Just like the Keller situation. In late 1916 he went neck and neck with human catchers mitt Keller, then in mid 1918 he stops Keller. The point is that those guys were passing each other on the fistic ladder. Dempsey was getting better while those guys were getting worse. So, when they met again, as Dempsey was entering his prime, rather than struggling he had a conclusive victory. I see nothing suspect about that.
Don't entirely buy that as he'd been a pro three years and the rematch was only 12 months later in 1918. He did go on a really strong win streak to the title in 1921 after that rematch albeit.
And prior the first fight fight his experience was extremely limited, and limited mostly to guys who were nothing but local clubfighters and not metropolitan clubfighters that had great sparring etc but clubfighters that were stuck in the sticks with **** sparring, **** trainers, and **** competition. Jim Flynn was Dempseys biggest fight and most experienced opponent to date by his own admission. Think about that for a second. How green do you have to be that a faded Jim Flynn stumbling around in the backwoods to make a buck is your biggest fight to date? Then he hooks up with Doc Kearns who, barring his other flaws was great at moving a fighter along and picking the right opponents at the right time. He was easily the saviest manager Dempsey had to that point, the most experienced, the most connected, and the most travelled. Kearns helps develop Dempsey by taking him to the West Coast and Chicago for experience, polishing his style, and getting him matches with white hopes like Morris and Gunboat Smith who he beat. In the interim Dempsey, who is only 23 has 13 fights. Jim Flynn is now 39 and has had just one fight in the past year, that fight came 11 months previous and he lost it. Dempseys was only ten days earlier and he won it. Its hard for you to believe that Flynn had a less impressive showing the second time around? So if you think it was something nefarious lets plot this out. Explain to me the motivation to fix this fight. Was it to build Jim Flynn up and make him marketable? He had one fight in the following year, that didnt happen. Was it to realize a betting coup? Not likely in Mormon Utah for a backwater fight at a relatively small venue. How much betting was involved? Who was betting so much that it was worth paying off Dempsey to dive? Why would the odds on a nobody like Dempsey in an unimportant fight in the middle of nowhere be so high that somebody paid Dempsey $500 and who took that bet to make it? Sorry but if you know anything about gambling, boxing, the location, etc then this story simply makes no sense. But Id be glad to entertain a scenario by you that actually adds up. Simply throwing out buzzwords like "the mob" "gambling" or whatever do not make a cohesive argument for this being a fix.
Didn't Jim Flynn say Dempsey forgot to duck, it wasn't really a ko ? Dempsey threw it for reasons left to history, case closed. Thanks
Dempsey said "honey i forgot to duck" after losing to tunney. Case closed no controversy. Just a greenhorn getting blitzed by a veteran.
What is equally as interesting is Fulton's claim that he was double crossed in his KO1 loss to Dempsey, a contention he continued to make for years. Still, protect yourself at all times. One gets the feeling that "anything goes" was the rule of the day.
The term "mob" doesn't fit to the gangs of 1917 what it does to gangs in say the 30s-50s. Prohibition hadn't started yet so they didn't have much organization or connections. Prohibition turned the street gangs to organized crime groups who seemed to have tentacles all over the place. In 1917 these proto-mobs had control over mere neighborhoods. Not Murray, Utah.
Jim Flynn when asked about first Dempsey bout said , just put it down that I didn't exactly knock jack out. He forgot to duck.
A quote doesn't mean a thing unless we are told where the quote came from and so can judge how reliable it might be or might not be.