Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

Not at all. Dempsey cleaned out the WHITE heavyweight contenders, he did not defeat the top black heavyweight contenders 1917-1919. Liston defeated both.

Valdez was knocking londons block off, and cut him because of his sharp heavy punches, he gave a beating similiar to the way he gave Don Cockell. Valdez took london out of there before patterson did. This is the mark of a dangerous puncher.

ENTERING 1959 THE Same YEAR liston fought him, Valdez was the Ring Magazine annuel # 2 rated contender, ducked by patterson camp of a title shot, and had defeated several Ring Magazine top 10 or near it in 1958. Valdez was on a roll 1958 was his best year since 1954.

I dont know what fight you were watching. Sharkey beat the hell out of dempsey in the first, and then outboxed jack winning 5 of the first 6 rounds to any unbias fan. Then Dempsey fouled him.

* Yet Heeney gets a title shot just for beating Risko? Because he certainly did not defeat sharkey. Heeney had already lost to Uzcuden, whom George Godfrey defeated. This is a round robin, we can keep on going around and around. Sharkey was considered very highly by american media after he putt a whupping on the famous jack dempsey for 7 rounds. If Sharkey is not fouled by dempsey, he wins a unanimous decision and a gauranteed shot at tunney. I think he puts up a better fight than jack did in rematch(even though jack knocked gene down and out for 14 seconds), maybe he beats gene.

* After tunney defeated heeney, sharkey was the overwhelming # 1 or # 2 rated heavyweight contender by media and Ring Magazine. he was in line as the clear next tunney opponent. instead, tunney retired. When Marciano retired, Archie Moore was the clear # 1 heavyweight contender(but since rocky already beat him) that meant there was no one left to fight, and moore was made a 6 to 5 favorite vs floyd patterson, which shows u how high the media thought of moore as next heavyweight champ. Notice how after Marciano beats moore, archie stills retains the # 1 ranking. After tunney beat Heeney, Heeney dropped all the way down to # 9!!!

Wrong. He won a newspaper decision over Jeanette in 1914 and defeated Mcvea in 1915 when Sam was top contender. Wills also defeated # 1 heavyweight contneder in 1914 sam langford.

 

"Harold Carter, 22, an ambitious, energetic and well- conditioned heavyweight. Carter has a 21-2-2 record, including 10 kayos. He is ranked fourth by the NBA and a 9 to 5 favorite over Baker."- Los Angeles Times Jan 11 1957

This content is protected

SPOKANE, Wash., July 9 (UPI)-Harold Carter of Detroit makes his second start tonight since his return from the army. He is currently ranked fifth in the division by NBA.

 

I agree with most of what you said, BUT Moore was only a 6-5 favorite when he fought Patterson.

 

Are you sure? when were these odds changed? Orginally it was listed 3 to 1 I believe. or the source I got it from lied to me. Either way, Moore was defintley the favorite

This content is protected

Those are the rankings the month Rocky Retired

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Every Ring Record Book, starting in 1957, has the odds at 6-5 for Moore.

 

Thanx. I will concede that point to you. I think those odds are being generous to floyd. Despite floyds youth and reputation, the two best opponents he fought up to date he lost to joey maxim and won a split decision over hurricane jackson. Nothing to rave over, especially against an experienced great fighter like moore

 

All that proves is that you're both biased. No offense, everyone has their biases.

 

No offense, but so do you too bud.

 

I am suprised you bring this up. It is well known that Kid Norfolk was blind when Tommy Gibbons fought him. This win has no meaning at all.


Kid Norfolk certainly competed better against Harry Greb and Billy Miske than Gibbons did. Jack Dempsey refused to fight Kid Norfolk. this is a tough fight for Jack. Kid Norfolk is one of the few fighter's whose record speaks for itself. He was 5-0 against world champions and he beat every good black fighter (who many of the white contenders would not face), of his time. His only un-avenged losses during his prime were against Hall of Famers Sam Langford and Harry Wills.

 

Lets face the facts. Liston beat his two top ranking contenders prior to fighting for the heavyweight title Zora Folley and Eddie Machen. Jack dempsey did not defeat his 2 outstanding heavyweight contenders Harry Greb and Harry Wills.

 

I said everyone.

 

History tends to be a bit complicated, does it not? Still, Dempsey could have made the fight happen, and it should have happened, but he didn't.

From a historical the complexity of events are interesting, but it does not excuse Dempsey as a champion.

 

I think it's worse when it comes to Dempsey. Johnson didn't take on the most dangerous contenders either - as he should have - but he had at least beaten them previously. There are no Wills or Greb missing from his record altogether. But his championship reign wasn't better than Dempsey's, perhaps worse.

I basically agree with what you're saying here. But the holes in Dempsey's record are quite large since he didn't take on his most dangerous challengers. If Ali didn't have his wins over for example Liston and Foreman, he would drop a bit even though he still would have wins over 30+ ranked opponents.

 

EVERY one of these sources shows that Tunney bypassed Godfrey for far more highly rated and more deserving fighters. Outside of that, it's just someone else's personal opinion/spin on why his doing that was somehow "wrong." The last two articles undermine your point by actually ACKNOWLEDGING that Godfrey was not that highly rated or deserving of the fight, and that he had a lot of embarrassing losses; they basically just try to argue that Tunney should've done him a favor and given him the fight based purely on his "ability" or "potential."