Was Wills better than McVea, Jeannette or Langford?

There were actually two films shot of this fight from opposite angles. Both films were edited to remove portion where Dempsey is assisted back in to the ring.

One film was shot for domestic release and the other was filmed for international audiences.

Rickard's story that the film was edited because a newspaper man's head got in the way at the crucial moment doesnt hold water because the film being shot on the opposite side of the arena was also edited in the exact same place.

It also is unlikely that anyones head would get in the way because those films were shot from special platforms that sat above height of the closest standing audience member.

You can watch that film and throughout every knockdown as the audience becomes excited they jump up, not once does anyones head even come close to being in the frame but at that exact moment, the one that newspapermen saw where Dempsey was assisted into the ring, the film is cut. Highly suspicious.

 

The clarification that Fleischer sought and got was this, a change in the wording from.

"failure to go to a neutral corner MAY result in the referee stopping the bout until the standing fighter complies".
After the Dempsey /Firo fight this was amended to, "WILL stop the count".

Pretty important as it may have cost Dempsey the title against Tunney in their second fight. Against Firpo, Dempsey was on his feet , back in the ring , in fighting mode ,at the count of 9 .
The 2 writers ,and 1 judge that he collided with when he fell, stated they were acting out of self preservation rather than any desire to assist Dempsey.
Dempsey struck out at Jack Lawrence,whose typewriter he landed on, tearing open his rectum,and kicked judge Kid McPartland in the eye, as he flailed around ,trying to regain his equilibrium.

 

There was no amiguity about the rule which is why I posted Skelly's topical comment on the rule being adopted as he wrote it in 1920. He clearly understood it.

Show me where Nat Fleischer had the rule changed. You are arguing ambiguity based on semantics because of the usage of the word "MAY" but it was clearly understood at the time what it meant.

It is not disputed that the rule stated that a fighter had to go to the neutral corner, Dempsey did not. The argument that Dempsey broke the rule has nothing to do with the referees count but Dempsey's actions. Dempsey violated that rule, along with several others. Thats the point.

Dempsey clearly understood it because after the first four knockdowns he goes to a neutral corner. Then Firpo drops him and when Dempsey realizes he might be in for a fight stands over Firpo on the next knockdown, hits him while he rises, knocks him down, and then literally steps over his fallen body and stands over him. As Firpo rises Dempsey cocks his fist to hit him again but Firpo runs to get out of the way.

As is shown in the articles of the fight the referee instructed them on the rule prior to the bout so whether Nat Fleischer understood it (or ever had any effect on its wording which I doubt) is besides the point.

When Dempsey was back in the ring is not the issue, the issue is whether he was assisted (through self preservation or not) because thats contrary to the rules as well.

As the Tunney, Sharkey, and Firpo fights show, when Dempsey was afraid he might be in for a tough night or a loss, he was willing to ignore the rules and do what he could get away with to win.

 

What you doubt means jack **** to me . Dempsey went to a neutral corner but not the the farthest neutral corner.
You seem to believe that the nuetral corner rule was universal ,it was not, in fact Dempsey's camp requested it be enforced for the second Tunney fight. If I could be arsed I would try and find the info that would prove Fleischers participation in the rule clarification but I can't.

Your interpretation of Dempsey's intentions is just that your interpretation ,and is thereefore valueless to anyone but your self. To whom I suspect it means not only a very great deal, but takes paramount precedence.

 

I dont care what Dempsey's intentions were. He clearly did not follow the rule in any way, shape, or form so your point is moot. Was there a neutral corner rule? Yes. Did he go to a neutral corner? No. Rule broken.

It was you who said it was vague. It was not as I illustrated.

It was you who said Fleischer got the rule changed because of this fight. Prove it, but again it has no baring on the argument.

It was you who said that the neutral corner was not in effect during the fight:

"...the rule was then clarified to ," in a the event of a knockdown the man scoring it must go to the farthest neutral corner," this was NOT in the rules prior to the fight." -mcvey

As shown, this was a completely incorrect statement by you. This was already in the rules and Fleischer had nothing to do with its inclusion.

It was you who then backtracked and said that "may" was changed to "will" which was it? Because you obviously arent clear on that point. Regardless its a meaningless point because it refers to the referees count, not whether the fighter may or must go to a neutral corner.

It was you who brought up the Tunney fight, which has no baring on this argument. In fact it shows that Dempsey was aware of the neutral corner rule (which some people have said was never used until the Tunney fight), asked for it, and then broke the rule when so far behind on points he needed a KO to win.

He did the exact same thing when he struggled with Bill Brennan in 1920 and finally knocked Brennan down. When Brennan rises Dempsey approaches from behind to finish him off and the fight is waved off by the ref. The neutral corner rule was in effect then as well.

The idea that Dempsey was unfamiliar with the rule is preposterous and just another excuse for Dempsey.

 

Another Dempsey hater.atsch

 

Whenever someone seperates the Dempsey myth from the facts its inevitable that some Dempsey fan calls out "Dempsey hater".

I guess I didnt realize that posting verifiable facts is synonomous with hating someone.

 

You posted.

"Dempsey clearly understood it because after the first four knockdowns he goes to a neutral corner. Then Firpo drops him and when Dempsey realizes he might be in for a fight stands over Firpo on the next knockdown, hits him while he rises, knocks him down, and then literally steps over his fallen body and stands over him. As Firpo rises Dempsey cocks his fist to hit him again but Firpo runs to get out of the way. "

"As the Tunney, Sharkey, and Firpo fights show, when Dempsey was afraid he might be in for a tough night or a loss, he was willing to ignore the rules and do what he could get away with to win"


You presume to know, not only Dempsey's intentions but the motive behind them . Your interpetations are not verifiable facts, they are agenda driven assumptions based on dislike. As such they are only of value to yourself. I guess you don't realize that, probably because your head is too far up your own arse.


PS thanks for the photos at least.

 

Lord Tywin, (or others)

Was the neutral corner rule in place for JOhnson vs Jeffries.

I only watched a clip of this before and i noticed that Johnson didnt retire to the neutral corner and was able to hit the fallen jeffries as soon as he rose.

 

You'll also notice that Jeffries knocked through the ropes onto the apron , is pushed back in the ring ,and the fight re-commences.



No one appears to object to this , or remark adversely on it.

 

it wasnt in the clip i just posted. I will try you tube and consider remarking objectively or objecting to it.

 

No sweat B ,I was just ruminating aloud really.
Dempsey = playground bully
Jeffries = Davy Crockett/Paul Bunyan

 

I dont know what rules were used for Jeffries Johnson but Jeffries being helped back into the ring would have been a clear violation of any rules I have ever seen during the gloved era. I think its pretty clear from that act that they would have let Jeffries get away with pretty much anything to have the white guy win.

In regards to Johnson standing over Jeffries, again I dont know what rules were agreed upon but even under the Marquis of Queensberry rules if a fighter is knocked down the standing fighter must return to his own corner until the stricken fighter regains his feet or is counted out. So he was likely in violation as well but at that time, with the rules not being standardized, the fighters often met and agreed upon a set of rules which sometimes differed wildly. Its possible they agreed to wave the rule to return to a corner but thats only speculation on my part.

I always take a perverse bit of pleasure from seeing one of Jeffries supporters kick him in the butt on pushing him back into the ring as if to say: "Go get him whitey!" I think at that moment Jeffries would have much rather been a fat old man on his alfalfa farm than in the ring with the baddest man on the planet.

 

The only thing that redeemed that prolonged exercise in torture was Jeffries courage . But as they say," he had it coming."

 

I dont know enough about him to say he had it coming, but all those people who were absolutely crushed to see a white guy lose to a black guy sure did. Oh wait, I was talking about Mitt Romney supporters. Back to boxing.