Harry Wills ---- what am i missing

LAL · Post by **LAL** » 27 Jan 2006, 21:06

I ran a tape on Wills because i had allways heard he was the uncrowned cahmp.

He had a total of 102 fights 62 were with eleven guys. he fought Langford 17 times What am i missing?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Jan 2006, 23:01

The older fighters simply weren't as good as some nostalgists argue

i disagree, dont speak for old timers. was joe gans not as good as some nostalgists say?

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 27 Jan 2006, 23:50

Comparing eras seems rather unfair but regardless Wills was certainly one of the best of his era.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Jan 2006, 00:13

well wills and dempsey were clearly the 2 best heavies of the late teens/early 20s.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 28 Jan 2006, 00:31

Tunney did not accomplish enough to rank ahead of Wills at heavyweight. Sharkey was 13 years ypunger than Wills and certainly cannot be considered to be from his era.

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 28 Jan 2006, 01:37

The short of it was that Wills was forced to fight other black fighters again and again because that is where he could get fights. If a white fighter of that era did not want to meet a black fighter, he simply drew the color line and that was that. The great Gene Tunney never faced a black fighter throughout his career. That is how it worked.

barry · Post by **barry** » 28 Jan 2006, 04:34

Decagon continues to try to speak on that which he has no clue about. He even admited to it, but now he just does as he always does...Sharkey was the next generation...he plainly was not in the same time period as Dempsey, Wills, or Tunney...

>>>Gans was an anachronism. The techniques that define different eras of the heavyweight division usually are brought from the lower weight classes, kind of like math and physics.<<<

Really...why don't you dazzle us with your "wit" and give us a break-down of how this theory works!

>>>See, a newspaper article can say all sorts of things, but it simply can't tell you what the guy actually was like in the ring. <<<

I see you make ridiculous statements like this, yet you rank someone like Harry Greb at the top, even though no one has ever saw a tape of him...so how would you explain that? You dis-credit other fighters of the era, that you might have watched two minutes of old film of, more likely not, yet you praise and think highest toward someone like Greb, who you most certainly have never seen...why don't you explain how that works, because rating one fighter high, while downing another low is nothing but hypocrisy at it best, especially since you have never seen, or read much about either fighter, but according to you it doesn't matter what you would have read...so how do you explain your view toward someone like Greb? Can you do that, or will you do what you usually do and ignore what you cannot answer?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Jan 2006, 08:51

Gans was one of the all time greats of any weight, just because he fought almost 100 years ago doesnt negate him as a fighter. Fighters of his era had many skills that have long been forgotten by todays generation. Many fighters today struggle to fight 6 rounds at a hard pace while those of Gans generation routinely went 20 rounds or more, often a couple of times a month. Benny Leonard fought in almost the same era as Gans, is he another anachronism?..... do you really think that the likes of Jim Corbett and Jim Jeffries would be troubled by todays so called heavyweight champions???.... I think not...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 28 Jan 2006, 08:57

silkov wrote:Gans was one of the all time greats of any weight, just because he fought almost 100 years ago doesnt negate him as a fighter. Fighters of his era had many skills that have long been forgotten by todays generation. Many fighters today struggle to fight 6 rounds at a hard pace while those of Gans generation routinely went 20 rounds or more, often a couple of times a month. Benny Leonard fought in almost the same era as Gans, is he another anachronism?..... do you really think that the likes of Jim Corbett and Jim Jeffries would be troubled by todays so called heavyweight champions???.... I think not...

Good post.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 09:09

silkov wrote:Gans was one of the all time greats of any weight, just because he fought almost 100 years ago doesnt negate him as a fighter. Fighters of his era had many skills that have long been forgotten by todays generation. Many fighters today struggle to fight 6 rounds at a hard pace while those of Gans generation routinely went 20 rounds or more, often a couple of times a month. Benny Leonard fought in almost the same era as Gans, is he another anachronism?..... do you really think that the likes of Jim Corbett and Jim Jeffries would be troubled by todays so called heavyweight champions???.... I think not...

I agree with you completely about Jeffries. However, I do think that Corbett would have plenty of trouble with guys like James Toney and a prime Chris Byrd.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 09:09

Decagon wrote:Gans was an anachronism. The techniques that define different eras of the heavyweight division usually are brought from the lower weight classes, kind of like math and physics.

Math and Physics were brought from the lower weight classes?