View Full Version : Dempsey willing to fight in 1931...

06-07-2006, 01:30 PM

06-07-2006, 01:56 PM

06-07-2006, 02:07 PM
Who are the sports writers in that picture.

06-07-2006, 04:44 PM
Too little too late for a guy who made a career as champion ducking the most worthy contenders for his title.

06-07-2006, 04:48 PM

you sure know how to stir the pot.

06-08-2006, 12:01 AM
Sharkey, who kicked the shit out of Wills? Oh, he did fight him, didn't he? Maybe Uzcudun, who kicked the shit out of Wills. Yeah, that's it, he ducked Paulino Uzcudun. I forgot that one. PeteLeo.

06-08-2006, 12:42 AM
Lets see, didnt Sharkey and Uzcudan beat Wills after Dempsey had lost a one sided fight to Tunney? Hmmm. Wasnt that fight in 1926? SEVEN years after Dempsey had won the championship when Wills was already considered his top opponent??? Didnt Dempsey lose every round of his fight with Sharkey before having to foul the Boston man in order to get a cheap shot? And thats SHARKEY not exactly an unbeatable superman....

06-08-2006, 01:36 AM
Nope, Dempsey did not lose "every round" of the Sharkey fight and was, in fact, making up ground at the time of the KO. His body attack was giving Jack S. a real gut check, and -- one last time -- how in the world do you call it a "cheap shot"? You're in the ring, you look with pleading eyes to the ref and don't protect yourself, and you get the crap knocked out of you by one of the best left hookers in the history of the human race. Whose fault is that? There was no stop in the action called by the official, the fight was frigging ON. You might as well call the right hand from Jackson that drilled to the back of Norris' skull through his forehead a "cheap shot," since Terry clearly didn't see it coming.
Plus, Dempsey easily outpointed Gibbons, who tried unsuccessfully to get in the ring with the reluctant "top opponent" Wills, only to be turned down because Harry was content to whine about being "avoided" rather than secure his position against solid contenders.
Gosh, it must really give you Dempsey haters ulcers that his legacy continues to thrive after eighty-plus years and his name still conjures visions of fistic glory even in the minds of non-fans. Life ain't fair sometimes, is it? PeteLeo.

06-09-2006, 07:06 AM
good relpy--anyhow wills desvered his attempt to fight dempsey only he would have been squashed as most know; but hell, EVERYBODY wanted a a big payday in losing efforts against the worlds greates drawing card. life can be a tough deal--i just hope wills wasnt whining about it years later-gotta move on.

Cojimar 1945
06-09-2006, 01:17 PM
Dempsey's legacy is hurt by the fact that he did not face Wills but he did face a number of other worthy opponnents. A fight certainly would have been interesting.

Cojimar 1945
06-09-2006, 01:19 PM
PeteLeo is correct that Dempsey never fought Uzcuden but I don't see how that is relevant. Dempsey had lost his title by the time Uzcuden was a major player.

06-09-2006, 04:37 PM
There was just a little smidgen of sarcasm/needling in the Sharkey and Uzcudun remarks on my part. It tickles me how some folks will worry a non-issue like this to death. But, hell, I do the same with other topics. It's an imperfect world and I'm certainly not its outstanding resident. PeteLeo.

06-09-2006, 04:42 PM
Thats funny, a hw champ ducking his top contender for 7 years is a "non-issue"

Roberto Aqui
06-09-2006, 10:59 PM
Thats funny, a hw champ ducking his top contender for 7 years is a "non-issue"

Do you own a duck farm or are you just goosing the Dempsey era for a little turkey talk?

Cojimar 1945
06-09-2006, 11:54 PM
PeteLeo, how do you see the fight going had it taken place?

06-10-2006, 12:41 AM
If both guys were at the best they could have been during that period of time (with Wills a bit older and somewhat more worn down), pretty much the same as Uzcudun-Wills, though it may have lasted until the middle rounds. Many Dempsey bashers make very much of Jack's admission in his several "autobiographies" that he was intmidated by Sam Langford, but they uniformly forget/dismiss/deny that in those same books Dempsey stated quite clearly that he felt certain he would have been able to whip Harry rather handily and wished he had proven it in the ring. Certainly in matching their performances against common opponents (especially Firpo), there seemed to be a good-sized gap in power and viciousness by the mid-point of Dempsey's reign. But it's a fun "what if?" question in a sport that thrives on such things. PeteLeo.

HE Grant
06-10-2006, 08:56 AM
Same old story here, you criticize Dempsey on legitimate points and you become a Dempsey hater. I happen to love Dempsey but I agree with much of bodyblows points simply because they are true.

Dempsey's best win to me might have been against Sharkey. First off he was fighting against an extremely good, real heavyweight that was in his prime. Dempsey was clearly past his own. He lost almost all of the early rounds but was coming on as Sharkey was beginning to tire. He did flatten Sharkey with a great one punch KO. To me this was a bigger win than against an old, inactive Willard or a tough , wild , under rated but inexperienced Firpo...

Wills lost to Sharket at 37, Uz at 38...no doubt he was in his prime PeteLeo (notice, all one word).

06-10-2006, 12:37 PM
But Dempsey was in HIS prime for the two Tunney bouts -- isn't that the way that the bashers' anthem goes?

All the excuses in the world won't erase the facts that Wills turned down matches against guys Dempsey fought and did significantly poorer against the most important of their common opponents. Carry the banner (and the torch) for Harry as long as you want -- it's your time and effort --, but I fear that you folks are simply flickering fireflies in a fading campaign.

One last thing, re "notice, all one word": I'll admit, you've left me flummoxed once again. Are you talking about my signature? "Pete Leo" doesn't bother me at all, nor do "Pete," "Leo," or "Melonhead." "Assbite" is treading a fine line, though. PeteWhoever.

06-10-2006, 01:53 PM
a couple of imortant things this discussion reflects imo:

the aura of dempsey just won't go away.... if anything the consistent & well articulated, in some cases, flaying away at his legend reflects that this guys chapt in boxing history still carries a big shadow over the sport.... whether you loved, hated, were let down or respected him... the guy still sparks a strong nerve so many years later...

when it comes to just lore (wh/ is certainly part of the fuel that keeps boxing going) this guys candle illuminates a larger glow then even sullivan or johnson... brighter then all except ali & louis who hold par... that in itself is interesting since he didnt defend the belt that much ... it reflects uniuqe american variables that transcend the sport into realms of culture, history, manhood & race relations... if anything, it fascinates & thats good for the sport... for, a more powerful heritage & history, provides more hope that the present sport can build itself up again...

lastly, it also begs for the need for more research to be done before its too late... I say that b/c the last people living who can remember that era are at their youngest 90yrs old... I'm not a professional writer, but I do know that several of you that post and read this board are.... my gut tells me there are still people walking around w/ sound minds who know information that hasnt been revealed yet about that era...

furthermore, there is certainly known info that can be given even more illumination....

finally, there is also a generation of people who were the children of that nearly vanished generation who are now in their 70's-80's who also had vital information handed down to them... w/in a decade or so if this information isnt unearthed it will be gone forever... press clipping can only tell so much.. kahn's book was good in a romantic retrospect, but it was thin on new details... I really hope those who have the professional access can undig that last vital info that is out there before its too late.

Kid Achilles
06-11-2006, 01:18 PM
Great post HandToMouth. I agree.

06-11-2006, 02:19 PM
dempsey as a young fighter was intimated by langford- later on it was respect- i seriouslu dobt dempsey feared anyone and privately, and at times publically, he sincerely felt he could have whipped anyman who ever lived. thats a mindset and hard worn serious observation of ones own skills that has to be there. thats about it .

06-11-2006, 02:26 PM
Shortly after boxing had been legalized in California (1925) L.A. Promoter Dick Donald announced a projected match, outdoors, pitting Harry Wills vs George Godfrey "for the colored heavyweight championship of the world". Dick claimed to have both principals in agreement. The date was to be Sept. 7th, Labor Day.

The bout never took place even though Godfrey went on to box outdoors, in southern California, Sept. 29th, against a familiar foe, Martin Burke. Local fans were left to ponder just which principal turned down Donald's initial offer.

It was a time of deliberate obstruction in California. Jack Doyle, who put on the Godfrey show, had gotten an L.A. Police okay to promote the fight at still under construction Wrigley Field. When that approval was rescinded by the City Council, Doyle simply moved his show to the ball park adjacent to his Vernon arena and the bout went on as scheduled, even as Wrigley Field opened that very day to Pacific Coast baseball play.

hap navarro

06-11-2006, 02:55 PM
wish that fight happened,good post

HE Grant
06-11-2006, 06:16 PM
There is little doubt that Wills and his management took the wrong strategy in chasing Dempsey...Wills team , after a long time, choose to play it a bit safe. Wills was already 33 or so in 1923 and they did not want to take every unnecessary chance...they either thought they had a fight in the bag several times that fell through or were naive or both...Wills must have thought that he was playing a remotely fair game..otherwise there is no excuse for him not fighting everyone and forcing a fight...sitting back those last few years, even though he was far more active than Dempsey, did not help his case...

I personally feel his story is one of the most tragic (excluding deaths) in boxing history (ring only) .. as a huge fan of Dempsey, I can never get past this fact and it forever leaves an asterisk on Dempsey to me...

Roberto Aqui
06-11-2006, 06:40 PM
I personally feel his story is one of the most tragic (excluding deaths) in boxing history (ring only) .. as a huge fan of Dempsey, I can never get past this fact and it forever leaves an asterisk on Dempsey to me...

It certainly leaves us stained in your crocodile tears.

06-12-2006, 07:06 AM
i dont. he sparred with every other colored heay champ. i dont know of any serious historians who are so hung up about it in a ring sense.