Nothing is being taken off the table, but we are asking which black contenders apart from Wills, Dempsey should have fought. Norfolk was never really the outstanding heavyweight contender, and Dempsey could have sidestepped him by fighting somebody else. Godfrey never really got to the top of the rankings, so he could always be passed over for somebody less dangerous. After Tate's series with Wills, he had a credible claim to be the #1 challenger. Incredible as it seems, Tate was probably the black contender with the best claim for a title fight, outside of Wills himself!
This Tate bit is off the wall. Tate won on a first round DQ when Wills knocked him down off a break. That makes him a top contender? The fight four days later is declared a draw. Wills must have been a very outstanding contender if simply lucking out on a first round DQ and getting a disputed draw is supposed to make a guy the top contender while he lost a whole bunch of fights to Norfolk, Langford, Godfrey, and Wills. Godfrey was a much higher rated contender in 1924 and 1925 than Tate, and had beaten Tate even before Tate's "win" over Wills.
Isn't that how the rules of the game work though? If the same sequence of events happened with the #1 contender today, then Ring Magazine would probably rank the guy who is standing in for Tate either #1, or #2. I am not saying that Tate was as good as Godfrey, because I don't think he was, but did he not establish a better claim for a title fight? My argument is that Tate has a narrow window, where he is arguably the outstanding challenger, and Godfrey doesn't.
I personally couldn't disagree more. Tate "won" from Wills because Wills was DQ'd by the referee while he was knocking down Tate. That hardly makes Tate anything at all. DQ's don't prove the "winner" is really a good fighter. And being disqualified or not disqualified could be pretty arbitrary. I am not necessarily making the case he should have been, but Dempsey could have been DQ'd against Firpo both for hitting Firpo while he was getting off the floor, and for being helped back into the ring. Why Tate is made out to be some sort of top contender here when he was knocked out by Wills, Langford, Norfolk, and Godfrey, but wins one fight on a first round DQ when he was on the floor, eludes me totally.
As for Tate becoming a contender off the Wills "win" Certainly if he had blown Wills out with a one-round KO, although off his mediocre record going in, I don't think it would have elevated him as much as it would have knocked Wills out of it. As is, he was apparently on the floor when he "won" in the first round. Can you imagine somebody with a 15-15 record fighting Deontay Wilder today and "winning" on a DQ after Wilder sends him to the canvas in the first round then being sold as an opponent for Wlad. You guys can pay the $50 pay per view, but my money stays in my pocket, and I think I wouldn't be alone.
"European scene was so weak in the late 50's" I am somewhat confused with you taking this stand while defending Liston. The four highest rated fighters Liston defeated on the way to the title were Patterson, Machen, Folley, and Harris. Patterson and Machen were KO'd by Johansson. Folley and Harris lost decisions to Cooper. Trashing Johansson and Cooper seems to me to cast doubt on Liston's opposition, actually. If Ingo and Henry weren't very good, what does it say about the guys who lost to them, even if later reversed in some cases.
Did Choklab actually try to discredit Liston for not fighting Cooper and Ingo who both ducked him :roll: Janitor's typical strawman tactic, focus on Tate to divert attention away from Wills :yep Today yes but in the 00s and 10s DQs usually meant a rematch and no loss of a title.
I am not saying that Tate deserved a title shot because what he did was a magnificent accomplishment. I am saying that he potentially deserved a title shot because those are the rules of the game. Lets use Povetkin as an ****ogy, since he is the current Ring Magazine #1 contender. Say that some fringe contender defeated Povetkin in the same circumstances. A rematch would be mandated, and the expectation would be that Povetkin would take care of business. If that rematch then ended in a draw, even controversially, then the result would have to be treated as being tangible. At this stage Ring Magazine would have the following options: A. Install this fringe contender as the new #1 contender. B. Keep Povetkin as the #1 contender, and install this fringe contender as the #2 contender. C. Install Povetkin and the fringe contender as joint #1 contenders (just possible) D. Move Wilder up to the #1 spot, and install Povetkin and the fringe contender somewhere beneath him, in whatever order. I mean what would you suggest?
"On this fight hangs the whole future of Harry Wills as a possibility for the heavyweight champion of the world, and for Tate much the same may be said." L.H. Gregory, writing in the Oregonian. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not saying that Tate was better than Norfolk or Godfrey. I don't think that he was. My point is that he did navigate himself into contention for a brief window of time, while they didn't quite.
"writing in the Oregonian" Oregon was the boondocks in the 1920's I doubt very much if the folks back east either read their newspaper opinions or gave any weight to them. It was puffery about a big fight in Oregon which would have just been another routine matchup in the big eastern cities. In fairness, as Wills was a top contender, losing to a journeyman at any point could conceivably derail him. What is odd about this digression into Tate, is that Tate's only claim is not losing in two fluky fights with Wills after losing several fights to him, including a couple of knockouts in 1921. which only shows Wills stature as the leading contender.
Dempsey even mooted the possibility of defending his title against Tate, after this series. He might have been making mischief of course.
Povetkin losing on a DQ when the ref DQ'd him after he knocked out his opponent would not make the 15-15 opponent a hot contender, at least in America. Povetkin then fighting a draw could drop his status, but the 50/50 opponent will only get fights with other hopefuls. A good historial example is Johnny Shkor upsetting Tami Mauriello, then the #1 contender. Shkor did not get a fight with Joe Louis. One can point out fairly that Mauriello was not Wills, but one can also point out fairly that Shkor actually beat Mauriello. Ole Tandberg upsetting Joe Baksi would be another example. It got him a fight with Joey Maxim not Joe Louis.
If this is true, it really does put Dempsey in a bad light, I have been sympathetic to Dempsey to a degree about the Wills issue because of the rancid politics of the day. But if he was willing to have a fight with the much inferior Tate while not fighting Wills, well there is nothing good that can be said for him.
The logic here seems to be not how good the fighter was over his career, but how highly rated at the time of the fight(s) The flaw in this logic is using it one can prove that Max Schmeling never beat a heavyweight champion, because Joe Louis was not the champion yet in 1936. So Max Baer's KO of Primo Carnera is a much bigger win than Schmeling's over Louis because Carnera was the champion and Louis was only a contender? The question was who beat better opposition between Dempsey and Liston, not rated opposition, especially as there were not ratings in 1918 and all we have is selected newspaper opinions. And, of course, I am using hindsight. Williams, as you pointed out, had a padded record, but overall I think he was a better fighter than Brennan. And, by the way, he had some wins over name opponents. John Holman had been an impressive contender. He was on a losing streak, but only to men rated at the top of the division. This was still an impressive KO for Williams. Agramonte had been a top ten fighter. He was on the downslide, but Williams was only 20 when he beat him.
