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

So, actual quotes from contemporary documents is misinformation and name calling in intelligent, cogent discussion.

I would love to get a gander at some of these elite boxing boards.

 

Nice work.

 

I have posted the newspaper source in the thread

Yes Wills has some losses, they aren't actually as bad as Dempsey's, such the losses to meehan and Flynn. Both fighters were pretty much pre-prime when they picked up these losses though. Wills still beat a near prime Langford anyway you spin it. Some of Wills wins may have been past prime, like Dempsey's, such as Willard who was 37 and 3 years inactive or Miske who was dying from Bright's disease

Overall Wills fought a much tougher schedule against opposition that is overall better, I don't think there's much dispute in that. Who was better and who would of won, we honestly will never know

I posted an article from 'The Afro American', from the 1920s, likely with black journalists who were none too impressed with Dempsey avoiding the fight

What I posted is a timeline of the facts, dispute anyone of them if you wish, they're pretty much all sourced if you could be bothered to read. The only question is why Dempsey and his management avoided the fight to the N'th degree

He's on record as saying he'd never fight him

You keep quoting Fleischer, he's not the be all and end all in boxing knowledge, he's said many things that few would agree with. MaybeI've likely researched it further than Fleischer or perhaps Fleischer was just a hack who made a buck glorifying the champion of the time? Maybe he was pandering to the champion or fans, journalists motives are not solely the honest truth

Well Dempsey said he'd never fight Wills

So Dempsey had no say in who he fought, the press were calling him a ducking coward but he had no control of pushing for a fight with his biggest rival of the period OK so I'll take that to mean Rickard et al were worried Wills would win then

Langford lost 16-2 to Wills and continually looked to ingratiate himself to the racist white society of the time, so much so he would cross the road when whites were coming in order to not offend them. This was the American society of the 1920s, blacks with common sense didn't look to challenge the status quo for fear of discrimination

If Arcel called Wills a journeyman he was ignorant or biased but I'm not convinced he said that as you don't source many of your quotes. All the same he was a teenager wet behind his ears at the time and hence his opinion is moot anyway

And did Arcel even watch Wills ringside, I'm not sure he did

Did Wills actually turn Tunney down though? Even if he did though why would Wills fight Tunney when he had legally got an order to fight Dempsey for the world title through the supreme court? He'd already fought Fulton/Firpo and every black contender of the time. Tunney with his views on racial supremacy never actually fought a black man did he?

It's not called revisionism when the papers of the time lay the blame at the feet of Dempsey as you've even posted yourself, it's called a differing view. Revisionism if later evidence is found adds a greater hindsight anyway. But that matters little to your biased intellectually dishonest outlook

 

Houdini, spout the **** all you want but you cry about how fractured boxing is today when your idle never fought the other title claimant from his era. A claimant who ruled just as long as jack himself did.

 

Pp is putting this **** to bed.

Well played squire.

 

Wills was not a title claimant. Ridiculous statement. He was a leading contender. Black title was not viewed in the same context as the worlds hwt championship. Oil and water in this regard.

Dempsey is on record dozens of times that he not only had no issue fighting Wills but wanted to fight him. Rickard was the issue and this is well documented. Look at the book "black dynamite" as a textbook of the times related to black fighters in the hwt division.

Fleischer is considered THE boxing historian of that time. His career spanned from Johnson to Ali. There is no thought that Nat was racist in any way. He was the first to write about the great black fighters, was best friend's with Johnson and rated him the best and also was one of few who refused to recognize the title stripping of Ali in the late 60's.

 

Also Ray Arcel is rated as one of boxings greatest trainers... He was 26 years old and a leading boxing trainer in NY when Dempsey signed to fight Wills in 1925.

 

Yes jack was white champ, harry was black champ. Who would have won had they fought? We'll never know.

 

PP won already.

 

That as it maybe, the 'Colored Champion' was arguably better at many times than the official 'World Champion'. Many consider Langford better at some stages than Johnson of their respective title reigns, most consider Langford better than Willard, nearly all would consider Wills better than Willard. Wills went to Cuba to challenge the winner of Johnson-Willard but was not aloud to do so

Also the world champion was in effect champion of anyone who wasn't black, thus not truly 'world champion' by definition

So in essence you could say Dempsey beat the inferior champion, even it was more highly regarded and that's why many are laughing at Wills not being 'a title claimant'

He did yet never made it happen and then said he'd never fight him and guess what he never fought him

I'e never called him a racist. But none of that makes him correct or an authority on the Dempsey/Wills discussion, unless he's gone in more detail than the timeline posted he's no impartial authority on the subject

 

Johnson was a big booster of Sam Mcvey , and his sparring partner Kid Cotton , he also picked Louis in several fights . He never thought much of Wills, but was complimentary to Langford in later years, though they disliked each other intensely.

 

I can find no mention of a UK promoter offering $200,000 for a Dempsey v Wills fight in that link.

Nat Fleischer the editor of the Ring risked financial suicide, championing Will's case for a title shot in his new magazine.
Negro fighters of that era had no better friend than Fleischer.

BTW. Several of Wills defences of his Coloured title are believed to have been fakes. 2 with Langford in 1917. 1 with Jack Thompson in 1920.1 With McVey 1920 ,1 with Andy Thompson 1920. And his defence against Denver Ed Martin was a travesty, Martin was just off 40, had 3 fights against no bodies in the last 7 years.
PS Wills lost his Coloured Title claim in 1922 ,to 15-15-0 DEMPSEY sparring partner Bill Tate. Four days later they rematched ,and Tate drew with Wills,so he had as much right to claim the title as Wills.
As Tate had lost as many fights as he had won , it doesn't make the Coloured Title look very prestigious does it?
I think the Afro -American paper might be just a tiny bit biased towards Wills don't you?

 

Wills lost on a dq and there is no mention of it diminishing his title credentials.

Right up until he lost to Sharkey he was far and wide the clear top two HW along with jack.

 

He lost end of .They rematched 4 days later and drew ,that means Tate had as much right to call himself champ as Wills, and he did.

Perception is not linear.