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

I agree with you. There will be a rabble of articles announcing worthy challengers, most frequently the man about to step up (Firpo was worked especially hard, but Carpantier was maybe the best PR gig of all time? The newspapers made him a betting favourite ). What's extraordinary about Wills is i've seen newspaper articels in '19 singling him out as the only fighter to trouble Dempsey and articles in '26 suggesting the same (wrongly, it is worth recognising). That's extroardinary, and all the more for a black contender who - let's face it - tread water in 1923 like he might actually drown if he stopped.

It's his holding on to that top spot in-spite of the racial climate and in-spite of often less than stellar work in the ring (and he did take on Langford, Firpo and Norfolk during Dempsey's reign, all of whom would have rested easy as Dempsey challengers) he was regarded as the #1 contender (or whatever) by many right after the Willard fight and right before the Tunney fight.

But if your point is that he wasn't universally recognised as the number 1 contender for all 85 months of the Dempsey reign i'd have to agree with that. That would have been an absolutely ludicrous achievement though.

Wills is ranked as generally being recognised as the #2 HW of the era by contemporaries and is recognised now as having the #1 resume for '16-'26 by many retrospectively. I personally think the second point more debatable than the first these days.

I mean if you were going to add one fighter to Dempsey's resume between '19 and '25, it wouldn't be anyone else.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. There were unquestionably times where it wouldn't have been the case in the eyes of some, or even many. It's a lazy thing to say but I say it myself. Reason being it, for the most part would be true.

And I have to say that the disasters with Tate was the real test. A lazy eye will also tell you that after those fights, Wills may have been relegated - what's interesting is that it seems not to have been true, for the most part. Again, we don't have access to every fountain of opinion and there likley would have been many to the contrary, but most of the articles i've seen post-Tate still have Wills as the most likley challeneger, for want of a better phrase. His status was rightly or wrongly as established as Demspey's was as champion. That's an extraordinary thing to be able to say and in a way it is the single most comforting thing as regards understanding his pace in that world.

Speaking personally, I'd describe Wills as the most denied challenger in the sport's history regardless of the specific and fluctuating detail. There are some other contenders for that questionable honour but i'm comfortable with that pick overall.

I will admit that it does influence my view of Dempsey's place in history, but i'd stress it doesn't influence my view of his exceptional gifts as a fighter. You could make a case for his being the best ever in his weight range, whatever that is worth.