Harry Wills! Is he better than Langford & others?

Rspen46 · 07-08-2013, 11:34 PM

Why is Harry Wills rated an 11 & Mcvey & Jeannette both 12's & Langford a 13, when he beat langford at least 10x & I think he holds the advantage over the other 2.

But for some reason, in my Universe, Wills comes out on top the higher pct. of times in 100 bouts with each, but that still does not explain him being an 11 & in most items I can find to read, all 3 are always considered higher in all time rankings than Wills.

bob_bask · 07-09-2013, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rspen46

Why is Harry Wills rated an 11 & Mcvey & Jeannette both 12's & Langford a 13, when he beat langford at least 10x & I think he holds the advantage over the other 2.

Assume they were rated when considered at their "prime" - the peak of their abilities in that division.

Langford and Wills first tangled in 1914. Langford was 31, with 116 bouts under his belt. Wills by contrast was 25, with 14 bouts under his belt.

Maybe why their head-to-heads do not directly relate to ratings.

Quote:

But for some reason, in my Universe, Wills comes out on top the higher pct. of times in 100 bouts with each, but that still does not explain him being an 11 & in most items I can find to read, all 3 are always considered higher in all time rankings than Wills.

The IBRO has Langford #15 and Wills #18.

Lee · 07-09-2013, 09:57 AM

Langford was also fighting blind in one eye for the majority of their fights and was still just a blown up middleweight, while Wills was a legitimate HW. Langford was also drinking more and frequently went into fights in less than top condition as he reached the later years of his career.

Matched in their primes Langford was the better fighter, even fighting up in weight, though it is close. Of the 4 I would think McVea might actually be overrated slightly. He did fare well against a smaller Langford when he could keep him at bay, but often wilted in their fights when Langford was able to work on the inside. I would put McVea at 11 with Wills and leave Langford and Jeannette as is.

Rspen46 · 08-17-2015, 12:45 AM

I still think Langford was overrated as a HW, he was too dam small or short, I saw any HW in the 25 beats him, MW or around there is his best weight based on height.
Tyson, Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Shavers, Dempsey, Marciano bombs him out of the ring, the Taller, boxers, Lewis, Ali, Holmes, Louis, Both Klitchhskos, all beat him, and I would give Ron Lyle a good shot also, and I doubt he could be J. Quarry, Schmeling, and maybe others Like Patterson, Norton, could would have a good shot, I just can't see such a short HW have a shot at the top 10 for sure, most likely not top15 and dam lucky if he could have beaten the top 20 or 25, but Wills beat him because he was bigger and a better Ring General and boxer, 25 and 31 both were near Prime, if you have to make excuses for a fighter, then he should never have been in the conversation to begin with, he drank, he fought with 1 eye, he this and he that, too many excuses, they can be found for almost anyone that's fought,.

07-08-2013, 11:34 PM	#1
Rspen46 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 86	Harry Wills! Is he better than Langford & others? Why is Harry Wills rated an 11 & Mcvey & Jeannette both 12's & Langford a 13, when he beat langford at least 10x & I think he holds the advantage over the other 2. But for some reason, in my Universe, Wills comes out on top the higher pct. of times in 100 bouts with each, but that still does not explain him being an 11 & in most items I can find to read, all 3 are always considered higher in all time rankings than Wills.

07-09-2013, 09:57 AM	#3
Lee Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The Scorched Desert Posts: 4,650	Langford was also fighting blind in one eye for the majority of their fights and was still just a blown up middleweight, while Wills was a legitimate HW. Langford was also drinking more and frequently went into fights in less than top condition as he reached the later years of his career. Matched in their primes Langford was the better fighter, even fighting up in weight, though it is close. Of the 4 I would think McVea might actually be overrated slightly. He did fare well against a smaller Langford when he could keep him at bay, but often wilted in their fights when Langford was able to work on the inside. I would put McVea at 11 with Wills and leave Langford and Jeannette as is.

08-17-2015, 12:45 AM	#4
Rspen46 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 86	I still think Langford was overrated as a HW, he was too dam small or short, I saw any HW in the 25 beats him, MW or around there is his best weight based on height. Tyson, Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Shavers, Dempsey, Marciano bombs him out of the ring, the Taller, boxers, Lewis, Ali, Holmes, Louis, Both Klitchhskos, all beat him, and I would give Ron Lyle a good shot also, and I doubt he could be J. Quarry, Schmeling, and maybe others Like Patterson, Norton, could would have a good shot, I just can't see such a short HW have a shot at the top 10 for sure, most likely not top15 and dam lucky if he could have beaten the top 20 or 25, but Wills beat him because he was bigger and a better Ring General and boxer, 25 and 31 both were near Prime, if you have to make excuses for a fighter, then he should never have been in the conversation to begin with, he drank, he fought with 1 eye, he this and he that, too many excuses, they can be found for almost anyone that's fought,.