BoxRec

...or 22, or 23...

Jack Dempsey versus Harry Wills

How does it pan out? This is not two men in their mythical primes this is a fight in 1921-23.

This is fought in accordance of the rules of the day. Consider it as a 15 round fight unless anyone knows otherwise.

(If the historians among you think the year for this fight is inappropriate then please suggest another)

Dempsey.

Dempsey, inside 5 rounds. Big slow guys were meat for Dempsey.

Wills

I think had this happened 1925 (which was when it was tentatively scheduled if my memory is correct) Dempsey is a solid favorite.
But Wills at his peak was never described in reports as being slow, and he and Dempsey clearly proved to be in a class above in the HW division from 1918-23. I've always felt this fight could've gone either way.

dempseyfire wrote:I think had this happened 1925 (which was when it was tentatively scheduled if my memory is correct) Dempsey is a solid favorite.
But Wills at his peak was never described in reports as being slow, and he and Dempsey clearly proved to be in a class above in the HW division from 1918-23. I've always felt this fight could've gone either way.

I have two unattributed quotes about Wills:

Grantland Rice: "Wills is not a fighter in Dempsey's class, or even close."

Ray Arcel: "[Wills] didn't hit anywhere near as hard as Dempsey and he didn't move anywhere near as smoothly as Carpentier. I would rate Wills as a very good journeyman."

raylawpc wrote:Dempsey, inside 5 rounds. Big slow guys were meat for Dempsey.

Indeed, were they ever. It is to Wills' great historical advantage that he never actually shared na ring with Dempsey.

Another quote about Wills:

N. W. Baxter of the Washington Post, describing Wills against Bartley Madden: "He was ponderous, in an almost elephantine way . . ." I think he was saying Wills was "slow." Washington Post, June 10, 1924 at page S1.

Not good to be sluggish against Dempsey. Ask Willard.

raylawpc wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I think had this happened 1925 (which was when it was tentatively scheduled if my memory is correct) Dempsey is a solid favorite.
But Wills at his peak was never described in reports as being slow, and he and Dempsey clearly proved to be in a class above in the HW division from 1918-23. I've always felt this fight could've gone either way.

I have two unattributed quotes about Wills:

Grantland Rice: "Wills is not a fighter in Dempsey's class, or even close."

Ray Arcel: "[Wills] didn't hit anywhere near as hard as Dempsey and he didn't move anywhere near as smoothly as Carpentier. I would rate Wills as a very good journeyman."

Yes I've seen those quotes before. First off, it is doubtful either of those two ever saw Wills fight live prior to the mid 1920s, when Harry (in his mid 30s) was slowing down and already past his best. Arcel's comment is so ridiculous, it throws his credibility on the issue out the window. "Smooth as Carpentier'? "not nearly as hard a puncher"? Just peruse Harry's record, he had a monster right hand. And to call him a journeyman is plain stupid. Dempsey is one of my favorites but the pedestool he was put on by some, especially the sports media of the 20s, was a little ridiculous. If you read reports of his earlier fights pre-1923 (I'd say he was at his peak as a fighter from 1916-17 until 1922) they describe Wills as possessing good movement and very good speed for a big man.

If the guy was just a slow, plodding clubber he would've never beaten Langford as many times as he did (and he beat Sam when Sam was still near his peak in 1914) nor Jeannette and McVey when they were still top contenders. Add in the likes of Clarke, Weinert, Fulton, Firpo and Johnson into the ranks of people who couldn't overcome a 'very good journeyman' and it's clear to see Arcel, although a very good cutman and corner man, was full of it on this issue.

elephantine?

too funny.

dempseyfire wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I think had this happened 1925 (which was when it was tentatively scheduled if my memory is correct) Dempsey is a solid favorite.
But Wills at his peak was never described in reports as being slow, and he and Dempsey clearly proved to be in a class above in the HW division from 1918-23. I've always felt this fight could've gone either way.

I have two unattributed quotes about Wills:

Grantland Rice: "Wills is not a fighter in Dempsey's class, or even close."

Ray Arcel: "[Wills] didn't hit anywhere near as hard as Dempsey and he didn't move anywhere near as smoothly as Carpentier. I would rate Wills as a very good journeyman."

Yes I've seen those quotes before. First off, it is doubtful either of those two ever saw Wills fight live prior to the mid 1920s, when Harry (in his mid 30s) was slowing down and already past his best. Arcel's comment is so ridiculous, it throws his credibility on the issue out the window. "Smooth as Carpentier'? "not nearly as hard a puncher"? Just peruse Harry's record, he had a monster right hand. And to call him a journeyman is plain stupid. Dempsey is one of my favorites but the pedestool he was put on by some, especially the sports media of the 20s, was a little ridiculous. If you read reports of his earlier fights pre-1923 (I'd say he was at his peak as a fighter from 1916-17 until 1922) they describe Wills as possessing good movement and very good speed for a big man.

If the guy was just a slow, plodding clubber he would've never beaten Langford as many times as he did (and he beat Sam when Sam was still near his peak in 1914) nor Jeannette and McVey when they were still top contenders. Add in the likes of Clarke, Weinert, Fulton, Firpo and Johnson into the ranks of people who couldn't overcome a 'very good journeyman' and it's clear to see Arcel, although a very good cutman and corner man, was full of it on this issue.

No. 1, I don’t know why you find it doubtful either of these guys saw Wills in the 1920s. Grantland Rice was a middle-aged man in the 1920s, and had been a sportswriter for several years. He had seen Wills many times, I am sure. Ray Arcel was active in the game as a young man in the 1920s. I saw Ron Lyle, George Foreman, Kenny Norton, Muhammad Ali, Oscar Bonavena et al. live when I was in my 20s, and worked with a few of them, and I can remember them pretty well. Why was that kind of recollection beyond Ray Arcel’s capacity?

Also, I think you are forgetting the basic premise of Ezz’s thread: Who would have won if these guys had actually fought in the mid-1920s. (I know, he wrote 1921, but he added, “If the historians among you think the year for this fight is inappropriate then please suggest another.” The hue-and-cry for a Wills-Dempsey fight was strongest circa 1924-1925.) I think had Wills and Dempsey fought anytime between 1922-1925, Dempsey would have taken him apart within five rounds.

Well, as I said, if this fight takes place in 1925 when it was tentatively scheduled, I favor Dempsey. But I think a peak Wills definitely has a big chance of winning.

dempseyfire wrote:Well, as I said, if this fight takes place in 1925 when it was tentatively scheduled, I favor Dempsey. But I think a peak Wills definitely has a big chance of winning.

Well, I agree he certainly had a better chance of winning circa 1917-1922. But I still would have favored Dempsey even in those earlier years.

I happen to know full well who would have won a Wills vs Dempsey fight. But If I told you, I'd have to kill Darling.

From about 1918-1923 Dempsey was in his prime. So going up against Dempsey in 1921 would mean that Wills would be going up against a prime Dempsey. Wills himself was probably slightly past his best. I would certainly pick Dempsey but it probably would be a tough fight for a while.

While Wills was not as good as Dempsey, to say that he was a journeyman is ridiculaus. He beat enough great fighters to prove otherwise. He did not have tremendous power but he could hit. He had good boxing skills and was known for being fast for a big man.

BoxBuzz wrote:I happen to know full well who would have won a Wills vs Dempsey fight. But If I told you, I'd have to kill Darling.

If you want to kill someone, Buzz, surely the most hated poster ever ie Irene, should be killed before me.

Ambling Alp wrote:From about 1918-1923 Dempsey was in his prime. So going up against Dempsey in 1921 would mean that Wills would be going up against a prime Dempsey. Wills himself was probably slightly past his best. I would certainly pick Wills but it probably would be a tough fight for a while.

While Wills was not as good as Dempsey, to say that he was a journeyman is ridiculaus. He beat enough great fighters to prove otherwise. He did not have tremendous power but he could hit. He had good boxing skills and was known for being fast for a big man.

I would disagree

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Dempsey, inside 5 rounds. Big slow guys were meat for Dempsey.

Indeed, were they ever. It is to Wills' great historical advantage that he never actually shared na ring with Dempsey.

So how do you think a prime and active Dempsey would have done against Foreman?

The Great John L wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Dempsey, inside 5 rounds. Big slow guys were meat for Dempsey.

Indeed, were they ever. It is to Wills' great historical advantage that he never actually shared na ring with Dempsey.

So how do you think a prime and active Dempsey would have done against Foreman?

No idea. They fought roughly 50 years apart in different eras. Too speculative for me to guess. That said, I do think that Dempsey would have posed a different problem for Foreman than Frazier or Norton did, as Dempsey seemed to be more mobile and quicker on his feet. But beyond than that, I have no idea.

The Great John L wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Dempsey, inside 5 rounds. Big slow guys were meat for Dempsey.

Indeed, were they ever. It is to Wills' great historical advantage that he never actually shared na ring with Dempsey.

So how do you think a prime and active Dempsey would have done against Foreman?

I would favour Foreman.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Indeed, were they ever. It is to Wills' great historical advantage that he never actually shared na ring with Dempsey.

So how do you think a prime and active Dempsey would have done against Foreman?

I would favour Foreman.

Of course. I forgot how swift and graceful George was.

Yeah...because that's the reason I give Foreman the odds, as I so patently specified

Didn't Wills fast during September. If so, if this is 1921, I would suggest the fight happen tonight.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Yeah...because that's the reason I give Foreman the odds, as I so patently specified

OK, then why would you favor Foreman?