Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

NY newspapers reported on Gibbons' continual hounding of Wills for a fight some time. Eventually, Rickard got involved and they started to enter into negotiations, but as the papers reported, Wills kept stalling or postponing the fight from happening. Eventually, Gibbons got fed up, basically told him "Now or never," and when Wills didn't respond, he signed to fight Tunney instead. Just a few days after Gibbons signed to fight Tunney, Wills immediately signed to fight Charley Weinert, no problem.

So again, this is a case of you agreeing that the guy avoided a fight, but now putting a spin on it as to why in this case it is "acceptable" when for other fighters it wouldn't be, correct?

First of all, I have the actual statement by Dempsey (not just boxrec's summary of it) and he didn't "guarantee" (as you claim) that he would fight the winner, he said he would give consideration to fighting the winner if he gave an impressive performance. Moreover, he said he already had a fight lined up with Bill Brennan later that year, and no matter what, the winner would not receive a shot prior to that.

Secondly (and more to the point), your two points blatantly contradict each other. First you point to what Wills "said" like it actually means something, and then in your second point you show how a fighter's words don't mean ****.

If Wills turned them down, he turned them down. What does what he "said" he would do make any difference to that?

 

By "early rounds" you mean the first two, correct? Because those are the only early rounds that reports are in agreement that clearly belonged to Charles.

Or it would've been a 4-round win for Charles, depending on which way they altered it.

The third judge scored something like 7 or 8 rounds for Valdes.

Then why not make your own case on why Jackson was not "world class" based on these films/reports, rather than just use someone else's opinion?

Either way you'd still have to explain why he was a top 5 contender at this time and favored to beat Valdes; and why a win over him should matter less than those late '50s wins over other contenders or second rate Europeans that you could just as easily argue weren't truly "world class" either.

Look at all the losses Godfrey had just prior to breaking the rankings, yet you insist Tunney or Dempsey should've fought him at that time. And unlike Valdes, he wasn't rated anywhere close to #1 at the time.

So you're saying "losses and lack of drawing power" is a legit reason for Marciano to not have fought his #1 contender, but not for Dempsey/Tunney not to fight a guy rated around #6 or less, correct?

So then you AGREE that Weill had either nixed or stalled opportunities to make the Valdes fight, correct?

Why? Are you suddenly particular about what sources you use?

But since you ask, Sports Illustrated put out a scathing article criticizing Marciano's people for choosing Cockell over Valdes or another better known/ more deserving challenger. Believe some Ring writers criticized him a few times too. And frankly, I think pretty much everyone in the American media criticized him for bypassing Valdes for Cockell, given the popular perception (rightly or wrongly) of Cockell as just some "Eurobum" in the US.

No, as already stated, he did not defeat the top white heavyweights, just the top black ones.

No it isn't, all he did was cut him up. That's nothing like the way he had Cockell down early and almost out on his feet. He showed nothing of that kind of explosiveness against London.

None of this answers my question. What showed you that Valdes was actually ranked AT THE TIME LISTON FOUGHT HIM?? - not simply "the same year," but actually WHEN the fight actually took place.

Be honest, have you ever actually seen anything that says Valdes was ranked AT THE TIME Liston fought him, or no?

Again, you're talking around my point. That doesn't change the fact that Dempsey was getting in on Sharkey and giving him an increasingly rougher time, and Sharkey was beginning to lose his poise, whereas Tunney had already had the fight well in hand by this point and was coasting his way to a clear win.

No, he'd also beaten Jack Delaney and Jimmy Maloney on top of that.

Uzcuden had already lost to two guys Heeney beat (Risko and Delaney) in between beating Heeney and losing to Godfrey.

Not really, the only fighters you could make a case for deserving a title shot as of April 1928 were either Risko or Heeney. The only complaint you could make here is that there maybe should've been yet another elimination fight between those two, but the NY commission refused to wait any longer and told Tunney to pick a challenger right away or he'd be suspended; so he went with Heeney.

Speculation.

All very possible, but still all just speculation, and ultimately all irrelevant.

Sharkey was given three consecutive shots to make a fight with Tunney (most fighters would be lucky just to get two, or even one for that matter) and blew them all. That's where the matter begins and ends.

So what? He had already given Sharkey three chances. It's not his responsibility to wait around till a prospective challenger gets his act together, nor is it his concern where a challenger's rank might possibly be a year later.

That depends on what newspaper you read.

Either way, he didn't record a surefire win over Jeannette until sometime after that.

What leads you to say those two were the standout top contenders at that time?

He had one eye when Wills beat him too, that didn't stop you from giving him credit for beating him. Why does it only become a factor when it's a white fighter who beats him?

So then you don't think Wills' win over him has any meaning at all either, correct? Anything else would be contradictory of course.

Are you serious?? You just cut and pasted this directly from Kevin Smith's bio of him.

But now you're claiming it's OK to consider Norfolk "in his prime" at a time when he had only one eye, correct?

 

lol the last part on qs post is a cut and paste job

 

You wanted to know "all" the time that Marciano was given an opportunity to make the fight with Valdes, so I told you.

But from the looks of it, you now AGREE with my earlier point that Valdes' reputation had suffered irreparable damage after his early '50s heyday, correct?

 

DMT wrote

LMAO LOL

 

I quote Kevin Smith all the time. I met the man personally, he is a great guy. I trust his work whole heartedly. His article is there for all to see.

 

And he's got a pair of your Boxers.

 

Lol i didnt. U gave me the downloads, in the utube description, i thanked u and said i got this footage from a very good member of another site.


Nothing wrong with the Smith quote. Kevin was a good poster, has alot of good info, it just made me laugh when i read ur post since i read Norfolks bio a few days ago. Nothing wrong with the quote, it was just funny.

 

The second quote i did write but the first quote is not mine. Regardless that was almost three years ago and i have learned how to control my temper since. Still funny to see those quotes though :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

btw there is this one ******* youtube poster who continues to try to post **** in marciano vs vingo wall that the video is fake. I always argue with him. you should clean his clock. I dont like this guy Pugcat. he is a troll.

 

I havent viewed my vidoes in a while. Ill ban that idiot soon.

 

GODFREY WILL FIGHT CHAMP FOR NOTHING
Same Goes For Wills

Dec.1- Now Dougherty is coming to their rescue with an offer the like of which has probably never been made in ring history. Dougherty, as is pretty well known, is the manager of George Godfrey, the Negro heavyweight who has been beating all comers at the California clubs during the past few months. He has defeated every fighter who could be induced to meet him and made himself the best box office attraction they have on the coast.

With no more of the ordinary run of fightters to meet Godfrey, Dougherty has been doing his utmost to get a match for his Negro protege with Jack Dempsey or Harry Wills. But in the case with both of them they have refused to give Big George a tumble and seem never to have heard his name. In trying to arrange for a fight the chief difficulty the promoters always have is in regard to the money.

Dougherty proposes to remove any such difficulty in regard to Godfrey, for he says that he will let George fight either Dempsey or Wills for nothing. All the promoter has to do is get Dempsey or Wills, let them pay Jack or Harry whatever they wish, Godfrey will come in without asking a dollar. Nothing in the world could be fairer and if any promoter can secure Dempsey or Wills, Dougherty will sign articles and the lucky promoters can stage the biggest ring encounter now in sight.

Dougherty Sure Of Victory
Dougherty feels in his heart that Godfrey can whip Dempsey or Wills. But he has little hopes of ever getting the champion to meet his fighter. Godfrey was a sparring partner for Dempsey once and he proved such a rough cutomer for Jack that he was fired from the camp. That was when Dempsey was training for that memorable fight at Shelby with Tom Gibbons, whom he failed to stop in 15 rounds.

Feeling positive that there is no chance for getting a fight for Godfrey against Dempsey, Dougherty began looking elsewhere. Then he began negotiations for a fight with Wills. But so far he has had no success. There are several California promoters willing to stage the contest. The same goes for New York and Philadelphia. Dougherty feels so sure of winning that the advertising vain of a victory he considers sufficient pay for him and his man.............the victory will be enough for us and the other fellow can have all he can get from the promoter. Fifty percent of the gate is enough for any fighter, and if Godfrey can get a match, Dempsey or Wills can have half the gate and the promoter can have thew other half. Has any fighter ever made such an offer before?"







Interesting read

 

"New York newspapers reported on Gibbons' continual hounding of Wills for a fight some time"

I checked the New York Times archive. Maybe I missed something, but there is one mention of a possible Gibbons-Wills match, on March 10, 1925.

"If Jack Dempsey, choose to box Tommy Gibbons instead of Harry Wills, in the first bout of his summer campaign, Gibbons stands ready to box Wills before meeting the heavyweight champion, Eddie Kane, Gibbons' manager, said tonight on his return from New York.
Kane expects to meet Jack Kearns, Dempsey's manager, here Saturday to discuss the possibility of a match between Gibbons and Dempsey in California this summer."

That is it for the New York Times on Wills and Gibbons. By the way, if there was any 'continual hounding' going on, it was from both Gibbons and Wills trying in 1924 and 1925 to get a match with Dempsey. There is article after article about various promotional offers and wrangling before the NYSAC to force Dempsey to defend his title. The managers of both Wills and Gibbons had laid claim to the title because of the champion's inactivity.

By April 26, 1925, the 'continual hounding' must have been over as it is mentioned in an article that Gibbons was set to fight Tunney and Wills set to fight Weinert.

Weinert might be easy to dismiss in retrospect, but he was coming off wins over both Firpo and Sharkey. Gibbons was not fighting, let alone defeating, heavyweights of that stature. His high rating was due mainly to his unexpectedly good showing against Dempsey back in 1923.

 

If you're only looking for Times articles, here's a few pieces I have on hand that talk about this.

-In January 1924, the Times reports that two Newark promoters "offered $100,000 for Wills to box Tommy Gibbons, St. Paul light-heavyweight, in a twelve-round bout contemplated for May 1 at Dreamland Park."

-In February 1925, Gibbons claims the HW title following a report that Dempsey is considering retirement. Gibbons says he wants to solidify his claim by fighting Wills, who he says is now his own #1 contender.

-February 21, Rickard says he is planning to promote a possible Wills-Gibbons fight, which Gibbons has been seeking.

-March 17, the Times reports that the final signing of the fight has been "delayed" by Wills' camp once again, which apparently contradicts an earlier report that the fight was a done deal. The negotiations have apparently been ongoing for some time.

-March 31, Gibbons issues an ultimatum to Wills. Eddie Kane, Gibbons' manager, "issued an ultimatum that unless Wills's signed contract to box Gibbons is presented to him today by noon he will proceed with arrangements for a meeting between Gibbons and Tunney."

-April 2, Gibbons signs to fight Tunney after failing to get a response from Wills' people.

-April 10, a mere 8 days later, it's announced that Wills has signed to fight Weinert.

Gibbons' whole plan for getting Dempsey to fight him again was to get Wills into the ring with him and beat him.

Weinert had been considered washed up only a year or so earlier, before his big upset of Firpo briefly put him back into contention. He was not held in nearly the same regard as Gibbons. If anything, his record looks better in retrospect because of a couple of wins over a young Sharkey, but Sharkey was only in his first or second year as a pro, not even good enough to be considered a prospect at that time.

 

on Gibbons:

Dec 5, 1924 New York Times, page 25--"Dempsey may fight Gibbons here May 5; Champion may defend title in last show at Garden, Rickard says."

Feb 17, 1925 New York Times, page 17--"Eddie Kane, manager of Tom Gibbons, said here today that he has accepted terms for a match with Jack Dempsey in California, in either May or June. The proposed match may be staged in the Rose Bowl."

March 17, 1925 New York Times-----"OFFER TO FIGHT GIBBONS AT MILK FUND----quotes Wills manager Paddy Mullings--"I listened to a proposition to have Wills fight Gibbons in the Milk Fund feature, with the understanding that the winner would get Dempsey in the fall, but I did nothing definite toward arranging the match," said Mullins. "Right now I am after a match for Wills against Dempsey. The State Athletic Commission has Will's challenge to Dempsey and has demanded action of Dempsey on the challenge. I am therefore in no position to accept any matches for Wills in the present situation.
"If I were to accept a Gibbons match, I could not reasonably expect the commission to press my campaign for a Dempsey bout with any degree of success. That is obvious. I took the proposition this afternoon under consideration, but I will do nothing until I obtain a Dempsey bout for Harry or am convinced that a Dempsey match is out of the question."

This quote seems to indicate this was the first firm offer. Kane had said a month earlier that Gibbons was going to fight Dempsey.

The Times article goes on to give a review of the politics of the commission:

"The question of Dempsey's attitude toward the demand of the board that he accept Wills' challenge is expected to come up for consideration at today's meeting of the State Commission."

So the State Athletic Commission had acted on Will's challenge to Dempsey that Dempsey either defend against Wills or vacate the title. It was waiting for Dempsey's answer when Rickard tosses the Gibbons offer on the table. If Wills accepts, he abrogates the Commisssion's decision, which favors him.



March 31, 1925--New York Times---GIBBONS MAY CLOSE TUNNEY BOUT TODAY

Kane has broken off negotiations for a Wills bout and is signing to fight Tunney. This paragraph seems critical to me:

"It is understood negotiations for the Gibbons-Wills struggle have been abandoned. Even if they have not been abandoned, there is little likelihood of the match materializing because the State Athletic Commission, it is learned from an authoritive source, is opposed to the sanctioning of such a bout."

Bottom line--Gibbons breaks off negotiations, not Wills. It is absurd to imply Wills ducked Gibbons. The politics is so Byzantine, who knows what is going on. When push comes to shove, the commission does not want to see Wills fight Gibbons. Is there a secret agenda?