Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

jo

 

I'm guessing the fact that Fulton stopped Langford in 6 rds ,Sam unable to come out for the 7th,being floored in the 2nd and hospitalized after the fight mean that greater weight was given to this win.Wills had beaten Langford 5 times in between losing to him but had done so by dec.

 

Dempsey was there to give a free exhibition against Joe Bonds ,Kearns knew all about Bonds ,he had managed him.Why should he let Dempsey fight Jeanette at the last minute and for nothing?:huh

 

Tate was taken on to prepare Dempsey for Willard ,,Tate was very big and was able to absorb Dempsey's shots ,Jack didnt pull punches in sparring ,same reason Godfrey came on board ,my puzzlement over Flowers was that he was a south paw.

 

Dempsey genuinely liked Tate's company as well. There's an old newspaper article from the mid-20s where Dempsey was quoted as saying Tate's wife made the best breakfasts he'd ever had and that he'd keep Bill around just for more biscuits, or something to that effect.

 

Nice bit of info,thanks,Tate looks pretty good in the clips sparring with Jack,you can see how tall he is in the Willard fight, he is waving at Dempsey to come back to the ring after the 1st round.

 

And? That doesn't automatically make them "outstanding contenders." Lots of fighters throughout history, white and black, have supposedly been avoided by other fighters, but that in itself didn't make them better or higher rated than other fighters.

That, plus by all accounts he completely shut him down and beat the **** out of him, in a way that many people had never seen or heard of Langford being whupped since becoming a serious HW contender.

But he never was able to stop or punish him the way Fulton did, and more importantly, his wins alternated with embarrassing KO losses or lackluster draws/no-contests with the same Langford that set him back.

Why? By all accounts, Langford couldn't get anywhere remotely close to Fulton's chin in either of their fights.

You're free to "doubt" whatever you want, but what actually happened in the ring is what matters, and what happened is that Fulton had proved his superiority to Langford far more quickly and decisively than Wills had at that time.

Why not? He beat the same best guy Wills had yet beaten (Langford) and even more impressively, plus beat a few other contenders/prospects before and after that, and wasn't getting stopped or held to draws/no-contests as often as Wills was along the way.

If he did, he was the only one.

No, "huge" is an exaggeration. He caught some notice for a string of knockouts very early in his career, but he quickly fizzled out before becoming any kind of serious prospect.

That's right - exactly because of the fact that Powell was not a highly rated/regarded fighter.

I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them "huge," certainly none of them were anywhere remotely on the level of his win over Charles, or even as big as his win over Hurricane Jackson. Most of those fighters were rated in the lower end of the top 10, if even at all (I don't think Carter was still rated at that time).

Yes it was, and it DID. The loss to Powell dropped him down to #6 in the Ring rankings, and dropped him out of the NBA's rankings altogether. The loss to Johnson dropped him out altogether, across the board.

What "knockout"?? He stopped him on cuts.

No he wasn't.

Simply being a "dangerous puncher" isn't enough to make you a contender.

How is that a "gift"?? The most direct and justifiable way possible to earn a top ranking is to whup a leading contender.

No it shouldn't have. Rankings are done on a month by month basis for that reason.

You left out all the times that Weill had turned down or stalled the fight from happening during that time.

Why is it that when it's D'Amato who turns down Valdes, or a similar scenario with other fighters, you're content to just look on the surface and say "He's scared of him" or "He's ducking him"; But when Weill/Marciano turns down a fight with a fighter, suddenly you want to delve deep beneath the surface and look at all the surrounding "politics" of the matter?

None of those wins were on par with the best wins he had in the early '50s, nor was his ranking as high or held nearly as long as it had been during his peak as a contender in the early '50s.

That isn't saying much, Damato turned down a lot of prospective challengers.

Did he actually say that, or are you just assuming that's the reason?

 

Tunny didn't retire in 1929. :nono

That ranking is from about a year-and-a-half after he had retired.

Norfolk became a hot prospect around the time he beat Miske the first time, but his KO loss to Langford, plus a few other losses and unimpressive performances, stemmed his rise and set him back for at least a year. By the time he started getting back on track (around the time he beat Miske the second time) Dempsey was fighting Willard.

On top of that, Norfolk did most of his serious campaigning as a LHW, and that's where he was mostly rated. His big fights with Wills and Gibbons were intended to establish him as a leading HW contender had he won, but he flopped badly in both of them.

That wasn't my question. My question was, how many contenders did Liston fight in the two year interim between beating Machen/Folley and waiting for his upcoming title shot with Patterson? The answer is NONE. Nor was he expected to.

If that would be your reasoning for leaving him out, then why not do the same for Norfolk, who broke into the picture by beating Miske but then was blasted out by Sam Langford right after that?

 

How can you be sure exactly what it showed, without having seen the fight? Or even seen much of Jeanette himself, in general? Maybe it showed how much Jeanette had declined at that time?

How is Wills' resume "better"?? His biggest career win was over a guy Dempsey had already smoked a couple years earlier (and two rounds quicker). Dempsey went a step further by KOing Sharkey, who in fact had just gotten done whupping Wills himself.

 

That's not true at all, there's numerous articles and press notices written on black contenders during that time. Their fights were given media coverage and so were the challenges they issued to the champion, just like the white contenders. Langford and Jeanette were often mentioned as prospective challengers for Jack Johnson, and Johnson was often hounded by reporters after his fights demanding to know "When are you going to fight Langford?"

The truth is that when Dempsey came around, the rated black HWs of Johnson's era (Langford, Jeanette, McVey, etc.) were all on the way down or out, and it just happened that there was a paucity of similar quality black fighters at this time to take their places.

Fulton wasn't universally accepted as the top contender until he reversed that fight with Morris, and made him foul out in the rematch.

 

Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

 

Did he still think that a few rounds later, when Norkus brutally knocked him out?

 

How come black fighters back then never drew a color line for White fighters? It was always the other way around. the soft white fighters using the color line to hide from the better black fighters

You need to chill out with the sensationalism. This was 1917 when langford was FAR past his prime, Harry Wills knocked langford out easily in 1918 right around the time Fulton fought langford. In fact he knocked him out in 6 rounds, while fulton took 7. in the rematch, langford went the distance with fulton. Bottom Line, Fultons win over sam langford does not mean that much after harry wills has already recorded FIVE wins over him.

Yes he did. Wills knocked Langford out worse 2 times just one short year later. Also take note Wills won WIDE decisions over langford. Is a 7th round TKO victory any more dominant than a SHUTOUT DECISION? I would hardly call Dempsey TKO 2 of Firpo more dominating than wills 2 knockdown shutout decision of firpo...just cause dempsey flattneed him doesnt take away the fact he got floored 3 times. you see the point im making? shutout decisions show us alot.

Sam eye sight was failing miserably by 1917. he entered the bout with poor eye sight and fulton just worsened it. Langford of 1914 was not physically handicapped, and he was 3 years younger and fresher. Fulton was NOT a good fighter. I am glad Harry Wills spanked the **** out of him and broke his soft ribs....It scared dempsey half to death he went running from the hills. Before the fight he said he would take on the winner, then after wills DESTROYED fulton dempsey signed to fight terminally ill billy miske the next day...GO FIGURE!

Wills beat a younger fresher healthier version of langford, plus wills knocked out that same version of langford in 6 rounds that fulton beat. Wills 2 wins over Sam Mcvea and Newspaper win over Joe Jeanette were BY FAR better than fulton's wins over Carl "I dont know how to fight" Morris. So Wills wins in resume by a LANDSLIDE.

I talked to John Garfield about Hurricane Jackson. He told me Hurricane Jackson was not a world class fighter, in fact he said the word at the time was Nino Valdez exposed what everyone already knew about Jackson. I think his Entire Sweep of the European Heavyweight Flock and some dominant wins over Young American lions in the top 10 in 1957-1960 show me he was still a VERY dangerous fighter. Do you agree?

Harold Carter was rated # 3 in 1957, and DID NOT lose from 1957 all the way to the Valdez fight in 1958...so how could he possibly be removed from the top 10???

Please Provide Either the June or July 1959 Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight ratings to support your evidence. I need Proof.

Yes I confused this with the Mcmutry fight. I do have the London fight on tape. Valdez DOMINATED him. London was coming off a WORLD TITLE shot where he went 11 rounds with patterson and floored him and would go on to flatten ingemar johansson in the 12th round. Valdez destroyed London.

So you agree Valdez was still a dangerous puncher in 1959. GOOD.

YES it was a GIFT. If you lose 4 out of your last 5 fights, one upset close win over a # 1 contender is now enough to overtake him considering your losses to the other guys. It is enough to move Valdez into the # 10, but not top spot.

Valdez was the # 1 annuel heavyweight contender of 1953 DESPITE losing FOUR times that year! What a Gift! Very undeserving! FOUR losses

This content is protected

Stall? its called PROMOTING the fight and building up the gate. Valdez was just considered a lucky one shot wonder unheard of journeyman in 1954..only after he continued to win did newspapers finally consider him worthy by the end of 1954. NOW that valdez was actually a draw, Weill then pursued the fight. Weill was also about making money and when he realized Valdez would draw well in Miami, he arranged the fight for 1955. why fight in 1954 when Valdez lost his # 1 rating and was not a big draw then? Valdez-Marciano made no sense in 1954. No drawing power. It made sense in 1955 when valdez FINALLY put together a respectable winning streak and was earning respect around the world. This is when Weill made plans for the fight. Valdez all he needed to do was win the FINAL title eliminator and he had a GAURANTEED SHOT. why couldnt he beat 38 year old archie moore? Marciano destroyed Moore in 9

"When your ready to fight heavyweights I will tell you. But not a guy like Baker or Valdez. You will fight who I tell you to fight."- Cus Damato 1955 from Floyd Patterson biography book released in 1963

I talked to a Boxing Historian Enrigue Enisoca, a man who did the CBS interview with Nino Valdez. He said Damato turned down Valdez because he didnt want to send floyd in the ring with a man who was 3" taller 20lb heavier with a punch. He also said Marciano never ducked Valdez, and the only ones who thinks so are passionate cuban sportswriters.

PLEASE provide a source where marciano ever turned down a fight.

 

Sure, but even past his prime he was still a very dangerous puncher with a top jab

No. He only turned down Machen, Folley, Williams, and Valdez. Coincidently, Liston beat ALL of them. the 4 most dangerous challengers to dethrone patterson


I will respond to the rest later

 

Langford may have been"far past his prime" when Fulton chopped him up in 1917,but a month earlier he had beaten Wills.:good