Jack Dempsey vs Tony Tucker?

Fulton said their fight was a fix (and was known to have taken part in fixes).
In 1918 he knocked out a guy in Memphis named Jack Smith. After the fight it was discovered that Smith was in reality Fred Saddy, Dempseys sparring partner, brought in to take a dive and make Dempsey look good.
The Arthur Pelkey and Carl Morris fights were also strongly suspected of being fixes by those present.

 

Maxine said the Flynn fight was a fix. In fact, she claimed such and soon hurt her jaw in a silly accident. Later, she met with Kearns, some sort of agreement was reached and she was never seen again. Fulton claimed he was double-crossed by Dempsey. According to Fred, they had agreed to go 8 to build excitement for a more lucrative 2nd bout. He was in the press demanding a rematch that was on the level.

 

Everyone talked about the thread title for all of 5 minutes then went straight to spewing garbage and outright lies for the rest of it then pat each other on the back for agreeing.

If Dempsey can’t beat Tony Tucker then there’s no way he’s even a top 40 heavyweight. Probably not even top 50.

 

I can provide press clippings for my contentions.

 

Tony Tucker in his prime was a fine boxer with a very good chin. He lacked a little pop punchwise perhaps, but went the distance with prime Tyson and Lewis. He might just have enough skills and movement to outpoint Jack in a close one. I think it will be very close because Jack will keep coming forward all night so Tony would have to deal with the constant pressure. Tucker SD.

 

Dear The Seamus,

Those clippings are phonies you doctored to make them look real.

 

I was talking about prime Tony Tucker. He stops prime Tucker like he did Jess Willard.

 

Facts, smacts

 

The topic has been beaten to death to the point where the thought of arguing this topic again for an unbelievable amount of times makes me totally disinterested in talking about boxing for a while.

The argument would go with you providing some press clipping titled “Dempsey Draws the Color Line” and with some on the spot quote about Dempsey doing what he’s told. Then I’ll go on to sight evidence about the Wills fight and so on.

At the end of the day I’ll agree to settle and say that his promoter, Tex Rickard, had no intention of matching him up with a black fighter. Mainly because of the disaster with Jeffries-Johnson that occurred literally only 9 years prior to Dempsey winning the title. Look at the riots that we’re having recently, imagine going through something similar back in 1910 because of a fight you set up. Even caused him to leave the country if I’m not mistaken.

Dempsey would fight anyone his management put in front of him without question. Money was the reason he fought, just like everyone else.

 

I was referring to the allegation that he was involved in fixed fights.

But if you want to bring up the color line, that is also a legitimate criticism. After the rib-breaking at the hands of John Lester Johnson, Jack didn't seem to kken on mixing with a fighter of color. And his management, fighting for money as the main reason as you state, saw fit to steer him clear of black fighters.

Upon this we can all agree.

 

Is this par for the course or considered not normal, even back then?

 

Like I said I have little interest in engaging in an argument over it. You’ve held your opinions for years and have probably been in more than a few debates over it. There’s probably nothing I or anyone could say that would change your mind in the slightest.

 

Depends if you rate in head to head or how good they were for their era and boxing history. Jesse Owens and Roger Bannister times aren't great by today's standards but they helped progress their sport and were great for their time.

Dempsey's Championship Events were incredibly popular, great business and increased participation in the sport which fueled the strive for higher standards and greater competition.

 

I rate h2h. To me if they really are great then they would be able to prove it across eras. The ones that can't simply had to have fought in really really poor eras which renders them not great imo. What's the point of having Jack Dempsey in the top 10 of heavyweights if he can't even beat a guy ranked between 30-40? It's like me saying John L Sullivan is the greatest heavyweight in history because of popularity and stardom that made the sport explode with interest despite him probably losing to every champ after Jeffries. Hell I'm not even sure that the styles of Jeffries and Johnson would be effective today in the context of punch output.

 

Sports progress though. You have better trainers, better drugs ie steroids amongst others, you get greater participation, better nutrition (as both a child and an adult). These days you can pick up your phone to see the boxing skills of 120 years of boxers. You can learn skills from doing just this. Jack Johnson, Dempsey and Jeffries didn't have anyway to study 120 years of boxing history. Or have a trainer who'd looked at the greatest boxers in order to impart their skills into his fighter.

Dempsey grew up in a poor background where cheap sources of protein were hard to come by. And as a champion he didn't know to eat 5-7 times a day in order to gain lean muscle mass. I believe most top sports stars have been doing PEDs from at least the 80s onwards. How can guys who weren't taking the same stuff be able to compete against that?

People are a product of their times and like Joe Louis said you can only be a champion in your own prime