Did Darcy Beat Up Fulton In Sparring?

My evidence is that Dempsey said it happened. If it happened ie his handlers told him they were in new york and trying to make a fight, then i am pretty sure that qualifies as me proving it is true unless you can prove that it is not true or that he was lying.

It is pretty easy, perhaps a quote from Fred fulton saying it never happened might be a start. Or a quote from one of the many people who obviously witnessed the sparring session to say it didnt happen, or it didnt go down that way. That shouldnt be too difficult. The only quotes that have been found support the idea that the sparring session went down and Darcy won. If you can find something other than a mere assertion by yourself (who on his own admission was not there) then maybe, but at the moment, all you have is some theories which sound believable but are nothing more than guess work.

What difference does it make if there were reporters there or not? It wasnt reported. One of the stories had the press there, one posted by dougie said there was no press there taht was known. It doesnt matter. I am sorry but not everything gets reported (even now but moreso back then) gets reported and believe it, promoters even now can largely dictate reporters to an extent. Not everything you read is always factually correct. I have previously posted on this site somewhere a report of Peter Jackson sparring John L Sullivan. Do you think that this ever occurred. I certainly dont, but it was reported at the time as occurring.

Do you think the result of every sparring session is reported? The night before Jim Jeffries defended his world championship against Finnegan, he fought George Lawler. Can you show me a report of this fight, please? A world champion in town and not a single report, why is this? Does that mean that the fight did not happen? And there are literally hundreds of examples of exhibitions between good or great fighters where this happened during this time period.

[/quote]

The best thing you can say so far is that you have the word of a few people, told much later after the fact, that may or may not have even been present at the "event" who said it happened. That's not a first hand source.

 

Boilermaker, do you know how far New York City is from Salt Lake City, Utah? It is over two thousand miles. During the early part of 1917, Salt Lake City was essentially Dempsey's hometown. At the time, Dempsey had a bout with Fireman Jim Flynn in Murray, a town located near Salt Lake City, and a number of bouts in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Francisco is located about 2,900 miles from New York City. Under the circumstances, is it probable that Dempsey have any type of handler in a very distant place like New York City during the early part of 1917?

- Chuck Johnston

 

You make an excellent point and it is one that Klompton originally made. Now i think about it, I think it was Mexican Joe Rivers or one of his managers who also claimed to witness the sparring session and had similar problems. When it was looked into further, Mexican Joe Rivers actually fought in New York a week or so after what i could best pinpoint as the date when the spar most likely took place. His story checked out even though Klompton kindly and (almost) correctly pointed out that it could not possibly check out because he was more than 1000 miles away at the time.

I dont know who Dempseys mystery "handler" was. We do know that Dempseys "handlers" were around Flynn's "handlers". We Also know that when Darcy couldnt fight one of his fights, i think it was against Dillon, the replacement was none other than Jim Flynn. Clearly Flynn's handlers were around the scene at the appropriate time, why wouldnt Dempsey have made connections with those guys? It is all conjecture but it isnt that much of a stretch.

The harry greb street fight is a completely different story for example. Well done Klompton, in completely debunking a myth. The cold hard facts in this one though is that firstly there was at least one and probably more sparring sessions. That is not disputed by klompton or anyone else (though it used to be).

Secondly, there are three two people who saw it and said they saw it. There is another, a World Heavyweight champion who had absolutely zero to gain saying his handler saw it and told him about it (another which cant be proved wrong) and unknown local who wrote a letter to the editor about it. Nobody, not Fred Fulton or anybody has ever disputed it. That is as good as proof as you can get it.

Chuck, or anyone else, are you aware of any biographies of Fred Fulton or Grant hugh Browne. I was always hopeful that one of these guys may have made a passing mention of it if such articles had existed, but i have never found any such articles.

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/169763112?searchTerm=darcy fulton hugh&searchLimits=

Here is another second hand source - Joe Wallis (i think). NOthing overly great, except there does appear to be a direct quote linked to one particular source, Bat Masterton who described Darcy as the best fighter since old Fitz (presumably after witnessing the fulton spar).

 

You can bleet on and on all you want. It doesn't matter. You haven't added anything new and haven't yet produced one single contemporary first hand account of this happening. The best lies contain some truth to them. While it is true that Darcy sparred with Fulton at least ONE TIME there is no verification that he handled Fulton easily or knocked him out. The Goshen press was present at his camp and reported on his daily activities and they never once stated anything like this. The old story that this happened in private before a room full of newspaper reporters (any of whom would have been chomping at the bit to print a scoop like this) and that it took nearly a year to come out and then only from one of Darcy's closest associates is all you need to know. If you think you can prove that Joe Rivers and his manager were at Goshen and witnessed this supposed event when it supposedly happened then do so. Until then I will laugh at the articles you keep posting and taking as gospel, especially when they make claims stating that Mike Gibbons and Al McCoy heard about the Darcy-Fulton spar and ran for cover. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both Gibbons and McCoy continued to chase him and that payday. In the case of Gibbons it was Darcy who turned down the largest purse of his career and fired his manager rather than honor a contract that he had been obligated to face Gibbons in. How you blind Darcy fans can extrapolate twist your thinking into Gibbons running from Darcy is beyond comical. Part of the problem is that you keep relying sources that are literally thousands of miles away from the events they are reporting and have absolutely no firsthand knowledge. That's your first mistake. Second, and worse, you keep relying on Australian papers as sources. You do realize its 10,000 miles AS THE CROW FLIES from Australia to New York, about as far as you can get in this world. So right off the bat the information you are using is beyond bad and secondly, given what weve seen from the Australians who post here in relation to Darcy do you really expect that you are going to find an Australian newspaper that isn't going to be biased? Its become painfully obvious that a large part of their sporting identity as it relates to boxing is wrapped up in the Les Darcy legend.

 

In regards to the no. 16 installment of the Life of Joe Wallis series that appeared in the April 6, 1941 edition of the Truth (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), I find that it is highly inaccurate starting with the assertion that Les Darcy left Australia aboard an American oil tanker. According to contemporary news reports, Darcy and Ted O'Sullivan left Australia clandestinely aboard the Hattie Luckenbach, a tramp steamer bound for Chile. Then Darcy and O'Sullivan traveled from Chile to the New York City area aboard the Cushing, a Standard Oil tanker.

The description of Tex Rickard's connection with Darcy is very close to being totally inaccurate. Rickard took an interest in Darcy at the time the latter arrived in New York City. In addition, Rickard also was interested in getting Georges Carpentier to come to fight in the United States with Darcy being a possible opponent. But it became quickly apparent that Carpentier was not coming to the U.S., probably because he was serving in the French Army during wartime. As a result of Carpentier not being available, Rickard released Darcy from any obligation to him well before Darcy was scheduled to fight Jack Dillon at Madison Square Garden in early March, a bout which didn't take place because the Governor of New York, Charles Whitman, banned Darcy from fighting in the state shortly before the scheduled date.

The installment appeared in the Truth about 24 years after Darcy died and seems to rely on the memories of Joe Wallis with little apparent attempt to verify such recollections using contemporary news reports.

- Chuck Johnston

 

I think you are probably correct about your summation. And i should point out that despite me posting a few new articles, the real evidence has already been gone over. I sure it was Senya (but might have been someone else) who looked at local papers. We are not going to find any miraculous stories that prove this story one way or the other. The closest we will find is maybe an extra person or two or something which rules out one of the eye witnesses as not being there or Fulton denying the story.

The reason i posted this because on my reading (although admittedly it is not clear) it seems to suggest that Bat Masterton also witnessed the spar. It is not really strong evidence, but it is an extra thing which adds up. Also, i find these articles which talk from memories very interesting. It is true that they are sometimes unreliable, but they also sometimes reveal some truths, which the contemporary first hand sources purely and simply are incapable of revealing.

And just because some facts in the story are unreliable, doesnt mean that they are all there. For example, one of the articles i read (or probably re read) last night referred to Jack Johnson being the champion when Darcy was over in the USA. Clearly not correct and the teller had mixed things up, but that doesnt mean that the whole thing was lies.

 

You mean there is no Contemporary verification. There is first hand verification. Incidentally, the verification was within a year of it happening, that might not be 100% contemporary but to be honest, it isnt too bad. It is not as if the person who made the statement could have forgotten his facts after such a short period of time.

Never anywhere have i said that the facts should be taken as 'GOSPEL'. I said it makes it more likely than not.

I should have posted an article about Jim Corbett that i read last night which was quite interesting. Apparently when Corbett was preparing for a session with Jim Jeffries, some rich ladies arranged to watch a sparring session. He used one of his actor friends from the stage and took it easy and basically had them both ducking and defending so as to look good but not to make the session appear to brutal for the ladies. Unfortunately, his spar partner forgot to duck at one stage and Corbett knocked him out. He says he had to hold him up and pretend he was showing the ladies how to wrestle and get out of a clinch for what seemed like and eternity until he came to and could be placed in a seat, so that they didnt know.

There is no first hand evidence of this ever happening but i am sure it probably did, even if it was blown out of proportion.

Actually, i think your first mistake is reading what isnt there and making assumptions. I may have poked a bit of fun about Gibbons or whoever running or being scared (though i cant remember doing it as i think he is one of the greats). I have never said that any fighter was scared to take fights, in fact i think that is ridiculous. If a fighter is scared it is risk vs reward. The articles may try to prove that but i have never really looked too hard into it one way or the other.

I use Australian sources because, to be perfectly honest, there are no decent easily accessible american sources. Most of the online sources for american newspapers are absolute garbage, in fact, i find them worse than the New Zealand one. I should really pay for some decent places, which i am sure many on here probably do, but to be perfectly honest, i already spend far more time on here than i should.

I think that we know now pretty much all we will ever know unless someone finds a biography from Grant Hugh Brown, or if someone finds access to some new local paper which happened to mention it. I doubt either is a possibility. A comment by fred fulton somewhere along the line would be nice, but even that wouldnt be likely to tell us too much.

My whole point in this is that we know they sparred at least once and we know several people have said that he dominated the sparring and NONE of those people have been proved to be lying. So long as we agree on that people will believe what they want to believe. AS the mythbusters would say, the myth is 'plausible'.

 

If you have to take an article literally filled with inaccuracies and HOPE that the one truth in it is the one that supports your story then that illustrates pretty well just how weak the evidence is that this actually happened.

 

And that came from someone close to Darcy who made it his business to further the Darcy myth. Sorry but this is weak. Its uncompelling. Don't come on here and tell me this event happened in front of a bunch of unbiased reporters whose business it is to sell newspapers with juicy stories and NONE of them wrote about it. Not one. BUT youll tell me that Mick King or Mick Hawkins saying it happened a year later means something. It doesn't.

No, it doesn't. If I had a nickel for every half baked boxing myth that was cooked up by someone who was there Id be a wealthy man. I have the perfect example: Cassius Clay-Henry Cooper I. Angelo Dundee, Cooper, and numerous other people who were there have all furthered the myth of the split glove buying Ali several minutes. We have film of this fight, we have the radio broadcast of this fight, it didn't happen. I have numerous interviews with Dundee telling this story. I have an audio tape of Henry Cooper doing his night club act and he spends a great deal of time telling this story. You would think they would kno right? Ive seen newspapermen who were there who swore it happened. NEVER HAPPENED, but you have guys who for various reasons all benefitted from the story (for Cooper it made him look like he was robbed of victory, for Dundee it made him look like a wily ingenious trainer, etc) who told that until the day they died and swore up and down it was gospel. There were actually more people who were present at the Ali-Cooper 1 fight who told and retold that story, regardless of how fictitious it was, than the number of people who were supposedly present at this Darcy thing. So you tell me, just because some guy who was close to Darcy and wanted to see his buddy mythologized said it does it really make it more likely? No. It doesn't. I wont even get into how ridiculous Jack Dempsey is as a complete non source for this story.

I would believe that Jim Corbett could accidently wobble an inexperienced actor in sparring LONG before I would believe the 5'6" Darcy who never fought anyone larger than 175 pounds knocked out 6'4" Fred Fulton in his prime at the height of both of their fame in sparring before a group of reporters and nobody thought it was interesting enough to report on it until a year later one of Darcy's entourage decided to mention it. Please. With that being said nobody is trying to build up the legend of Corbett by saying he wobbled his inexperienced acting buddy in a sparring session. The ONLY successful thing Darcy did in the United States was supposedly knock out Fred Fulton in sparring. That has historically been one of the bigger stories built up around him. Why? Because at the end of the day his entire legacy is built upon what might have been. And it sounds great to say "he knocked out Fred Fulton in sparring, what might have been..." Otherwise your left with "Well, he was offered a career high payday for his biggest rival and turned it down firing his manager in the process to repudiate the contract he was signed for." That doesn't have such a good ring to it, but its true.

You didn't, the article you posted did and that's the point. Its hero worship was beyond ridiculous. You keep posting these ridiculously biased articles riddled with factually inaccuracies as evidence and they are not. To post that and then say that you really haven't looked that hard it pretty much tells me you found one passage that fit your agenda and then jumped on it without really knowing what you were posting or the context in which those events unfolded.

Why stop with online sources. Why not actually do some research. What you really mean is the only articles you can find that support this story are biased Australian articles riddled with mistakes reporting on events they have no first hand knowledge of which took place 10,000 miles away and often decades before the article you post and which just happen to have an interest in building up the Darcy hero myth.

Because they aren't supporting your argument, which should tell you something. So you are going to tell me that New Zealand had better reporting on events that were taking place clear across the globe in America at a small training camp in upstate New York? GTFO! You do realize that the Goshen papers are online and they were there when Darcy sparred Fulton and they make absolutely no mention of a knockout or even of Fulton being surprisingly handled by Darcy. But hey, since they don't mention it and they were actually present, and it doesn't support your argument lets look until we find a newspaper in Timbuktu that maybe kinda sorta supports what Im clinging to and desperately hoping is a true story.:-(

Well then take a break from it, save your money, pay for a "decent place" and when you still cant find the evidence you are looking for be sure to report back here and admit that none exists.

We have access to the local papers and nary a word was written about Darcy knocking out Fred Fulton or even handling him. That's a fact, you can look it up. They were there and it never hit the newspapers despite them reporting on Darcy nearly every day.

Again, I don't have to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove it happened in the absence of evidence. As we all know, as Ive illustrated above, many many many people who were present and knew better have furthered some of the most ridiculous myths in boxing history that have been picked up and carried on for decades this didn't make it any more true. The difference is Im not gullible enough to just believe it and when it smells funny, and this smells funny, it usually is. That is the rule in boxing, not the exception.

 

So, a bit like Greb being completely blind in one eye for the last several years of his career - which wasn't revealed until after his death.

 

Actually Greb's blindness was known in some quarters and spoken about publicly, which weve discussed here. So nice try. It was well known enough that when Tiger Flowers was being prevented from fighting on the grounds that there was a rumor he was blind in one eye his managers defense to the local commission was to bring up Grrb's blindness. This was all printed in public at the time long before his death. Furthermore Greb's blindness was corroborated by the doctor who treated it. There is much much more first hand contemporary information supporting Grebs blindness than there is of Darcy-Fulton and thats unusual considering Grebs blindness was a largely private matter that he took steps to keep secret and this ridiculous sparring session took place before a room full of reporters.

 

This is just one statement out of a thousand words so not picking on anyone in particular but this is just s pile of dung, a load a garbage. Why would King want to do that ? WHAT IS THE ******************************** POINT ??

This sparring bout happened and Darcy was too good, end of story.