Controversial - should heavyweight history be revised?

[Obama]

I'd like to see a 37 year old Dempsey fight a prime, motivated, Jack Sharkey. Hell an early 30s Dempsey got his ass beat by Sharkey until he cheated his way to victory. No shame at all in Wills losing to Sharkey. He was on his longest career layoff at the time and was likely considering retirement. But a fight with Sharkey was just too good to pass up.

Wills went from 1916 to 1926 basically undefeated, fighting a much better overall level of opposition than Jack Dempsey.

[Obama]

Speaking of Harry Wills, he just temporarily moved to #2 on boxrec's All Time Heavyweight Ratings.

1 Muhammad Ali 2478 56(37)-5(1)-0
1960-1981 orthodox Louisville, Kentucky, United States
2 Harry Wills 2126 68(54)-9(5)-2
1911-1932 orthodox New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
3 Joe Louis 1993 66(52)-3(2)-0
1934-1951 orthodox Detroit, Michigan, United States

[EzzardFan]

This thread is certainly shaping up into a nice little debate

Sullivan didn't want any part of Jackson late in his career so I consider Jackson the "man" at that time. Corbett fought a slightly past prime and supposedly injured Jackson to a draw and beat an aging Sullivan so I have no problems with Corbett's claim for the championship, although he didn't give Jackson a rematch. Jackson was getting older at that point either way and his abilities were declining.

I totally agree with you here.

Corbett-Fitz- Jeffries were pretty much the best heavyweights while they were champions. Jeffries could have probably given a young Jack Johnson a title shot late in his reign but he chose to retire anyway.

Same here. Johnson could have ascended to the throne much sooner.

Hart & Burns don't receive a whole lot of credit for being champions. Hart had outpointed Jack Johnson while Burns did defend his title against Johnson and lost.

Whether Hart really outpointed Johnson is debatable to say the least. Hart left the ring in a mess. Johnson was totally unscathed. Pretty much every boxing historian puts this down to extremely biased judging. Either way neither Hart nor Burns would have succeeded Jeffries if Johnson had been given his shot sooner. For starters neither of them even fought Jeffries for the title, Jeffries just nominated these (white) men as possible successors. I would move to strike their reigns from the record books.

Jack Johnson was clearly the best heavyweight at the time he won the title but as his career went on Langford, McVea, Jeannette proved they were worthy of a title opportunity. His reign after winning the title wasn't all that impressive.

Yes I'm with you here too. It's hard to say whether they would have beaten him. Certainly if he'd been forced to defend against those contenders then he'd have kept himself in better shape. McVea and Jeannette were both first rate fighters. But I don't feel there is enough evidence to make the case that they would have beaten Johnson. Would love to be proved wrong though.

Willard beat an old Jack Johnson but there were better fighters than him at the time. He didn't even defend his title so I regard the likes of Harry Wills, aging Sam Langford and also Fred Fulton as the best heavyweights at the time. Dempsey brutally beat Willard and Fulton and established himself as the best heavyweight, however he never took on Harry Wills, his top contender for 7 years. As with Jack Johnson, the legitimacy of Dempsey's title reign is in question.

Yes I agree with this. Willard was a joke. In fact he was an insult. I think the person most likely to succeed Johnson was Langford. Johnson ducked Langford for years. The person most likely to succeed Langford was Wills. Langford and Wills fought many times throughout this period with Langford winning the initial bouts then Wills dominating thereafter.

Jack Sharkey beat both an aging Wills and George Godfrey so I'd consider the early 1930's champions as legitimate. Godfrey and Gains could have been given a shot at the title but I wouldn't argue that they were the best heavyweights at the time.

Yes I agree with you on this also. I think things headed along the right lines from Tunny through to Braddock.

The big question here is whether Dempsey would have won the title under the circumstances above. He might have stood a chance against an ageing Wills but could have been squeezed out by Tunny and Sharkey.

[TheGreatA]

Whether Hart really outpointed Johnson is debatable to say the least. Hart left the ring in a mess. Johnson was totally unscathed. Pretty much every boxing historian puts this down to extremely biased judging. Either way neither Hart not Burns would have succeeded Jeffries if Johnson had been given his shot sooner. For starters neither of them even fought Jeffries for the title, Jeffries just nominated these (white) men as possible successors. I would move to strike their reigns from the record books.

It's debatable whether Hart truly beat Jack Johnson and that's why he rarely gets credit as a real champion. However I wouldn't take their reigns out of the record books. Jack Johnson was the best black contender at the time, but under-performed against Marvin Hart. Hart was mediocre at best but due to the win over Johnson and the following win over LHW champ Gardner, Hart was the unlikely champion. It's not like he avoided the best, he just ended up with wins over them.

Burns was a "failed" middleweight but a better heavyweight than given credit for. He ended the short reign of Hart and did fight Jack Johnson, the best heavyweight contender at the time. Believe it or not but a fighter like Bill Squires was heavily hyped by the media at the time and Burns exposed him in one round.

Neither of them avoided black opponents so I wouldn't take away their title reigns.

Yes I'm with you here too. It's hard to say whether they would have beaten him. Certainly if he'd been forced to defend against those contenders then he'd have kept himself in better shape. McVea and Jeannette were both first rate fighters. But I don't feel there is enough evidence to make the case that they would have beaten Johnson. Would love to be proved wrong though.

McVea and Jeannette had gotten better while Jack Johnson had gotten complacent. They were certainly better challengers than the ones Johnson faced. An upset could have been in the makings.

Yes I agree that Willard was a joke. In fact he was an insult. I think the person most likely to succeed Johnson was Langford, and the person most likely to succeed Langford was Wills. Langford and Wills fought many times throughout this period with Langford winning the initial bouts then Wills dominating thereafter.

I don't think Willard was necessarily a joke. He was amazingly tough and had a fair jab as well as an uppercut that killed a man once. However he treated boxing as a joke. He didn't care for the sport. He had no intentions of fighting anybody unless he was given enough money.

He avoided Fulton, Wills, old Langford but he did get in the ring with Dempsey when enough money was on the line. Turned out to be a bad decision.

Yes I agree with you on this also. I think things headed along the right lines from Tunny through to Braddock.

The big question here is whether Dempsey would have won the title under the circumstances above. He might have stood a chance against an ageing Wills but could have been squeezed out by Tunny and Sharkey.

I believe Wills should have probably gotten the shot at Willard before Dempsey. However I do think Dempsey was the legitimate champion at first. But since he was so inactive and never faced his best challenger while Wills kept fighting actively, the latter part of his reign is a bit questionable.

I agree that it went mostly the right way after Tunney won the title though. Wills refused to fight Tunney, believing he was entitled to a title shot before anyone else. Tunney never fought Sharkey, which is a shame, but atleast he retired and gave Sharkey and Schmeling the right to compete over the heavyweight title.

[GJC]

I don't think you can rewrite the history books, it was wrong but it was as it was.
Think these fighters who were shamefully put to one side get their credit off of knowledgable boxing fans, so whilst they didn't get the titles or money they were due their names live on.
Its rare to go a week without Langford or Wills getting on mention on here, but when was the last time you heard Marvin Hart mentioned?

[Obama]

I don't think you can rewrite the history books, it was wrong but it was as it was.
Think these fighters who were shamefully put to one side get their credit off of knowledgable boxing fans, so whilst they didn't get the titles or money they were due their names live on.
Its rare to go a week without Langford or Wills getting on mention on here, but when was the last time you heard Marvin Hart mentioned?

There's a good reason for that.

....It'd be like mentioning Francesco Damiani 80 years from now...

Well, maybe not THAT bad.

[TheGreatA]

I don't think Tommy Burns was that bad though.

Look at what Burns does to the self-proclaimed "perfect fighter" Bill Squires:



The claims by Jim Jacobs are a bit off though. Squires was only a 10 to 9 favorite.

[Obama]

Burns would be a top 2 LHW if he fought today.

[StarshipTrooper]

Burns would be a top 2 LHW if he fought today.

I'm inclined to think Middleweight in truth: He didn't weigh much more than the Middleweight limit when he was fighting Heavys. A good fighter at the lower weights but really overmatched against quality Heavyweights.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

This thread is certainly shaping up into a nice little debate

That's because only one of the usual trolls showed up. I find that when I want a good discussion with the top posters in this section getting involved I simply put the known trolls on ignore before I make the thread so they can't post in it and muck it up. The discussion then generates light instead of heat

Poet