Did Dempsey blatantly foul Miske in their 3rd fight

I've looked up a bunch of articles today but my resources are somewhat limited at this time. Some say a left laid him down for the first time in the third round, some say a right. All say a right laid him out for the count tho most don't say how Miske was standing or fairing. Some say he was turned away, some say he was turning toward Dempsey, most don't say at all. The most detailed reports say that Miske was out on his feet. Some have a problem with Dempsey not going to a neutral corner but I don't think that rule was being enforced.

Walker's problem seems to be that Dempsey was allowed to stand behind Miske along the rope and wait for him to rise and immediately pounce (something he also does against Willard). This is how Moyle relates it in his book on Miske, citing Dempsey's own words in the Evening Bulletin. He also cites the San Antonio Light in that the crowd did not approve.

Judging by the photo of Miske lying prone after the final KD it certainly appears that he could have had his back turned but without fight film we can never know.

Whatever the conclusion, Dempsey had Miske in his pocket after a second round punch to the heart and the end was a foregone conclusion. To be perfectly honest, as far as things went in that time, I'm not about to start a crusade over the result.

 

I'm not closing anything.

Dempsey had a house ref in two of his title defenses. Fighting a sick Miske was a foregone conclusion. I am not going to argue that Miske would have won. I am going to say that Dempsey was not one to mind the niceties of MDQ boxing.

The Gibbons' bout is a little more ripe. Gibbons showed bruises over his groin area to reporters from all the low blows he received in the contest. Dougherty saw reason to intercede on behalf of the rules.

If you want to make it into a crusade go ahead. I am not an absolutist. Contrary to what some may think, I really admire Dempsey the fighter. He was a brutal, fascinating fighter from a brutal, fascinating background. Sometimes the reality of this is a little too much for the rose-colored glasses set.

Now, I am off to work.

 

You're the crusader, you've carried out an unrelenting character assassination on Jack Dempsey in the ten years since I've been a member here.
I've posted two independent ringside reports of the Miske fight ,neither say there was a foul committed.

I've posted two reports of the Gibbons fight DITTO!

Dempsey had Miske up and down like a yo yo he didn't need any help from the referee or anyone else to beat him in this fight.

Dempsey won 12 of the 15 rds against Gibbons who clinched and held all the time, for which he was not penalised .


Gibbons objective was survival and he fought accordingly.


After the fight the referee complimented both men on a clean fight with no fouls committed. At one point Dempsey stopped fighting and pulled Gibbons back in the ring .
Dougherty refereed Dempsey just twice in 69fights.
Mills Lane refereed Holyfield 8 times in 57 fights was he the "house ref"?
Joe Cortez and Arthur Mercante Jnr were the third men in 3 each of Lennox Lewis'44 fights,house refs?
What do you say about Arthur Donovan who refereed Joe Louis 19 times in his 77 fights?
In 3 of Jim Jeffries 8 title defences,Eddie Graney was the referee
Bottom line Dempsey didn't need any help from referees.

 

The thing about that H.C. Walker article is it doesn't say the blow was foul, it says it was unsporting. Pictures of the fight show Miske rising to his knees with his back to Dempsey, while Dempsey lurks behind him ready to finish him off just as he did with Willard. Most likely he struck him on the jaw at the first opportunity before Miske had fully turned to face him, but that wasn't against the rules at the time.

 

I'm only going to speak to this point now as this whole discussion is becoming incredibly tedious.

Dempsey was a absolutely great fighter in an absolutely corrupt era. What I have pointed out is not a character assassination but the manufactured, contrived nature of his rise and reign. The powers that be, namely but not always Kearns and Rickard, played the safe game and the corrupt game and the ballyhoo game to the tilt. If not inventing the modern prototype of the sports media creation, they certainly were the first to perfect it.

Case in point, do you honestly think that Kearns and Spellman didn't pay off Maxine in San Fran, that they just showed up and had a nice talk with her, that she then changed her story and disappeared (and "died") out of the goodness of her heart? What did she have to say? Were the letters she claimed to possess truly incriminating? Why did she again appear after her "death" threatening to truly spill the beans? We will never know but that is awfully suspicious. A quick talk from the power brokers and the golden goose was saved to lay more golden eggs.

Now, I am not blaming Dempsey here. I believe he did what he had to do to pay the bills and some foreign war didn't figure into those plans in any manner. And then with the lucrative title in hand, I believe he was caught up in circumstances far bigger than he was able to control or perhaps fully understand.

My problem isn't with Dempsey. It's with the legacy of his reign and absolute, concrete resistance of his legion (of which I am one) to admit that he was as much the creation as the creator in regards to his championship.

 

You've stated on this forum more than once that Dempsey was a *****master,whiteslaver who broke in virgins in brothels, broke his wife's jaw etc.The courts of the land cleared him of any wrongdoing regarding the draft,living off his wife and any other charges you can think of.
You knew this when you made those statements ,yet you made them and periodically continue to do so, along with the new allegation that he had a referee who facilitated his wins over Miske and Gibbons and you mention fouls that he supposedly committed in both fights,fouls that are not mentioned in the ringside reports of them.
Don't come back with the old chest nut," I'm only saying what I've heard and I'm just trying to put Dempsey into perspective /context."

Its all bullsh*t, you've ripped into him ever since I've been here.

At least be honest with your agenda .

 

Dempsey was definitely from a rough background. And he definitely married a wh0re. I believe he admitted to being a bouncer in brothels. Who knows what else occurred.

I don't see what's wrong with all that anyway. He grew up poor and worked from a young age. If he begged (which he admitted he did) that's unsuprising, and even if he stole and p!mped women that's not particularly reprehensible under the circumstances of the time and place. We're talking about a time and place where men and women had little choice but to live that life.

 

All things alleged in his trial by those who knew him better than you or I. And these weren't the charges he was brought up against but circumstantial sh*t so he wasn't on trial for them and was, thus, not cleared of them. Again, please tell me you don't believe that Maxine was paid off. She had a lot further beans to spill, one would imagine. But she was literally "disappeared" with the sketchy fake death and all. Or do you also deny that stories of her death by fire were circulated en masse in 1924?

Dempsey was a rough m'fer... as was Liston... as was Tyson. I don't have a problem with that but then I don't subscribe to the Dempsey-as-Saint narrative.

It's not that Dempsey & co facilitated the wins. It's that they stacked the f*cking deck. With press, with blown-up unthreatening challengers and twice with a homer ref.

Again, if you have a problem, address Moyle's excellent book on Miske or the dead authors' of the articles quoted above. Or better yet, put out your own book and get more of my respect in these matters.

 

There aren't many consistently successful fighters who didn't get similar treatment.
Boxing isn't a fair sport. The deck is usually stacked.

 

I've read 4 books on Dempsey in none of them does he mention being a bouncer in a brothel source for your statement please?

 

In the ten years I've been here I've never heard Dempsey described as a ."Saint",Certainly I've never thought of him as such.There again I'd never seen him described as a wh*remaster, breaking in virgins for white slavers in brothels until I read one of your posts.
Your whole argument is ,"one would imagine, I heard, I've read !" etc.Not THERE IS PROOF.
As to you giving me respect , on the subject of Jack Dempsey
you have zero respect from me and therefore I don't require respect from you. I'm only interested in respect from people I have reciprocal respect for.
I find your constant constant libelling of him appalling but that's just my take on you.