Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Dempsey was effectively the North and South American Caucasian and Native American champ, Wills the Negro Americas Champ and WBO all comers champ. There was no World Champ, a world champ can't be only champion of 2 races of the world while refusing to fight the rest, by definition of the word 'world' :yep

 

Total BS.

Jack Johnson had held both the lineal heavyweight title and the coloured heavyweight title, and had lost neither in the ring when Willard beat him.

Willard might not have been the best champion but he beat the man who unified both the official and the coloured title.

You can't rewrite history just because you don't like the terms of the game in that era.

 

Years of boxing led to Johnson losing his eyesight and he mistakenly thought he'd become white when winning the white only heavyweight championship, he then vacated the coloured championship and stated 'no n1gger shall ever fight for my title', Willard and Dempsey proudly followed this legacy

Seriously you can't exclude half of the contenders by drawing the colour line and mascarade as a true world champion

 

Harry Wills beat a 1914 version of Sam Langford. He also beat Joe Jeanette in 1913 and Sam McVea in 1915 all when they were still elite dangerous contenders in the world.

 

Yes, he did.
But that was before Dempsey was champion.

 

If Jack Dempsey had defended his title against just Wills and Greb...I would think so much more highly of his title reign than his wins over Firpo, dying miske, brennan, gibbons, and caprentier.

 

Just say what you really think - don't beat around the bush and play dumb. I know that you have extensive knowledge on the subject and boxing in general. If you think Wills wasn't by far the best heavyweight (Dempsey aside) during 1916-1926, then who was? You know damn well - as does anyone reading this - that Wills was by far the best challenger out there. The man was basically undefeated for ten freaking years, facing and beating everyone out there except for Jack himself. The public knew it too, despite Wills' arguably somewhat dull style and the fact that he was a black man.

And despite what all Dempsey lovers try to claim, there is not a single source that says "Dempsey shouldn't fight that damn n1gger, we don't want to see the best fight each other, even if Wills basically goes undefeated for 10 years".

Second, if you believe that lightheavy Carpentier was a legitimate threat (he did stagger Dempsey after all) then just come clean and say so. He wasn't and you know it. I don't even think it matters that much: every champion makes an easy defense after winning the title. But you won't hear me try to embarrass myself by pretending that Ali really cemented his legacy when he exposed the Chuck Wepner hype.

I never claimed that Wills fought exclusively first-class opponents. I'm saying he fought everyone out there, including still very good versions of Langford and Jeannette, whom Dempsey wanted no part of. He even ran out of the ring when Jeannette substituted for a can that he was supposed to box.

Now he was on the way up then, so he really had no obligation to fight the best, but it does get a bit suspicious when during his entire career he shows the pattern of not fighting the best out there - except for Tunney and to lesser degree Fulton.

 

You got that right, buddy.

 

What I find decidedly ludicrous is the idea of trying to rewrite history every time we think the terms of the era were unfair.

I won't try this and you shouldn't either.