Many thought Pacman was the victim of a bad decision so that isn't a good example. I'm not contesting Wills's right to a title shot,Im just saying I dont think he was all that he is made out to be. How was Norfolk a "Black Boogaboo for Dempsey? Wills was 6inches taller than Norfolk and 36 pounds heavier do you think it was a surprise/shock that he beat him? I think you mean clean Wills's clock.Would Wills v Dempsey have grossed More than Dempsey v Carpentier? What makes you think so? Your claim that Nat Fleischer stated Wills would beat Dempsey is strange given that Fleischer rated Dempsey no4 in the all time list and Wills not in the top 15. I don't believe it ,and would require a reputable source before I gave it any credence at all. Fleischer championed a Dempsey v Wills fight in the interests of fair play and for the good of boxing in general , and he should be lauded for having done so. In over 50 years I've never read that he picked Wills to beat Dempsey,him or any other leading contemporary sportswriter.
Harry Wills had many times more bouts than Jack Dempsey from 1918 to 1926 while compiling a fine record. During that time, Wills lost only two bouts, by disqualification in the first round to Bill Tate during 1922 and by disqualification to Jack Sharkey during 1926. As a result, I think it is ludicrous to assert that Wills wasn't fully entitled to a shot at Dempsey solely due to the fact that Wills was less than dominant in his two bouts with Bill Tate during 1922, the first one being the disqualification loss and the second one ending in a draw. - Chuck Johnston
Gibbons showed writers the black and blue welts about his hips and thighs the next day from all of Dempsey's low blows, blows to which Dougherty turned a blind eye. He also commented that Dempsey was no mankiller and in fact that Miske punched harder.
Im not glossing over anything. The press and experts of the day didnt characterize it as a disaster so why should I 100 years later?? You are portraying it as something it wasnt. Period. If it was such a disaster why was Wills still considered the concensus choice as Dempsey's most dangerous challenger and selected just months later by Dempsey's favorite promoter for a title eliminator?? Those are questions you cant explain away by characterizing the Tate fights as a disaster.
Actually, Dougherty was the one hitting Gibbons in the thighs. And I think it was Mary Pickford who Gibbons said hit harder than Dempsey.
You cannot characterise the top contender loosing and drawing against somebody who was seen as a second rather, as anything but a disaster. The fact that Rickard then put him in an eliminator with Norfolk undermines the idea that he was trying to eliminate Wills, because he was effectively throwing him a lifeline.
From 1918 to 1922 Norfolk chased a shot at Dempsey. In 1918 Norfolk tried to get a birth against Dempsey on an exhibition card and Dempsey flatly refused. In 1920 and 1921 Dempsey was told to steer clear of Norfolk because Norfolk had handled Brennan (who had just given Dempsey hell) in sparring for the Dempsey bout. In 1921 Leo P Flynn tried everything he could to get a bout with Dempsey only to be met with the same hemming and hawing that Wills and Greb met with. When Dempsey was training for Carpentier he put out a request for more sparring partners, he wanted the best he could get. Norfolk announced that he was on his way and when he arrived Dempsey closed his camp to him and stated that he didnt need anymore sparring partners. It wasnt until Wills knocked Norfolk into next week that he was erased from contention. Do you want to argue that Miske and Brennan were better qualified than Norfolk? Hell, Norfolk dominated Miske twice when Miske was well and used to bash Brennan around in sparring as they were stablemates. What about Carpentier? Norfolk would have embarrassed him. Gibbons ducked Norfolk for nearly a decade before fighting him when he was blind and falling apart. Norfolk was a lot of guys boogaboo, not just Dempsey but Dempsey wasnt eager to meet him either.