Who beat better opposition Dempsey or Wills?

Fair enough

for the most part but

"I won't say pedestrian because I'll have every Dempsey anti on my case"

This might not always be about Dempsey. Wills could have his own fans (as might Jackson vs. Sullivan and Langford vs. Johnson)

Pedestrian is a harsh putdown for a fighter often ranked in the top 20 historically, and sometimes even in the top ten (boxrec).

*Myself, I admit I might be swayed by my sympathy for Harry. He was rather clearly shafted in his own day. He might not have won a showdown fight, but he certainly earned a right to try. I don't think it was mainly Dempsey who was responsible. Rickard and the politicians pressuring him, and the deep-seated racism of the era, were more to blame.

"Willard was an old man when he fought Firpo"

A fair point.

"rather hypocritical"

I think a rather strong term for perhaps a poor or inconsistent argument. I always feel "hypocritical" is freighted with moralism.

One way or another, old and inactive or not, Willard was fighting Firpo in what I think was in effect an elimination. If Willard won, he probably would have gotten the shot at Dempsey. At worst, he was the stepping stone for Firpo's shot.

I still judge that Firpo being able to KO Willard (as well as the younger Brennan and Weinert, and also knock Dempsey down and later out of the ring) is not consistent with the quoted description of how easy it was to avoid his punches.

 

I don't know, but I've often said that - going by the amount of criticism Dempsey receives for ducking Wills and Greb - Sharkey and Tunney deserve a lot of credit for fighting and beating them.

 

I also think that people are a bit premature to assume that Wills was the best fighter of the era, apart from Dempsey himself.

The facts are that Willard was the champion, and Tunney and Sharkey were the heirs to Dempsey's throne.

 

Gene Tunney might have been the best fighter of the era.

 

"The facts are that Willard was the champion"

How could Wills have become champion when the champions never defended against him?

"premature to assume that Wills was the best fighter of the era, apart from Dempsey himself."

It was a common opinion back in the 1920's. Here is Time Magazine from April 28, 1923--

"It is generally accepted that Harry Wills is the only man in the game who can stand at Dempsey's level. There is vague talk of a fight between the two at the Polo Grounds on Labor Day."

"Tunney and Sharkey were the heirs to Dempsey's throne"

Well, perhaps they were the best out there, but Godfrey and Gains could hardly be heirs to a throne they couldn't compete for either.

Sharkey beating Wills proves Wills was never (whatever)

Yes, if Charles and Marciano defeating Louis proves that Louis was never (whatever)

*I mentioned it before, but I wonder how Dempsey or a lot of others would have been able to focus on fights with Sharkey or Uzcudun in their late thirties knowing that there was no chance of a title fight regardless of whom they defeated. It helps to have motivation, especially when getting older.

Tunney

I agree with a previous poster that one can make a good case that Tunney was better than Dempsey.

But, as far as I can tell, Tunney never beat anyone who compares with Wills in the combination of size and ability.

 

"Harry Wills was the second highest paid fighter of the era."

I can't say I know for certain, but this is hard to buy.

Tunney had to be paid more, for certain, and I think probably Carpentier and Firpo were paid more. Carpentier had a guarantee of $200,000 for the Dempsey fight. Firpo $156,000 for his Dempsey fight.

Only the Wills-Firpo fight even drew a gate large enough to come anywhere close to providing some sort of payoff like that at $509,130 gate, with Firpo obviously getting his share.

Otherwise, Wills' fights weren't the big draws of the era.

Wills-Norfolk ($56,115.75)
Wills-Johnson ($20,790.53)

Compare
Greb-Gibbons ($118,762.25)
Tunney-Greb ($65,322.43)
Johnson-Brennan ($60,500.00)

Benny Leonard was also a huge draw, with several well over $100,000 gates. His fights with Tendler drew gates of $452,000 and $363,000.

What these figures (from Nat Fleischer 1976 Ring Record Book) show is that Wills seems not to have been a particularly big draw, but in fairness he was rarely matched with top opponents. Firpo was one, and it drew well. The Weinert fight was the semi on the Greb-Walker card.

Bottom line--among heavies, I think Tunney, Firpo, and Carpentier at least were paid more. So were some lighter weight fighters like Leonard and Greb for their big matches.

 

I can agree that his title challengers were not as good as Wills and Greb.

I don't think that we can assume that they were both better than Willard or Sharkey.

 

Janitor

"If Wills had been given the chance to fight Willard, how can we be sure he would not have lost."

What kind of point is this?

How can we be certain he wouldn't have won?

That is why matches are made, to answer these sorts of questions, and this match was not made. But I do think Wills had a better overall record than Willard, so the these two questions fall more heavily against Willard than against Wills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Willard was the champion and therefore the biggest potential scalp"

In a sense yes. But in another sense, no. Was Freddie Cochrane a bigger scalp in 1945 than Sugar Ray Robinson because he was the champion and Sugar Ray was not? Would Max Schmeling be viewed as well today if he had never fought Joe Louis but had gotten and won a title match with Braddock?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sharkey proved he was the best heavyweight in the world after Gene Tunney retired."

Not to me, he didn't. I think Max Schmeling was. Sharkey lost in 1928 to Risko. Schmeling KO'd Risko. Sharkey drew with Walker in 1931. Schmeling KO'd Walker. Sharkey fouled the slow starting Schmeling early in their 1930 fight, and the decision he got to take the title is one of the most smelly ones of the era. Sharkey faded out quickly and was losing to almost everyone at a time when Schmeling's best efforts were still ahead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"better than the versions of Wills, Godfrey, and indeed Gains, that were available to him."

Okay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"hard to say if he was better than a prime Wills"

He definitely was far more inconsistent. I don't think his record matches Wills'.
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wills had a very successful boxing career"

And the point? Yes, that is why some think he was better than Willard or even Dempsey.

"despite not getting a chance at the title"

An injustice which fuels these threads.

"Indeed, he ended up with more money than Dempsey"

Certainly not because he was paid more, but only because he was a much shrewder investor.
------------------------------------------------------------------

on Tunney being better than Dempsey

"head to head perhaps, but not in terms of resume."

Well, Tunney was the more consistent winner of the two. The big difference is that much of his career was below heavyweight.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tunney never beating anyone like Wills

"he never needed to"

The color line did help didn't it?

 

People keep tossing around how Wills was the highest paid fighter of the era next to Dempsey. Where is the evidence for this? No doubt Wills made a lot of money but he wasnt consistently pulling down big purses like some of the other guys. And plenty of fighters were making big money in that era. Even Johnny Kilbane, a featherweight, was paid at least $65,000 and $75,000 for his last two fights. Those are huge numbers in that era for a fighter. Wills may have had a few big purses that equal or exceed that but several fighters from that era were pulling down big numbers and likely more consistently as well. Id have to go back and compare purses but I wouldnt be surprised to find several fighters that out-earned him. He may, MAY, have been the second highest earning HW but Im not sure he was the second highest earning fighter.

 

I don't think we can assume the opposite either.

Besides everything else, Willard was aging, overweight, and had long been inactive when he fought Dempsey.

Sharkey was not able to defeat Walker in 1931. Greb was apparently a notch above Walker, and also defeated Tunney.

 

I think that we could justify ranking Sharkey over Greb, on an all time heavyweight list.

Despite his inconsistency, Sharkey has a huge body of work at world level.

 

For the record,I think you are one of the premier posters on this forum.
I've never denied Will's's entitlement to a shot at Dempsey.
You can make of those times what you will.