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

For sure it was a combination of both ... reading Klompton's, oops , I mean Pollack's Dempsey book, the one that actually exists, you see endless first hand accounts of Dempsey's exceptional speed of hand and foot .. unlike the version that fought Gibbons and certainly Tunney and Sharkey after that, the prime Dempsey was considered the greatest combination of speed and power the division had ever seen up to that time .. that said he did have his critics .. Bat Masterson wrote extensively and openly criticized Dempsey's punch as overated.. Maybe we'll read more when Klompton includes his first hand interview w Bat in his Dempsey book ..

 

We all hear about the race riots following the Johnson-Jeffries fight. What about the race riots or lack of race riots following the Willard-Johnson fight? I have never head anything about that. Were there any? Adam doesn't mention any rioting after the Willard-Johnson fight in his book. I can't find any info on such rioting on the internet. There just seemed to be whites celebrating in the streets.

This implies that if Dempsey fought Wills, race rioting would be a worry only if Dempsey lost.

 

"iT TAKES HEART TO FIGHT A MAN LIKE DEMPSEY "....... Vetern welterweight contender Ray Bronson 1919
Truer words never spoken

 

interesting post.
Were the riots back then similar or appearing in bigger or smaller numbers than the riots that are going on now?

 

I find all of them reliable if you are actually willing to track them down but what Kevin did was he often relied upon counts provided by wire reports which didnt give an accurate picture. For instance in his tally he cited a riot in Cincinnati AND a riot in nearby Covington. He was merely an paraphrasing a wire report tally of riots and not an actual attempt to quantify the riots by first hand accounts. Had he done that he would have realized that there was no riot in Cincinnati. Rather, there was racial violence in Covington which was covered by the Cincinnati newspapers. The Cincinnati Newspapers were the ones that were picked up by the AP with a Cincinnati dateline and suddenly one riot became two. He folded labor disputes that played out along racial lines but had nothing to do with boxing into the racial violence that resulted from Johnson's victory (something he has done in the Dempsey book as well when discussing the Red Summer). Anyone who has studied the labor disputes of the early 20th century could tell you that those riots and that type of violance would have broken out and did break out regardless of race. When scabs crossed picket lines there was violence it didnt matter what race, nationality, or religion they were. This type of labor violence has often been lumped in with racial violence in order bloat statistics by the left. For example the so called race riots of East St. Louis were a labor dispute, not a true race riot. They broke along racial lines because the scabs were black. The scabs being black had nothing to do with the violence. Had those scabs been white Anglo Saxon protestants there would have still been exactly the same violence. Period. This isnt dissimilar to how one of my college professors tried to characterize the Herrin Massacre which happened near where I live and is well known by everyone in the area. This was a crusading cinema/photography professor who went on and on about how he made this documentary on the Herrin Massacre and detailed the racial violence and how all of these scabs were murdered the instant they got off the trains bringing them to break the strike because they were black. The problem is they werent. Most of the scabs killed in the Herrin Massacre were white and would have been killed regardless of what color they were because they were willing to cross the picket line and take the food out of the mouths of men who were fighting for a fair wage for their families. I dont have any sympathy for men like that regardless of what color they are. Another way he mischaracterized the riots was painting them as white mobs enraged by the loss of their hero rampaging through black neighborhoods. Bull****. There are two sides to that story. That happened no doubt but there are tons of stories of jubilant African Americans attacking white people. It doesnt make the racial violence any more excusable for either side but one has to question why there was such a heavy reliance on one side of the story over the other. These are relatively small instances that all add up to an overall mischaracterization of events that were very important to that story. Its valid to question the motivations behind characterizing the story that way.

And no, I dont believe its a consensus view among historians that so called white explanations of racial violence at the time were self serving. This is akin to the ridiculous trope that all whites were racist and hence all white reports on racial violence were slanted to support their narrative. Bull****. Thats utter bull****. The bloodiest war in American history was fought 50 years before these events and the vast majority of men who died to free the slaves were white. The rise of the KKK was viewed throughout the country by the white press as frightening and pitiful event and the vast majority of the white press denigrated them. The battle for civil rights would have NEVER been successful without the support of a majority of white Americans. To pretend that a paper would cover racial violence by whites but then white wash other racial violence by African Americans makes no sense. Just like it makes no sense to pretend everyone in white America hated Johnson because he was black but by and large had no problem with men like Langford, Jeanette, Tiger Flowers, Harry Wills, etc. Its kind of like the morons who argue that there is voter fraud on the ballots that elected Biden but ALSO retained Republican Senators and picked up seats for Republicans in the house. You cant have it both ways. And if you cant then you have to start examining the "why" of why Johnson was so vilified. And that isnt hard to explain because you have a paper trail across several continents which clearly show him to be an antisocial ***** who thought the rules, ANY RULES, didnt apply to him. To paint him as a victim of circumstance is pretty weak when you examine all of the moving parts. To paint him as some sort civil rights icon is ludicrous. Johnson didnt give a flying **** about anyones rights but his own and frankly if stepping on someone elses rights got him more of anything he would do it in a heart beat. Johnson would have been happy to be the only black champion in history. He would have loved if the door to title had been closed on black fighters forever and would have willingly closed the door behind himself in order to maintain his stature as the only black HW champion. So yeah, when I see a book (and they all have) painting Johnson as a victim of his times and not as a victim of his own behavior Im going to disagree with it. When I see a writer going out of his way to color the facts to suit his story or not going out of his way to get the story right Im going to speak up. We all should. We should demand more. The only reason you would demand less is because you cant let go of the same old tired stories "Dempsey was invincible" "Johnson was standing up to white America" blah blah blah. Im interested in reading about the men, not the legends. Legends are for little kids.

 

IT WAS DOUG HAIG'S FAULT!!!

 

0

This content is protected

 

K

 

I very much enjoyed Pollack's Dempsey volume and found that it added A LOT to Dempsey Scholarship (for lack of a better term), but the interweaving of contemporary race relations is a bit clunky at times. I sense where it is going but he still has a few avenues to possibly follow, i.e. that Dempsey's decision to duck was a product of his times or that Dempsey himself was a product of his times. I do like his hands-off, present-the-facts-and-let-the-reader-decide approach to the Flynn fight and hope he follows that as well with the Wills non-fight. But l suspect with such a build up... again interspersed awkwardly at times... that there will be an emphasis on where this is heading.

Either way, Adam has set the bar high for research. It's up to others to surpass it. And not just on internet boards.

 

There have been worse riots many times than there have been this year. I know that.

I have had two questions on this thread. How much did the death toll of 19 on the July 4th of the Johnson-Jeffries fight differ from a typical death toll on a July 4th? There was always a lot of drinking and rowdiness on July 4th holidays.

And was there any rioting following the Willard-Johnson fight? I have not heard of any rioting after this fight. If not, what is the implication for a Dempsey-Wills fight?

 

I have Black Man vs. The World in front of me right now. And Pollock does include the reports of violence committed by black people against whites. And those reports look very similar to the one's I dug into the archives when doing a deep dive. Although it's impossible to gauge exactly, the violence committed by whites seems to have far outweighed the violence committed by blacks. And not only that, the degree of violence committed by whites was far more severe, far more savage, and much larger in scale. Additionally, the details of violence committed by whites is documented far better than the other way around. The details of violence committed by blacks were generally more scant. That could be because reporters didn't have access, or didn't care to have access to those details. It could also be that the reporters were embellishing. They do that today, so I definitely wouldn't put it past them in a deeply racist era of the country.

"To paint him as some sort civil rights icon is ludicrous. Johnson didnt give a flying **** about anyones rights but his own and frankly if stepping on someone elses rights got him more of anything he would do it in a heart beat." Of course there is some truth to this, but the real story is more nuanced. Johnson did have his moments where he showed deep concern over the discrimination members of his race faced. Did he ever stick his neck out for them? Not really, unless you count the example of his behavior, such as taunting white fighters in front of white crowds, and presenting his brand as that of one to be equal to, or even greater than whites, despite the cultural norms of that era. It would've made life far easier for himself had he kept his head down.

It's similar to the Barack Obama conundrum. He is often criticized for not having done more for black Americans. But on the flip side of the coin, he managed to become president while being black. And one could argue that the impact he had on race equality was far more significant through his own personal achievement, rather than what he directly did for others. Similarly, Johnson had a gigantic impact on race equality by virtue of his journey as a boxer and a man, rather than what he did directly for black Americans. For a certain period of time, he was the hero of black America. There were mini statues and pictures of him in black households all across the country. More so than Booker T Washington.

He wasn't an icon of the civil rights because he predated the bulk of the movement. He was also lambasted by the press after the Mann Act controversy. And in this country, when you're targeted by both the Feds and the Press, you're absolutely, unequivocally f*cked. Black Americans eventually turned their backs on him, and shamed him for preferring white women, and going to jail for it. But in contemporary eyes, he was absolutely an icon of civil rights. Sometimes you go faster and further alone.

What I absolutely love about Jack Johnson's story, is that he was 100 years ahead of his time. For over a century, black Americans strived for equality. In the last 5-10 years, you're starting to see a shift towards a strive for individuality. Some people don't want their entire life and soul to be confined to a race struggle narrative. Which is totally understandable and fair. Johnson did that 100 years ago. He didn't want to live according to cultural norms of having a glass ceiling due to his race, nor did he want to live a life enveloped in a struggle against the glass ceiling. He completely shattered the thing, and just wanted to be a man. His own individual. And that is so incredibly visionary, bold, and outside of the box. And he accomplished that in the toughest of cultural conditions. What a man.

Marciano KO 3.

 

"let-the-reader-decide approach to the Flynn fight"

People have drawn different conclusions. You posted you found compelling evidence of a fix. I thought the opposite. Maxine's claim that Flynn paid Dempsey $500 BEFORE the fight for him to take a dive to restart Flynn's career rings totally unconvincing to me. That is less than Dempsey's purse both by what Dempsey said and by what Maxine said. And with the money in hand, why would Dempsey go through with the dive? Why not just keep the money and knock out Flynn? What is Flynn going to do about it? Complain publicly that they had an agreement for a fix but Dempsey fought an honest fight? Why would Flynn even think Dempsey would keep this crooked deal? I wouldn't if I were in his place.

And on Maxine--Adam reprints their marriage license showing Maxine 1 year younger than Jack. Someone said Maxine looks older in a photo. I think he might be referring to the photo of Kearns and Dempsey with Maxine between them. That woman does look older, but can we be certain this was Maxine. A mistake might have been made sometime over the years. There is a closeup photo of Maxine Cates printed in the San Francisco Chronicle during the 1920 draft evasion trial. This one has to be of Maxine. It might not be the same woman. This Maxine looks prettier and definitely looks like she could be only 24 rather than 40.

 

I agree. He's the boxing version of [url]David Irving[/url].
Lots of research, lots of lies.

 

exactly. Excellent comparison. Klomp is a clown & everyone on here should expose him as such.