Dempsey vs Wills article

Hold on. Just to clarify my position here. These bouts were not defenses of Jeffries title. These were not listed as defenses by Fleischer or Morgan.

 

Generally Jeffries bouts with Griffin and Kennedy are not listed as title defenses. Main reasons are the short duration of four rounds, Kennedy being Jeffries sparring partner and Griffin given incentive to last the distance rather than win.

That being said any attempt to use these bouts to purposely make Dempsey look worse than Jeffries in terms of average title bouts is deceptive to say the least.

Now the question is if these were not title defenses what were they?

It gets a bit convoluted. Years ago I pulled as much as I could find off the internet regarding these two "bouts". You could find snippets that infer real fights. You could find snippets that infer exhibitions. Ring does list both as not being title fights but as wins for Jeffries

Bottom line is they were NOT title defenses. Thus my statement holds true that Dempseys number of title defenses were more of less in line with those before and after him aside from Burns up to and including Braddock.

If you knew these were not title bouts why did you include them in your calculations?

 

No. I clarified my earlier statement as I was rushing to type before my cell lost power.......these bouts were not title defenses. Both Fleischer and Morgan did not list them as title defenses. Fleischer and Morgan listed them as real bouts.

 

They were not TITLE DEFENSES as per Fleischer and Morgan. They were real bouts as per Fleischer and Morgan. However as mentioned looking at the newspaper accounts as I did years ago the answer as to whether they were exhibitions are not was a bit convoluted. I do not remember the conclusion I came to or if I was able to come to a conclusion at all. As such I will defer to the experts who lived closer to that time period.

 

Two four round bouts does not equate to full blown title fights. The level of "activity" is minor and has to be weighted as such.

Dempsey was more or less just as active as champion as those before and after him from Sullivan to Braddock aside from Burns who was an exception. Actually in most cases he was more active than most of these champions.

The protocol in those days was to take the title on the road and that is what Dempsey did in the medium of motion pictures rather than plays and vaudeville (although he did these as well) which were the dominant forms of entertainment in the era prior to the 1920s.

To state Dempsey was in any way very different in this regard than most everyone within that time period is a distortion of reality.

The reference to Morgan was via Fleischer who was related to Morgan. Fleischer stated Morgan was the most knowledgable person he knew concerning fights from these early periods. As examples he attended the Johnson Langford bout and stated Johnson was Sams complete master. (Many details given but forget them over the years). Morgan also knew inside info concerning these two 4 rounders but I am unclear whether he attended the bouts or just recounted info he learned over the years. What I do remember is that Fleischer used Morgan's knowledge of these two bouts to determine whether they were in fact actual bouts or exhibitions. So the W4 seen within the Ring Record Books regarding the outcome of these bouts from the 70s are from info passed down from Morgan to Fleischer.

 

The point is the level of activity comparing Dempsey to any of these fighters is similar aside from Burns who was an exception. ALL took their title on the road. Dempsey did nothing different from the rest.....just within a new medium.

 

The key word is similar.

As another example if you include a 4 round bout with Kennedy, a Jeffries sparring partner, you should also include Dempseys four round win vs Jimmy Darcy. Again whether you want to look at level of activity or title fights during their time as champion it's similar.

Only Burns stands out as greatly different from all the rest during the Sullivan to Braddock time period.