Why the polarised views on Dempsey?

Some deep stuff right here. Hard to disagree.

 

He suffered a detached retina in 1921 against Lee Anderson. Beyond that Ive heard it claimed that he eventually went blind but I dont believe it because Ive read interviews with him later in life and talked with people who met him and he apparently had at least passable sight in one eye. His brains were apparently addled though because he didnt remember some of the bigger names he fought.

 

Of course the newspapers were calling for Wills to get his shot.
1.He DESERVED it
2. Dempsey's inactivity was ridiculous
3. Dempsey had "ducked" Wills.

That's doesn't preclude the idea that Wills was clearly declined, by those who knew. It's mentioned
in articles by writers who seemed to know a bit about Wills.

You know exactly why Wills-Firpo can be compared to an old Holmes.

Firpo couldn't box. There are stories of him being schooled in the gym before the Dempsey fight by a 45yo Jack Johnson.

An Interesting take. I definitely disagree.
Sharkey beat him up quite bad in 1926, Uzcudun KO'd him in 1927.
There had been talk of Wills being a ageing fighter with an ageing fighter's style for a few years. I don't think he went from being a near-prime ATG quality fighter to suddenly become a guy who is unable to compete with Sharkey or Uzcudun.

None of this matters, obviously, but out of interest how do you rate Sharkey's win over Wills ?

 

I can see that but that wasn't my impression. At least not compared to his views on SRR. I feel he was defending Marciano against a lot of his detractors that thought he looked bad. And I think he's right and being fair. Marciano was just about as effective as you could be while still appearing clumsy and crude.

He doesn't seem to go in full length about anyone fighter's early career. That's not the point of the book. I thought he mentioned Moore's age.... :think

 

I agree with that.

 

I agree.
And I say however old Wills was for Sharkey, he was nearly as old a year or two earlier.



If Dempsey fights him in 1924 -'26, would he really be given the credit for fighting an ATG-quality fighter ?

Obviously, he should have fought him. And Dempsey's own declined would be noted. But I'm sceptical as to how much of an "ATG test" a post-'22 Wills would look on a fighter's record.

 

That's something I'd have to disagree with you on, despite being past prime Wills would be proven to be a great/borderline great and dominant champion. Some may argue he was past prime but Dempsey would be the 1 getting his scalp 6-8years despite him being in with all the best HWs in the world regularly. Dempsey also really needs Tate for era dominance. Anyway the fight really should have been made anywhere from 1919 to 1922 at the latest

 

Does anyone find it a little amusing and telling the computer generated admitadly fallable boxrec all time lists have Wills at number 6 and Dempsey at 26

 

Less words should do it. :good

 

I suppose it depends on how you view past-prime great fighters. I agree with you in principle, but it would be interesting to see how people view Sharkey-Wills and Tunney-Dempsey.
Both past prime greats got beaten badly within a couple of weeks of each other.
Opinion seems to be divided sharply on how much Tunney proved at HW by beating Dempsey.
And Sharkey-Wills is rarely discussed.

I'm not sure a win over Tate would enhance Dempsey much.
Tate's record is patchy at best. He wasn't much good, as far as I can tell.

 

Mathematicaly speaking, that is probably not a million miles from the truth.

 

Sparring and training camp stories are all very well, but no proof that Kid Norfolk was some sort of "killer".
His record is kind of patchy. If he was such a beast, why is that ?

Promoting non-title fights as title eliminators obviously has its benefits. It's valid whenever any contender fights anyone. Those 4 men weren't necessarily the top 4 contenders.
Was Kid Norfolk really qualified to be considered a top 4 HW contender going into the Wills match ?
Or anywhere close ?
What had he done lately (sparring and training anecdotes excluded) ?

That's true.
Dempsey was idle.

No excuses for Dempsey.

To be fair to Gibbons, he had come back from the Greb defeat to beat Billy Miske, who I would say was a genuine contender.
Gibbons wasn't just some hapless pug coming off some horrible loss.

I don't know. What had Norfolk done since ?
Anyway, I thought you said Gibbons-Norfolk was a fix, no ?

There's NO DOUBT on the point that Dempsey ducked Wills, who was number 1 contender for a LONG TIME.

Billy Miske is an interesting fighter of the era who interests me.
He seemed to go on a damn good streak post-Dempsey, while he was a "dying man".
He is also described as having put on good weight and bigger and stronger than he had been 2 or 3 years earlier.
What do you know about that ?

Brennan seemed like a fairly safe bet, for sure.

Yes, and what a gate it turned out to be !

Gibbons had beat the aforementioned Miske.
If Miske is "little" or "nothing" at this point, his winning streak intrigues me. What the hell is going on with Miske ?

Yet some of those fights, I think, were promoted as "eliminators" too. I'm fairly sure Firpo-Willard was given the eliminator tag.

I think it's a mistake to assume Dempsey and Rickard's motivations and interests were co-ordinated along the same lines on this issue.

I don't think Rickard was primarily concerned about keeping the title with Dempsey at this time, although he may have assumed Dempsey would win. He liked the idea of clean-cut marine Gene challenging for the title, and if Gene wins that's a good safe marketable young champion. Obviously he didn't feel that way about the aging black Wills.

Dempsey, I think, just fought who he was told to fight.
Kearns seems to be the wise one protecting him, because as soon as Kearns left, Rickard through him in with Tunney. It didn't matter so much to Rickard.
If Kearns was ducking Greb, he surely would have been wary of Tunney.
Dempsey may have gone along with the ducking, but if so, he didn't seem to have learned much from Kearns.

I think Kearns would have been more likely to have chosen Wills over Tunney in 1926, because he was shrewd and understood styles and risks, but probably would have gone for someone easier for a comeback fight.