Doug Fischer's (Ring) Top Ten Heavyweights All Time

First topic message reminder :

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. George Foreman
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Joe Frazier
10. Evander Holyfield

Interesting list -- particularly the insertion of the often overlooked Walcott and Charles.

Losing to Moorer or McCall is pretty poor for a great heavyweight regardless of how you win, a one punch KO can be down to a momentary lapse in concentration, losing a points decision is the result of being the lesser man over 12 rounds.

What Hammersmith said

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Losing to Moorer or McCall is pretty poor for a great heavyweight regardless of how you win, a one punch KO can be down to a momentary lapse in concentration, losing a points decision is the result of being the lesser man over 12 rounds.

Holyfield lost a narrow decision to Moorer despite fighting through a heart defect. Woefully below par physically, Evander still managed to floor Moorer and, as Chris stated, would have escaped with his titles had the fight been scored correctly. Holyfield would later avenge the loss in emphatic fashion - stopping Moorer in a master class (during which he dropped him umpteen times).

Lewis went out like a goon against Oliver goddam McCall - a guy FRANK BRUNO managed to beat. And in the rematch he won by default with an insipid performance after McCall -- high as a kite -- blew a gasket.

We're talking apples and oranges here.

Holmes got dropped - got up and won. Holyfield, Frazier, Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey - you name them. Lewis got dropped twice and went out like a lamb.

Can half see where you're coming from, HH, but the bottom line for me is that, ultimately, Moorer was simply a better boxer than both Rahman and McCall. Those losses are usually seen as pretty ignominious ones for Lewis - don't think anyone really sees Moorer as a cause for outright shame and embarrassment on Holyfield's part, in contrast.

See, I don't particularly like it when lines like "This is Heavyweight boxing, what happened to Lewis could have happened to any of the greats" get offered up as a way of explaining away Lewis' defeats. It almost suggests that Lewis was just unlucky to lose those fights, or something. Fact is, it didn't happen to any of the other elite Heavyweight greats in or around their championship primes - it happened to Lewis. And he's the only one it happened to, more to the point.

He may not have been second best to McCall (I) and Rahman (I) over a full twelve rounds like Holyfield was first time out against Moorer, but at the end of the day he was still second best, however you look at it.

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:Can't for the life of me see how this list could be assembled. No idea how Walcott and Charles are so high, just can't see what they done at heavyweight to be in a top 10. Also if someone is going to rate them that highly surely Marciano going 4-0 against a pair of top 10 all timers would make him go a fair bit higher himself and certainly above Johnson who has no opponents in the same list of top 10 greats.

I always feel history looks back kindly on Joe Frazier as well. I'm not sure how there is always so much daylight between him and Norton. Both 1-2 with Ali (although most people think Norton got the short end of the stick there), both got splattered by Foreman, twice in Fraziers case. Fraziers run between 67-73 rightly puts him ahead but I really don't think there is anyone there who Norton doesn't beat as well other than a younger Ali which like the other fights would be a real close one. It's always been an anomaly to me that Frazier breaks a lot of top 10's and Norton is usually an after thought around the 25-30 area.

Frazier is usually underrated -- a heavyweight phenom. He owns the greatest win in heavyweight hisory in it's greatest fight, ruled during the division's strongest stretch and beat the likes of Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis and Machen along with Ali.  

Far too easy to say "he went 1-2" with Ali but look at what he did in those fights. Those fights and those performances alone are worth an entire career of Klitschko dry humping.

You're greatly exaggerating Frazier's reign. He was the best of the rest until he beat Ali, then he became the best heavyweight in the world, from then his reign was 2 fights against nobodies until Foreman splatted him in two rounds. His win against Ali was epic and his fights before then are very good wins but to say he ruled during the divisions strongest stretch just isn't true. Foreman and Norton hit the world seen in the early seventies with Frazier and Ali still active as well, that is the divisions strongest stretch and Frazier did not rule.

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:Can't for the life of me see how this list could be assembled. No idea how Walcott and Charles are so high, just can't see what they done at heavyweight to be in a top 10. Also if someone is going to rate them that highly surely Marciano going 4-0 against a pair of top 10 all timers would make him go a fair bit higher himself and certainly above Johnson who has no opponents in the same list of top 10 greats.

I always feel history looks back kindly on Joe Frazier as well. I'm not sure how there is always so much daylight between him and Norton. Both 1-2 with Ali (although most people think Norton got the short end of the stick there), both got splattered by Foreman, twice in Fraziers case. Fraziers run between 67-73 rightly puts him ahead but I really don't think there is anyone there who Norton doesn't beat as well other than a younger Ali which like the other fights would be a real close one. It's always been an anomaly to me that Frazier breaks a lot of top 10's and Norton is usually an after thought around the 25-30 area.

Frazier is usually underrated -- a heavyweight phenom. He owns the greatest win in heavyweight hisory in it's greatest fight, ruled during the division's strongest stretch and beat the likes of Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis and Machen along with Ali.  

Far too easy to say "he went 1-2" with Ali but look at what he did in those fights. Those fights and those performances alone are worth an entire career of Klitschko dry humping.

You're greatly exaggerating Frazier's reign. He was the best of the rest until he beat Ali, then he became the best heavyweight in the world, from then his reign was 2 fights against nobodies until Foreman splatted him in two rounds. His win against Ali was epic and his fights before then are very good wins but to say he ruled during the divisions strongest stretch just isn't true. Foreman and Norton hit the world seen in the early seventies with Frazier and Ali still active as well, that is the divisions strongest stretch and Frazier did not rule.

Frazier bossed the division from 1970-73. Last time I checked that was the early 70s.

My tuppence worth.
Lennox Lewis-when are people going to give him a break over the Rahman fight.He wasn't the first heavyweight to lose a fight to average opposition.
Jack Johnson-couldn't see him lasting against any of the decent 70s heavies, including Norton.
Jeffries-definitely an oversight.
Marciano-he fails the "record" criteria for me,big time.Look again at who he fought,and his resume as a reigning champion is not that long.
Still no Gene Tunney.....!

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:Can't for the life of me see how this list could be assembled. No idea how Walcott and Charles are so high, just can't see what they done at heavyweight to be in a top 10. Also if someone is going to rate them that highly surely Marciano going 4-0 against a pair of top 10 all timers would make him go a fair bit higher himself and certainly above Johnson who has no opponents in the same list of top 10 greats.

I always feel history looks back kindly on Joe Frazier as well. I'm not sure how there is always so much daylight between him and Norton. Both 1-2 with Ali (although most people think Norton got the short end of the stick there), both got splattered by Foreman, twice in Fraziers case. Fraziers run between 67-73 rightly puts him ahead but I really don't think there is anyone there who Norton doesn't beat as well other than a younger Ali which like the other fights would be a real close one. It's always been an anomaly to me that Frazier breaks a lot of top 10's and Norton is usually an after thought around the 25-30 area.

Frazier is usually underrated -- a heavyweight phenom. He owns the greatest win in heavyweight hisory in it's greatest fight, ruled during the division's strongest stretch and beat the likes of Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis and Machen along with Ali.  

Far too easy to say "he went 1-2" with Ali but look at what he did in those fights. Those fights and those performances alone are worth an entire career of Klitschko dry humping.

You're greatly exaggerating Frazier's reign. He was the best of the rest until he beat Ali, then he became the best heavyweight in the world, from then his reign was 2 fights against nobodies until Foreman splatted him in two rounds. His win against Ali was epic and his fights before then are very good wins but to say he ruled during the divisions strongest stretch just isn't true. Foreman and Norton hit the world seen in the early seventies with Frazier and Ali still active as well, that is the divisions strongest stretch and Frazier did not rule.

Frazier bossed the division from 1970-73. Last time I checked that was the early 70s.

If you count beating Terry Daniels and Ron Stander as bossing the golden age of heavyweight boxing then so be it.

He beat Ali, then did nothing of note until getting smashed by Foreman in 73. From then on you had the 4 of them active on the world scene and Frazier going 0-4 with the greats. I just don't see him as being a top 10 heavyweight and couldn't place him too far ahead of Norton.

Do you have ten in mind for a list then, bellchees, or are you just fairly sure that if you did, Frazier wouldn't be in it? Just out of interest, mate.

Like most here it would change daily but I would struggle to place Frazier much inside a top 15, no shame in that really but I would have Norton pretty close behind to. It is a real tough one as beating Ali is without doubt won of the divisions best wins in its history and a great performance but I just cant look past getting bounced around by Foreman twice so comfortably, that shouldn't happen to all time greats and also his lack of achievement after 1971 in what should have been his prime. Maybe it's something I'm missing going back and watching the fights instead of being around for them when they happened.

I can see the argument for excluding Frazier from the top 10 and I've done so in the past.

The win in the Fight of the Century and his efforts in the Thrilla elevate his career and without them he starts to fall way down the rankings. I agree with Bellchees that it's an exaggeration to say that Frazier dominated during the Golden Era. Prior to his win over Ali he was still seen as second best and although the win over Ali was spectacularly good, he was taken apart in his next meaningful fight in a way that possibly no other great heavyweight champion has ever been (it wasn't like Foreman caught him with one big punch).

Saying all that, I think he proved himself the best during Ali's exile (a more than decent era) and the performance against Ali in their first fight is possibly the greatest performance by any heavyweight ever. For those reasons, he just about sneaks into my top 10.

I have to go into bat for Joe Frazier here. I feel Joe is being short changed in the same manner Duran often is in “Fabulous Four” debates, due to the fact he came to the party at the end of his prime.
 
Frazier’s heavyweight reign lasted from 1970-73, the high point of which was the Ali win, perhaps the greatest victory in boxing history. That came at a cost; the beating Frazier had to absorb over 15 rounds in order to administer Ali with a bigger one, dramatically shortened his career. This is an age before HGH and magic potions allowed fighters to perform Lazarus-like career revivals.
 
Yank Durham knew it and so matched Joe with Terry Daniels and the ultra-tough Ron Stander. Fighters, like Frazier, who absorb punches in order to work in close don’t last long -- they burn out quickly. In underestimating Foreman, who he was heavily favoured to roll over the top of, he courted disaster yet, even in his darkest hour, Frazier showed his quality. How many heavyweights would have managed to regain their feet from that Foreman onslaught? How many would have kept getting up, kept trying to win and even, when he was a mere shell, after the “Thrilla in Manila” had used him all up, gone back in with Big George? The difference between Frazier and Lewis is that Foreman had to nail Frazier to the canvas to beat him; had he nailed Lewis – who also succumbed to overconfidence – it would likely have been one punch and out.
 
Frazier was at his peak between ’68 and ’73. He was one of the greatest heavyweights to do it and he pulled off the division’s greatest performance against it’s greatest champion. He bested (among others) Jerry Quarry (twice), Oscar Bonavena (twice), Jimmy Ellis (twice), Bob Foster, Buster Mathis, Eddie Machen, Doug Jones and George Chuvalo.
 
Judging him on his numbers against Ali and Foreman misses the point – in the same way judging Duran’s numbers against Hagler, Leonard and Hearns does.

superflyweight wrote:I can see the argument for excluding Frazier from the top 10 and I've done so in the past.  

The win in the Fight of the Century and his efforts in the Thrilla elevate his career and without them he starts to fall way down the rankings.  I agree with Bellchees that it's an exaggeration to say that Frazier dominated during the Golden Era.  Prior to his win over Ali he was still seen as second best and although the win over Ali was spectacularly good, he was taken apart in his next meaningful fight in a way that possibly no other great heavyweight champion has ever been (it wasn't like Foreman caught him with one big punch).

Saying all that, I think he proved himself the best during Ali's exile (a more than decent era) and the performance against Ali in their first fight is possibly the greatest performance by any heavyweight ever.  For those reasons, he just about sneaks into my top 10.  

How many other great heavyweights have encountered another -- and one as nuclear as Foreman?

Yet there are folk who'll place Lewis ahead of him, despite the fact he never matched Frazier's high points and was bombed out by a pair of average fighters -- with one punch.

Frazier ruled during the division's golden era, as did Ali and Foreman. That's why all three belong in the top ten.

When I do this list I have around seven or eight guys who are in there and tend not to be under threat. They can move around the order of the place but are always in the top ten. I then have a whole range of guys who duke it out for the last few places. Frazier is one of those guys along with the likes of Lewis, Tunney, Liston and Tyson. At the minute Frazier and Lewis tend to get the nod, of the two Frazier is the guy I feel more content in saying he is a lock.

As others have said Ali 1 stands favourable comparison with any fight you would care to mention in the division history, and if you are going to get smacked around by anyone doing it against big George is more forgivable than doing it to McCall or Rahman.

Wherever one puts Frazier (I have him on the cusp of the ten, as it happens), I find the assertion that he wasn't a great deal better than Norton to be way off base. His list of victims has already been given due attention - in the absence of Ali, he was the man in the heavyweight division for five years, fighting and beating all-comers.

The younger Norton managed to come a spectacular cropper against Garcia, so I see it as in no way certain that Ken would have been able to overcome the same opposition through which Joe cut such a swathe in the late 60s. Norton was certainly incapable of touching the heights that Joe reached against Ali; that shouldn't necessarily count against him - few are. No man, however, as palpably scared as Norton was whenever he fought a puncher, deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as someone like Frazier. Joe may have been twice caned by Foreman, but by God, he never quailed before him. Look at Ken's face before the Foreman fight, watch his performance, which essentially involved cupping his gloves around his ears, and then tell me that he belongs in the same parish as Joe. Not likely.

As for the rest, everyone else has said it all - wouldn't have Ezz or Joe in any top ten list of heavyweights. Mind you, and with due deference to Rodders, I wouldn't include Dempsey either. Very thin body of work for such a celebrated fighter. Tyson would be in my ten and Lennox would probably have to be in at the lower end as well, but there's a fair distance between the top six or seven and the rest and an even more seismic gap remains between the top two and everyone else.

Well since it is a pet subject of mine and only Chris has stuck his head above the parapet thus far, here is my top ten.

1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Holmes
4 Jeffries
5 Johnson
6 Foreman
7 Dempsey
8 Marciano
9 Frazier
10 Lewis.

Very well, Jeff, if you're going to use the tactics of shaming me into it:

1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Foreman 4) Holmes 5) Johnson 6) Jeffries 7) Marciano 8) Tyson 9) Frazier 10) Lewis. Could easily swap Lewis for Holyfield on another day, or if I'm having amnesia about his performances against Ali, for Liston. In fact, without those two fights, Liston probably ranks third all time, but that's probably one 'if' too many.

It is interesting how much Dempsey’s stock seems to have drifted over recent years. Whilst I can half see the argument about his level of opposition I still struggle to dismiss the opinions of those who saw him live. Almost to a man those fortunate enough to see him live have nothing but reverence about his abilities. I am also of the opinion that his opposition was nowhere near as bad as portrayed. Reasonable shout to say most were stronger at lower weights but certainly in the likes of Carpentier they had done some work at heavy to justify them being in there.

As we have said countless times once you get past the top two arguments can be made across the board but genuine shock to see Dempsey outside of so many top tens.

Well as you know, Jeff, I'm one of the sterner critics of Dempsey on here, so am probably opening myself up to some wrath from you here (and Rodney as well of course).

Have already offered reasons as to why Dempsey doesn't crack my top ten on the previous page; in short, a pretty brief peak at the highest level (the kind of thing which Tyson gets trashed for in comparison, for instance), the fact that he was an inactive champion, that none of his victims were really stand out Heavyweights etc.

But in direct comparison to your points, well first off I can see what you're saying when you talk about how many old timers who saw Dempsey in action seemed to be in total awe of him and his performances; as the likes of you and Windy back in the day providing ample proof that, up until the sixties, all-time lists which placed Dempsey above Louis (more or less unheard of now) were pretty common, and seeing him right at the very top wasn't out of the ordinary, either - he was voted the greatest fighter of the past 50 years by the Associated Press in 1950 as well, of course.

But of course, those who did see him in the flesh were judging him against the standards set either before or not that long after him, using the old law of probability. Up until 1970 or so (using that as a rough cut off point, given that anyone who had seem him up close and personal would likely be pretty long in the tooth by that stage), Dempsey would certainly have been right in that top bracket, but since then we've had Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis and the Klitschko brothers. Now obviously some of those names have better claims to being higher than Dempsey than others do, but my point is that there are four or five from that group alone with good claims to being higher than him.

So when you add those names to what came before that cut off point (Jeffries, Johnson, Louis, Marciano and Ali, all of them at the very least in the same bracket, give or take, as Jack) then I think it's pretty understandable that the nailed-on top three / five spots Dempsey was given up until 1970 or so has gradually become a hard struggle just to edge a top ten berth in 2014 for so many.

Those who saw and enthused over Dempsey in his fighting prime basically had less outstanding Heavyweights to compare him with is what I'm trying to say, in a very long-winded manner!

Also, I can't help but feel that, much like Lewis these days, general disillusionment with the Heavyweight division in the decade or so after Dempsey's departure left a few people retrospectively skewing their views on him and how great he was. As I said to Rodney, it looks to me as if a few of Dempsey's performances in his prime have only become known as outstanding ones in the years which followed (Carpentier, Gibbons etc).

Now anyone who reads anything I write on the subject of Heavies will know that if there's one person on here whose knowledge I'll yield to on the subject of the division, it's you Rowley, so I'll say early that what I'm about to state on this issue has come almost totally from a mix of the Tunney biography by Cavanaugh (also covers Dempsey in decent depth), a few extracts from Dempsey's own autobiography and also the collective archiving efforts of Gilbert Odd, Harry Mullan and Bob Mee, as well as watching the actual fights themselves, of course - pretty minimal when compared to your reading on these particular bouts, I'm sure.

But if Cavanaugh and the aforementioned UK trio are to be believed, Dempsey left the ring to a chorus of jeers and boos for his performance in that dull bout against Gibbons (mind you, the fact that the town was left broke from staging it wouldn't have helped!) and many opined after Carptentier beforehand that a bigger, better and genuine Heavyweight would have finished Jack off when he was stunned early on. Common knowledge, of course, that with the draft-dodger tag still hanging over him, even many Americans were pulling for the War hero Carptentier in that one.

Hard to tell from this point in history how wide-spread these views were, but there were some pretty disparaging remarks made in the boxing press about Dempsey once he'd lost the title to Tunney, too. James Dawson in the New York Times, for example, wrote, "In defeat, Dempsey was revealed as an overrated fighter, a man who was good, but never great." Damon Runyon wrote, "Dempsey was so badly outboxed and outclassed that he looked more like a third-rater than one of the greatest champions that ever lived."

Seems to me, at least to some extent, that as boxing fell from a golden age in the roaring twenties to a pass-the-parcel game involving the Heavyweight title in the rough, tough years of the Depression, many observers suddenly got swept away in the nostalgia and started pining over the now retired Dempsey, thus raising his stock in retrospect a little. As I said, I feel a similar thing has happened to some degree with Lewis over the past few years as people tire of seeing the Klitschkos dominating in a no frills manner against sometimes out of condition oafs who turn up to get beaten and then disappear back in to obscurity.

Be it based on how he matches up to other Heavyweight greats, who he beat, his overall consistency as champion etc, I just don't personally feel there's anything truly 'elite' about Dempsey, aside from his pulling power at the box office.

As always Chris you make a wonderfully compelling argument. Where I think you have certainly hit the nail on the head is how the period when Dempsey arrived helped his standing. He immediately followed the wildly unpopular Johnson and the better than given credit for but also dull and inactive Willard and then Tunney’s brief reign aside preceded a period of unmitigating dross where even Da Preem managed to find himself as one of the better heavyweights in the world! Talk about a rose amongst the thorns.

Am not about to make out that Dempsey’s opponents as champion were of the top tier, as I mentioned previously most had done their better work at lower weights, but I do think when you add them to some of his pre title opponents such as Fulton, Morris, Brennan and Levinsky they represent a decent old set and a good variety of sizes and styles, all of which were dealt with in something approaching decisive style.

Would guess if we were to do things on a completely objective and coldly analytical manner there is a reasonable argument for Dempsey being outside the top ten, however as I argued on the hall of fame thread sport sometimes fighters transcend the sport in such a manner that this will and probably should influence how they are rated. Dempsey for me is one of those guys. Also as arguments can be made for anyone outside of the top two being in or out of the top ten I am happy enough to make a few concessions for Dempsey and keep him in there.

-

Fair points, Jeff. As I said, I can see why someone would put Dempsey inside a top ten, he just doesn't quite do it for me, though. I'm a massive fan of him as a historical fighter, mind you.

Interestingly, this is what Ray Arcel said about Dempsey. Should be noted that Arcel never seemed to display any bias to certain eras either, especially not his own, given that he happily stated that he felt Duran was a better fighter than Benny Leonard (obviously, he saw the pair of them up close and personal like absolutely nobody else ever did) and also that Nicolino Locche was a cleverer and better defender than Willie Pep.

"Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him—without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe—I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given—you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point—at his best he didn’t have any."

That's the thing about these kind of debates, I guess. See, from my point of view, I don't understand how anyone could say some of the stuff in the above quote with a straight face or with so much conviction. And yet, it's being said by a man who knows the fight game just about as well as anyone who has ever lived, and who is often cited as THE tip-top trainer across all eras.

I think I might have to lock this thread soon.

This is a boxing forum, you should be talking about Mayweather or Haye only surely?

Championship Fighting: Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense by Jack Dempsey.


Says it all for me. Boxing had never seen anything like him before.

I can understand per Chris, Captain why Dempsey may not make a top 10, always creates great debate.

For me I think its fair to say that Jack Dempsey made a reasonable contribution to the sport of boxing during a time when there wasn't much going on. Jim Jeffries and Jack Johnson had basically gone the way of the dinosaur.

Can we rate Dempsey highly as a champion? I think it depends on what the individual critic views as the most pertinant criteria. Dempsey certainly brought a great deal to the sport, and arguably revived it during a time when the game was in trouble. On the otherhand, how heavily does his conduct as champion weigh into the picture? Jeff covered his pre title opponents earlier and the Sharkey win was an exceptional one, remember Jimmy Stuart describing Sharkey the best heavyweight in the world from the neck downwards. As well documented I blast Mayweather for not facing Pacquaio, so why don't I blast Dempsey for not facing Wills? The whole myth of reluctance by Dempsey is incorrect , Jack had signed to fight Wills at one point however the contract was terminated, Jeff might know more on the reasons for this.
During Dempsey's tenure as heavyweight champion, ratings were not quite as organised ( i say this hesitantly) they are today, and I have even heard claims that they were virtually non-existant. The best fighters in the world were generally determined by public opinion, not such a bad thing probably now considering the inept bodies of today.

A very acceptable resume, revived the fight game and took boxing to a new level , deserves a top 10 place for me , I wouldn't have him below Marciano mind you Jeff, but that's another for another topic.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote: Jack had signed to fight Wills at one point however the contract was terminated, Jeff might know more on the reasons for this.

Happy to oblige Rodders, as most of us know Rickard was pretty reluctant to make the Dempsey Wills fight as he had bitter memories of the Johnson Jeffries fight and the associated fallout from that and did not want the hassle or the again. Towards the end of Dempsey’s career his relationship and dealings with Rickard started to break down or cool off and he was offered the Wills fight by rival promoter Floyd Fitzsimmons, Dempsey and Wills signed, however as is standard in contracts Fitzsimmons was obliged to pay Dempsey a portion of his purse in advance as a show of good faith with the understanding that was this not paid it voided the contract. To cut a long story short Fitzsimmons failed to pay on time and so Dempsey walked away.

When people discuss this matter they really need to understand how omnipotent Rickard was in the world of boxing promoting back then, his grip on the sport comfortably outstripped anything King, Arum or GBP have been able to boast in living memory, is not an exaggeration that for a fight of this size and purse if Rickard was not on board it was not going to get made, unfortunately for Wills Tex was not on board.

Nice one Jeff thanks, what i find interesting While Wills was undoubtedly seen as a contender for Dempsey, I have not found that much media interest in matching him for the title when Willard was champion.

The papers seem to talk about Fulton, Moriss, Dillon and Levinsky as the contenders tochallenge Willard, no mention of Harry. Be interesting if it weren't for the colour bar who'd be first to the title ?

Cheers Rodders

Think that was a consequence of Johnson. The efforts made to displace Johnson with a white champion are news to nobody, can only guess after seven years of trying the powers that be were in no rush to give another black fighter their opportunity.

Think by the time Dempsey came around two things had happened, firstly Wills had done enough to distinguish himself as head and shoulders above the chasing pack and whilst sports fans may be racist or prejudiced they tend to have a sense of fair play and so appreciated that Wills deserved his shot, even if that appreciation was grudging. Secondly Dempsey was perceived as so dominant and unbeatable people want to see him in a competitive fight and if the price to see that was him defending against a black guy most are willing to accept that.

Hit the nail on the head Jeff, it's a real shame as if Wills got his chance and managed to lift the crown before Dempsey & without the colour bar he would undoubtedly have been more judicious in choosing his fights. Having beaten Langford twice or gone 2-1 against him, he would have left it at that, and gone after weaker contenders who would enhance his title credentials.

What is very telling, is the way that some white contenders got dragged into the whole black dynamite meat grinder. I read guys like Sandy Ferguson was viewed by many as the heir to Jeffries throne, had arguably bested Mavin Hart, then his gambling problems forced him to take fights with a rampant Johnson he was soon seen as a second ratter.

Cheers Rodders