Where do you rate Harry Wills on your HW lists?

[Barn]

Do you feel he has a claim to better Dempsey or Johnson?

[Steak]

Yes, to both.

Its irritating that Johnson gets so much credit for his wins over green McVea, Jeannette and Langford, while Wills isnt even thrown into the top 10 with him even when he has multiple wins over all of them.

Not to mention Wills beat guys like Weinhart and Firpo that were contenders in Dempsey's day.

Not that I would necessarily rate Wills over either of them...but If youre going to rate Johnson or Dempsey in the higher part of your top 10, Wills better be there as well.

[crold1]

Yes, to both.

Its irritating that Johnson gets so much credit for his wins over green McVea, Jeannette and Langford, while Wills isnt even thrown into the top 10 with him even when he has multiple wins over all of them.

Not to mention Wills beat guys like Weinhart and Firpo that were contenders in Dempsey's day.

Not that I would necessarily rate Wills over either of them...but If youre going to rate Johnson or Dempsey in the higher part of your top 10, Wills better be there as well.

There's only so much room in the top ten bro. I rated Wills 12th when I sorted it last time: http://www.boxingscene.com/-top-25-h...e-11-25--25446 That's close to ten.

[Barn]

Yes, to both.

Its irritating that Johnson gets so much credit for his wins over green McVea, Jeannette and Langford, while Wills isnt even thrown into the top 10 with him even when he has multiple wins over all of them.

Not to mention Wills beat guys like Weinhart and Firpo that were contenders in Dempsey's day.

Not that I would necessarily rate Wills over either of them...but If youre going to rate Johnson or Dempsey in the higher part of your top 10, Wills better be there as well.

I've always thought Wills was horribly under-rated, he made a ridiculous number of defences of the coloured HW title as well reflecting his dominance over the best fighters of the period.

If he wins the actual title it ups his stock massively and more people would have him rated over the two Jack's.

[IronDanHamza]

I think he's Top 13.

Possibly Top 10.

I have him above Lennox Lewis.

[Steak]

There's only so much room in the top ten bro. I rated Wills 12th when I sorted it last time: http://www.boxingscene.com/-top-25-h...e-11-25--25446 That's close to ten.

I just cant stomach Johnson being as high as 3 while Wills is as (comparatively) low as 12. If Johnson was rated around 8 or so, I have no issue with Wills being out of top ten. But the difference between 3 and 12 is so large considering their opponents were very comparable.

I personally dont think the title means much. Johnson beat Burns to get the title, and in reality Burns is no better than someone like Firpo, Weinhart or Fulton.

[Barn]

I just cant stomach Johnson being as high as 3 while Wills is as (comparatively) low as 12. If Johnson was rated around 8 or so, I have no issue with Wills being out of top ten. But the difference between 3 and 12 is so large considering their opponents were very comparable.

I personally dont think the title means much. Johnson beat Burns to get the title, and in reality Burns is no better than someone like Firpo, Weinhart or Fulton.

Just a classic case though.

Langford wins the LW title from Gans by being the correct weight, doesn't get supposedly jobbed in a Joe Walcott draw and he's a two division world champion. Not taking into account the potential Ketchel and Johnson bouts.

As much as we try and stop it counting for anything, holding the title does mean something to everyone.

[crold1]

I just cant stomach Johnson being as high as 3 while Wills is as (comparatively) low as 12. If Johnson was rated around 8 or so, I have no issue with Wills being out of top ten. But the difference between 3 and 12 is so large considering their opponents were very comparable.

I personally dont think the title means much. Johnson beat Burns to get the title, and in reality Burns is no better than someone like Firpo, Weinhart or Fulton.

The title meant tons. Burns was the icing on the cake after he ran over the field. Wills lost a lost too before the streak starting around 17. I don't disagree with you that he's close, but it pretends that 3-12, all time, is actually much of a gap considering the modern era starts in the 1880s. Relative to their almost common era. Relative to all time, other eras intervene. It's not that big a difference.

[Steak]

The title meant tons. Burns was the icing on the cake after he ran over the field. Wills lost a lost too before the streak starting around 17. I don't disagree with you that he's close, but it pretends that 3-12, all time, is actually much of a gap considering the modern era starts in the 1880s. Relative to their almost common era. Relative to all time, other eras intervene. It's not that big a difference.

I dont see a title, I simply look at names.

And when it gets down to it, even though it might have been hell for him to get a title shot, the guy he beat to get the title was Tommy Burns. And frankly he wasnt that great a fighter.

[greynotsoold]

Ray Arcel, who saw Wills fight, who started training fighters in 1915 and finished up with Duran, called Wills a "pretty good journeyman boxer." This whole trip of Wills being 'great' is a new idea and doesn't make much sense, given that, in his era, he wasn't considered to be anything special.