Doesn't sound like a fix to me.Dempsey in his autobiography said when he was a struggling youngster just earning crust as a sparring partner to Morris the big man would take liberties in the ring. He also recalled being half-starved sitting across a table watching Morris tuck away a huge meal and telling him to stop staring as he was putting him off his grub.Dempsey said Morris was the only fighter he hated.
There is so much smoke in Dempsey's resume, that only deluded would believe there is no fire beneath.
But still he is revered while you on the other hand are not:| https://youtu.be/AKC8pSFg1Vw substitute trollin' trollin' for rollin yeeha trollin trollin
You can only go so far with these argument gentlemen. Which fights were fixed and why? If a lot of his pre title fights were fixed, then he gains kudos for destroying the best fighters of his era, with limited top level experience. Why would you get a dilapidated Carl Morris to take a dive, when your fighter was up against Fred Fulton soon? Surely the point of fighting Morris, would be to get him ready for Fulton? Then Fulton who has been waiting years for a title shot, can finally get his chance if he beats you, agrees to take it easy to improve the gate? I dont buy that. The anti-Dempsey sentiment here seems to be reaching mania point! Dempseys most passionate critics have blundered into arguing: 1. That most of his important pre title fights were fixed. 2. That despite this, he still somehow managed to sucker Fulton, who presumably would have done a lot better otherwise 3. Either he destroyed Willard, despite never having legitimately beaten an elite opponent, or he beat Willard because his gloves were loaded.