Thoughts/Views On Jack Dempsey's Resume Of Wins?

[HaglerSteelChin]

Who was exactly Willis beating post 1925?in 1926 he got pummeled by Sharkey.The next year, Willis was knocked out by heavyweight contender Paolino Uzcudun . He fought Firpo on 1924 sorry 2 years before 1926.I expilictly stated for a match in 1926 OKAY?
1924 Sept 1 - Harry Wills floors Luis Firpo and then dominates no-decision 12 rounder, Jersey City. . no-decision

Do you have even a idea how old was Willis? Dont bother he was 37 in 1926. Age doesnt have any factor right ring rust has...Please state Harry's great activity from 1924 on please... Okay moving on

So my assuming that Dempsey will beat a past prime old slow Willis is confusing facts???

Fred Fulton --> Dempsey 1, Harry 3
Firpo -->Dempsey KO, Harry nO Decision
Sharkey -->Pummels Willis,jack stops him

Facts these are facts. Unlike you I dont guess since this was so and so...This would have been so and so.....and so.....

You start again on why Dempsey not fighting Willis? Okay..Read the thread from the start
Oh!!! Why did Willis duck George Godfrey?

And Gene Tunney was the #1 contender for the title (after the Willis Deal fell through, there are too many sources on it do have a read).Dempsey fought him.
Next he fought Jack Sharkey, who pummeled Willis. He should have fought Willis the loser then fought Sharkey again right ? He knocked him out. Next he very unwisely fought Tunney what to do the title was with that Marine...

Tunney did agree to fight Harry Wills as part of a tourney for the right to meet Dempsey. Wills considered himself the #1 contender and already had Jack signed to meet him in an aborted title challenge years earlier, so wouldn't agree to the tourney. But the deal fell through with Jack getting bested, sharkey pummelling Willis , Jack losing again and later sharkey becoming champion and Willis fading away. Its sad but thats what happened. Why dont you go to the white people of those days and say to them that they are rasict for not allowing a black to fight a white champion? Why don't yougo and tell Jack Johnson to behave a bit better ? And why dont u tell the promoter to let Jack fight Willis because 100 years later someone sitting from his room will say why didnt jack do that and this override them etc etc...You or me cant even comprehend the rasicm of those times.

So Willis ducked Tunney?

yOu are acting a little child .

Fights are won on the ring and not on paper. WIlls WAS the universally recognized contender for those years that Dempsey was idle. In fact, if you want to say Wills beat nobody in 1925- than WTF did Dempsey beat in those three years he was idle.

The FACT is that Wills was willing and able to fight Dempsey. Demspey FOUGHT TUNNEY INSTEAD. Both THE NYSAC and SLC told him to fight Wills. But Dempsey feared losing the belt to a black guy, IF WILLS IS SHOT, they take the fight.

Also you mentioned the tunney thing is silly as i mentioned that already, but his manager felt he needed no mandatory as he was willing and able to fight Dempsey at the moment. Tunney never fought a black guy, and i actually think Tunney did match up better against Wills, but Wills still had a puncher's chance.
If both the NYSAC and SLC thought Wills deserved a title shot, why should he be forced to fight Tunney first? BTW, that was the manager's decision and not Wills.

Your argument against me is preposterous. You are an apologist. So you make up fantasy scenarios that because of this and that, that Dempsey would have won anyway, well i dont play fantasy match ups. Dempsey was idle for three years and looked rusty against Tunney, his win versus firpo was saved by partisan writers who helped him back in the ring to avoid an argentine fighter beating an american. That same fighter who Wills had beaten in 1924 while Dempsey was getting laid and piss drunk doing hollywood films. BTW, ND"S just are that, no decisions, but often people knew who really won.

Not counting a DQ, the last Wills clear loss was almost a decade before his fight that would have been scheduled with Demspey. You are only playing hindsight with the Sharkey fight, which should have been Demspey for the title fight. You don't think mentally Wills would have faired better against an idle Dempsey knowing it was for a title fight?


Here is the imbecility of your argument. Wills coming to 1926 DIDNT lose in nearly a decade minus a DQ, how can he be a top contender if he was shot as you said? Once again, Demspey had nothing to fear for fighting an washed up fighter? Yet he instead ignored the SLC and the initial NYSAC decision and went to Philly. You can change history with those pseudo match ups. Bernard Hopkins looked old against Taylor and Calzaghe= Hopkins losing to the young lion Pavlik? Yet Pavlik gets defeated by Hopkins easily. The Duran who looked horrible in 1982 would have been defeated by the young Davey Moore in 1983? People thought that Max Schmeling after taken a beating from Max Baer was shot, yet he had many wins later and also the great win over Joe Louis. But there was nothing before the scheduled fight with Dempsey fight that indicated that anyway. Even recently, Holyfied was saw as shot in 1996 and was given little chance against Tyson.

Dempsey after his three hiatus never looked like the great dempsey. In fact, most would say he lost atleast 24 of his last 27 rounds. His chin was also starting to give away, i mean Tunney even knocked him down in Rd 8 of their second fight, and Tunney was a light heavyweight with decent but not shocking power. Demspey had also looked bad against Sharkey a guy he beat with low blows and than a sucker punch. But i will be like you, and throw those facts away, and say that Dempsey would have won easily against Wills and was right to avoid him and allow fantasy match ups how subjective evidence make determinations.

The fact is that we can go back and forth until the cows come home, and i wont change my opinion about this and i won't be so narrow to say that the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. But i think this thread would be locked anyway with the new moderator Jab keeping the peace.

[Greatest1942]

yOu are acting a little child .

Fights are won on the ring and not on paper. WIlls WAS the universally recognized contender for those years that Dempsey was idle. In fact, if you want to say Wills beat nobody in 1925- than WTF did Dempsey beat in those three years he was idle.

The FACT is that Wills was willing and able to fight Dempsey. Demspey FOUGHT TUNNEY INSTEAD. Both THE NYSAC and SLC told him to fight Wills. But Dempsey feared losing the belt to a black guy, IF WILLS IS SHOT, they take the fight.

Also you mentioned the tunney thing is silly as i mentioned that already, but his manager felt he needed no mandatory as he was willing and able to fight Dempsey at the moment. Tunney never fought a black guy, and i actually think Tunney did match up better against Wills, but Wills still had a puncher's chance.
If both the NYSAC and SLC thought Wills deserved a title shot, why should he be forced to fight Tunney first? BTW, that was the manager's decision and not Wills.

Your argument against me is preposterous. You are an apologist. So you make up fantasy scenarios that because of this and that, that Dempsey would have won anyway, well i dont play fantasy match ups. Dempsey was idle for three years and looked rusty against Tunney, his win versus firpo was saved by partisan writers who helped him back in the ring to avoid an argentine fighter beating an american. That same fighter who Wills had beaten in 1924 while Dempsey was getting laid and piss drunk doing hollywood films. BTW, ND"S just are that, no decisions, but often people knew who really won.

Not counting a DQ, the last Wills clear loss was almost a decade before his fight that would have been scheduled with Demspey. You are only playing hindsight with the Sharkey fight, which should have been Demspey for the title fight. You don't think mentally Wills would have faired better against an idle Dempsey knowing it was for a title fight?


Here is the imbecility of your argument. Wills coming to 1926 DIDNT lose in nearly a decade minus a DQ, how can he be a top contender if he was shot as you said? Once again, Demspey had nothing to fear for fighting an washed up fighter? Yet he instead ignored the SLC and the initial NYSAC decision and went to Philly. You can change history with those pseudo match ups. Bernard Hopkins looked old against Taylor and Calzaghe= Hopkins losing to the young lion Pavlik? Yet Pavlik gets defeated by Hopkins easily. The Duran who looked horrible in 1982 would have been defeated by the young Davey Moore in 1983? People thought that Max Schmeling after taken a beating from Max Baer was shot, yet he had many wins later and also the great win over Joe Louis. But there was nothing before the scheduled fight with Dempsey fight that indicated that anyway. Even recently, Holyfied was saw as shot in 1996 and was given little chance against Tyson.

Dempsey after his three hiatus never looked like the great dempsey. In fact, most would say he lost atleast 24 of his last 27 rounds. His chin was also starting to give away, i mean Tunney even knocked him down in Rd 8 of their second fight, and Tunney was a light heavyweight with decent but not shocking power. Demspey had also looked bad against Sharkey a guy he beat with low blows and than a sucker punch. But i will be like you, and throw those facts away, and say that Dempsey would have won easily against Wills and was right to avoid him and allow fantasy match ups how subjective evidence make determinations.

The fact is that we can go back and forth until the cows come home, and i wont change my opinion about this and i won't be so narrow to say that the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. But i think this thread would be locked anyway with the new moderator Jab keeping the peace.

Dempsey was not the same at 1926 granted. BUt he was better than Willis at 1926. Whats so hard for you? Willis got disqualified against Sharkey but he got pummeled why are excusing that??? I dont say that he had the right to avoid Willis...please dont put words in my mouth I SAID THAT IF THEY MET AT THAT POINT IN THEIR CARRER Willis WILL LOOSE,YOU ARE JUST BEING PLAIN SILLY, if you say that at that point of time Willis was a danger, he was 37 for gods sake and he was no George Foreman, after 1926 Willis never won another major fight do you get it???? What does it matter that he never lost a decade before. And Harry Willis at that point was in no shape for Dempsey sorry...What ever you try to revision History , Harry Willis post Firpo never won any major fight, Dempsey atleast knocked out Sharkey and Firpo. And read Willis's activity post 1925 I wont sayhere go there and you will see he was not supremely active too.

What is so hard for you to understand
1)They signed a deal
2)The deal fell through
3)Dempsey fought the next best contender.IF the promoters won't allow you to sponsor the event, Dempsey should have sponsored it I get it. You are being absolutely incoherent.

Look I still Believe that Willis was a real threat at 1919. I favour Dempsey but in no way I will say he was sure to win. But at 1926 at 37 years of age, seeing their fights after that, I am sorry. Willis got KO in his next two fights...I dont know whats so difficult for you, may be the fact that you are talking bull**** got exposed?

[Greatest1942]

his win versus firpo was saved by partisan writers who helped him back in the ring to avoid an argentine fighter beating an american. That same fighter who Wills had beaten in 1924 while Dempsey was getting laid and piss drunk doing hollywood films. BTW, ND"S just are that, no decisions, but often people knew who really won.

You excuse Willis for abiding by his managers decision yet repeadtedly question Dempsey for abiding by the promoters and his managers decision...Wow may suggest you please keep a single standard? What you ask of Dempsey is a bigger impossibility (after his manager and all the promoters refused to hold that fight,Dempsey signed atleast) than of the Tunney fight. You can't fight if there is no promoter to hold that event...Can you force anyone (even if you are world champion) to spend their money teh way you wish too? PLAIN SILLY TO ARGUE IF YOU ASK ME.

Okay..Did you see how actually Dempsey got put of the ring? Firpo landed some big punches and then PUSHED Dempsey out of the ring. Coming from a guy who insists on squeaky cleanliness, its a bid odd. PUSHING IS LEGAL RIGHT? Willis himself was disqualified often was barred from fighting in Phili becasue of stalling often ,oppoenents complained against him ,just as Sharkey of Dempsey. Sounds clean? I didn't want to bring this up, but since you can't get Sharkey out of your head? Nevermind...

Yes Dempsey was pushed back but he did not win by decsion that makes you so upset.He knocked that guy **** out...in 2 rounds compare this to your "people actually knew who really won " stuff.


Its a bit like imbecile or a child if you ask me , to ask Dempsey to say stuff it to all the promototers and fight Willis. Dempsey said that to defend them...He also said "Harry Willis is the only fight I want to have".

Yes fights are fought in the ring and since those two never actually fought I will have to go by their performances that year and the year later(Willis lost 2fights by KO, his performance in those two was Dismal, was 37 years of age) , and comparing them even directly after Dempsey's lay off I state that I willfavour Dempsey greatly. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THIS?

And dont post lies to support your logic...Willis Lost in 1922 to Bill Tate four years prior to 1926 forget 10. Lost to battling Jim Johnson in 1917 9 years previous to 1926 (broke his hand ). And on 1916 to Sam which I suppose is the only one which came to your notice? Yes the Bill Tate loss was a DQ. They did match up 4 days later and heres the synopsis from Boxrec :-"Both fighters claimed the Black Heavyweight title in this bout. Wills bled from a cut over his right eye from the 5th round on. Wills was knocked down for no count in the 9th from a rabbit punch.
(Both fought without pay because of that Monday night fiasco four days previous.)" NOt exactly blowing your opponent away. It was a draw...and I can say just like you did everyone knew who the real winner was.But I disgress.Willis was great but dont overhype him to lower Dempsey. Willis was also 2-0 against Sam McVea prior to 1916.Wanna know the record of Tate :- Tate was 16-15-0..When Ezzard Charles beat Joe LOuis he was undefeated for more than 12 years you know...However it was no surprise Charles won...So just giving a streak and arguing ohh he would have won on the weight of his sprevious victories....Nonsense if you ask me.



From 1924 -26 he fought twice with Charley Weinert and Floyd Johnson ...After 1925 he lost three consecutive fights getting pummeled by Sharkey, stopped by Uzucidin and losing by DQ to a guy who was 10-7 ( I dont hold this loss against him mind you)....And I am acting childish by favouring Dempsey at 1926...GROW UP

Rings ranking of 1926:-
Gene Tunney, Champion
Jack Dempsey
Jack Sharkey
Jim Maloney
Paolino Uzcudun
Harry Wills
Jack Renault
Harry Persson
Knute Hansen
Johnny Risko
Sully Montgomery
Sandy Seifert
Jack DeMave
Monte Munn
Arthur De Kuh


Do you see the rank of Willis and Jack?

For your education they signed for the fight in 1924(Sep. 6 Jack Dempsey Jersey City, N.J. ) , so Dempsey's ring rust would not have been so great (none actually ,he last fought in 1923) and yea Willis would have been in slightly better shape...Though would have been 35 and was slow by that time too. You know Dempsey liked them that way BIg and Slow...Fred Fulton actually made the list of RIngs greatest 100 punchers.

I again favour Demps but yes I will always say Willis like anyone who can punch had a chance. But as I said earlier I would go by Langford's words (someone who fought Willis 22 times) than yours...because unlike you I do believe someone who was in the ring so often with a guy , and who bested him, should know the others chances. FIGHTS ARE FOUGHT IN THE RING YES...AND THAT IS WHY SOMEONE WHO WAS IN THE RING WITH WILLIS 22 TIMES HAS A MUCH BETTER SaY THAN YOU TALKING OF IT ALMOST 90 years LATER...Thank you.

I never support what happened to Harry WIllis. He should have had a title shot fair and simple. Butif you jump on me for favoring dempsey in that fight at 1926 its incorrigible...

[Greatest1942]

this fight is a joke,even with the shotty footage you can see the fighters with their hands low,throwing wild haymakers and clutching,this era of fights are very comical

Looking at Ruiz,Rahman,Wlad hugging and clutching not even bothering to fight for fear of getting knocked out , worried about being knocked out ,in HD, doesn't it transport you back to time to the bareknuckles era...Such a great feeling aint it seeing these big heavies embracing themselves...makes you go back in time...So great...So beautiful....

[HaglerSteelChin]

1) You claim that i raise Wills and lower Dempsey? Yet i have Dempsey rated top 20 p4p, and Wills rated much lower than that. If you think I am a Dempsey hater, than you should read some of the real bias stuff against him- do you read any Harry Wills book- or the opinions of black writers from the BWAA- they are WAY more critical of Dempsey that i ever have been. Some even say "title denied", which i will never go that far, as i don't think the fight would be a foregone conclusion during the entire 5-7 years where Wills was a top contender. If you claim i am unbias, Gee, what do you think about their harsh opinions on Dempsey and their inflated opinion on Wills? Gee, if i was such a dempsey hater do i talk about the stories of him marrying a prosititute or the perception he dodged the great war(WW 1).


2) We go back and forth about the contracts, but dempsey himself said "if i lose, the entire business goes", so he admitted there was a risk in losing and didn't want to take that risk. Tex Rickard himseld something like "if a Ni**A wins the title it aint worth a nickel." But i think if Wills was so shot, they take the fight. We can speculate why Wills looked bad against Sharkey, he was older and felt less motivated since he didn't get a title shot despite being a top contender for 6 to 7 years, but it dosent change the fact he was ready to fight Dempsey. Instead Dempsey went to philly and fought Tunney(ignoring both the New York State Athletic Commission and State Licensing Committee). I know some of the other posters here are not even that sure about what would happen if they met in 1926?, i have seen their opinions on it. I myself said anything can happen. But i pretty much think that Wills would have needed to KO Dempsey to win, because Dempsey was the cash cow and got away with things smaller fighters would have trouble getting away with. Wills was NOT going to beat Dempsey by decision, and you better believe Dempsey would have gotten away with his fouls, and of course if Wills fouled him he would have been DQ. So essentially, Wills great hope was a one punch KO. This to me, made it even more glaring for Dempsey to duck Wills, as he had all the cards stacked against Wills.

3) People keep talking about guys like Greb, Wolgast, Saddler, and even Wills being dirty. But all those fighters got disqualified and Dempey NEVER got DQ. Boxing is a money making sport and Dempsey was far and away the cash cow. He was even bigger than babe ruth, so even before the issue of him knocked out of the ring there were already fouls against Firpo going to the first round of that fight. BTW, you state why not criticize Greb or others. Greb is easily a higher ranked ATG than Dempsey. Putting the fact aside that he TOTALLY owned Dempsey on sparring sessions and Dempsey admitted that, we know Greb was totally blind in one eye for his last 5 years, and he still was beating HOF fighters. In addition, Greb was a MW beating LHW and owning Dempsey in sparring a HW.

4) There are many who agree with my opinion, which is that Wills had slowed down but Dempsey who came back in 1926 was not the same Dempsey of 1919-1923. You can't deny that Wills was a top contender for about 7 years, and than simply say look what he did post 1926 and judge him. Dempsey didn't look great either, so that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Moreover, if you love triangles than using your theory the win by Wills against Willie Meehan who beat Dempsey, and his performance against Firpo who knockdown Dempsey several times= Wills victory. ???? If i don't bring that up, why bring up a non title fight against SHarkey? Why not bring up the fact that Tunney took all 10 Rds from Dempsey when he was suppose to fight Wills instead, why not bring up the fact that he was getting owned by Sharkey until the low blows and sucker punch??? Why not mention the fact that if Wills is 99% shot that Dempsey takes the fight since NO RISK involved? Afterall, Dempsey had fought Black guys before?


5)I tend to think you fall more into the extremist fan ala nuthugger. Because only extremists take the view that the fight outcome is a 100% foregone conlusion. If Manny Pacuiao gets knocked out by Margarito does that mean that Mayweather who ducked him would have won anyway? So 100 years from now a boxrec and wiki warrior can play Monday morning Quarterback and say "you know Mayweather who have won anyway since Margarito knocked out Pacquiao." That is not how boxing works: styles make fights, mentality of the fighter, and specific conditons of when the fight is made.

6) This a quote from Tunney after the 2nd Dempsey fight: "he hit me below the belt on several occassions, butted me with his head like a goat...in the clinches he twisted my arms and was apparently trying to wrench them or break them....and those rabbit punches kept ****ing the base of my skull." I will take Tunney's opinion about Dempsey's fight tactics who fought him 20 RDS over you-Thank You.

I let you get the last word so you can sleep better at night.

[HaglerSteelChin]

FIGHTS ARE FOUGHT IN THE RING YES...AND THAT IS WHY SOMEONE WHO WAS IN THE RING WITH WILLIS 22 TIMES HAS A MUCH BETTER SaY THAN YOU TALKING OF IT ALMOST 90 years LATER...Thank you.

How many fighters thought Dempsey would Murder Tunney before the first fight? The argument is silly for several points. Wills defeated Langford several times, and maybe he had bias toward him. Most importantly, the style that Wills fought Langford is no guarantee to the style or match up against Dempsey. Langford never felt a Dempsey punch, so how can he be the best judge???

Juan Manuel Marquez fought BOTH mayweather and Pac, he says Mayweather would defeat Pacquiao. DLH who fought both Pac and May, says that Mayweather would defeat Pac. So we HAVE TWO guys who FOUGHT BOTH not ONE like LANGFORD, saying that Mayweather beats Pac. So i guess that settles it Ladies and Gentleman, the fight between Pac and May the megafight is decided by the opinion of TWo fighters who fought both them. Look at the absurdity of this argument.

[Greatest1942]

How many fighters thought Dempsey would Murder Tunney before the first fight? The argument is silly for several points. Wills defeated Langford several times, and maybe he had bias toward him. Most importantly, the style that Wills fought Langford is no guarantee to the style or match up against Dempsey. Langford never felt a Dempsey punch, so how can he be the best judge???

Juan Manuel Marquez fought BOTH mayweather and Pac, he says Mayweather would defeat Pacquiao. DLH who fought both Pac and May, says that Mayweather would defeat Pac. So we HAVE TWO guys who FOUGHT BOTH not ONE like LANGFORD, saying that Mayweather beats Pac. So i guess that settles it Ladies and Gentleman, the fight between Pac and May the megafight is decided by the opinion of TWo fighters who fought both them. Look at the absurdity of this argument.

Excuse my words but I believe you have a serious attitude problem. Pardon me but you read too little and speak too much. WHEN DID I WRITE EVER THAT I AM 100% SURE DEMPSEY WILL WIN. I SAID I FAVOUR DEMPSEY GREATLY AS WOULD A LOT OF OTHERS. WHEN THE HELL DID I WRITE THIS MORONIC STUFF YOU ARE WRITING? DO U READ? I STATE AGAIN KNOWING YOU WILL QOUTE MORE LIES AGAIN:- I FAVOUR DEMPSEY BUT WILL GIVE WILLIS A PUNCHERS CHANCE. in 1919-22 I favour jack slightly in 1926 I favour him greatly okay?

I STILL SAY I FAVOUR DEMPSEY GREATLY IN 1926. WILLIS HAS A PUNCHER's chance and I FAVOUR DEMPSEY GREATLY

AND no Greb who fought with Tunney a lot of times said, that he refused to be Dempsey's sparring partner for the Tunney fight because no one would have helpe dhim lick Tunney. YOUR EXAMPLES ARE BULL**** LIKE YOUR OTHER COMMENTS. I DID NOT PROVIDE THE EXAMPLE OF A SO AND SO..I GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF A PERSON WHO FOUGHT WILLIS 22 times. And just as you I provide an example of someone who did predict correctly...I do believe langford to have better insight on Willis and Dempsey than you. Langford didnt fight dempsey and he did't need to be a Einstein to see Dempsey punched hard.Moved fast and had a deceiptively good defense. Gene Tunney a great sharpshooter said that he only got 1 clear hit on dempseys chin in the two fights they fought. Lanford fought too many opponents, saw everyone of that era fought Willis 22 ****ing times and saw dempsey a lot too...Sorry unlike you I beleive he was quite able to tell who was actually better. Benny Leonard picked holes from others while seeing them once..Eddie Futch never fought Ali but could discern that Norton had the right style for Ali...So you in other words YOU are in a better position to judge Willis than Langford??? DONT DREAM I SUPPOSE ITS DAYTIME. Do you want other examples where this was proved to be true. Jim Braddock stated correctly that Louis will KO Walcott in their second fight (by the first fight, you will never give Louis a chance), there are a host of others. And the Mayweather stuff you post ...I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN SO THAT IT PENETRATES YOUR SKULL.LANGFORD FOUGHT WILLIS 22 TIMES, then gave this opinion. Sorry you argue like an imbecile and post misinformations and what you think as facts to win


FAct is you give too much misinformation(READ WILLIS CARRER)
Post bull**** (Dempsey cannot loose by decision, fact he lost by decision what you think so and so doe snot matter).
And state this as fact.
I do not have dempsey in my top 20 P4p list, I have him in my top 10 heavy and top 10 ATG punchers list. If that is nuthugger to you..Sorry you can call teh ring full of nuthuggers too. May be a part tiem troll job you do here?

Please give me an example where Greb got disqualified for dirty tactics or Saddler...Dont think provide the facts...I guess its like your 10 years Willis undefeated fact?

Dempsey was confident of beating Willis...So he wanted to fight him...He said that losing stuff and also stated "The only fight I want to have is harry Willis"...
People who are reading this posts will see each time you are proved wrong, you come back with useless what you think...

No one with a record 0f 16-15 was beating Dempsey up you know that? Greb was a ATG middle he had the better of Dempsey in sparring sessions...God where does Willis come into this? So you will argue about Willis with Greb? As for Greb vs Dempsey I never said I favour anyone...Why do you post garbage.More useless stuff.