Dempsey's one KO loss

Looks good but again, the fact that it wasnt Floto doesnt change the fact that it was a flotoesque puff piece designed to boost Dempsey.

 

Back in mid-1918 the story of Jack's life wasn't as polished as in 1920. Warren Brown of San Francisco Bulletin wrote Dempsey's bio based on interview with Dempsey and Kearns.

 

You have serious difficulty following different strands of conversation. This might help:

1. I never said there was a shadowy powerful syndicate of Utah gamblers who fixed the fight.

2. All my statements about mobs and organized gamblers have absolutely no bearing on the possibility that the fight was fixed for gambling purposes, since I don't think it takes a mob to do so.
My statements about "mobs" and "syndicates" and "organized gambling" were an aside, in response to claims by others that "only street gangs" existed in America at the time.

No, it doesn't take a powerful organized crime racket to fix a fight.
It never has.

Individual gamblers or syndicates or mobs can fix a fight.

Yes, there are always potential gambling reasons to fix a fight.
All you need is a someoe willing to be a lot of money for whatever reason.
And then you fix it so they lose all that money and you win it.
Read over that again if it's too complicated for you ...

I don't know or care about the Auerbach case. The only thing I said it regards to that was in response to edward moribus' posts.

He said Dempsey borrowed money and that shows he can't have been hard up.
I said borrowing usually or often suggests the opposite.
That's very simple if you bother to follow the conversation.

As for your assumption that Dempsey having so much money pass into his hands means he couldn't have been "poor" that's silly because Dempsey could have been a disaster at holding on to money, as most young boxers are. I've seen some blow close to a million and have to scrounge money to pay bills within a year.
But none of this is relevant to the topic.

I said all along I don't know if it was fixed. I said "we" don't know and we never will.

I also said it might have been.
AND I also said Dempsey's WIN over Flynn (among other of his WINS) could have been a fix.

1. In response to the opening post, who mentioned "mob".

Pre-40s, "mob" had a different meaning in the description of criminal underworld, before the Federal government and the egocentric gangsters supported the idea of an all-powerful "national crime syndicate", there were acknowledged "mobs". Mobs could be large or small, local or nomadic.
They WERE organized criminals.

It's irrelevant where the fight took place.

Also. I haven't decided jack.

Okay. I stand corrected on that.
Both fighters have travelled around the country boxing, recently back from New York.

Trains rans to Utah.

1. The story originated from Maxine Cates, who was not trying to build up his fighting or personal image. Do you agree ?

2. "Throwing a fight" isn't a clean image, it is the opposite. Dempsey denied it always, as far as I know.

3. I don't believe Dempsey was a good clean wholesome hero any more than you do, and that's why I don't simply disregard ANY of the wife's claims as "lies".
She may have told lies but even liars tell truths sometimes.
That's not to say the "fixed fight" story was true but I'm sure Dempsey did deny some things she said that were simply true.
So, Dempsey and Cates were both liars. When two liars contradict each other, who do you believe ?

I state categorically every time this comes up : Her accusations against Dempsey could well be true.

He was a prizefighter, former hobo, married to an older woman a prostitute, dossing in brothels. He wasn't thinking ahead to his image in "respectable society".
Cocaine, wife beating and theft may well have been HIS normal behaviour in that scenario.
I don't find any of it shocking.

 

I understand how gambling works.

This wasn't a fight at a local country fair.

I couldn't care less about his finances.
That was a complete aside tangent of a conversation. It's unimportant.

Organized gambling with paid off police and politicians happened in Utah at the time.
It is well documented.

No, you just have a severely poor capacity for following conversation and context.
Your interepretative abilities are shown to be poor.
You tend to just jump on things without having understood the context. You're blinded by your own agenda.

I'll let you get on with it.

I don't know if the fight was fixed. Do you ?

 

Lets compare fairly, shall we?

Were they stopped by a 37 years old man who had won but 1 in his last 6 fights?

Were they stopped in round one?

Did it happen in their 37th pro fight, as it did with Dempsey? Dempsey was 26-1-6 going into this match.

I disagree and stopped in round one by the likes of Flynn, who was older and clearly not he slide would hurt anyone's standing.

 

Wlad 24-0-0 was stopped by Ross Puritty who had won 1 of his last 4 and would win 6 of his next 15 fights.
Flynn was 37 ,so was Johnson when he lost to Willard and Jackson when he lost to Jeffries,but you said Jackson had regained his old form! It seems numerical age means only what you want it to!lol


Nobody on these two Dempsey threads gives you any credibility, haven't you realised that yet?

 

At the end of the day Dempsey proved this loss was just a fluke. The guy wasn't the same Dempsey that got himself in shape and food in his belly, that Dempsey that ripped the belt from Willard was the genuine article.

 

Auerbach is of interest to me only in that he undercuts that Dempsey was starving, homeless, sleeping in the park, not training, etc. He says directly he provided a gym and training, at least up to the standards of that place and time.

As for his fibbing about his relationship with Dempsey and why money changed hands, that wouldn't be unusual. What would be unusual would be Auerbach coming clean in later interviews and suddenly backing off from his elaborations.

I was interested in where you got specific info on Auerbach's finances, not only because of him, but I would love to pry into such info about Mellon and Harriman, among others.

$111,000 in modern money is money, but not so much that a lot of upper middle class folks couldn't make loans of that amount, even at the risk of losing all of it.

 

Just about a month after Dempsey signed with John Reisler he signed another contract with Auerbach for 5 years. Six months or so later Dempsey jumps ship again and two years later hits the lottery and wins the title. Meanwhile Reisler has been hounding him for over a year and has a substantial lawsuit pending against him. Immediately after winning the title Dempsey pays Auerbach a huge sum for that time and in return receives a signed release from Auerbach's contract. Some months after that he settles with John Reisler for $10,000 rather than take his chances in court. It doesnt take a genius to connect the dots and see whats going on here. The guy was doing damage control. He had obligated himself to three different managers which means he stood to make absolutely nothing as champion if these guys pressed the issue. It wouldnt have been worth their while for all of these guys to come out of the woodwork if Dempsey were just some hobo in Utah but once he won the title he had $$ signs painted on his back. If he didnt buy back those contracts he was at great risk financially.

What most people dont realise is that while Reisler is painted as this predatory scumbag today that Dempsey fled and never looked back from thats not true. Dempsey actually made a second trip to New York in 1916 after the one where had those three fights to seek Reisler out and get help with his career. This is after Reisler supposedly chewed him up and spit him out sending him back to Utah contemplating his exit from boxing. Myth. Nothing but myth. But you never hear any of that. In reality, Dempsey spread himself thin trying to further his career and at this early point likely never expected that he would become an a champion and international sensation so likely didnt worry about the immediate consequences.

As for all of the bull**** about Dempsey being destitute etc. Its just that, bull****. Starving, homeless, sleeping in the park, not training. Nonsense. He may have gone through lean times when he was on the road, particularly in New York and theres no doubt that he likely road the rods like a hobo and travelled all over the mountain states chasing work and fights. But during this period when apologists are excusing his loss to Flynn not on the basis of a fix but on him being starving, ill trained, etc. Thats all ridiculous. The newspapers in Utah covered Dempsey heavily at this time. He trained at the local athletic club, he had a home, he had a job, he was getting paid for fights, and he was picking up money refereeing, and doing cornerwork etc for other fighters and promoters. You can find him mentioned in some way all the time and trace his life and movements pretty easily.

 

klompton2

thank you for your reply.

 

Dempsey hadn't eaten in 3 days at the time of the fight.

 

Was that second trip of Dempseys around about the time in 1916 when his managers stopped in at Goshen, to watch Darcy Fulton?

 

Read klompton's post above...

 

Examination of the primary evidence, has generally moved me towards thinking that this fight was on the level.

The idea that Dempsey hadn't eaten for days, is probably based on fights that happened earlier in his career.

He was a top local level talent by then.

Having said that, the evidence for the prosecution, cannot simply be dismissed.

His wife testified under oath, that he took a dive in that fight.

There is obviously no film to examine, and the scenario is consistent with a dive, but also consistent with a learning fighter getting caught early.

It has to be a maybe!

 

Flynn said he threw it....good enough for me...quoted in Tunney book by cavanaugh