Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

Cockell actually came into the picture because he was a light puncher ,and Marciano's camp wanted to test out Rocky's nose that had been badly split open against Charles.

 

Yes he was a tuneup for a fight in late 1955 with either Valdez/Moore. but how many heavyweight champions in history have used a 211lb # 2 rated heavyweight contender as a "tuneup"?

 

My claim was based mainly on contemporary reports. So are you saying you have reports that clearly denote those two as being the outstanding contenders then? Because if you did, it would blatantly contradict several claims you made earlier in this thread.

Care to explain how his eyesight had been miraculously "restored" just during the time he fought Wills, given that the fight that cost him his eye had occurred prior to that?

No, not "kinda like," because what I said actually coincides with most reports.

Good, then you'll trust him when he says this:

"They would share a distinct disadvantage however -- both were fighting with only one good eye. Greb had been fighting with only one eye since his last bout with the Kid and Norfolk had lost the use of his left eye in 1921 when he was thumbed by Lee Anderson in a bout in Arizona."

There's nothing his bio does to "prove" how competitive he would've been vs. Dempsey, that's something that can only be proven in the ring.

Again, no way of knowing that until the fight actually happens. Norfolk was blasted out by Langford, while Miske drew with and then later crushed Langford's superior, Fulton.

No he didn't, Gibbons has 2-3 decisive wins over each of them; Norfolk's only win over Greb was on a controversial DQ, and that was when Greb had only one eye, unlike the two times that Gibbons trounced him.

How about the fact that Gibbons competed far better against Clay Turner than Norfolk did?

So accordingly, you give Dempsey a lot of credit for rematching Miske, correct?

 

No, because Godfrey is a man who had NOT KO'd Dempsey, Sharkey, & Heeney and was NOT one of the leading contenders, and it's THAT man that Tunney declined to fight. Inventing some hypotheses about what Godfrey "would" do or if he had had a different career altogether is nonsensical and irrelevant.

No it isn't. Pursuing a much higher rated, more highly regarded, and more accomplished opponent over another is not, and never has been, "the mark of a coward," no matter how many different ways you try to spin it.

No, Tunney did not fight Godfrey because he was not Wills, as the article clearly states.

I haven't done either.

But what about the memory of his being embarrassed by a "glass chinned light-heavyweight" as you put it?

No he wasn't, the commission had already made its ruling to ban Dempsey, Dempsey had publicly stated the next day that he had no interest in pursuing a fight in NY, and talks of the fight had been scrapped at that point.

Wills now had a wide open window to make the fight with Gibbons - which he had said he would do if he had that window.

But yet he should "leave" that (non-existent) title shot for the lower ranked and lesser regarded Charley Weinert, who had been written off as washed up a couple years earlier, you're saying?

But nice to know that you consider beating Kid Norfolk as being "nothing."

Whatever it was, that's still no reason to distort what he said or the events that unfolded.

How do you know? That's not something the fight reports all corroborate. Why would you only give credence to a source that says Charles won the 4th round, but not to ones that say he didn't?

Yes he was, he was rated 5th.

So here you're acknowledging that he was a very highly touted fighter with a difficult style, and just putting your own personal opinion into why that shouldn't be considered a significant win?

But you could make that claim about pretty much anyone Valdes beat outside of Charles. Why only Jackson?

According to the source you provided, Carter was rated 5th, although that was according to the NBA. If even assuming the Ring had him rated the same, that still would only put him on par with Jackson at best.

No, Bethea and DeJohn were generally rated below the top 5 at that time.

I ask you whether Weill had turned down opportunities to make the fight, and you answer by talking about whether he was justified to turn down the fight. That's two separate issues.

No, most of them were unsure of whether he was going to fight Valdez or Moore next, hence much of the criticism against him. At one point, Weill said that if the Cockell fight turned out to be a good fight, they would pursue a rematch in England.

What does this story have to do with whether or not Godfrey was worthy/profitable enough for a big fight with Tunney or Dempsey in 1925?

Was Godfrey ever rated high enough to warrant a title eliminator when those two were champion?

According to you, Valdes had to be a top 1-2 contender for two years straight just to be worthy an eliminator. Why should Godfrey have just been "given" a title eliminator at a time when he was having trouble just staying in the top 10?

No, which speculated, in a couple of people's opinions, that he was on the cuffs. None of those people actually provide any proof to substantiate their cluffs, and even acknowledge in some cases that they're only speculating and don't even know for absolute certain themselves.

You could just as easily find people who thought Godfrey lost simply because of his limitations or because he was a choker, too.

What's the difference if I "accept" them or not?? He lost fights, plain and simple - what's the difference if he "chose" to or not? You don't care what the circumstances of Valdes' losses were, why should Godfrey's matter?

Not for any "five straight years" while Dempsey and Tunney were champions. He had trouble just staying in the top 10, let alone top 7; and I doubt he even broke the top 5 in that time.

No they weren't, DeJohn was rated in the bottom 10, and I'm not even sure Harris was still in the top 5 either (or perhaps was at #5 tops).

Whether it was his fault or not, he didn't beat them, and you can't just claim a guy did someone that he simply didn't do.

Yes.

Then you know that Valdes pounded on him but couldn't actually knock him out (contrary to what you claimed earlier).

 

That part sums up the issue to a tee.

Whether or not a fighter was avoided or deprived somehow, and how good the fighter actually is, are two completely different and separate issues.

 

But Weinert was?

You're free to make your own opinion as to who really was better or worse, but it appears that if you had held that opinion back then, you would've been in the minority.

He's anyone who feels he's being deceived or jerked around.

How do you reckon that? Wills-Weinert wasn't a Rickard promotion, it was on the undercard of Greb-Walker, which was promoted by one of Rickard's rivals (Fugazi I believe). If Wills still had a valid contract with Rickard at this time, I would think that fight would probably violate it, not fulfill it.

Regardless, the fact still remains that Wills gave his reason for continually postponing the Gibbons fight as that he was waiting for the commission's ruling - not any contractual obligations with Rickard. Otherwise, his team expressed a desire and willingness to follow through with the fight. The organizers of the event seemed confident enough that this fight could and would be held, and had a date set and were making plans around it. Wills got the commission's ruling that he said he was waiting for, so by his own admission, the way was now open for him to sign with Gibbons.

Dempsey said right after the ruling that he was not interested in pursuing a fight in New York, and the promoters who were looking to arrange the match withdrew their plans. The negotiations were scrapped at that point. Dempsey was only granted a new hearing later on after first agreeing that he would renew talks with Wills.

From the Times:

"The one definite effect of the State Athletic Commission's action in placing Jack Dempsey upon the board's ineligible list has been to cause an abrupt end to whatever negotiations were under way for a world's heavyweight championship match for the current outdoor season in the metropolitan battle area.

"The ineligibility of Dempsey has cleared the way for a bout between Harry Wills and Tom Gibbons, if the negro challenger cares to undertake this match"

 

This is not accurate, Tunney was ALREADY signed to fight Madden before the Oct. 12 date was canceled. He had scheduled to fight Madden on the 25th and then fight Wills on Oct. 12. When the Oct 12 date was canceled, Wills' team wouldn't sign for another date in October; and the ONLY date they were willing to give Tunney for a fight was Sept. 28 - just thee days after his fight with Madden. Gibson might not have liked the money, but the timing was the real sticky point here.

It even points that out in one of the articles you quoted above.

"Adding to the doubt surrounding this desirable heavyweight match is the announcement made by Gibson yesterday that he had accepted a match for Tunney against Bartley Madden, to be fought at Jack Reddy's club in Minneapolis on Sept. 25. Tunney could not possibly be expected to fight Madden in Minneapolis on Sept. 25 and Wills in Newark on Sept. 28."

Yet as you noted, for Floyd Johnson, Wills was willing and able to give him a date in late October.

It's all a moot point though, but this move isn't even what killed the negotiations. Tunney and his people seem to have been tentatively mulling over the prospect of fighting Wills on Sept 28 regardless, when it was Wills who nixed the fight.

Good for Mullins, but he goes on to say in that very article they would not give their decision on the fight until later that week. As it turned out, they changed their mind.

Tunney continued to push for a Wills fight after this (especially after he KO'd Madden who had recently extended Wills the distance), but Wills' people don't appear to have ever entertained the fight again.

 

From the NY Times:

September 22, 1913-

"Gunboat Smith, peer of the white heavyweights, and Sam Langford, considered by many close followers of the game to hold a similar position among the negro heavyweights, have the place of honor on the boxing programme arranged for the coming week in this city.

"The bout will attract more attention than any heavyweight contest since Jim Jeffries fought Jack Johnson, and in some respects it resembles that, bringing together two of the best heavyweights in the game to-day.

September 24, 1913-

"Buckley realizes that a win over Langford will put Smith in a position to clean up $100,000 in a year's time with theatrical engagements and a title match with Johnson."

December 23, 1913-

Headline: "Johnson, Langford, McVea, and Jeannette are deteriorating rapidly as boxers"

"Langford completely eliminated Sam McVea before he left Australia, and Big Sam has not been heard of since that time. ...He got one decision over Langford two years ago, but three bouts which followed showed McVea on the loser's end, the last bout resulting in a knockout in eleven rounds. This defeat put an end to McVea's pretensions as a heavyweight star.

"Jeannette's showing against Langford at Paris the night after the two Johnsons got together just about ends Joe's claims. ...In his recent bout here with Langford, Jeannette won on points, but gave unmistakable traces that he was going back as a boxer, a hitter and a mixer. Only Langford's lack of condition enabled the Hoboken negro to win, as Sam was clearly overweight.

"Langford got his quietus from Gunboat Smith in a twelve-round bout at Boston recently. Langford realized that the tide was going against him, and tried hard, the only time he has been really extended by a white boxer in several years, but the old skill was lacking. He had trained hard, according to reports, yet he had been unable to get down to his old fighting weight ...It was the general impression up to the time of the Smith bout that Langford was the class among all heavyweights, white or black, but Gunboat furnished a surprise.

January 4, 1914-

"Whether Smith can and will regain the title for the white race is a question of the future, but there can be no disputing the fact that the Gunner has proved that he is the logical contender for the task.

"Smith has done about all that any of the other champions could do. He has fought nearly all the other contenders and eliminated them from claiming the honors."

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

Everything I can see, both reported and on record, clearly denotes Gunboat Smith as being the outstanding HW contender when Wills first beat Langford in 1914. He had beaten both Langford (holder of the "black HW title") and Arthur Pelkey (the "white HW champion") in back to back fights, he had supplanted Langford's place as the leading contender by beating him in the ring, plus he had a run of other wins over other contenders/prospects around that same time, including Jess Willard. I don't see how it can be justified rating Langford over Smith a few months after Smith had just beaten him, and I haven't seen any justification in anything I've seen or heard.

Unless you have some other reports that disagree with the ones I posted above (which I would be absolutely fascinated to see), or you used some new "method" for determining ratings that you haven't used thus far in this thread (which would call into question many of your previous claims), it seems to me that you were flagrantly and unashamedly lying when you made your post above.

 

1. Wills and his contract. I'll take your word that the Greb-Walker, Wills-Weinert show was not a Rickard promotion. Wills HAD signed a contract with Rickard in 1924. Was it still in effect? If it were, why didn't Rickard simply sign Gibbons to fight Wills without the "negotiations". This is what happened during and after August, 1925.

a. New York Times, August 7, 1925-----DEMPSEY SIGNED SAYS FITZSIMMONS--Champion will meet Wills next year.

b. New York Times, August 12, 1925-----TEX RICKARD SIGNS TUNNEY FOR wILLS

(as Wills was clearly negotiating for a Dempsey fight, this seems to be Tex trying to throw a ****** wrench into the proposed bout. If Tex still claimed he had Wills under contract, why didn't he just sign him to fight Gibbons the previous spring. If not, what the hell is he doing? Why would Wills be expected to pass up a Dempsey fight to take on Tunney)

c. New York Times, November 5, 1925---DEMPSEY STANDS BY FITZSIMMONS DEAL

(so as far as Wills knew, his fight with Dempsey was still on at this date)

d. New York Times, December 19, 1925----DEMPSEY DECLARES WILLS BOUT OFF

I was wrong about the reasons behind the Wills-Weinert fight. I must say though that I don't understand the contractual relationship between Wills and Rickard. It is certainly bizarre that Rickard signed Tunney to fight Wills if he had no contractual relationship with Wills. That Wills seems to have considered the bout for October 12 even though he had a signed contract with Dempsey which might still have been good indicates that there was some still sort of contractual obligation remaining with Rickard. If so, why didn't Rickard simply sign Gibbons to fight Wills the previous spring.
As for Wills-Weinert, Rickard might simply have stepped aside for this one or perhaps he got something from the promoters.

2. Gibbons feels he's been deceived and jerked around---poor Tommy. This whole negotiation seems to have been between March 17 and March 31, 1925. And of course no one ever deceived or jerked around Harry Wills.

3. On Weinert and Gibbons----I don't know what the majority thought. Weinert might have been considered washed up a couple of years earlier, but wins over top heavyweights Romero-Rojas, Firpo, and yes, Sharkey, who was certainly moving up in the spring of 1925 with a win over Renault, would have put him back in the picture. Schmeling was considered washed up in 1934. After wins over Neusel, Hamas, and Louis, he was back on top in 1936. I personally consider Weinert more dangerous than Gibbons at heavyweight. Gibbons' only top win was over Miske, and it is difficult to tell what physical condition Miske was in for that bout or if he had the stamina to last against a really top man like Gibbons. Other that that, and the one-sided loss to Dempsey, most of Gibbons' best work was at middle and lightheavy.

4. The ineligibility of Dempsey had cleared the way for a bout between Wills and Gibbons---As there is no date or souce citation, I have no idea where this comes from or when. The New York Times did report from an "authoritive source" on March 31, 1925, that the State Athletic Commission would not sanction a fight between Wills and Gibbons. That seems to render this whole issue mute.

 

1. If Tunney really wanted to fight Wills, why in hell had he signed to fight Madden at all? It would seem to me he would keep his calendar open to fight the #1 contender rather than tying himself up with nothing fights against journeymen.

2. Tunney continued to push for a Wills fight----but when the Newark promoters came into his office with an offer, Billy Gibson blew them off. The reason given was not previous contractual obligations but that the money wasn't right.

3. By the way, I find it kind of hard to believe that Tunney could not have bought his way out of the Miineapolis fight for a fight with the stature of the one with Wills with the winner to get Dempsey. I think Madden and the Minneapolis promoter would probably have postponed that bout a couple of months in return for a little cash.

4. "Wills nixed the fight"----citation please. Actually, as Wills still had a signed contract with Dempsey, why in hell should he under any circumstances risk that bout to fight Tunney? Rickard might have had Wills under contractual obligation, and so might the Newark promoters, but if I'm his manager I would not even consider a fight with Tunney or anyone else if I could avoid it when an expected $2,000,000 fight with Dempsey has been signed.

5. You expressed cynicism about Mullins. Fair enough. But the same cynicism should be applied to Gibson, Kane, Kearns, and the promoters. How reliable, for example, is Kane when in February and March, 1925, he goes on and on about a fight with Dempsey in the Rose Bowl being in the bag.