He was the heavyweight champion OF THE WORLD. Not the heavyweight champion of New York. Nobody around the world gave a **** about what racist white people in the U.S. thought about a black man fighting a white man. And Muldoon wasn't protecting people from a Dempsey-Wills matchup ... he was afraid WILLS WOULD WIN. That's what he was "protecting" them from. He wasn't afraid of riots breaking out if Dempsey won. Sharkey beat Wills in New York in 1926. How many people died in riots following that? Willard knocked out Johnson in Cuba. How many people died in riots following that? If he thought Dempsey would win, they'd have fought there. They could've fought anywhere ... if Dempsey's people actually had faith in their guy winning.
So Dempsey was a physical coward D.? That sums up your BULL S'''t. Ninety years later you Mr Einstein have a better sense of those long ago times than the people who lived then and wrote about it ? So noble of you almost a century later...
So your contention is Dempsey was trying to save black people from Harry Wills winning the title ... because Dempsey was so worried about the safety of black people if Wills became champ? :roll:atsch Get your head out of your @ss, Burt. Jim Jeffries, Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera, Max Baer and Jim Braddock - in racist times - decided to fight the top black heavyweight in their eras because they believed THEY would win. And some of them did, and some didn't. But Dempsey wouldn't fight Wills, apparently, because Dempsey and everyone around him thought there was a good chance he'd lose. And the world would erupt in violence if Demspey lost. :roll: Dempsey ducked Willls and used racism as his excuse. That was not only cowardly, but EIGHT OTHER HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONS ... who held the title both before and after him, in times that were just as racist if not more ... never chose to use such a laughably bad excuse to get out of fighting their top black opponent. And, frankly, when comparing Johnson, Wills and Louis ... Wills was by far the more easier guy to beat. Dempsey still wouldn't fight him.
Oh, please, stop with the racist BS, just to illustrate your racist arguments are total cow patties. Human beings in general are tribal, Why is there so much division between the Irish? When the only difference is one is catholic and the other protestant. How come blacks in America, don't get along with Jamaican blacks, in both cases they belong to to a different tribe. That's human nature, sorry but it's true and has been true since humans first appeared on this planet. FYI, there are many "white" tribes, German, Italian, Irish, English, French etc. Even among Hispanic's, there are Cuban's, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Dominicans and in each and every case, each think they are better then the other. So please stop with this racist slant, Wills was the victim of Jack Johnson and that is the truth.
When champion Jeffries refused to defend against the top black contenders .He only fought Johnson because Johnson had the title.None of the champions before Jeffries would defend their titles against black challengers. Willard fought Johnson for the same reason Jeffries did ,because he had the title,immediately upon winning it he drew the colour line. Neither Sharkey,Braddock,Schmeling,Baer,or Carnera defended against a black challenger. So it's a different scenario than the Dempsey Wills one. Imo Dempsey kos Wills in about 6 rds.
I gave you four possible reasons this fight never occurred, including racism and financial, and for whatever reason you chose to focus on only one of them. You really couldn't be more biased about this topic if you tried. Like I said, if you feel that this hurts Dempsey's legacy rank him accordingly, but don't expect others to follow your myopic thought process towards the same conclusion.
Sharkey, Braddock, Baer, Schmeling and Carnera were all short-term champs. Only Schmeling and Carnera even managed a successful defense. And, as natives of Germany and Italy, neither gave a damn about the white-black situation in the U.S. Carnera and Schmeling fought more top black fighters than any of them. The fact is, despite rampant racism, they all fought Joe Louis. Before the Baer-Louis fight, you can even hear the ring announcer on the radio broadcast essentially ask the enormous crowd to be fair and not to riot if Louis won. And Burns, Jeffries and Willard all fought Jack Johnson for the world title. Whether they were champs or challengers, it didn't matter. Johnson was the top black fighter in the world. They stepped up to the challenge. Hell, so did Fireman Jim Flynn and Frank Moran. Flynn and Moran challenged Johnson after Jeffries did. Willard challenged Johnson after Jeffries did. There were no riots across the U.S. when Flynn and Moran lost to Johnson or Willard won over Johnson. Dempsey chose not to fight Wills. There were no laws barring it. The press was begging for it. They could've fought in the U.S. or anywhere in the world. If Dempsey was confident he'd win, and he knocked out Wills, he would've been lauded. He chose not to fight Wills because there was a good chance he'd lose. And people didn't have faith that Dempsey could win, or they wouldn't have been so focused on what would happen if he lost. Bottom line, nobody was saying there would be race riots if the two men (Dempsey and Wills) agreed to fight. Nobody said there would be race riots if Dempsey and Wills weighed in to fight. Nobody said there would be race riots if Dempsey won. When the Dempsey camp and Dempsey apologists say there was a fear of race riots ... they are saying there was a fear white people would riot if Dempsey lost ... and there was a good chance Dempsey would've lost. And they didn't have faith enough in Dempsey winning to put it on. And the arguments about Johnson-Jeffries from a decade earlier IGNORE the fact that THREE MORE white men had fought a black man for the heavyweight title after that (Flynn, Moran and Willard) and there were no riots. So it's all bull. Dempsey and his camp didn't want to fight Wills because there's a good chance Dempsey would've lost. The rest is all blowing smoke. I'm not going to keep arguing this. Burns, Jeffries, Willard, Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera, Baer and Braddock all showed more stones than Dempsey did. They all stepped up. Dempsey didn't.
I'm not biased. I'm stating the facts. There were no race riots when Flynn or Moran or Willard fought Johnson (after Jeffries did). There were no race riots when Sharkey beat Wills, or when Schmeling beat Louis, or when Louis fought Baer, Braddock, Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera. This "race riot" fear has been repeated so many times, you guys just swallow it up. Blacks fought whites in every division all the time. There weren't race riots when the two races stepped in the ring. Just like every time Andrew Golota fought in Madison Square Garden, there wasn't a riot like the time he fought Bowe. Those were racist times. They didn't want a black guy winning the title. They thought Wills could win the title. So he couldn't fight for it. If Dempsey thought he could beat Wills, he would've fought Wills. He and his camp weren't confident in beating Wills, so they claimed they wouldn't fight him because they feared race riots if he lost. It was a duck, plain and simple. The other heavyweight champs around Dempsey fought the top black fighters of their eras. Dempsey did not. The other heavyweight champs around Dempsey fought the top black fighters of their eras, and never used the same lame excuse (fearing riots) to avoid them. They didn't sign to fight the best black fighters because they WANTED TO SEE RIOTING. They signed to fight them because they thought they'd win. Dempsey is the only one who worried enough about losing to one that he wouldn't fight the best black fighter of his era. That's not bias. It's a fact. Gotta go.
And thank Jack Dempsey ... for saving all the blacks from those terrible beatings by not losing to Harry Wills. :roll:
Fighting blacks when you are contender is different to defending your title against one or challenging a black champion. That is my only point and if you cant see the difference I'm wasting my time replying to you.
Dempsey would be ranked higher if he had faced and beaten Harry Wills or Harry Greb. When a fighter is remembered as much for the fights he didn't take as champion, his legacy should be questioned a bit. The shame of it is, I think he would have won both fights. Dempsey actually had a chance to face an older Jeannette as a sub in but declined. The best he fought was Tunney, and that one was not competitive, and though he defeated Jack Sharkey ( perhaps the 2nd best he fought ), it was hardly a clean win as Dempsey went low, then nailed Sharkey with a hook when he was complaining about the foul. And then there is the KO 1 vs Flynn. While I am 100% sold on Dempsey's power and speed, his career was a little too uneven to rank inside the top 8, I think. To hit a top 8 mark, I think he would have needed to have beaten Wills, and not chose Holywood over boxing in his prime.
Wills deserved a title shot,there is no argument about that, the idea that he was the number one contender for 8 years is however pure BS.
Flynn was not an undefeated champion coming out of retirement to," save the honour of the white race."Neither was he given a realistic chance of beating Johnson. Jeffries was the favourite when he challenged Johnson ,the general expectation was that he would win Moran fought Johnson in Paris .Willard fought Johnson in Havana spot the difference? Sharkey v Wills was not for the title.Neither were Schmeling v Louis 1,Louis v Baer,Louis v Carnera,or Louis v Sharkey. Why you cannot see the difference between a normal boxing match and a heavyweight title fight with the implications of superiority that always carried is beyond me. You are also jumping quite few years to try and prove your point.
