Dempsey's one KO loss

"Anything goes," was certainly Dempsey's creed in the ring.

 

Here's a link by the historian monte Cox that leaves open the possibility it was a dive.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_dive.html

Not saying I agree but it's an interesting read.

 

It's irrelevant where the fight took place. The fighters and their managers were from out of town, as far as I know, and well travelled.

The big shot mobsters of the 1920s and 30s may have been neighbourhood streets gangs in the 1910s but that's natural due to their age.

In terms of "the gambling racket", American criminal networks where widespread pre-prohibition.

As for "the mob" as a whole coordinated entity, post-prohibition, the idea that fixing boxing matches was ever a concern of more than a few individual mobsters would be unlikely anyway. It doesn't take much of a conspiracy to pull the job off, just a few people.

 

Its definitely interesting,I don't expect we will ever know the truth now.

 

Yes. The story that Dempsey threw the fight for money didn't originate in an effort to build "the unbeatable Dempsey" legend.

It originated in the public sphere from Maxine Cates, and we have no idea where she got it from or whether it is true. We will never know. We can't ever know.

 

We can't know who was betting and how much they were betting. These deals weren't done in the open.
Big gamblers will bet on things we don't even know about, obscure fights and races. The magnitude of the event is unimportant in a shady realm of illicit gambler.

There was an era where" the big store "cons could operate in gambling, where the "mark" thought he was in on a fix in an illegal or private sporting event, bet heavy on a "sure thing" and fell for the double cross, conned by a team of professional con artists. If stuff like that went on that's proof that gamblers were betting heavy on obscure events.

If it was fixed it's not supposed to be easy to discover. There's absolutely no chance of us knowing which of these small fights were on the level and which weren't. It just so happens a rumour about Dempsey v Flynn became public for whatever reason. Nothing is proven either way. Anything is likely.

 

Nothing more to say except even fanboy Roger Kahn thinks Dempsey lost to Johnson by a consensus of sportswriters.


In his book A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s, Roger Kahn writes: "The consensus of sportswriters gave a big hand to Dempsey's courage and a narrow decision to Johnson."

 

We don't know which of Dempsey's WINS were fixed too, including the Flynn rematch.
We just don't know. It's likely most fighters with 50 to 100 fights or more have a few fixed, pre arranged and dodgy results on the official record. Boxing is a business after all.

 

The NY Tribune said," Johnson won over Dempsey",The NY World called it" a fast ten round draw",You seem to have omitted that, which is surprising because its in the same paragraph!lol Dempsey received 3 broken ribs in the 2nd rd but battled on for the next 8rds to see out the distance.


" I was never hurt so bad" Dempsey SF Chronicle July 6th 1919.

He didn't quit like your hero Vitali did he!
ps Dempsey slept in Central Park the night before the fight,hardly ideal preparation! Carry on with your assassination of Dempsey,you don't appear to be collecting any supporters!

 

Hahaha you want more? Okay.

The headline in the New York Sun read: Johnson Outpoints Dempsey and Local Boxer Has Easy Time Beating Salt Lake City Lad.

One New York newspaper gave this report in a one-inch story: "John Lester Johnson outpointed Jack Dempsey in the Harlem Sporting Club last night. Dempsey failed to live up to the reputation that he earned in Salt Lake City, and was an easy mark for the local boxer."

Another newspaper reported: "Neither boxer was ever in danger, but at the finish Johnson was very tired from the heavy punishment he received in the mid-section and around the head."

The New York World called the fight "a fast ten-round draw."

The New York Tribune reported: "John Lester Johnson won over Jack Dempsey."

The Salt lake Tribune reported: "Jack Dempsey, the Salt Lake heavyweight, who has been causing such a stir among New York fans since he left here recently, last night won by a big shade over John Lester Johnson, one of the toughest negro fighters in New York. In their ten-round bout before the Harlem Sporting club, according to a telegram received by Dempsey's manager, Jack Price."

In his book A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s, Roger Kahn writes: "The consensus of sportswriters gave a big hand to Dempsey's courage and a narrow decision to Johnson."

Shortly before Dempsey won the World Heavyweight Championship in 1919, The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette quoted him as saying the following about his fight with John Lester Johnson: "In the second round, Johnson pulled something on me I had never seen before. He just lifted my right arm up high and then soaked me in the ribs. He broke three of 'em for me. He hit me on the chin in that round, too, and I saw many a star. He knew too much for me. ... I thought he licked me. I didn't know how to fight then, and Johnson did. Yes, I think he won and he taught me more that night than I have ever dreamed of before."

>>> So Dempsey himself felt he lost the fight to Johnson. Are you going to argue with that?

 

I'm not arguing with it I'm just amused at your blatant cherry picking and absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories.

You are a joke!
Johnson,Louis,Frazier,Dempsey.That is your hit list!
Jeffries,Wlad,Vitali. That is your fellatio list!

Proceed with your defamatory crusade no one is giving it any credence!

 

You are the joke.

I just chose to put fan boy Roger Kahn in the thread.

If I really wanted to keep batting you around like a piñata, I would put in more context such as the fact that Dempsey himself felt he lost the fight.

A fact I put in after you wanted more content. D'oh! Asking for more didn't work out for you so well now did it?

I'm talking observation and facts here.

 

The only thing I can figure is by crazed efforts to degrade two universally considered ATG hwt champions (Johnson and Dempsey) he feels that he makes Jeffries look better.

 

I just made the observation that you didn't include the opinion of the paper that called it a draw ,and remarked that it was in the same paragraph as the one you cherry picked from.
I already know the content because I have 4 books on Dempsey including 2 by Dempsey ,one by Roberts, and the Kahn book, you're not telling me or anyone else anything we don't already know you're just exposing you blatant agenda even further.
Carry on Don Quixote!" Nobody gives a sh*t anyway!lol

 

In his Mendoza world that is probably the case!