In the Ring With Jack Dempsey - Part I: The Making of a Champion

Klompton is a massive asset to these forums, and if anyone has the right to criticize boxing biographies, he does. Critisism and questioning naritives is often needed.

I've seen way more vitriol at him than from him in these last pages.

 

Another rant by the Ranter. Whatever.

 

Because he bullies, insults, rants, and acts childish. I'm not giving him vitriol. FFF I put money in his pocket by buying his Greb book and I praise it every chance I get. Lent it to a friend of mine last week.

 

I think Ive been pretty clear in the past that I view my published work in a much different light than my forum posts. My forum posts, just given the nature of a give and take discussion are, as you say a kind of short hand. In the same way a scientist or historian might feel more latitude in when discussing his subject among his peers than when publishing his work, which essentially sets it stone, I dont feel the need to cite every source or refrain from filling in gaps with educated guesses provided they are very well educated. I dont do this in my writing because we are talking about two different things. As stated above, I dont want to have to come back and publish an updated edition because I didnt do my homework. To that end my published work (as I believe most peoples published work) is follows a much more strenuous code. Its also typically devoid opinion whereas I view forums as a place to give voice to my opinion. So when I say that gambling was light on this fight I have very little doubt that gambling was heavy. Is that an absolute? No. But in my mind it doesnt get much closer. You might as well start questioning everything if you would question that gambling was light on a relatively unimportant fight held in a boxing backwater between a nobody and a has been. Did Emile Griffith take a dive to Rubin Carter? Did Braddock take a dive to Louis? We might as well start questioning everything that we view as absolute simply because we dont know with 100% certainty and that within a universe of infinite possibilities it COULD have happened. Again, I dont play that game.

But see here is where you conflate two different things. None of the discussion about gambling had anything to do with another writer that Im aware of. The knowledge that I supposedly "weaponized" against another writer is not really up for debate. The examples Ive given where Adam made "mistakes" either knowingly and because he hadnt put in the effort are indeed absolutes. The examples I gave about why Willard was ill trained are not disputable we know them as facts regardless of whether or not a reporter went to his training camp and THOUGHT he looked good. That would be an opinion. The circumstances of his training camp, inactivity, etc. are all facts and I not only did I state very clearly that if you separate opinion from fact there is only one salient conclusion but I also made clear that I wasnt criticizing adam or his book in this regard but rather Grants conclusion. Grant was the one the one who tried to bait me by using Adam to back up his argument. In regards the Johnson book, again, the issues I laid out are clear, definable facts that were either neglected or as Ive illustrated via my email conversation with him purposely overlooked. Now taken separately these instances could be viewed as benign mistakes. But coupled with the narrative direction he chose (and I submit that he did not simply sit back and let the facts speak for themselves) and the fact that he pushed back when corrections were suggested using rock solid evidence as examples to the contrary of his opinion it gives the impression that this was done because he had already set upon a narrative course and refused to deviate regardless of where the data led him. Thats bad history. And frankly, if I cant criticise that or question it who can? Not only did I purchase THAT book but I think Im also uniquely qualified being a trained historian whose specialty is the era in question.

Time will tell and then it will be up to those here to criticize my work which is their right.

 

While that was a big reason attributed to them turning their backs, the marriages to white women were also received with much criticism by the black community. And may very well have been the "subtext" to their disdain. People were already aware of his brash behavior years prior to the shift in public perception by Black Americans.

https://imgur.com/bwI7o4j - Black Newspaper

It's not like his self-serving nature changed throughout his life to a relatively meaningful degree.
What did change was that he was arrested and jailed for the Mann Act. And the timing of the shift in the black community's attitude towards him directly correlate with those events.

Why else did he go from hero to villain?

 

Keeping the record straight for all the heathens,here
"lord, how that man can punch !"
gibbons on dempsey circa 1950 interview with g rice

 

So that one article speaks for the entire black experience vis a vis Johnson? Thats the epitome of cherry picking to suit your argument.

 

Bull****! Klompton is an ass so afraid of competition that he puts down anyone who shows a shred of talent.

 

whenever i have looked into this i have always come away think there was no dive. (probably mostly Because of Klomptons posts).

However, just going on the above post only. I note that despite claims that there is no evidence for motives of a fix, i would point out that the Firemans association "lent its name to this promotion". i presume this means that it was in the promoters interest to keep them happy and try to help foster a long term relationship with them. I am not sure how much this was worth to the promoter, but you would expect it to be a little bit.

Possibly this was a calculated risk to have the "fireman" win to appease the firemans association. Before the above post, i have never seen any reason for a fix. This post now gives at least one possibility, albeit unlikely. I still think no dive, but i thought this an interesting different angle.

 

No this had nothing to do with it. The Fireman's Association operated out of the hall and often held its social functions there hence it was often called "The Fireman's Hall" instead of the Trocadero or the Alcazar (after it was eventually renamed). Besides, its an awfully big stretch to suggest the fight was thrown merely because one of the combatants used the nickname "Fireman" in order to appease the Fireman's association but then went on to stiff them. Its seems that if you were trying to stay in good with the Firemen they would be much happier to not get double crossed on their promised guarantee than to have an old ex warhorse from out of town come in and beat the local up and comer.

 

To my recollection there are many more examples. That clipping is something I had in front of me at the time of posting, and I figured it would ring a thematic bell for you, since it seems as though you've done plenty of research on the subject yourself.

I would be curious to hear your answer to my question: Why did Black Americans turn their back on Johnson?
Your reasoning was solely due to his self-serving personality, although this was already well documented in the press, and by people like Booker T Washington while Black Americans viewed him as a hero...

 

Well, that's a nice thing to say 27 years later but the next day, after he showed reporters the bruises on his hips, legs and groin (?), he had this to say...

"Dempsey may be the great hitter that his boosters claim but he didn't impress me this afternoon... Dempsey did hit me solid blows on the chin and also in the body-but he never even staggered me."

 

I dont understand your question. It appears you are asking me why Black Americans turned their back on Johnson while Black Americans viewed him as a hero. That doesnt make sense to me. I think Ive made pretty clear why Jack Johnson was a pariah among blacks and whites: His personality. He wasnt a figure head of civil rights because he wasnt a figurehead of anything. That is revisionist bull**** foisted upon him later. Jack Johnson didnt care about the rights of anyone else be they black or white. Blacks shunned him because he made their lives more difficult, not better. He didnt advance the cause of equality for black people in any way shape or form. He had that ability. As a highly visible public figure he could have been a model citizen and served as not only a role model but also a signal that there was nothing to "fear" or "revile" in black equality. Instead he did the exact opposite. He actually reinforced the negative opinions racist whites had of African Americans. The idea that every time he slapped a waiter, stiffed someone on his debts, beat a man near death, ran around with prostitutes, evaded taxes, was caught speeding, was chased out of a country etc. was the result of some big conspiracy didnt wash then and it doesnt now. Its like how people today want to believe Sonny Liston was this misunderstood angel, or that Ali wasnt for much of his career a preacher of hate who denigrated not just white people but homosexuals black women who dated white men, and basically any black person who wasnt a black muslim. Look, nobody is completely good or completely bad, its a not black or white situation (figuratively) but the lengths that some people go to doctor the image of their sports heroes is ridiculous and frankly if these guys didnt excel that sport those revisionists enjoy there wouldnt be that great emphasis on repairing their image.

 

He was still an active fighter.. After retirement one might be more honest
He was impressed for sure in the book that cameout not too long ago shelbys folly
Was in a daze for rounds