Did Dempsey double-cross Fulton?

Seamus · May 14, 2016

Fulton's assertion is that they had agreed to nice exhibition where no one got hurt, and wherein they could drum up a bigger gate for a return, and that Dempsey dealt him the Black Hand. Several columnists seemed to believe this assertion. Rickard, of course, vehemently denied it.

Any more corroboration to the claim?

Thoughts?

janitor · May 14, 2016

Yes he hit him with a double cross, and then the fight was over.

janitor · May 14, 2016

Impossible to say really.

There is always some sort of excuse when a fighter loses a major fight in this manner.

I tend to disbelieve it, because of the importance of the fight, in deciding who would face Willard.

Even so it is frankly shocking, that a fighter like Fulton was taken out so quickly.

Given his physical advantages, he ought to have been able to last a few rounds.

Even if the claim is true, it does not exonerate Fulton.

Protect yourself at all times.

burt bienstock · May 14, 2016

Seamus said: ↑

Fulton's assertion is that they had agreed to nice exhibition where no one got hurt, and wherein they could drum up a bigger gate for a return, and that Dempsey dealt him the Black Hand. Several columnists seemed to believe this assertion. Rickard, of course, vehemently denied it.

Any more corroboration to the claim?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Your hatred of Dempsey knows no bounds.So brave of you to cast aspersions on a man who is dead and cannot defend himself...Where is Freud when you honestly need him.? Were Dempsey living today would you still be spouting your excrement of him on this forum ? Hell NO.
Yes Dempsey "double crossed "Fulton, with a left hook and a right cross in about 14 seconds...WOW, S. is all I can say... WOW...

janitor · May 14, 2016

Even if we assume that it is true, it doesn’t necessarily reflect badly on Dempsey.

That would be well within the mind tricks that were standard for the period.

Seamus · May 14, 2016

burt bienstock said: ↑

Your hatred of Dempsey knows no bounds.So brave of you to cast aspersions on a man who is dead and cannot defend himself...Where is Freud when you honestly need him.? Were Dempsey living today would you still be spouting your excrement of him on this forum ? Hell NO.
Yes Dempsey "double crossed "Fulton, with a left hook and a right cross in about 14 seconds...WOW, S. is all I can say... WOW...
Click to expand...

Seriously, you sound like a millennial snowflake.

I read 6 articles this morning from 1919 commenting on this fight. There were many more mentions in other columns and articles. Do you want to go back and erase these stories so you can live in your fantasy land?

If you are unable to deal with contemporary accounts, and popular contemporary accounts at that, you have no place in a discussion of historical matters.

dempsey1234 · May 14, 2016

Seamus said: ↑

Seriously, shut the f*ck up. You sound like a millennial snowflake.

Maybe you should take your own advice, you know exactly what you are doing. You are an old lady gossiping to stir up trouble you are a millennial flake.

I read 6 articles this morning from 1919 commenting on this fight. There were many more mentions in other columns and articles. Do you want to go back and erase these stories so you can live in your fantasy land?

Another article warrior, so, what you are saying is that cos you read these articles it has to be true. lol

If you are unable to deal with contemporary accounts, and popular contemporary accounts at that, you have no place in a discussion of historical matters

And this hearsay evidence is historical fiction. Go back to sleep and dream you have found some smoking gun.

Leave Burt alone at least he comes on here as a primary source on many fighters from the 40's til now. Really now you are hitting low and there is no reason for that. Go finish that Al Certo article you were working on or :rasta
it'll calm you down. You do seem to be a pile on guy, like a school yard yahoo, who looks to egg on people in a fight. "oooh ya gonna take that oooh!". lol.
Click to expand...

Seamus · May 14, 2016

dempsey1234 said: ↑

Seamus said: ↑

Seriously, shut the f*ck up. You sound like a millennial snowflake.

Maybe you should take your own advice, you know exactly what you are doing. You are an old lady gossiping to stir up trouble you are a millennial flake.

I read 6 articles this morning from 1919 commenting on this fight. There were many more mentions in other columns and articles. Do you want to go back and erase these stories so you can live in your fantasy land?

Another article warrior, so, what you are saying is that cos you read these articles it has to be true. lol

If you are unable to deal with contemporary accounts, and popular contemporary accounts at that, you have no place in a discussion of historical matters

And this hearsay evidence is historical fiction. Go back to sleep and dream you have found some smoking gun.

Leave Burt alone at least he comes on here as a primary source on many fighters from the 40's til now. Really now you are hitting low and there is no reason for that. Go finish that Al Certo article you were working on or :rasta
it'll calm you down. You do seem to be a pile on guy, like a school yard yahoo, who looks to egg on people in a fight. "oooh ya gonna take that oooh!". lol.
Click to expand...

So, internet posters' opinions are more credible than contemporary articles or columns, especially when multiple sources are repeating the same story? Is that what you are saying?

Does researching articles make one an "article warrior" or does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper? Again, are the comments of multiple contemporary sources less credible than the regurgitated hero-worship of commentators 100 years later?

I am tired of Burt's typical ad hominem sh*t, that I bear some deep, personal hatred of Dempsey which must be manifested on an internet bulletin board. No, I have researched the guy on and off for a few decades (you missed the millennial mark wide left) and am curious where the truth lies among the fables.

In deference to the old dude, I am taking out the opening line of that post, but I stand by the rest. I am sure he has thick enough skin to respond and that he doesn't need the patronizing defense of fellow posters.
Click to expand...

Unforgiven · May 14, 2016

No, I don't believe it.
Maybe some newspapers men were naive enough to believe it, but more probable is that they were writing up Fulton favourably, giving credence to his story, rehabilitating him as a contender.
Otherwise they were just reporting the fact he had said it.

Of course, even if this story was true, it's a poor excuse.

The man got knocked out cold, he needed something.
I suppose he could have said Dempsey carried an iron bolt in his hand.

burt bienstock · May 14, 2016

Seamus said: ↑

Seriously, you sound like a millennial snowflake.

I read 6 articles this morning from 1919 commenting on this fight. There were many more mentions in other columns and articles. Do you want to go back and erase these stories so you can live in your fantasy land?

If you are unable to deal with contemporary accounts, and popular contemporary accounts at that, you have no place in a discussion of historical matters.
Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to decide if I have a "place" in a discussion of historical matters ? You sir are a vile person who is obsessed with
your absolute hatred of Jack Dempsey...To feed your hatred of Dempsey all of a sudden you "happen" to of read from 1919
articles of a conspiracy that makes Dempsey a villain for flattening Fulton.
P.S. If you think I should not be posting on this forum anymore, why not get a petition going requesting my termination on this forum.???

dempsey1234 · May 14, 2016

Seamus said: ↑

dempsey1234 said: ↑

So, internet posters' opinions are more credible than contemporary articles or columns, especially when multiple sources are repeating the same story? Is that what you are saying?

It's historical fiction, he got KTFO, end of story that's the only Fact there is, no matter what 6 or however many articles it's all hearsay, not one had could prove anything.
Use the articles as a basis to form your own opinion don't rely on writers to have all the facts to make it a fact.

S. you have read many many articles so have I and can tell you that if you rely on articles you are missing at
least half the story. Writers then and now know only the story they are fed. So if you think you getting the whole story you are naïve.
Does researching articles make one an "article warrior" or does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper?

Please now you are being silly, what did you base this thread on? Articles. You knew exactly what you were doing when you started this thread, so please own up to it, you get off on baiting people.

"does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper?"

why didn't you dig a little deeper? The answer is not that complicated, it's historical fiction, not historical fact. There is a difference you know.

Again, are the comments of multiple contemporary sources less credible than the regurgitated hero-worship of commentators 100 years later?

Exactly, are the comments, that a person with an agenda, who reads articles from 100+ years ago make those claims by those contemporary writers factual, and correct, it doesnt.
Just a little bit of thinking will tell you what you don't want to hear, it's historical fiction.

I am tired of Burt's typical ad hominem sh*t, that I bear some deep, personal hatred of Dempsey which must be manifested on an internet bulletin board. No, I have researched the guy on and off for a few decades (you missed the millennial mark wide left)

No I didn't, I do know what millennial means, since I don't know how old you are millennial might apply to you and I changed snowflake into flake, not that hard to figure.

and am curious where the truth lies among the fables.
This thread is a fable or better historical fiction.

In deference to the old dude, I am taking out the opening line of that post, but I stand by the rest. I am sure he has thick enough skin to respond and that he doesn't need the patronizing defense of fellow posters

Look why not post links to those stories so people here can read them and make up their own minds.

Burt likes Dempsey, he also thinks the world of Greb, he comes on here and shares his experiences with us, I would say many posters on here love to read what he has to say. Why does it bother you so? What Burt said is the truth you and others seem to nitpick Dempsey to death.

I for one would love to read those articles, don't believe everything found in an article is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Use them as a starting point.

Let's just have a discussion, I for one don't believe its true. Mostly cos Dempsey specialized in one rdrs. He liked catching guys cold. That's what appeared to have happened, end of story.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

burt bienstock · May 15, 2016

dempsey1234 said: ↑

Seamus said: ↑

dempsey1234 said: ↑

So, internet posters' opinions are more credible than contemporary articles or columns, especially when multiple sources are repeating the same story? Is that what you are saying?

It's historical fiction, he got KTFO, end of story that's the only Fact there is, no matter what 6 or however many articles it's all hearsay, not one had could prove anything.
Use the articles as a basis to form your own opinion don't rely on writers to have all the facts to make it a fact.

S. you have read many many articles so have I and can tell you that if you rely on articles you are missing at
least half the story. Writers then and now know only the story they are fed. So if you think you getting the whole story you are naïve.
Does researching articles make one an "article warrior" or does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper?

Please now you are being silly, what did you base this thread on? Articles. You knew exactly what you were doing when you started this thread, so please own up to it, you get off on baiting people.

"does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper?"

why didn't you dig a little deeper? The answer is not that complicated, it's historical fiction, not historical fact. There is a difference you know.

Again, are the comments of multiple contemporary sources less credible than the regurgitated hero-worship of commentators 100 years later?

Exactly, are the comments, that a person with an agenda, who reads articles from 100+ years ago make those claims by those contemporary writers factual, and correct, it doesnt.
Just a little bit of thinking will tell you what you don't want to hear, it's historical fiction.

I am tired of Burt's typical ad hominem sh*t, that I bear some deep, personal hatred of Dempsey which must be manifested on an internet bulletin board. No, I have researched the guy on and off for a few decades (you missed the millennial mark wide left)

No I didn't, I do know what millennial means, since I don't know how old you are millennial might apply to you and I changed snowflake into flake, not that hard to figure.

and am curious where the truth lies among the fables.
This thread is a fable or better historical fiction.

In deference to the old dude, I am taking out the opening line of that post, but I stand by the rest. I am sure he has thick enough skin to respond and that he doesn't need the patronizing defense of fellow posters

Look why not post links to those stories so people here can read them and make up their own minds.

Burt likes Dempsey, he also thinks the world of Greb, he comes on here and shares his experiences with us, I would say many posters on here love to read what he has to say. Why does it bother you so? What Burt said is the truth you and others seem to nitpick Dempsey to death.

I for one would love to read those articles, don't believe everything found in an article is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Use them as a starting point.

Let's just have a discussion, I for one don't believe its true. Mostly cos Dempsey specialized in one rdrs. He liked catching guys cold. That's what appeared to have happened, end of story.

Click to expand...

Thank you ever so much D1234....As the old refrain goes "no man is an island ". Gratia...
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

young griffo · May 15, 2016

Typical knocked out loser talk I'd say.

I'd love to hear whether the cufffs were also on when Al Palzer and Carl Morris turned his glass chinned lights outs.

The bloke was fragile and against an early rounds animal like Dempsey he was exposed. A non- event controversy that's laughable in its lack of substance.

Seamus · May 15, 2016

burt bienstock said: ↑

Who the hell are you to decide if I have a "place" in a discussion of historical matters ? You sir are a vile person who is obsessed with
your absolute hatred of Jack Dempsey...To feed your hatred of Dempsey all of a sudden you "happen" to of read from 1919
articles of a conspiracy that makes Dempsey a villain for flattening Fulton.
P.S. If you think I should not be posting on this forum anymore, why not get a petition going requesting my termination on this forum.???
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should compose a list of questions that should not be asked so that I can refrain in the future from creating topics that might offend your precious narratives.

In the meantime, do you deny the existence of these reports, repeated in multiple news outlets?

And is it possible for you to respond to such questions without irrationally conjuring some imaginary hatred I have for Dempsey? Or is that the only response you are capable of?

Seamus · May 15, 2016

dempsey1234 said: ↑

Seamus said: ↑

dempsey1234 said: ↑

So, internet posters' opinions are more credible than contemporary articles or columns, especially when multiple sources are repeating the same story? Is that what you are saying?

It's historical fiction, he got KTFO, end of story that's the only Fact there is, no matter what 6 or however many articles it's all hearsay, not one had could prove anything.
Use the articles as a basis to form your own opinion don't rely on writers to have all the facts to make it a fact.

S. you have read many many articles so have I and can tell you that if you rely on articles you are missing at
least half the story. Writers then and now know only the story they are fed. So if you think you getting the whole story you are naïve.
Does researching articles make one an "article warrior" or does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper?

Please now you are being silly, what did you base this thread on? Articles. You knew exactly what you were doing when you started this thread, so please own up to it, you get off on baiting people.

"does it make someone a bit curious of the crafted, prevalent narratives and desirous of digging a little deeper?"

why didn't you dig a little deeper? The answer is not that complicated, it's historical fiction, not historical fact. There is a difference you know.

Again, are the comments of multiple contemporary sources less credible than the regurgitated hero-worship of commentators 100 years later?

Exactly, are the comments, that a person with an agenda, who reads articles from 100+ years ago make those claims by those contemporary writers factual, and correct, it doesnt.
Just a little bit of thinking will tell you what you don't want to hear, it's historical fiction.

I am tired of Burt's typical ad hominem sh*t, that I bear some deep, personal hatred of Dempsey which must be manifested on an internet bulletin board. No, I have researched the guy on and off for a few decades (you missed the millennial mark wide left)

No I didn't, I do know what millennial means, since I don't know how old you are millennial might apply to you and I changed snowflake into flake, not that hard to figure.

and am curious where the truth lies among the fables.
This thread is a fable or better historical fiction.

In deference to the old dude, I am taking out the opening line of that post, but I stand by the rest. I am sure he has thick enough skin to respond and that he doesn't need the patronizing defense of fellow posters

Look why not post links to those stories so people here can read them and make up their own minds.

Burt likes Dempsey, he also thinks the world of Greb, he comes on here and shares his experiences with us, I would say many posters on here love to read what he has to say. Why does it bother you so? What Burt said is the truth you and others seem to nitpick Dempsey to death.

I for one would love to read those articles, don't believe everything found in an article is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Use them as a starting point.

Let's just have a discussion, I for one don't believe its true. Mostly cos Dempsey specialized in one rdrs. He liked catching guys cold. That's what appeared to have happened, end of story.

Click to expand...

Dude. Please learn to use the quote function. It's difficult to respond if you don't.

What I see above is a lot of anti-intellectual protecting of the plate.

Given the sourcing of the articles I can't post links. There is a firewall between. I can post the quotes and reference.

I am not even arguing that Fulton is being true in his allegations. I am only asking was there further corroboration of his story? Was anyone else present at the alleged discussion? Were there any other agreements in the offing that a staged bout might enhance?

Has anyone gotten their nose out of one of Dempsey's aggrandizing bios long enough to look further into this allegation? Given that it was Dempsey's greatest victory on his way to the title it seems of some importance.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Did Dempsey double-cross Fulton?

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

dempsey1234 Boxing Addict Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

dempsey1234 Boxing Addict Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

young griffo Boxing Addict Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Did Dempsey double-cross Fulton?

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

dempsey1234 Boxing Addict Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

dempsey1234 Boxing Addict Full Member

burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

young griffo Boxing Addict Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member