Who beat better opposition Dempsey or Wills?

I would also counsel people, that establishing what a fighter/promoter did, is a lot easier than establishing why they did it.

Many people are guilty of looking for simple explanations, for complex circumstances.

 

I don't think you're a racist M. But you are undoubtedly a Dempsey apologist, you continually twist the facts to this end. You're a fan, he's exciting to watch, it's fun to get caught in the furor of the hysteria and rate him very highly as a result, I get it.

I'm not a racist myself, the people who have called me a racist are generally racists themselves (see Medonza/Burt/similar posters) although I will admit Fleaman a none racist poster considered me a racist about 8 years ago but no longer does.

However I do believe pre civil rights fighters did receive discrimination. It's naive to believe otherwise.

I'm being honest and objective with you here my friend. I think we get along quite well outside of the Dempsey/Wills debates, which we tend to only chat about these days.

 

I don't think Dempsey was a coward.

I do think he didn't relish the fight with Wills.

Drawing the colour line was a convenient way of avoiding some of the most deserving challengers and in this case, the outstanding challenger.

It's similar today to fighters using money and network as an excuse not to make a fight happen.

Ultimately if a fighter wants it enough it will happen, concessions might need to be made but that's what has to happen for greatness to succeed.

 

A lot of people assume that Rickard simply wanted to keep Dempsey in possession of the title, but I think that his game was a lot more complex than that.

I think that his game was to use Dempsey as the hammer to smash the heavyweight division, and Wills as the anvil.

That would explain why he moved to protect Wills position in the division, after the series with Tate.

It served his purposes to have Dempsey at the top, but if Dempsey imploded, he would always have had Wills to fall back on.

 

Fair enough.Peace Brother :good
I agree Blacks were discriminated against, Willard and Dempsey both said they would pay no attention to black challenges.
I think Dempsey would have fought Wills but he didn't need much persuasion not to.
I'm said to be a Jack Johnson apologist too, again by Mendoza, but Johnson is boring to watch , Dempsey on the other hand does get my pulse going!

 

(-

 

Rickard didn't care about protecting Dempsey much at all. Kearns did. When Dempsey and Kearns split, Rickard matched Dempsey with Tunney and we saw how that turned out.
Rickard's only miscalculation was believing ex-marine Tunney could draw on his own, which proved very wrong, but the Dempsey-Tunney matches were very successful.

Simply Rickard didn't want a black champion ever, but since the fans, and the press and some of the boxing officials had made Harry Wills an issue, Rickard could exploit that by milking Wills in big fights while Dempsey was on furlough.

The boxing business is full of deception, but I don't think there's any reason to doubt the story that Rickard himself admitted - he didn't want a black champion and ultimately, in 1925/'26, it was he, and not Dempsey or anyone else, who decided on Tunney rather than Wills.
Apparently Dempsey even argued about it, complaining that the press would go at him, so Rickard came out and told them it was him.
Of course, some people will see that as Rickard further "protecting" Dempsey, his reputation, another clever ruse, but there's little reason to doubt it.
Rickard was looking out for Rickard. And Dempsey's professional life was really a bit of a mess by that point.

 

Just on the anti-Wills spin

Time Magazine on 4-7-1924 quoted Tex Rickard--"Wills agrees to fight any heavyweight I select, leading up to a match with Dempsey."

Time commented--"Wills was expected to meet Firpo."

"If Wills wins, Rickard will let him have at Dempsey."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so Wills and Firpo fight and, according to sources quoted earlier in this thread,

"Wills took about every round."

So he gets Dempsey. No. He just didn't look good enough.

And, by the way, Firpo becomes a sort of nothing.

"Firpo not only telegraphs his punches . . . but sends a letter of warning."

An observer might ask how Firpo managed to get KO's of Willard, Brennan, and Weinert. Wills obviously could avoid Firpo's punches. One must ask what it says about the other three.

Or Dempsey,

whom Firpo dropped two (or three) times, knocking him out of the ring once.

How was this spun. Dempsey had a poor defense? No. Here is Roger Kahn "After Firpo, Dempsey stood at an absolute peak."

and then Kahn quotes Tunney,

"Against Firpo, Dempsey showed me something else; that he could take it. I don't believe any other human alive could have absorbed all those full-arm blows from Firpo and remained upright or even conscious, let alone win the fight."
------------------------------------------------------------------

No one seems to ask why Firpo wasn't able to hit Wills like he did Dempsey. Yes, he was a year older and a few pounds heavier, but he was coming off three straight KO's, including one over the European champion.

And Firpo had been selected by Rickard to fight an elimination with Wills, the winner to supposedly get Dempsey.

 

It is not unique for a lackluster win on the part of a contender, to dampen interest in them meeting a champion perceived to be dominant.

Some people said something similar about Elmer Ray, after he beat Joe Walcott.

Even today, when two of the of the top heavyweight contenders look lackluster against each other, people question whether it is worth matching the winner against Wlad.

Of course in all of these cases, I would still insist that the champion should meet his outstanding challenger.

 

OK, so he should have fought Harry Wills!

Can we please move beyond that realization, and start a genuinely objective ****ysis of his career?

 

You badly underestimate, what you call, the second tier competition!

 

Two things do seem to be forgotten in this debate:

1. Harry Wills was the second highest paid fighter of the era. He actually had more to lose (assuming he lost) than Dempsey. The longer Dempsey avoided him, the more money he made. If he fights and loses his earning capacity drops dramatically.

2. Dempsey did actually fight, and beat, by knockout, the man who ultimately derailed Wills from the title race, in Jack Sharkey. This has to be the next best thing to fighting wills doesnt it?

 

Firpo was 8lb s heavier and none of it was muscle.
He had sacked his trainer and" conditioned himself", badly.

Kahn's book is entertaining but very favourable to everything Jack did.
Wills and Dempsey were opposite in style Jack was a tear in slugger, Wills was a methodical boxer puncher more measured in his approach ,I won't say pedestrian because I'll have every Dempsey anti on my case again.:yep
Wills should not have needed to fight Firpo he had established his right to a title shot, its undeniable he won comfortably against the Bull but some papers thought he was disappointing , maybe they expected him to blast him out as Dempsey had done?
Willard was an old man when he fought Firpo he did well early on then his legs went on him.

For some one to talk about spin then mention this fight is rather hypocritical imo.

Questioning some of Wills victories ,those that have negative comments attached to them on Box rec does not make you anti Wills imo, it makes you objective and prepared to look beyond the stark print of the result..
Those that have tried to dig a little deeper into Harry's scalps stand accused of anti Wills bias and being Dempsey apologists, the same accusers are busy spinning these results like tops I find it pretty hilarious.