Is it feasible to rank Wills over Dempsey in an ATG list?

No. Those that watched both men fight in their primes say Dempsey was the greater hwt. Langford who fought Wills more than anyone stated that Dempsey was the greatest hwt he had ever seen.

 

Yes.

 

If most people ranked Wills over Dempser, we'd see threads asking : is it feasible to rank Dempsey over Wills ? Probably more often, I'd say. If you don't rate Dempsey highly because he didn't fight Wills, well you can't do much better with Wills.

 

You wouldn't see more threads like that. Dempsey was extremely popular and it's carried over.

 

I don't have any problem with that. Some people would like to see this sport in a sort of scientific way, but it will remain a damn sport and a good story will always remain a good story. Dempsey's story is better than Wills's, mostly because he was a small HW who displayed much courage when he knocked out a giant like Willard. I could tell this story to my children, if I had children. I don't know what I would say about Wills, as unfair as it is.

So, my answer is : you can rank Wills higher, but only because it's a boxing forum with enough guys with good knowledge to keep the other guys from throwing tomatoes at you.

 

Dempsey was one of the greatest fighters ever to live. Arcel rated him right up there with Louis and Ali. Arcel saw all three live from ringside and was one of boxing histories best trainers. Arcel..."what Dempsey had you can't teach."

 

I got them both in the range from 10-15, sharing space with Johnson, Wlad, and Liston. I wouldn't argue too much with any ordering of those 5.

 

'Is it feasible to rank Wills over Dempsey in an ATG list?'

Yes. I don't go that way, but, yes.

 

I have. Since 1973 when I bought my first 8 mm film of Dempsey I have studied not only him but all past hwt champions. Today with YouTube it makes it much easier. However when you are talking about fighters where film footage is not the best you must heavily consider experts who saw from ringside the fighters in action. expert after expert, trainer after trainer say that Dempsey was a unique and exceptional talent. Arcel was a soft spoken man who would not jump to quick but erroneous conclusions. He was also one of boxings all time trainers. His conclusion was that Dempsey was right there, actually better, than Louis and Ali. To think he was plain wrong and with him men like Langford who also rated Jack as the best would be a huge mistake. These men saw him flesh and blood in his prime....first hand accounts.

 

I have Dempsey over Wills, probably too much so because I think Wills was tailor made for Dempsey... which probably should not factor in as much as it does for me.

 

Well he has a better resume, so feesable, hard to gauge how good he was

Well plenty of the time picked Wills to win and few probably watched Wills. But that's all irrelevant given few challengers are ever favourite over the current champion, including the likes of Clay, Frazier and Foreman

 

Who back in Dempsey's day picked wills to beat Dempsey? Not many at all. I would say the consensus of opinion either during Dempsey's time or since heavily favor Dempsey to ko Wills.