If Dempsey Had Fought Wills?

[Ivich]

If Jack Dempsey had fought Harry Wills ,both in their primes,who would have won?
My pick is Dempsey by mid rounds ko.
What is yours?

[JAB5239]

Problem is he wasn't very active during what should have been his best years, feasting mostly on lightheavyweights and retreads. That said, I think Dempsey takes is. Wills certainly deserved the opportunity though.

[Willie Pep 229]

Problem is he wasn't very active during what should have been his best years, feasting mostly on lightheavyweights and retreads. That said, I think Dempsey takes is. Wills certainly deserved the opportunity though.

Maybe 1924 - but I suspect Dempsey's best years were 1918-1923.

Should have fought Wills in 1922. That was the right fight for that year. But thanks to Kearns Dempsey fought no one that year.

[The Old LefHook]

Socially, it either KO's the color line or KO's Dempsey's career. I think the latter. Dempsey would likely win a fight between them. It means something that Langford could handle Wills when Sam was younger.

Both Marciano and Dempsey played hide and seek with their managers, hence Dempsey's inactivity. Plus, let's face it, he probably liked lounging around with starlet splitters.

[historical boxing society]

I believe Harry wills should of been Champion as he was a better boxer according to the press when Jess Willard fought for the Championship. At the very least Willard should of fought Wills immediately after winning.

If they fought in 1919 Harry Wills vs Jack Dempsey, i don't have much doubt that Harry Wills would win the first match. The rematch i'm sure could go either way... Sadly in 1924 Harry Wills was a ghost of himself. You can't expect someone to be in their prime a solid 10 years after what was near his prime in 1914. Harry Wills was fighting a much tougher level of competition (and winning) than Jack Dempsey ever faced. But that does NOT assume that Dempsey couldn't have beaten better fighter's, but Wills actually did fight them. Often winning the title stunted a boxer's growth during this early phase of boxing.

One thing i can tell you for certain reading many many newspaper article's whatever film you see of Harry Wills is in no way shape or form a true capture of his defensive ability it's far too much past his prime.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think Wills was a brawler and a fight with Dempsey would go either way but certainly have brought the house down. Bet the under five rounds and clean up with the bookies.

I believe that because Jack Johnson was a great defensive fighter we're suspose to think all black fighters from that era were masters of the craft. I call it Johnson-Burley Syndrome.

I never heard of fighter's defense skills diminishing with age. Legs, punch, even less chin sometimes.

Wouldn't a fighter's defense skills grow as he lost his other attributes?

[historical boxing society]

Harry Wills looks stiff in his footage. Newspaper accounts has him moving quite well in his prime matches. 1926 (sharkey match) is so far past that point i don't think the tape is giving a very accurate portrayal of his defense. That was my point.

Wills had so many tricks developed by 1919 he would of gave Dempsey a clinic of questionable tactic's. I see it much like Greb vs Tunney 1.The experience roughhouse vet vs the inexperienced prodigy. Of course Gene learned to adapt to the style after some experience. Just as i Think Dempsey could of been able to. But no one Jack Dempsey faced prior to the Willard fight had any ability even remotely close to Harry Wills. Wills had the extreme power to go with tactics he literally almost killed Fulton who was a top Heavyweight at the time. Dempsey wasn't even in a real war at this point...it would of got just as ugly for Dempsey as it got for Tunney. I 100% think it would of made Jack Dempsey a better fighter in the long run, just as it did for Gene Tunney.

Of course all these fighters( closely ranked) would have a back and forth affair fighting a series of fight's and neither Dempsey or Wills would win all 3 of the first three encounters. But i think how the first fight goes is the most predictable to me. Again in 1919. That has both fairly close to their prime.

I have Wills rated as a better heavyweight. Because Dempsey competition level isn't that great. Wills could of become greatly stunted in growth just as Dempsey was winning the crown. But instead wills fought many of the great repeatedly proving that specific results weren't a fluke. He was basically trained in by the best black fighters of the era. Sometimes not having the crown proves for better competition level and more frequent bouts which is totally handicapping Dempsey's resume.

[Dr. Z]

Harry Wills looks stiff in his footage. Newspaper accounts has him moving quite well in his prime matches. 1926 (sharkey match) is so far past that point i don't think the tape is giving a very accurate portrayal of his defense. That was my point.

Wills had so many tricks developed by 1919 he would of gave Dempsey a clinic of questionable tactic's. I see it much like Greb vs Tunney 1.The experience roughhouse vet vs the inexperienced prodigy. Of course Gene learned to adapt to the style after some experience. Just as i Think Dempsey could of been able to. But no one Jack Dempsey faced prior to the Willard fight had any ability even remotely close to Harry Wills. Wills had the extreme power to go with tactics he literally almost killed Fulton who was a top Heavyweight at the time. Dempsey wasn't even in a real war at this point...it would of got just as ugly for Dempsey as it got for Tunney. I 100% think it would of made Jack Dempsey a better fighter in the long run, just as it did for Gene Tunney.

Of course all these fighters( closely ranked) would have a back and forth affair fighting a series of fight's and neither Dempsey or Wills would win all 3 of the first three encounters. But i think how the first fight goes in the most predictable to me. Again in 1919. That has both fairly close to their prime.

I have Wills rated as a better heavyweight. Because Dempsey competition level isn't that great. Wills could of become greatly stunted in growth just as Dempsey was winning the crown. But instead wills fought many of the great repeatedly proving that specific results weren't a fluke. He was basically trained in by the best black fighters of the era. Sometimes not having the crown proves for better competition level and more frequent bouts which is totally handicapping Dempsey's resume.

I agree Dempsey competition level aside from Tunney who took 18, or 19, of 20 rounds from him and Sharkey where he landed a low blow and hook to and unguarded chin when Sharkey was complaining showed Dempsey to be suspect. Aside for these two his competition was not good. He did not fight Greb or Wills, and he passed on a chance to fight a very old Jeanette who was in the ring and ready to go as well as Sam Langford who his manger said we were looking for someone easier. Sam was old and Dempsey is on quote that he avoid Sam, and at would have lost. He was Ko'd in one round by a worn out Fireman Flynn, and given boxing lessons by a porky Wille Meehan.

He beat an old and inactive Willard, and a sick and dying Miske. This is not to say he was not good. He was. He is also very over rated by many today. His best win is likely over a 175 pound Gibbons. That one was clean. Many of his other wins are shrouded with controversy.

[QueensburyRules]

Harry Wills looks stiff in his footage. Newspaper accounts has him moving quite well in his prime matches. 1926 (sharkey match) is so far past that point i don't think the tape is giving a very accurate portrayal of his defense. That was my point.

Wills had so many tricks developed by 1919 he would of gave Dempsey a clinic of questionable tactic's. I see it much like Greb vs Tunney 1.The experience roughhouse vet vs the inexperienced prodigy. Of course Gene learned to adapt to the style after some experience. Just as i Think Dempsey could of been able to. But no one Jack Dempsey faced prior to the Willard fight had any ability even remotely close to Harry Wills. Wills had the extreme power to go with tactics he literally almost killed Fulton who was a top Heavyweight at the time. Dempsey wasn't even in a real war at this point...it would of got just as ugly for Dempsey as it got for Tunney. I 100% think it would of made Jack Dempsey a better fighter in the long run, just as it did for Gene Tunney.

Of course all these fighters( closely ranked) would have a back and forth affair fighting a series of fight's and neither Dempsey or Wills would win all 3 of the first three encounters. But i think how the first fight goes is the most predictable to me. Again in 1919. That has both fairly close to their prime.

I have Wills rated as a better heavyweight. Because Dempsey competition level isn't that great. Wills could of become greatly stunted in growth just as Dempsey was winning the crown. But instead wills fought many of the great repeatedly proving that specific results weren't a fluke. He was basically trained in by the best black fighters of the era. Sometimes not having the crown proves for better competition level and more frequent bouts which is totally handicapping Dempsey's resume.

- - It would've been a great fight, but sadly the US politics were not nearly so advanced as early 20th Century boxing that killed a half dozen Wills/Dempsey fights not to mention others.

Had Will's taken the Tunney eliminator offered by Rickard and won, a fading Wills vs a rusty Dempsey almost guarantees a rockem/sockem, but not even that could happen.

[Ivich]

I agree Dempsey competition level aside from Tunney who took 18, or 19, of 20 rounds from him and Sharkey where he landed a low blow and hook to and unguarded chin when Sharkey was complaining showed Dempsey to be suspect. Aside for these two his competition was not good. He did not fight Greb or Wills, and he passed on a chance to fight a very old Jeanette who was in the ring and ready to go as well as Sam Langford who his manger said we were looking for someone easier. Sam was old and Dempsey is on quote that he avoid Sam, and at would have lost. He was Ko'd in one round by a worn out Fireman Flynn, and given boxing lessons by a porky Wille Meehan.

He beat an old and inactive Willard, and a sick and dying Miske. This is not to say he was not good. He was. He is also very over rated by many today. His best win is likely over a 175 pound Gibbons. That one was clean. Many of his other wins are shrouded with controversy.

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!