Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills

Wills beat Jeanette ONCE, in1919 ,when Jeanette was 40 .The fight you refer to and one a year earlier were both DRAWS .

 

The one in 1914 was considered a newspaper win for Wills. Wills won the newspaper decision- (San Juan Prospector)

 

San Juan Prospector?atsch
I think I'll go by Box rec Suzie

 

The Daily Thompson scored it for Jeanette.

 

:good

 

The Daily Prophet scored it for Wills

 

"The champs fought who got them the most money"

The general consensus was that Dempsey-Wills would have done fantastic business.

What is the evidence Johnson got more for fighting Flynn than he would have for fighting Langford? Or Jeffries more for fighting Munroe than he would have gotten for fighting Johnson?

 

Btw I find it funny Joe Jeanette was unable to score a win over a 9-1 Novice Harry Wills. Shows you just how great Harry Wills was. Dempsey in his prime ran out of the ring against a 39 year old joe jeanette, I doubt jack ever would have fought a world class Joe Jeanette with a 9-1 record. Wills resume is just so much better than demseys i might be forced to place wills above jack.

 

You can't make a lie true by repeating it ad nausem.

 

What dempsey did was not only described as a Cowardly act, but that it gave a "Black eye" for heavyweight boxing

 

Unsupportable opinions cited to bolster other unsupportable opinions. Read the article. Dempsey was game. Kearns did his proper job as manager and refused to let his fighter be screwed by unscrupulous and dishonest promoters. Only an idiot would allow his prizefighter to fight with zero forewarning when a dishonest promoter pulls an unannounced double-cross. Perhaps you're that idiot, which is why you'd never be a boxing manager?:tired

 

"What black contenders were considered top contenders in 1918-1919?"

Probably none at all. But what black contenders were considered? The color line was drawn so sharply that they were in a separate category, like the Negroe Baseball leagues versus the big leagues. When the white press mentioned contenders, they automatically restricted their comments to the "white hopes", just as baseball writers discussing great players in the 1920's and 1930's would have talked about Ruth, Gehrig, and DiMaggio, but not Gibson or Charleston. There was speculation if Jimmy Foxx could break Ruth's record. There was none if Josh Gibson could.

Clearly, Fulton was different in taking on top black fighters such as Langford and Wills, and the win over Langford automatically made him the top contender for the Willard's crown despite his earlier loss to Carl Morris in a poor performance in which he saved himself from worse by fouling out.

 

There were no good records of Gibson's home runs, which modern investigation has shown to be largely overstated. 800 for his career, yes, but many of those were in exhibitions and barnstorming against against local teams of questionable talent levels; in actual "Negro Leagues" games he hit 224.

The Babe hit every one of those 714 homers against major league pitchers; if you want to include World Series and All-Star games, he's almost at 750. Throw in his numerous barnstorming and exhibition games and you're closer to 1000.

 

I find it hilarious how Fultons win over Sam Langford made him "Top" contender for willards crown, yet Harry Wills FIVE previous wins over a younger better langford did not qualify him as "Top" contender. HOGWASH.