Jack Dempsey versus Harry Wills

[goose 5]

15 rounds. 1920.

[Joson]

IMO, there are two problems with analyzing this fight. One is the limited number of Wills's fight films. The other is overall quality of fight film reels from that era.

In watching Dempsey's fights, it seems to me that there's too much jumpiness, or sudden, herky-jerky movement by the fighters. I assume that's because film technology from the 1910s and 1920s was rather primitive. IMO that means we can't get a reliable estimate of how fast or smooth Dempsey's body movement was or wasn't.

Ditto for the reliability of Wills's film reels. Also, how many of Wills's fights were actually filmed?

Maybe I'm being lazy, but my final analysis of this hypothetical fight is that I just don't know what to say.

As a kid back in the 1970s, I remember there were always analyses of Dempsey-Wills in the boxing magazines. The writers always picked Dempsey to win. But did they say that because they knew what they were talking about, or could it be that they were just Dempsey fanboys?

One thing's for certain. Assuming Dempsey really was the better fighter, Wills would have been his toughest career opponent by far, outside of Gene Tunney.

[scorpio83]

I strongly agreed Joson, Dempsey's speed and body punching would wear Wills down and knocking him out between rounds 6 to 8.

[Ambling Alp II]

I would pick Dempsey. For one thing, Wills was a little bit past his best by the time the fight would have happened. At their best, I would still lean towards Dempsey, but Wills would have a chance.

[AngryGoon38]

IMO, there are two problems with analyzing this fight. One is the limited number of Wills's fight films. The other is overall quality of fight film reels from that era.

In watching Dempsey's fights, it seems to me that there's too much jumpiness, or sudden, herky-jerky movement by the fighters. I assume that's because film technology from the 1910s and 1920s was rather primitive. IMO that means we can't get a reliable estimate of how fast or smooth Dempsey's body movement was or wasn't.

Ditto for the reliability of Wills's film reels. Also, how many of Wills's fights were actually filmed?

Maybe I'm being lazy, but my final analysis of this hypothetical fight is that I just don't know what to say.

As a kid back in the 1970s, I remember there were always analyses of Dempsey-Wills in the boxing magazines. The writers always picked Dempsey to win. But did they say that because they knew what they were talking about, or could it be that they were just Dempsey fanboys?

One thing's for certain. Assuming Dempsey really was the better fighter, Wills would have been his toughest career opponent by far, outside of Gene Tunney.

Way back in the late 1970's, My Dad bought a 16 mm reel movie projector, at a yard-sale. Is that what they're referred as ?
Anyway, the Reel-Movie Projector was probably from the early 1960's I'm guessing. I think he paid $10 for it, and it included a couple of Reels. One was Cartoons(From the 1930's), and the other one had Boxing Films(From the 1920's).
Harry Wills vs Jack Sharkey I distinctly remember being on there. The Film footage was actually Quite Smooth. The movie reel projector had no sound. I remember the cartoons being in Color. The Boxing was in Black & White.

Yeah, I don't remember the boxing films showing the boxers being all jumpy and flashing away and whatnot. It was well preserved film footage. They Do have computer programs that re-master old films into being much more watchable, and visibly in a legit real-time based viewing format.
Unfortunately, my Dad sold all of that stuff, in the 1980's, with his own yard-sales.

With all of that said, it certainly would've been a very good bout I think.
Could've gone either way, all depending on each boxers preparation and strategy.
I'd probably have to lean towards Dempsey, by a fairly legit decision win.
It wouldn't surprise me if I was proven wrong though.

[Joson]

IMO, there are two problems with analyzing this fight. One is the limited number of Wills's fight films. The other is overall quality of fight film reels from that era.

In watching Dempsey's fights, it seems to me that there's too much jumpiness, or sudden, herky-jerky movement by the fighters. I assume that's because film technology from the 1910s and 1920s was rather primitive. IMO that means we can't get a reliable estimate of how fast or smooth Dempsey's body movement was or wasn't.

Ditto for the reliability of Wills's film reels. Also, how many of Wills's fights were actually filmed?

Maybe I'm being lazy, but my final analysis of this hypothetical fight is that I just don't know what to say.

As a kid back in the 1970s, I remember there were always analyses of Dempsey-Wills in the boxing magazines. The writers always picked Dempsey to win. But did they say that because they knew what they were talking about, or could it be that they were just Dempsey fanboys?

One thing's for certain. Assuming Dempsey really was the better fighter, Wills would have been his toughest career opponent by far, outside of Gene Tunney.

Way back in the late 1970's, My Dad bought a 16 mm reel movie projector, at a yard-sale. Is that what they're referred as ?
Anyway, the Reel-Movie Projector was probably from the early 1960's I'm guessing. I think he paid $10 for it, and it included a couple of Reels. One was Cartoons(From the 1930's), and the other one had Boxing Films(From the 1920's).
Harry Wills vs Jack Sharkey I distinctly remember being on there. The Film footage was actually Quite Smooth. The movie reel projector had no sound. I remember the cartoons being in Color. The Boxing was in Black & White.

Yeah, I don't remember the boxing films showing the boxers being all jumpy and flashing away and whatnot. It was well preserved film footage. They Do have computer programs that re-master old films into being much more watchable, and visibly in a legit real-time based viewing format.
Unfortunately, my Dad sold all of that stuff, in the 1980's, with his own yard-sales.

With all of that said, it certainly would've been a very good bout I think.
Could've gone either way, all depending on each boxers preparation and strategy.
I'd probably have to lean towards Dempsey, by a fairly legit decision win.
It wouldn't surprise me if I was proven wrong though.

Very interesting. Coincidentally, in the late 1970s, I also bought one of those 16 mm reel movie projectors. The films I watched were Dempsey's fights, which I had mail ordered based on a Ring Magazine advertisement.

I'll take your word for it regarding the reliability of early 20th century film reels.

Interesting too is that, as of the 21st century, more and more fight fans are thinking that Willis, just possibly, could have won this fight. During the 20th century most fight people regarded Dempsey as being unbeatable during his prime.

[Ezzard]

I think Dempsey wins 2 out of 3.

[elmersalsa]

The great Jack Dempsey said that the only man he feared in the ring with was the great Sam Langford of Canada.

Harry Wills at 6'4" whupped 5'7" Langford about 8 times. Langford beat Wills only 2 or 3 times. But, Langford wasn't in his prime then.