Dempsey's one KO loss

No one is talking about Wills. Firpo was known as a huge right hand puncher in his time. Just like Lyle or Shavers were known as huge punchers in their time. Trying to alter very well known history is not a particularly sucessful endeavor. It's an endeavor for the uneducated.

 

I am talking about Wills.

Wills has a far greater number of impressive KO's on his record than Firpo.

Does that make Wills a "Herculean" puncher?

 

Was Dempsey borrowing to buy a house ?
I don't think so.
He was borrowing to live, most likely. Like most middle-lower-tier boxers in those days he ran out of money a lot. His wife was a prostitute. Kearns says "Dempsey was a bum" when he first knew him, Dempsey admits he was a beggar around this time or shortly before, and a hobo, and he was working manual jobs up to 1917. He lived a precarious existence. He paid the guy back when he won the championship of the world but I doubt in 1916 he was 100% confident of doing that.

You've got that the wrong way round.
The loan he has to pay back, and for most people begging another loan from someone hurts the pride, as does throwing a fight.

Why borrow money when you can earn it for keeps ?

I'm sure some people do go through life borrowing instead of getting paid, but that's not the norm.

 

The lions share of what Dempsey paid to Auerbach was money Dempsey owed to Auerbach on their previous contract that Dempsey jumped when he went to Kearns plus small loans Auerbach made to Dempsey on potential purses that went unpaid when Dempsey jumped to Kearns. When Dempsey paid Auerbach off Auerbach signed a release of the old contract. Auerbach said that the lions share, amounting to over $5,000, was for loans but thats nonsense. In 1917 when Auerbach said those loans were paid the amount of those loans was worth more than $111,000 in todays terms. Auerbach wasnt that affluent. In reality Dempsey was paying off any claim on his purses Auerbach might make and heading off a Reisler situation whereby Reisler had chased Dempsey all over the country, hounding him, filing lawsuits and injunctions prompting Dempsey to eventually pay him off with $10,000.

 

Wills was known as a huge puncher as well.

Once again you try as you always do to look back and alter known boxing history. It must be some fetish you have in some way altering history gives you some level of feeling of accomplishment? It's odd as you do this all the time. You are no different than those today who question say Ron Lyles punching power when it was well known in the 70's that he punched very hard.

 

Its patently ridiculous to believe Dempsey was living so hand to mouth that in 1917 he needed to borrow over $5,000 dollars. That year the average annual income was $800. So Dempsey was supposedly so broke, while fighting on a regular basis and making decent money doing it that he also needed more than six years of income "to make ends meet"? Do you even think before you post this stuff. Just regurgitating stories you read with no thought put into them does nothing to contribute to the debate.

 

There was plenty of gambling in Utah at the time. The idea that there wasn't significant gambling and gamblers is just wrong. There was gambling and there was vice and police department bribery and corruption.
Ogden, UT was notorious.

The idea of some quaint little prize fight for puritanical local mormons and no one would bet nevermind fix a fight is laughable.

 

I have no interest in whether or why he borrowed money. Or how much. Or what he would have spent is money on. His finances and spending habits don't interest me. I've seen guys blow six years average income in six hours and no one cares.

I'm responding to edward moribus who says being able to borrow money means you wouldn't be tempted to throw a fight.
I'm saying that doesn't make sense to me.

 

Like I said, if you want to believe that the powerful Murray, Utah mafia fixed the hot ticket fight of unknown Dempsey vs. Retread jim flynn because betting was so hot on this monumental fight then by all means feel free to do so.

If you believe Dempsey was so poor that he needed, and could borrow almost 7 years worth of average annual income in 1917 instead of the actual logical explanation then feel free. Im just not stupid so dont ask me or anyone else with common sense to buy into that.

 

Firpo was presented and crafted as a huge puncher by those who were looking to make a mint off a pushover match-up against the champ. They make a mint off a low-risk/high-reward fight by ballyhoo.

Coming into the Dempsey bout, Firpo had 25 wins, 18 against opponents with losing records or debuting. Something smells rotten in Argentina.

 

I realise what you are saying but you keep making illogical leap after illogical leap in order to grasp straws together to believe this fight was fixed. If you have to get that far out in the weeds in order to convince yourself Dempsey threw the fight then the odds are against it happening. Period.

 

Even Firpo admitted he wasnt ready for Dempsey. He was saying right to the fight, much to Rickards chagrin, that he wanted to wait a year and that Wills should be given the shot. He had been imported and moved along by Rickard specifically to get him to this point and he knew if he didnt jump on it the opportunity might not come again. He was a limited, overhyped fighter but he wasnt stupid.

 

Are you a moron or just pretending to be?
1. I don't "believe the fight was fixed".
2. I haven't tried to "convince myself Dempsey threw the fight" and have no wish to do so.

You obviously have severe difficulty in comprehending simple statements and processing simple statements. No wonder you think I make "illogical leap", you have no idea how logic works.

I don't know if the fight was fixed.
You don't know if the fight was fixed.
For some strange reason you have a hard time accepting that.

 

If this is directed at me, I don't think he was living hand to mouth at all after he met Auerbach. My point is that if he needed money he seems to have had a legitimate source to get some. My bottom line is that I mostly agree with you that it really doesn't make sense for Dempsey to tank against Flynn.

Interestingly, where does the info about the nature of the Dempsey-Auerbach loans, and especially about Auerbach's finances, come from?

No reason to doubt you, but I was wondering about how one can know about this relationship as Dempsey didn't write or talk much about Auerbach, did he?

One interesting fact for me is that Dempsey's sister worked for Auerbach and introduced Dempsey to him (according to Auerbach).

 

There was no powerful Murray, Utah mafia.
There were gamblers and organized gamblers and paid off police and officials in Utah. Yes, in 1917.
That's irrelevant to this fight perhaps but you tried to make the argument that "mormons oppose gambling" being relevant, as if they'd stamped it out in the state.

You are stupid because you keep proving it by creating fictitious statements from whoever's debating you.
And you've been doing it for years.
You either can't comprehend the most basic statements and arguments (due to mental deficiency) OR you're just deliberately creating strawman arguments so you can "win" against your imaginary opponent.

Try following this :
I don't care whether Dempsey was poor or rich or was borrowing or not. It's immaterial.