Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

And what about Tunney?

Rickard signs Tunney to a contract to fight Wills in August, 1925, while Wills is negotiating to fight Dempsey. Still, this fight might have come off, except for-----

September 9, 1925 New York Times page 30

COMMISSION HALTS WILLS-TUNNEY BOUT

"Gives October 12 date her to Sports Alliance, upsetting Rickard's plans for match."

There is a long and complex article detailing how Tex Rickard and two other promotional groups, Sports Alliance, fronted by Jimmy Johnston, and Ebbets Field, bid to stage fights on October 12, Rickard lost and so the Wills-Tunney fight died on the vine.

"In assigning this date to the Alliance the commission rejected an application from Promoter Rickard and another from Ebbets Field which was also seeking the privilege of holding a boxing show on that holiday."

"These developments in the fistic situation automatically preclude Rickard's holding a Wills-Tunney match on Columbus Day, as he had planned."

So Rickard is out of the picture--but the match might not be dead:

"Promoters J Frank Black, Babe Culman, and Henry Blaufus, Newark's boxing triumverate, dashed madly into the office of Billy Gibson, manager of Tunney, and offered to match the Greenwich Village idol with Wills for September 28."

"Gibson . . . estimated the possible receipts and Tunney's reward from a Wills-Tunney match in Newark. Then Gibson laughed the matter off."

Bottom line--Again the commission comes in to torpedo the bout in New York. It seems hard to believe Rickard couldn't get the date for a match on this scale. Is there a secret agenda?

Tunney still could have had a Wills fight in Newark. Wills had signed to fight in Newark and in fact did that October against Floyd Johnson. Gibson seems not to have liked the money. Okay, boxing is a business, but there is no basis at all to imply that Wills ducked Tunney.

September 10, 1925 New York Times, page 21-----WILLS NOW READY TO FIGHT TUNNEY

"Just when it seemed all prospects for a heavyweight battle between Harry Wills and Gene Tunney before the end of outdoor season was unlikely, Paddy Mullins, manager of the negro boxer, announced yesterday that Wills was ready and eager to meet Tunney."

Tunney signed to fight Bartley Madden.

 

Maybe the first offer he actually entertained, but not the first that he had received. Wills had already received offers to fight Gibbons.

No, the bottom line is that Wills refused to sign or even respond after prolonged negotiations.

You could say that about any situation at any time. If that's your position here, then you could never claim that anyone ever ducked anyone, anytime.

 

Wills was in the middle of legal negotiations with the New York State Athletic Commission to force Dempsey to sign to defend against him or to vacate the title. Gibbons isn't really very relevant. He had lost to Dempsey two years earlier and had not since defeated a top heavyweight. The commission had already ruled that Wills was the top challenger and entitled to a title match. Before the issues between Dempsey and Wills could be settled, Gibbons signed to fight Tunney.

Anyway, this is a charade. Did you read the quote I reprinted from the Times article on March 31? The commission was not prepared to sanction a fight between Wills and Gibbons.

How "prolonged" could negotiations have possibly been when Kane is announcing to the press on February 17 that he had closed a fight with Dempsey in the Rose Bowl? and on March 10th that he was going to meet with Kearns to discuss details of such a match.

on ducking--why in the hell should Wills throw away a possible shot at Dempsey to fight Gibbons? The commission had ruled in his favor. He was waiting for Dempsey's response. Is he supposed to abort the whole process because of Gibbons?

 

Not true, the NYSAC had already made its ruling on the matter by March 23, when it ruled to ban Dempsey from fighting in the state. The commission said it had no intention of ever stripping Dempsey of his title, they told Wills "Titles are only won in the ring." Gibbons' people gave Wills the ultimatum a full week after that.

He was the #2 rated contender in the world. I'd hardly call that "irrelevant."

Charley Weinert was far less relevant at that time.

But what was different about the Dempsey-Wills "issues" when Wills suddenly found he was able to fight Weinert a few days later?

Yes, according to the writer's "inside" source - but even assuming that's true, that would only come into play if Wills had actually followed through and signed for the fight in the first place. But he didn't. Whether or not the fight would've happened if he did sign, the fact still is he wouldn't sign, which makes it a moot point.

The day after the ultimatum, the promoters of the event issued a statement that they were confident the fight could be held in NY, if the fighters were still willing; but they still had not heard yet from Wills or his team.

A few days later (once Tunney-Gibbons was signed and sealed), Wills turns up and is signed to fight Weinert for a fight in NY. The NYSAC had none of the reported "problems" sanctioning the fight.

------------------------------

PS, I think you're missing my point. I'm not really looking to accuse anyone of "ducking" anyone. I only brought this up to illustrate the hypocrisy and double standards of other posters who are accusing fighters of ducking.

 

If not fighting your #1 contender for 7 straight years and your # 2 contender for multiple years isnt termed "ducking" then the term ducking doesnt exist. wills and greb were ducked. plain and simple

 

1. I don't see Gibbons was relevant to Wills. No.

2. Weinert was the #3 contender in 1924, one place behind Gibbons. He had defeated Romero-Rojas (#4 contender), Firpo, and Sharkey twice. You said earlier Sharkey was not even a prospect, but he had defeated Floyd Johnson, Homer Smith, Jack DeMave, and Sully Montgomery, and had fought the #3 and #4 contenders in his FIRST active years as a pro fighter. Sharkey had been thrown to the wolves like no one in boxing history, even Joe Louis. I would myself consider Weinert the tougher opponent, with his wins over three top heavyweights. Gibbons hadn't beaten a top heavy since Miske. He was a great lightheavyweight, not heavyweight.

3. Who is Gibbons to give ultimatums to Wills? The fact is he broke off the negotiations to sign with Tunney.

4. Wills probably accepted the bout with Weinert to fulfill his contractual obligation to Rickard. He had signed a contract with Rickard in 1924. Once he fulfilled that contract, he could negotiate with other promoters for a shot at Dempsey.

5. I have to assume the reporter was correct, as he said "authoritive" source, probably shorthand for someone on the commission who wanted to remain anonymous.

6. The ban of Dempsey did not settle the Wills-Dempsey matter. It just meant Dempsey could not fight anyone else in New York until he accepted Wills's challenge. Dempsey was still appearing before the commission that summer. Obviously, he never accepted Wills' challenge and did not fight in New York State until after he had lost the title and Wills was out of the picture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"PS. I think you are missing my point. I am not looking to accuse anyone of 'ducking' anyone."

Sorry. I did miss your point. Yes, of the "ducking" we are talking about were with men who didn't actually prove they were outstanding (Martin and Godfrey) or got screwed because of historical circumstances (1943 to 1945) or are arbitrary (Patterson should have fought Valdes rather than Harris), or nonexistant (Ingo ducking Liston, everyone ducking Williams). Of the ones that matter, Jeff probably should have fought Johnson in the 1903 to 1905 period, but Johnson lost a key fight. Marciano probably should have fought Valdes in 1955, but Valdes lost key fights.
The most serious historical issues in the pre-1980 era are Johnson and Dempsey avoiding their leading contenders. This went on so long and with so much dancing around that I don't see how issues of "ducking" can be avoided for these champions.

 

It really is as simple as that. Amazing that this is even disputed.

 

By the way, on Greb:

August 3, 1925--New York Times

"DEMPSEY REFUSES GREB BOUT OFFER"

"Tells promoter Fitzsimmons the only fight he wants is with Harry Wills"

So I guess the reason Dempsey did not defend against Greb is that he was interested in defending against Wills. I guess!?

 

The New York Times report of his December 1915 fight with Langford described Wills as a fast and clever boxer for his size with a strong left jab. Not quite the description you are giving.

Off what I have read of him, he seems a big man (6' 4") who could box but had only so-so power. He sounds more like Larry Holmes than George Foreman.

 

Poor Harry Wills gets so underrated h2h. I Notice huge dempsey fans lump the "slow" label on wills in attempt to turn him into another willard/firpo/fulton type. In reality, he was so much better than those 3. he would have been a test dempsey never faced before. I think one can make a case harry wills should be rated above jack dempsey.

 

well thats lovely. In that case u can also make a case of ranking Wills over Johnson and Jeffries for that matter :good

 

I'm a huge Dempsey fan Suzie ,but I have no problem with anyone who wants to rate Wills above him,I dont but that is personal opinion.
Wills has a very fine resume ,with wins over the best black fighters around.although a couple of them may have been slightly on the downside.What a pity we have only film of Harry when he was himself past his best?
I have no idea how fast a foot Wills was ,Dempsey himself once described him as" big and slow", but we dont really know, I tend to think he was more of a boxer type than a banging Godfrey type, possibly the comparison a poster made with Holmes is quite accurate. I have nothing to support my view that Dempsey would beat him ,probably by ko, just my gut feeling ,if some one thinks Wills takes Dempsey to school who am I to disagree?

 

Listen. You claimed earlier that Marciano ducked Valdez, yet you are argueing dempsey did not duck wills. I dont think that is fair at all. 2ndly, Valdez never had much of a reputation in the early 1950s..he was a journeyman then who suddenly became a contender on a anomoly over charles. No sportswriters ever called marciano out to fight valdez and no one gave valdez much of a shot vs the champ. I have tons of film of Valdez. He had a very good jab, had power in both hands, good size, he defintley was a world class fighter. I am not denying that. But he was certainly no Harry Wills.

His reputation picked up again by late 1958 after he swept european heavyweights and beat some top young american heavyweights earning a # 2 ranking heading into 1959.

It was gibbons who pulled out of negotiations with wills. Besides, the commission already gauranteed a title shot for Wills, and Wills was just waiting for dempsey to sign. Why should he leave his title shot with dempsey for a lightheavyweight who had done nothing in the past couple years? This is pure speculation, but I think gibbons would have looked like norfolk vs Wills.

I guess 3 broken ribs and a dominating 3 round knockout was not "impressive" enough for jacky boy. Or perhaps it was too impressive.

Some of the rounds were really close. Charles won round 4 as well clearly. Valdez defintley won the fight i am not denying that. Charles did show up to this fight a soft career high 192lb. But to move on, But his track record prior to the charles fight shows the fight was nothing more than an anomoly. It became quite clear when Valdez was lucky to escape with a hometown split decision vs archie mcbride in 54, and then subsequently valdez refused a MANDATORY rematch with charles issued by the NBA and IBC.

Jackson was not top 5 in the world when valdez beat him. top 10? Yes


Jackson was dubbed the "2nd strongest heavyweight in the world next to marciano" by the new york times. He had a hurricane like windmill very ackward spoiler style and he would grab and clutch. He was the ultimate spoiler. He caught contenders on the downside of there careers like shopworn Layne, blinding Henry, washed up Charles, lucky decision in the 2nd baker fight(he would have lost to all these men in there primes), so he fooled the press into thinking he might have something. But he was no world beater and was exposed once he finally did get his title shot.

Harold Carter was higher rated than jackson when valdez knocked him out. Jackson was ranked the same as wayne bethe and mike dejohn when valdez beat them. I would hardly call Joe Erkskine a 2nd rate european, especially given he twice beat one of your loverboys henry cooper. Valdez smoked erkskine in one round.

No. Once Valdez had done enough to earn a title shot, then Maricanos management began negotations. One anomoly over Ezzard Charles was NOT ENOUGH to qualify valdez for a title shot vs marciaon, especially after losing 4 fights in 1953. Valdez earned his shot by 1955, and that was when marciano management scheduled a valdez vs marciano miami in miami for.
Marciano never ducked Valdez. Now I am not exempt for critisizing rocky. I do think Marcianos management blatantly ducked Clarence henry from 1951-1952 and I hold it against marcianos management for taking on a washed up lee savold instead of # 3 rated dangerous clarence henry.

I am more concerned with the way the white promoters PURPOSELY left George Godfrey out of the heavyweight elimination tournament to decide whos tunney next defense would be. In fact Tex Richard said the only way he would allow godfrey in was if Knute Hansons manager could confirm that his man would beat godfrey. When Knutes Manager said "No way" Tex balked at godfrey entering . they were scared. scared that godfrey off the cuffs would plow through the elimination tournament and get to fight tunney in a real fight. Godfrey challenged Dempsey and Tunney almost daily, even offering to fight them for free. Godfrey was thought of highly by the press. Let me ask you this, Was godfrey ever given a title eliminator to fight these two? Nino Valdez was given a FINAL TITLE ELIMINATOR GAURANTEE WINNER A SHOT AT MARCIANO.

I already posted sources from famous boxing historians which stated that godfrey was on the cuffs for many of his losses. If you dont want to accept them, then Oh well. Godfrey was a consistent top 7 rated contender for 5 straight years despite all those "Losses".

If you read most of the press, they all realized that Cockell was used as a tuneup for a big 1955 fight with either Valdez/Moore. A Marciano vs Valdez/Moore fight was GOING TO HAPPEN.

Also, You do realize Cockell was the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world when Marciano fought him? how many heavyweight champions use there # 2 contender as a tuneup? Not many. dempsey certainly never fought his # 2 contender 165lb Harry Greb.

Mike Dejohn and Roy Harris were top ranking white heavyweights. Henry Cooper's MANAGER publicly stated he would never allow henry to fight liston. Johansson, wanted nothing to do with him. Liston fought all the top white heavyweight rated challengers willing to fight him. Dempsey on the other hand did not defeat the best white heavyweight, Harry Greb, and did not take on any of the black heavyweights Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Kid Norfolk, George Godfrey.

Did you even see the Brian London fight on film? I bet you hadvnt. I own the fight, i know what happens.

the same way you claim fred fulton was the standout top contender in 1918

Wills beat a healthy norfolk. norfolks eye sight failed AFTER wills beat him. Kind of like the way you try to claim fulton beat a healthy langford whos eyesight did not fail until after the fulton fight.

Yes, I have met kevin personally. A great guy. I trust his work tremendously, I am glad you read that bio he has on norfolk because maybe it will open up your eyes to how good Norfolk was, and how competitive he would have been vs jack dempsey. Norfolk sure was a lot tougher task than Billy Miske and Bill brennan were.

 

read the top one. It specificully states that TUNNEY IS DRAWING THE COLOR line on george godfrey. So even if Godfrey were to knockout dempsey sharkey and heeney, he still would not fight godfrey because he is using the color line against him. This is the mark of a coward. Tunney did not fight Godfrey, because he hid behind the color line.