Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

Sometimes greatness is not measured by who you beat but how you beat them. Willard was know for being strong and durable but Jack took it to him and his power was savage.

We look at an era and can be critical of the past and Dempsey is abused on this forum but he was the greatest up to that point in time was controlled by Kearns to target money fights but Dempsey was a mega-star of the era, in fact even in Jack loses to Tunney and rusty win over Sharkey we can measure a great fighter and there was no one before him or until Joe Louis who was as great.

I think his win over Willard was a statement of raw vicious power and explosiveness and killer instinct combined with speed killer instinct that later a young and focused Mike Tyson would exhibit. The difference is that Dempsey proved in fights with Firpo and others that he had the resolve and mental toughness to get off the floor to win.

 

You can always look at matters in two or three ways. On one hand, Willard had been fairly inactive as champion and was getting on in years, and was fighting a fight-sharp lion. Take two or three years off and you are never again the same. One could argue that Willard was overrated because he caught Johnson when Jack was old and past-it himself, and only won that fight on superior endurance. Beating Jack Johnson does not make you Jack Johnson.

On the other hand, Willard was fresh in terms of overall punishment his body had taken, because he didn't start boxing until much later in life, so he still had plenty of good fights left. He was a big 240-pound, 6 foot 6 inch monster with a long reach, great endurance for a big man, durable, and was the first man in 15 years to stop Johnson. After all, it was Jack Johnson that he stopped! The guy no one could beat, regardless of age. So that gave and gives Willard a great deal of credibility. Plus he had taken everything Johnson had to offer for over 20 rounds and had not budged or wavered, and was consistent in his attack. He had beaten a big, over 220-pound, experienced, fast, clever champion. He also beat 210-pound Frank Moran, who was no slouch of a fighter either.

So now this monster is facing a guy about 190 at the most, who had mostly stopped his recent opponents early, but did not have much experience with lengthy bouts, and certainly had not beaten anyone on the level of a Jack Johnson. I can't imagine at the time that Willard was perceived as a lamb being led to slaughter. Quite the contrary. Probably the reverse thinking was in effect. The fight was at least competitive in its inception.

The fact that Dempsey slaughtered Willard should not lead to an ex post facto revisionism. He should be lauded for the dominant performance. Not seeing anyone else from that era doing that to Willard.

If Vitaly Klitschko had taken on a guy 190 and the 190 guy beat the living hell out of him, what would you say? Shot Klit, awesome new force, or both? Ultimately, hard to say. Probably a combination of factors.

So that is the third way of looking at it. Great new force, great credit for the victory and the way he did it, but also some argument that it was a Willard who probably was not at the very top of his game, and was not a great champion to begin with, but certainly a darn good one and no easy task to overcome, who had enough advantages that it was somewhat of a shocker at the time and made Jack a star. Life is full of shades of grey.

 

If I remember rightly Willard had to take legal action prior to the dempsey fight to protect him in the case of manslaughter, which was seen as a real possibility given the size difference.

 

Have to somewhat disagree with you Seamus. Not just anybody beats Jack Johnson, even a diminished version. Willard had shown his durability in his career to that point, and had fought several elite fighters, including Pelkey, McCarty, Kearns, Smith, Morris, and Rodel, all of whom were solid fighters. He didn't always win, but he was getting quality experience against top competition. Willard didn't just come out of nowhere to beat Johnson. Besides, how many 6'6" 240-pound guys do you know throughout history who could still fight well 20 plus rounds into a fight? You have to be darn good to beat Jack Johnson while he was still champion, and also to beat Frank Moran and Sailor Burke, two big strong tough dudes.

 

Yea a few other men of Dempsey's size had beaten a prime Willard, no one nothing about them because they weren't very good. Dempsey beat an inactive 37yo Willard. The manner of the victory is impressive though

Here's a question - is Michael Spinks knocking out Cooney a better win than Dempsey-Willard, given Cooney is more skilled, a deeper resume, bigger puncher, bigger, faster, younger????

 

I would say no, because Cooney never realy got to the top of the division.

He never realy produced that core win to solidify him as one of the absolute top contenders of the era.

It might not be fair to ask him to beat Larry Holmes before we give him parity with Willard, but it is fair to ask him to beat a Snipes, Berbick, or even an older Foreman.

 

Very overrated.

And so is Dempsey.

 

Did Apollack just describe Sailor Burke as a BIG STRONG dude?
The four and a half year lay-off sure did him good!

 

I have to get into this fray.. This B.S. about Dempsey being "overated" is a ludicrous statement that would have absolutely been laughed at by the era's of the 1920s,1930s, 1940s and 1950s...As a child growing up amongst boxers,trainers etc, the name Dempsey evoked such great awe and respect as a feared HW. These people I saw and lived amongst, saw him train, fight, saw Schmeling, Sharkey, and Joe Louis after, were sober boxing minds who knew boxing , were a hell of a lot more credible to evaluate
his great legacy than someone as you who for whatever reason, utters such revisionist garbage...The man fought 80 years ago, and his name amongst some misled posters, is like a red cape in front of a BULL...Was he the very greatest HW that ever lived, is not the point, but to call him overated truly deserves a chuckle...Oh yes RR, the Manassa Mauler sends you regards from the other side...:hi:

 

S, I have posted several times that Dempsey was by far the best HW of hit time 1919-23. He beat everyone he faced in his reign, and did sign to fight Harry Wills outside of NY, where Tex Rickard fearing a recurrence of the race riots following the 1910 Jeffries/Johnson fight, refused to promote
alongst with the NY State Athletic Commision. But Dempsey would have been a large favorite over the slower Wills. Was Dempsey's opponents the best contender era.? NOPE. Ali,fought the best OVERALL crop of HW contenders ever. His era had the best contenders ever,with some exceptions. But Ali was not as dominate in his reign as Joe Louis was in his
amazing THIRTEEN YEAR REIGN. So I rate Dempsey as the best HW of his
less than stellar reign, but at his best H2H,mano to mano, I rate he and Joe Louis, as the best HWs along with Lil Artha, Jack Johnson... Cheers...