If Dempsey Had Fought Wills?

[travestyny]

It was for the "Colored Heavyweight championship"held by Wills.Never heard it referred to ans an eliminator for a title shot at Dempsey.Norfolk ,with one exception, had been fighting middles and light heavies in his recent fights.I dont see how he would have qualified really.Wills certainly did!

I think it was Steve Compton that mentioned this. He could have possibly been mistaken.

Dont paint my quote as misinformation. If anyone is misinformed its you. Refute anything I said with actual facts. You cant. Its a plain and simple fact that Jack Dempsey actively avoided Wills. Period. You can pretend his motivations were this or that but when he states he'd meet the winner of Fulton-Wills and then signs to fight the ill, comebacking Billy Miske the day after Wills knocks out Fulton and crushes three of his ribs in the process dont tell me he was fighting the best he could. When he then fights Bill Brennan, who had failed to beat Greb or Miske in six consecutive fights the previous year and had faced no threatening competition since then and who also had, not coincidentally, been stopped by Dempsey two years earlier, it was a step back not forward. Does anyone doubt that the six foot two inch 220lb Wills wouldnt have crushed the 168lb overrated Carpentier? After Carpentier was the aforementioned fake contract used to keep Dempsey from being stripped (the first of two times they used that ruse). Then he sits out for two years and faced Tommy Gibbons. Why? There were two eliminations held in 1922 for Dempsey: The first was Harry Wills-Kid Norfolk. Wills knocked Norfolk out in 2 rounds. Norfolk was Brennan's chief sparring partner for Dempsey and the press said he handled Brennan easier than Dempsey (who struggled mightily with Brennan). They advised Dempsey to steer clear of Norfolk. Wills smashed him easily. Like a bug. The other elimination was Greb-Gibbons. Greb dominated Gibbons and beat him easily. The press were unanimous that Greb had exposed Gibbons as poor challenger for Dempsey. So of the top two contenders, one white and one black. Did Dempsey choose either? No. So Tommy Gibbons got his title shot by losing his elimination bout. Sound like a champion looking for the toughest fights? Next Dempsey fought Firpo. Firpo was very vocal about the fact that he didnt think he was ready for Dempsey. That he wanted more time. He stated that Wills should get first shot. Understanding that the opportunity and such a payday may never come again he took the shot. He went life and death with Dempsey dropping him three times, once knocking him out of the ring, before being stopped in the second. Dempsey didnt fight again for three years and never again defended his title successfully. Sorry, but Dempsey wasnt the fearless mankiller he is painted as his legend. He was a media hyped, protected fighter who people built a myth around and realized that the revenue he generated was so great that he had to be kept from people who would threaten that. Sorry but thats not sports. Thats professional wrestling. Go back and look at his run up to the title and see how the various fights that were suspected to be fixed at the time of his in order to build his reputation. Go back and examine his opponents and you will see he wasnt that impressive. He wasnt going anywhere near Wills and Kearns, who had briefly managed Wills years earlier and knew exactly what he was capable of wasnt going to let him either. Had they really been that confident that Dempsey would defeat Wills they would have signed on the dotted line, knocked him out quick and easy like his deluded fans think he would have, and in one fell swoop they would have gained the biggest payday of Dempsey's career by far, put to bed the myth of Wills, and upheld the supposed honor of the white race in the supposed racist America of the day. Nobody would have ever said another word about it. But they knew that beating Wills wasnt a given and they also knew better than you or I that Wills had massive support among both whites and blacks and that racism was just one excuse to pluck from the multitude they constantly came up with for not defending against Dempsey's top challenger.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think it was Steve Compton that mentioned this. He could have possibly been mistaken.

I know this guy Kompton is a lesser god around here but . . .

1. Kearns never feared the NYSAC would strip Dempsey. This is best exemplified in '22 when the NYSAC gave Dempsey 90 days to sign with Wills or they would strip him.

Kearns immediately retaliated by talking to Pittsburgh about a Greb fight.

Come the 90th day the NYSAC did nothing and stayed silent.

That very day, on the 90th day, Kearns appears in the newspaper announcing there is not enough money in Pittsburgh so Greb is off, and then gives the same old BS about how no one wants to promote the Wills fight.

And then Kearns is off to the west to avoid Rickard (as I have said repeatedly).

So Kompton is correct that Kearns blew smoke up everyone's a ss with teased 'almost contracts.' I agree with that. But he dosen't understand Kearns. It was not about being scared of Wills it was about being scared of Rickard.

2. Gibbons was given the shot at Dempsey as part of Kearns' deal with Shelby. Shelby wanted a 'local boy' and Gibbons was as close as they could come. There was no elimination bout on anyone's mind in chosing Gibbons. They needed and wanted a locally known fighter and the town of Shelby didn't give a tinker's damn what ANYONE in New York thought. Something Kompton doesn't seem to understand about the Gibbons fight.

3. Taking Kompton's argument, then we have to ask, if Wills was willing to fight elimination bouts, e.g. Norfork, Firpo, Sharkey, why didn't he accept Tunney in '25?

I agree with Kompton's assessment in general. Kearns didn't want the Wills fight. But I of course have a very different argument as to why. (You already know how I feel about that.)

I feel Kompton's argument is full of facts but his extrapolations off those facts I find speculative, slanted by bias. He knows many boxing facts but doesn't show the historical depth surrounding the political and business realities affecting the game.

P.S. I thought Dempsey went down twice against Firpo. Once on the opening exchange and then out of the ring. There is a third moment I believe when Dempsey slips and touched his glove to the canvas, but the ref doesn't react because it was an obvious slip. I think he, the author in question, included 3 in his narrative because he approached the argument with a bias.

I am ready to be corrected on the number of KDs I haven't gone back and checked.

[travestyny]

I know this guy Kompton is a lesser god around here but . . .

1. Kearns never feared the NYSAC would strip Dempsey. This is best exemplified in '22 when the NYSAC gave Dempsey 90 days to sign with Wills or they would strip him.

Kearns immediately retaliated by talking to Pittsburgh about a Greb fight.

Come the 90th day the NYSAC did nothing and stayed silent.

That very day, on the 90th day, Kearns appears in the newspaper announcing there is not enough money in Pittsburgh so Greb is off, and then gives the same old BS about how no one wants to promote the Wills fight.

And then Kearns is off to the west to avoid Rickard (as I have said repeatedly).

So Kompton is correct that Kearns blew smoke up everyone's a ss with teased 'almost contracts.' I agree with that. But he dosen't understand Kearns. It was not about being scared of Wills it was about being scared of Rickard.

2. Gibbons was given the shot at Dempsey as part of Kearns' deal with Shelby. Shelby wanted a 'local boy' and Gibbons was as close as they could come. There was no elimination bout on anyone's mind in chosing Gibbons. They needed and wanted a locally known fighter and the town of Shelby didn't give a tinker's damn what ANYONE in New York thought. Something Kompton doesn't seem to understand about the Gibbons fight.

3. Taking Kompton's argument, then we have to ask, if Wills was willing to fight elimination bouts, e.g. Norfork, Firpo, Sharkey, why didn't he accept Tunney in '25?

I agree with Kompton's assessment in general. Kearns didn't want the Wills fight. But I of course have a very different argument as to why. (You already know how I feel about that.)

I feel Kompton's argument is full of facts but his extrapolations off those facts I find speculative, slanted by bias. He knows many boxing facts but doesn't show the historical depth surrounding the political and business realities affecting the game.

P.S. I thought Dempsey went down twice against Firpo. Once on the opening exchanged and then out of the ring. There is a third moment I believe when Dempsey slips and touched his glove to the canvas, but the ref diesn't react because it was an obvious slip. I think he, the author in question, included 3 in his narrative because he approached the argument with a bias.

I am ready to be corrected on the number of KDs I haven't gone back and checked.

I'm not sure how you argue that you understand Kearns better than Compton when both of you are pretty much in the same boat regarding how well you understand him, I'd think.


I've never seen an offer of any Tunny fight to Wills. I've only seen Tunney claiming that Wills turned down offers, and I have seen a promoter saying Wills offered a fight to Tunney and Tunney turned it down because he thought the space wouldn't be big enough.


This article seems to agree with Compton that the Norfolk Wills fight was to be an eliminator.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm not sure how you argue that you understand Kearns better than Compton when both of you are pretty much in the same boat regarding how well you understand him, I'd think.


I've never seen an offer of any Tunny fight to Wills. I've only seen Tunney claiming that Wills turned down offers, and I have seen a promoter saying Wills offered a fight to Tunney and Tunney turned it down because he thought the space wouldn't be big enough.


This article seems to agree with Compton that the Norfolk Wills fight was to be an eliminator.

What source is this?

No doubt the author of this article did see the fight as a right to challenge Dempsey but who is speaking?

Above someone pointed out this fight was for the 'colored' HW Championship. Should we conclude that made Wills the number one 'colored contender' for a title shot?

Yes I aan Compton agree on Kearns avoiding Wills but for very different reasons. (You know what I think, don't make me say again and again, please.)

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm not sure how you argue that you understand Kearns better than Compton when both of you are pretty much in the same boat regarding how well you understand him, I'd think.


I've never seen an offer of any Tunny fight to Wills. I've only seen Tunney claiming that Wills turned down offers, and I have seen a promoter saying Wills offered a fight to Tunney and Tunney turned it down because he thought the space wouldn't be big enough.


This article seems to agree with Compton that the Norfolk Wills fight was to be an eliminator.

In regards to Tunney. I see your point, we really don't have much we can trust on that issue. Speaking on behalf of Tunney is the infamous Billy Gibbson and his word means less than nothing.

So until I can heard better on the issue. I think I'll back off on challenging Wills regarding the Tunney fight. Good point, no good source really available on that issue.

[travestyny]

What source is this?

No doubt the author of this article did see the fight as a right to challenge Dempsey but who is speaking?

Above someone pointed out this fight was for the 'colored' HW Championship. Should we conclude that made Wills the number one 'colored contender' for a title shot?

Yes I aan Compton agree on Kearns avoiding Wills but for very different reasons. (You know what I think, don't make me say again and again, please.)

I don't remember the exact source since I found that old clipping maybe years ago. Even if we know the exact newspaper source, that's not going to put us closer to knowing whether it was an "official" eliminator or just seen as one. What's clear is that at the time, the public was calling for the Wills fight and Dempsey acknowledged this by having to state he was willing to have the fight if the public demanded it.


I just read an article from Muldoon with him going on the offensive about Dempsey's resume. Saying pretty much the same things said above. He called Miske 6 months out of an operation and undersized, Carpentier undersized, etc. etc. going down the line. I should have cut and pasted it but I figure this whole Dempsey thing is so tired by now. So unless someone wants me to dig it back up I'll save my time.

[Marchegiano]

I don't give credit to the ducker. It's my assumption those who ducked, ducked, because they were scared to lose.


I do not think Jack Dempsey would have lost his crazed white following had he beaten up black men. It's only a problem if he loses. You expect me to believe white folks wouldn't have used a JD win over Wills or even Norfolk as rationalization for their racism? Shove it man.

[Willie Pep 229]

Noted!

[Dr. Z]

Dempsey fought Miske in September 1920
.You say Miske was dying yet he had a further 22 fights and only lost 1 of them over the next 3 years!
Miske died in 1924 4 years after the Dempsey fight.He sure took a long time dying!
Compare that to your hero Jeffries fighting the alcoholic and consumptive Peter Jackson whom Jeffries fought in1898.
Jackson had 1 more fight lost that and retired to die in1901.

You've got some nerve talking about double standards! LOL!

Educate yourself.

https://www.sportscasting.com/the-st...ast-christmas/

And

• Miske fought this bout while suffering from Bright's Disease, which is an inflammation of the structures in the kidney that produce urine. To quote from the biography Billy Miske: The St. Paul Thunderbolt: "A number of years later, in his autobiography, Dempsey would comment, 'During the fight, I began to feel that Billy wasn't giving me as tough a battle as I had expected. He did not seem like his old self.'"
• In a 1926 newspaper article, Jim Corbett discussed the 1920 Dempsey-Miske bout. T quote from the article: "Before Billy Miske was taken sick—back in the days when Billy really was good—he was a fast, clever man. And he went the distance twice with Dempsey. When Bill had slipped and had lost his speed, Dempsey fought him the third time—and knocked him out. But Jack wasn't fighting a fast, clever man that day."

Miske only won one of his last five fights leading up to Dempsey.

Dempsey beat a sick men, on a long streak suffering from Bright's disease which obvisouly was affecting him. No charge.


If you watched the link Miske did not train for the fight, was suffering for Bright's disease, and testimonials form the fight say Billy did not seem well and lost his speed. Dempsey only produced the ko in third fight.

Now you have the facts, but we know you won't use them! You are full of double standards. I admit Jeffries beat and in shape and older Jackson who account to the press looked good prepping for the fight and had a livelily first round! He showed no sign of being sick here, it was his punch resistance which if you read about Jackson was not great.

[Ivich]

Educate yourself.

https://www.sportscasting.com/the-st...ast-christmas/

And

• Miske fought this bout while suffering from Bright's Disease, which is an inflammation of the structures in the kidney that produce urine. To quote from the biography Billy Miske: The St. Paul Thunderbolt: "A number of years later, in his autobiography, Dempsey would comment, 'During the fight, I began to feel that Billy wasn't giving me as tough a battle as I had expected. He did not seem like his old self.'"
• In a 1926 newspaper article, Jim Corbett discussed the 1920 Dempsey-Miske bout. T quote from the article: "Before Billy Miske was taken sick—back in the days when Billy really was good—he was a fast, clever man. And he went the distance twice with Dempsey. When Bill had slipped and had lost his speed, Dempsey fought him the third time—and knocked him out. But Jack wasn't fighting a fast, clever man that day."

Miske only won one of his last five fights leading up to Dempsey.

Dempsey beat a sick men, on a long streak suffering from Bright's disease which obvisouly was affecting him. No charge.


If you watched the link Miske did not train for the fight, was suffering for Bright's disease, and testimonials form the fight say Billy did not seem well and lost his speed. Dempsey only produced the ko in third fight.

Now you have the facts, but we know you won't use them! You are full of double standards. I admit Jeffries beat and in shape and older Jackson who account to the press looked good prepping for the fight and had a livelily first round! He showed no sign of being sick here, it was his punch resistance which if you read about Jackson was not great.

Listen Mr ****** Dempsey fought a healthy Miske twice in1918 and both fights were hard fought and competitive! That is the Miske I included in my list.
Just how dumb are you?
Jackson had not fought for nearly 5 years was an alcoholic and consumptive.DONT TELL ME HE WAS IN SHAPE! Tom Sharkey described him as a physical wreck!
"Back in England in 1892, Jackson won the British Empire championship with a second-round knockout of Jem Smith, and then defended the title with a 10th-round knockout of Frank Slavin. In that bout, however, Jackson suffered two broken ribs that punctured a lung. He retired for six years, but staged an ill-fated comeback in 1898. James J. Jeffries and Jim Jeffords knocked him out. Three years later, on July 13, 1901, in Roma, Queensland Australia, he died of tuberculosis, contracted from his 1892 lung injury."
Educate yourself you dumb schmuck!