
4-There are many fighters in history that never lose consciousness, but after suffering too much punishment, lose by a tko...MOST TIMES...
4- Your assertion that Dempsey lacked finishing power because,he did not put the concrete chinned Willard in dreamland...Nonsense. Willard was as beaten in two rds as any fighter ever...S, why did it take the murderous puncher Joe Louis THIRTEEN ROUNDS to ko Abe Simon, after hitting Simon with every trip-hammer punch right on the button ? Why couldn't the Brown Bomber ko big Abe sooner as Jack Dempsey did ? Was the great Joe Louis
devoid of finishing powers ? Did Mike Tyson ko everyone.? So why can't you
hold the 187 pound Dempsey by the same standards. ? Darn it be fair...
5-To say ,NINETY ONE years later, that Jack dempsey should have been "disqualified" after thinking the bout was over after the SEVENTH knockdown, in the first round,because the roar of the crowd of 100,000
fans made it impossible to hear the bell. Willard got his 1 minute rest, and Dempsey was alerted to this, and was BACK in the ring in TIME for the next round. Give Dempsey's legacy a break. There is no damn fighter on ESB who is reviled as much as Jack Dempsey. Paronoid I think for a man who fought Eighty Years ago, and after his retirement, my generation held him in such high esteem along with Joe Louis... A true humble gentleman was JD....

prime · Dec 22, 2011

burt bienstock said: ↑

And let us abandon distaste for a fighter {Dempsey} and disparaging the facts!
1-The rules were what is was then. Dempsey in the first round hit the 70 pound heavier Willard with a tremendous left-hook that dropped big Jess for the first time in his career...
2- There was no neutral corner rule then.
3-Dempsey ,on the other hand dropped Willard SEVEN times,and the brave referee let the slaughter continue. Today Dempsey would have been awarded a tko after 3 knockdowns...
4-There are many fighters in history that never lose consciousness, but after suffering too much punishment, lose by a tko...MOST TIMES...
4- Your assertion that Dempsey lacked finishing power because,he did not put the concrete chinned Willard in dreamland...Nonsense. Willard was as beaten in two rds as any fighter ever...S, why did it take the murderous puncher Joe Louis THIRTEEN ROUNDS to ko Abe Simon, after hitting Simon with every trip-hammer punch right on the button ? Why couldn't the Brown Bomber ko big Abe sooner as Jack Dempsey did ? Was the great Joe Louis
devoid of finishing powers ? Did Mike Tyson ko everyone.? So why can't you
hold the 187 pound Dempsey by the same standards. ? Darn it be fair...
5-To say ,NINETY ONE years later, that Jack dempsey should have been "disqualified" after thinking the bout was over after the SEVENTH knockdown, in the first round,because the roar of the crowd of 100,000
fans made it impossible to hear the bell. Willard got his 1 minute rest, and Dempsey was alerted to this, and was BACK in the ring in TIME for the next round. Give Dempsey's legacy a break. There is no damn fighter on ESB who is reviled as much as Jack Dempsey. Paronoid I think for a man who fought Eighty Years ago, and after his retirement, my generation held him in such high esteem along with Joe Louis... A true humble gentleman was JD....
Click to expand...

Excellent points, sir, and a fascinating perspective from a man of your generation.

The answer to the thread title is a resounding NO.

Great performances inspire. No one conspired to make Jack Dempsey a legend.

He earned it with a demonstration for the ages.

Seamus · Dec 22, 2011

janitor said: ↑

You can make a case that Wills or somebody else was a better heavyweight, but Willard had beaten Johnson and they hadn't.
Click to expand...

Because Johnson wouldn't get within a country mile of Wills while he had the belt. You can't be the man who beat the man if the man won't fight you.

janitor said: ↑

Beating Jack Johnson by knockout, actualy represents one of the more clear cut claims for a fighter to be the #1 in the world, based on what they did in the ring.
Click to expand...

As McArthur noted, wars are won for but a few minutes. Willard then sat on his fat ass for three years taking time out for a mediocre defense and a glorified exhibition. How can you make the argument that Willard was the best heavy in 1918 when Wills KO'd Langford and McVea that year, and even Dempsey was re-arranging the rankings of the heavies?

The Willard that arrived in Toledo was titular only.

janitor said: ↑

That if nothing else means that Berbick can never be in the same zip code.
Click to expand...

Berbick would have annihilated the slob that showed up to fight in 1919. Do you seriously want to put that to a poll? All this hocus pocus, fantasy **** about lineal titles reminds of the shenanigans the Papacy tries to claim with their Apostolic Succession. Claptrap.

Mendoza · Dec 23, 2011

Seamus Because Johnson wouldn't get within a country mile of Wills while he had the belt. You can't be the man who beat the man if the man won't fight you.
Click to expand...

Correct

As McArthur noted, wars are won for but a few minutes. Willard then sat on his fat ass for three years taking time out for a mediocre defense and a glorified exhibition. How can you make the argument that Willard was the best heavy in 1918 when Wills KO'd Langford and McVea that year, and even Dempsey was re-arranging the rankings of the heavies?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I would say from 1915-1916 Willard should be viewed as #1 or #2
By 1918, be was idle and older.

The Willard that arrived in Toledo was titular only. Berbick would have annihilated the slob that showed up to fight in 1919. Do you seriously want to put that to a poll? All this hocus pocus, fantasy **** about lineal titles reminds of the shenanigans the Papacy tries to claim with their Apostolic Succession. Claptrap.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he was still champion, and obvisouly underestimated Dempsey.
I would think Berbick in his prime or near prime would out point Willard

janitor · Dec 23, 2011

Seamus said: ↑

Because Johnson wouldn't get within a country mile of Wills while he had the belt. You can't be the man who beat the man if the man won't fight you.
Click to expand...

You can over rate the importance of the black fighters in general, and Wills in particular.

Wills sucess was taken by many as a sign that the black dynamite fighters were in decline, rather than that Wills was the new top dog.

As McArthur noted, wars are won for but a few minutes. Willard then sat on his fat ass for three years taking time out for a mediocre defense and a glorified exhibition. How can you make the argument that Willard was the best heavy in 1918 when Wills KO'd Langford and McVea that year, and even Dempsey was re-arranging the rankings of the heavies?

The Willard that arrived in Toledo was titular only.

Click to expand...

I have never claimed that the lineal title was flawless, but it is an infinitely better measure of who is the top fighter in the world, than any of the alphabet titles.

Look at the top ten rankings for any of the major sanctioning bodies and you will see why.

Willard might not have literaly been the best heavyweight in the world, but he had beaten the man who clearly had to be considered as such. That is something Berbick never even came close to doing.

Berbick would have annihilated the slob that showed up to fight in 1919. Do you seriously want to put that to a poll? All this hocus pocus, fantasy **** about lineal titles reminds of the shenanigans the Papacy tries to claim with their Apostolic Succession. Claptrap.
Click to expand...

Argue that Berbick would have beaten Willard if you wan't to.

I can never definitely prove you wrong.

Where you do not have a case, is when you try to argue that Berbick had a better resume. That is tantamount to saying "this guy who was somwhere in the mix for the top 8 of his era but well clear of the top, acheived more than this guy who was the lineal champion in his era".

Im afraid that "resume relative to era" dosn't work like that. It is measured by tangible markers and the Berbick of era A is always bellow the Willard of era B, regardless of what would have happened head to head.
Click to expand...

he grant · Dec 23, 2011

janitor said: ↑

The main reason Willard got the title shot, was that his manager (Jack Curley) was able to come up with the money Johnson wanted. Even so, Willard was probably the best that could have been had apart from Wills.

It is easy to see the fight being waited towards Willard in retrospect, but Johnson could easily have dictated more favourable conditions. He could vetoed the fight altogether. He simply underestimated Willard.

Perhaps we only see the conditions as being weighted towards Willard because he found a way to pull it off.
Click to expand...

I have wondered why JOhnson agreed too such a long distance fight at his age ... he was obviously over confident but do wonder if he needed the money bad enough to agree to take it or leave it terms ...

Log in or Sign up

Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Bugger Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

prime BOX! Writing Champion Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Bugger Active Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

prime BOX! Writing Champion Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker